This is the mail archive of the gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: g++.dg/other/static11.C regression

From: Jan Hubicka <hubicka at ucw dot cz>
To: Richard Henderson <rth at twiddle dot net>
Cc: Zack Weinberg <zack at codesourcery dot com>, gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2003 22:15:57 +0200
Subject: Re: g++.dg/other/static11.C regression
References: <20031019185853.GA24902@twiddle.net> <87vfqlqaa4.fsf@egil.codesourcery.com> <20031019195207.GA14927@twiddle.net>

> On Sun, Oct 19, 2003 at 12:48:03PM -0700, Zack Weinberg wrote:
> > I think Jan's solution is the right one.  The assembler will object to
> > fake internal register names/numbers, so we don't lose the ability to
> > detect this bug.
> 
> I'm not sure that's correct.  I think that in the case of
> 
> 	mov AP, %eax
> 
> that it'll just be interpreted as a symbol.

We would get linker error later.  I don't remember seeing this
particular abort ever since I added it orignally, so I guess it is not
too critical place to have sanity check on.

Honza
> 
> 
> r~

References:
- g++.dg/other/static11.C regression
  - From: Richard Henderson
- Re: g++.dg/other/static11.C regression
  - From: Zack Weinberg
- Re: g++.dg/other/static11.C regression
  - From: Richard Henderson

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]