This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: (i386-linux x sh-elf) build breakage
- To: Alexandre Oliva <aoliva at redhat dot com>
- Subject: Re: (i386-linux x sh-elf) build breakage
- From: Richard Henderson <rth at cygnus dot com>
- Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 11:46:29 -0700
- Cc: Toshiyasu Morita <tm at netcom dot com>, gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org, Jorn Wolfgang Rennecke <amylaar at cygnus dot com>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- References: <200007112040.NAA06981@netcom.com> <20000717170342.A13413@cygnus.com> <oru2dl17xk.fsf@guarana.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
On Thu, Jul 20, 2000 at 06:12:55AM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> + printf ("#define INSN_ADDRESSES_DEFN() varray_type insn_addresses_\n");
I don't like this. You should just declare the thing
in final.c and be done with it.
> + printf ("#define INSN_ADDRESSES_PUSH(v) VARRAY_PUSH_INT (insn_addresses_, (v))\n\n");
This must be wrong, since there's no correspondence to the UID
of the insn for which you are adding the address.
> + if (INSN_ADDRESSES_SET_P ())
> + {
> + if (INSN_ADDRESSES_SIZE () != INSN_UID (operands[9]))
> + abort ();
> + else
> + INSN_ADDRESSES_PUSH (INSN_ADDRESSES (INSN_UID (next_insn))
> + + get_attr_length (next_insn));
Hum.. I see you've fudged it, but I still don't like it. You
might as well just resize the array and assign the new entry.
r~