Re: [tree-ssa] Fix for failure to build glibc

[law at redhat dot com]

In message <Pine.LNX.4.53.0305082152070.27693@kern.srcf.societies.cam.ac.uk>, "
Joseph S. Myers" writes:
 >On Thu, 8 May 2003 law@redhat.com wrote:
 >
 >> Understood.  But the reality is that this construct is clearly used and
 >> having tree-ssa break it won't fly.
 >> 
 >> If we're going to declare this code invalid, then we need to get the
 >> mainline compiler doing it first.
 >
 >Making the compiler reject the code is something that needs to be done
 >deliberately, on mainline (though that doesn't mean anyone will actually
 >get round to doing it before tree-ssa is merged to mainline).
Yes.

 > But when
 >it's rejected I don't see the need for any deprecation period - such code
 >has never had a sensible definition for its meaning, even if in the
 >particular case in use it happens to work through luck - and glibc ought
 >to be fixed not to jump out of statement expressions.
In an ideal world I would agree completely.  We don't live in an ideal
world.  Nearly every time we've had to make a change in how certain
corner cases of GCC's extensions are handled, we've received significant
grief from various communities, including the kernel and the glibc folks.

I suspect if tree-ssa can't compile current releases of the kernel,
glibc and other key packages, then it will effectively be DOA.  Simply
saying that those packages are ill-formed isn't going to cut it IMHO.


In any event, my patch is going to have to come out -- it causes grief
with C++ (I checked in before libstc++ had started building).  Opps.

Jeff