This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: g++.dg/other/static11.C regression
- From: "Zack Weinberg" <zack at codesourcery dot com>
- To: Richard Henderson <rth at twiddle dot net>
- Cc: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 00:01:40 -0700
- Subject: Re: g++.dg/other/static11.C regression
- References: <20031019185853.GA24902@twiddle.net><87vfqlqaa4.fsf@egil.codesourcery.com><20031019195207.GA14927@twiddle.net><87n0bxq883.fsf@egil.codesourcery.com><87ekx8rk1i.fsf@egil.codesourcery.com><20031020053901.GA15905@twiddle.net>
Richard Henderson <rth@twiddle.net> writes:
> On Sun, Oct 19, 2003 at 02:31:53PM -0700, Zack Weinberg wrote:
>> Zack Weinberg <zack@codesourcery.com> writes:
>>
>> > What do you think of having print_reg alter its behavior depending on
>> > whether file == asm_out_file? That lets us restore the abort for the
>> > case where it matters; we could also restore the printout of the
>> > internal register number.
>>
>> I'm bootstrapping this patch, which is based on that concept, now. It
>> leaves the text printed alone; as I said, I kinda like not showing the
>> internal register number for hard regs.
>
> Thanks.
So you're happy with this change? I can see file == asm_out_file
being too much magic.
zw