This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: PING: PATCH: PR objc/18408 (but really a gimplifier fix)
- From: Lars Sonchocky-Helldorf <lars dot sonchocky-helldorf at hamburg dot de>
- To: Ziemowit Laski <zlaski at apple dot com>
- Cc: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org,Andrew Pinski <pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu>
- Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 13:14:46 +0100
- Subject: Re: PING: PATCH: PR objc/18408 (but really a gimplifier fix)
Am Freitag, 21.01.05 um 02:48 Uhr schrieb Ziemowit Laski:
On 20 Jan 2005, at 17.45, Lars Sonchocky-Helldorf wrote:
Am Freitag, 21.01.05 um 02:12 Uhr schrieb Ziemowit Laski:
On 20 Jan 2005, at 17.01, Lars Sonchocky-Helldorf wrote:
Am Freitag, 21.01.05 um 01:30 Uhr schrieb Andrew Pinski:
On Jan 20, 2005, at 7:15 PM, Ziemowit Laski wrote:
On 20 Jan 2005, at 16.15, Andrew Pinski wrote:
On Jan 20, 2005, at 6:39 PM, Lars Sonchocky-Helldorf wrote:
This patch for
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18408 is unreviewed
for more than two month now. Is there really nobody who can
approve it? Come on somebody with approval privileges *must* be
It was reviewed and got rejected.
Lars should have remembered because he pinged it too.
Oh, my bad.
Ok, I seem to recall this also. :-( RTH is right in that the ObjC
type system representation is inconsistent, but that is really
orthogonal to whether the patch I proposed is safe or not. A
rewrite of the type representation (to bring it closer in line with
C++/Java) is planned, but in the gcc-4.1 time frame at the earliest.
Does that mean - in other words - gcc-4.0 will be of no use for the
GNUstep people or will you provide an interim fix?
The interim fix is the one that we're currently discussing (and which
has been rejected).
And isn't there another interim solution possible, maybe one that
doesn't depend on tweaking the gimplifier?
(Btw. are FIXMEs an absolute no-go in GCC? I mean putting in a
"solution" that is there only as a temporary band-aid but clearly
marked as such is o.k. for most of the projects I know)