This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@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: [PATCH] Repair __builtin_setjmp/__builtin_longjmp


> A builtin function should either have well defined semantics that we can
> document and commit to preserving, or should never be used directly.

I think that implementation builtins are a bit special though.

> This is clearly the latter, and IMHO it's worth enforcing this where
> practical.  Users can and will abuse any "features" available to them. If
> we allow the user to call these builtins there should be user visible
> documentation that says "Don't ever use these".

GCC has a bunch of implementation builtins and they are neither protected nor 
documented.  This makes it possible to debug them more easily.  IMHO the only 
place where they can be documented is gccint.info, not gcc.info.  

> >  (c) document briefly how they work in the sources of the compiler
>
> This sounds to much like an undocumented extension for my liking.  Past
> experience has shown that these are a bad thing.

An extension to what?

-- 
Eric Botcazou


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