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: C++ PATCH for c++/39480

From: Jason Merrill <jason at redhat dot com>
To: Ian Lance Taylor <iant at google dot com>
Cc: Richard Guenther <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>, gcc-patches List <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2009 20:27:53 +0200
Subject: Re: C++ PATCH for c++/39480
References: <49E3A60C.3080607@redhat.com> <84fc9c000904140201r647d1d07pd1abf04279095190@mail.gmail.com> <49E4A09B.4040707@redhat.com> <m3hc0q22pg.fsf@google.com> <49E6539E.1010900@redhat.com> <m3fxfxwv6h.fsf@google.com>

On 04/25/2009 12:20 AM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:

Jason Merrill<jason@redhat.com> writes:

Ian Lance Taylor wrote:

The chance of this logic remaining in sync over time seems rather low,
especially since the code is in two different directories.  I think that
on mainline the condition, trivial as it is, ought to move into a
function in builtins.c.  I'll preapprove the patch to builtins.c.


I was planning to remove the call to builtin_memcpy entirely for
4.5. If you still want the separate function, were you thinking
something like this?

Yes. (Sorry for the slow reply.)

I finally checked this in, since the patch to avoid needing the test in the front end has moved down my stack.

Jason

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