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] Fix PR52977

From: Mike Stump <mikestump at comcast dot net>
To: Dodji Seketeli <dodji at seketeli dot org>
Cc: Diego Novillo <dnovillo at google dot com>, Richard Guenther <rguenther at suse dot de>, Steven Bosscher <stevenb dot gcc at gmail dot com>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 13:09:01 -0700
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix PR52977
References: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1204161517511.23071@jbgna.fhfr.qr> <CABu31nN_3pdNn4KAaYr0Hy+hwdemJJUdXcx_vWotgsa9FZQ77Q@mail.gmail.com> <Pine.LNX.4.64.1204161523290.23071@jbgna.fhfr.qr> <CAD_=9DR_J+aY=ezzngYct73NcudKdyxmP-6FaUy-xEpsYrH5BA@mail.gmail.com> <m3zk9yixhz.fsf@seketeli.org>

On Apr 26, 2012, at 3:43 AM, Dodji Seketeli wrote:
> How hard would it be to drop that limitation?

It would be a mistake to try...  My take away from the work on a compile server I worked on is that a header whose semantics don't change is critical.  Just checking this property for a header, is a massive time sink, so, ideally, you don't really want to check for or verify this property either.  I look froward to a nice module system coupled with a new macro system for C++...  :-)

References:
- [PATCH] Fix PR52977
  - From: Richard Guenther
- Re: [PATCH] Fix PR52977
  - From: Steven Bosscher
- Re: [PATCH] Fix PR52977
  - From: Richard Guenther
- Re: [PATCH] Fix PR52977
  - From: Diego Novillo
- Re: [PATCH] Fix PR52977
  - From: Dodji Seketeli

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