This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: fix for PR 4447: is this really correct?
- From: mike stump <mrs at windriver dot com>
- To: jbuck at synopsys dot com
- Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, lerdsuwa at users dot sourceforge dot net
- Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 18:13:20 -0800 (PST)
- Subject: Re: fix for PR 4447: is this really correct?
> From: Joe Buck <jbuck@synopsys.com>
> To: mrs@windriver.com (mike stump)
> Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 16:20:32 -0800 (PST)
> > > But I am now not sure that this fix is quite correct, though it does
> > > improve things.
> >
> > I think the ICE is preferable, as otherwise you have to explain that
> > you have to break the ABI, which is worse.
> I'd prefer to have neither the ICE nor the ABI breakage, but I'd
> prefer the latter to the former.
Personally, I didn't think it would be possible to maintain the abi,
and I previously said as much. We can get close, but it is fairly
hard. We have to decide, create more abi headaches for the future
now, or not. The benefit of the headache, is, more programs can be
compiled. It we are very serious about the abi, the answer must be
no. If we are not as serious about it, we can put the fix into the
compiler, and create the abi headache. I leave the final decision to
those folks that want to make it. I just wanted to point out the
consequence of the action and ensure that everone knew that we were
going to purposefully create a new abi incompatibility that didn't
previously exist.
> Yes. Maybe it's possible to fix the bug by applying a
> constant-folding operation to template arguments before the mangler
> is called.
They should be folded way early.
> News flash: 3.1 will have a couple of minor ABI bug fixes
:-( Such is life.
> so it seems that we're already in a position to break the ABI,
We don't just doom 3.1 to breaking, but some random future version of
the compiler, with luck, it will just be 3.1.