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: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>
- To: mike stump <mrs at windriver dot com>, "gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>, "jbuck at synopsys dot COM" <jbuck at synopsys dot COM>, "lerdsuwa at users dot sourceforge dot net" <lerdsuwa at users dot sourceforge dot net>
- Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2001 09:44:08 -0800
- Subject: Re: fix for PR 4447: is this really correct?
--On Friday, November 30, 2001 03:21:50 PM -0800 mike stump
<mrs@windriver.com> wrote:
>> From: Joe Buck <jbuck@synopsys.COM>
>> To: gcc@gcc.gnu.org, lerdsuwa@users.sourceforge.net
>> Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 11:20:51 -0800 (PST)
>
>> Mark approved, assuming the usual testing requirements are met.
>
> :-(
I assume that if the patch went in on the mainline it was
already reviewed for correctness.
>> I've now verified that this fix doesn't break any C++ or libstdc++
>> tests (other tests aren't relevant since this only affects cc1plus).
>
> If I understand the fix, it is worse than not having it, as it hides a
> real bug?
>
>> 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.
Did this change affect the mangling of functions that we were already
able to compile successfully?
--
Mark Mitchell mark@codesourcery.com
CodeSourcery, LLC http://www.codesourcery.com