This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [lto] RFC: How should gimple represent enums?
- From: Steven Bosscher <stevenb dot gcc at gmail dot com>
- To: Diego Novillo <dnovillo at google dot com>
- Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2009 18:08:26 +0100
- Subject: Re: [lto] RFC: How should gimple represent enums?
- References: <b798aad50903120936i22274234p2e77a1b4a74be8fe@mail.gmail.com>
On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 5:36 PM, Diego Novillo <dnovillo@google.com> wrote:
> This is related to the different FE behaviour on const arguments that
> I posted earlier (http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2009-03/msg00316.html).
> When an enum E is compiled by two different front ends, when we try to
> combine them in lto1, we trigger an ODR violation because we try to
> assert that both enums have the same type bounds (TYPE_MIN_VALUE and
> TYPE_MAX_VALUE).
Actually... Question.
You have an enum and you compile it with C and C++. But the semantics
for the enum are different for the two languages, AFAIU. So why do we
try to combine/merge the types to begin with?
Gr.
Steven