This is the mail archive of the java-discuss@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the Java project.

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

Re: [PATCH] Don't set function's DECL_NAME to an EXPR_WFL

To: Per Bothner <per at bothner dot com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Don't set function's DECL_NAME to an EXPR_WFL
From: Bryce McKinlay <bryce at albatross dot co dot nz>
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 13:54:16 +1300
CC: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, java-discuss at sources dot redhat dot com
References: <m2ofx03b8v.fsf@kelso.bothner.com> <14955.24502.244626.190416@deliverance.cygnus.com> <m2hf2s1ncu.fsf@kelso.bothner.com> <m28zo41lrh.fsf@kelso.bothner.com>

Per Bothner wrote:

> If you want to revert my patch I won't object - but I will put it back
> after the branch!

It is my understanding that removing that code may cause GCJ to ICE on
certain illegal code where it would otherwise have reported a reasonable
error. If that's the case, it should definitely remain in at least until
after the branch. The compiler is working better than it ever has at the
moment (especially thanks to your zip/verifier/ggc fixes!) and we don't
want to mess that up this close to a release, no matter how kludgy the
original code is.

regards

  [ bryce ]

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [PATCH] Don't set function's DECL_NAME to an EXPR_WFL
  - From: Per Bothner

References:
- [PATCH] Don't set function's DECL_NAME to an EXPR_WFL
  - From: Per Bothner
- Re: [PATCH] Don't set function's DECL_NAME to an EXPR_WFL
  - From: Alexandre Petit-Bianco
- Re: [PATCH] Don't set function's DECL_NAME to an EXPR_WFL
  - From: Per Bothner
- Re: [PATCH] Don't set function's DECL_NAME to an EXPR_WFL
  - From: Per Bothner

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