This is the mail archive of the
java@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the Java project.
Re: VLA conformance fix 4336222
- From: Mike Stump <mrs at apple dot com>
- To: Geoffrey Keating <geoffk at apple dot com>
- Cc: compiler-patches <compiler-patches at group dot apple dot com>, java at gcc dot gnu dot org, GNU GFortran <fortran at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou at adacore dot com>
- Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 16:58:25 -0700
- Subject: Re: VLA conformance fix 4336222
- References: <93063CB3-842F-45F6-A726-F73033D70E23@apple.com> <DCA5E87E-7F0D-4CD6-9A55-1E6A355EE49A@apple.com>
On Jun 16, 2006, at 3:02 PM, Geoffrey Keating wrote:
You need to, at least, change the comment which says what
variably_modified_type_p means
:-) Yes, ok.
Joseph's comment about how other languages might be depending on
the current definition is valid; but maybe there aren't any. (You
should look.)
Ok, just audited things and Fortran seem benign, I think for C,
Objective-C, Objective-C++ and C++ we are fine, and for Ada, there is
ample evidence to require an explicit Ok from them before I put it
in. treelang doesn't seem to care, and java doesn't seems benign as
well, though, would be nice to hear from them, I think that's all
the languages.
There is the whole inlining semantic that it might be nice to hear
back from an inline expert on. We remap decls and types if they are
variably modified. I say no it is not a VM type more often, so
something about inline might care. A nested function expert might be
able to spot an edge case we care about.
For any language front end found to want to make make these types VM,
they can add the clause I too out back to their lang hook. Ada might
do this for example.
In C++ there are some uses, but I think they are all ok, any edge
case can be fixed in the same way.