This is the mail archive of the
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: ICE: Does anyone care at all?
- To: Michael Meissner <meissner at cygnus dot com>
- Subject: Re: ICE: Does anyone care at all?
- From: Bruce Korb <bkorb at sco dot COM>
- Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 20:31:35 -0700
- CC: Mike Stump <mrs at windriver dot com>, gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Organization: Santa Cruz Operations
- References: <200007102207.PAA26530@kankakee.wrs.com> <20000710225805.58667@cse.cygnus.com>
Michael Meissner wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jul 10, 2000 at 03:07:07PM -0700, Mike Stump wrote:
> > I don't like the patch. If people want to fix the bug, or implement
> > nonfaulting functionality that is nicer than faulting, that would be
> > ok. Explaining the fault, then flauting, is, icky.
> >
> > > Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 13:37:17 -0700
> > > From: Bruce Korb <bkorb@sco.COM>
> > > Organization: Santa Cruz Operations
> >
> > > ! fputs ("We know about this. Someday, it may get fixed.\n", stderr );
> > > ! abort ();
>
> At least abort() is now usually defined to call fancy_abort() with the __FILE__
> and __LINE__ information that says internal compiler error instead of just
> segfaulting.
Yes. It is nice. That is how I found the correct "abort ()" line.
However, it does not tell anyone that the problem has already been
found, reported and not yet fixed. Maybe add another macro:
#define known_abort() do{ error (z_known_ice); abort (); }while(0)