This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the GCC project.

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

Re: A patch to constify gcc.c (Really, summarizing remaining warnings)

  In message <>you write:
  > >7a.  9 variable `???' might be clobbered by `longjmp' or `vfork'
  > >7b.  5 argument `???' might be clobbered by `longjmp' or `vfork'
  > >
  > >	(A bit more of these also occur in the cp/ and java/ dirs.)
  > >
  > >I don't know how we could fix these.  Perhaps one could make the
  > >parameter or variable volatile, but it doesn't really fix the problem
  > >and it seems to just provoke the warning on another variable. (?)
  > Where do we use longjmp and vfork?  Are they necessary?
We use setjmp/longjmp in a few places when we're going to be messing around
with floating point.  They are necessary.

  > I sent a patch for some of these several weeks ago and got no
  > comments.  There was a possible bug in there: i386.h defines
  > ASM_OPEN_PAREN and ASM_CLOSE_PAREN to the empty string.  No one else
  > does this. I could imagine the assembler getting precedences
  > wrong without any parentheses.  Is it really correct?
Yea, I haven't had a chance yes to wander though this (or the putc_unlocked


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