This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH] Fix crash27.C and crash29.C testcases
- To: Jason Merrill <jason at redhat dot com>, Bernd Schmidt <bernds at redhat dot co dot uk>
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix crash27.C and crash29.C testcases
- From: mark at codesourcery dot com
- Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 01:40:02 +0000 (GMT)
- Cc: Theodore Papadopoulo <Theodore dot Papadopoulo at sophia dot inria dot fr>, Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>, jakub at redhat dot com, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
Agreed.
--
Mark Mitchell mark@codesourcery.com
CodeSourcery, LLC http://www.codesourcery.com
----- Original Message -----
Sent : 11/10/00 12:11 PM
From : Jason Merrill <jason@redhat.com>
To : Bernd Schmidt <bernds@redhat.co.uk>
CC : Theodore Papadopoulo <Theodore.Papadopoulo@sophia.inria.fr>, Mark Mitchell <mark@codesourcery.com>, jakub@redhat.com, gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix crash27.C and crash29.C testcases
> >>>>> "Bernd" == Bernd Schmidt <bernds@redhat.co.uk> writes:
> > On Mon, 6 Nov 2000, Theodore Papadopoulo wrote:
> >>
> >> mark@codesourcery.com said:
> >> > This is why we are writing a new parser. Of course, that won't help
> >> > before 3.0. I'm somewhat tempted just to ignore these kinds of bugs
> >> > for 3.0, rather than complicate the code with a lot of gunk that we'll
> >> > then want to remove later -- but that's perhaps irresponsible. It
> >> > would be great if Jason Merill would comment.
> >>
> >> Just my 0.00000002c (the simple user view):
> >>
> >> 1) Ignoring these kinds of bugs will give the impression that g++-3.0 is
> >> not a good compiler because it crashes very often (even if it happens
> >> most often after a syntax error). I'm not sure this is good in terms
> >> of "public image". All the more that so much good work has been done,
> >> it would be a pity to destroy the its "image" in this way...
> > Didn't we have a hack once that turned all ICEs into a friendlier message
> > ("confused by earlier errors, bailing out") if an error in the input was
> > encountered before?
> Yes, we did. I think we should put it back for 3.0; we've been
> getting a lot of bug reports about ICEs on bad code of late, which IMO
> is largely a waste of our time. We should certainly try to recover
> gracefully from errors, but it's much lower priority than actually
> implementing the language.
> Jason
____________________________________________________
Get MORE than just FREE e-mail. Get a private Web office.
Organize your team with FREE communication and
collaboration tools from HotOffice(R) at www.hotoffice.com.