This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org 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: [PATCH] Don't set function's DECL_NAME to an EXPR_WFL

To: Bryce McKinlay <bryce at albatross dot co dot nz>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Don't set function's DECL_NAME to an EXPR_WFL
From: Per Bothner <per at bothner dot com>
Date: 21 Jan 2001 21:19:36 -0800
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><3A6B84B8.7B05C9F7@albatross.co.nz>

Bryce McKinlay <bryce@albatross.co.nz> writes:

> 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 problem is that leaving the code in can also produce a compiler
crash on certain illegal code, judging from my (vaguely remembered)
experience, if the FUNCTION_DECL in question ever gets passed to code
in the back-end.
-- 
	--Per Bothner
per@bothner.com   http://www.bothner.com/~per/

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
- Re: [PATCH] Don't set function's DECL_NAME to an EXPR_WFL
  - From: Bryce McKinlay

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