This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [tree-ssa] Fix for failure to build glibc
- From: law at redhat dot com
- To: "Joseph S. Myers" <jsm28 at cam dot ac dot uk>
- Cc: Jason Merrill <jason at redhat dot com>, Andreas Jaeger <aj at suse dot de>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, Diego Novillo <dnovillo at redhat dot com>
- Date: Thu, 08 May 2003 14:49:48 -0600
- Subject: Re: [tree-ssa] Fix for failure to build glibc
- Reply-to: law at redhat dot com
In message <Pine.LNX.firstname.lastname@example.org>, "
Joseph S. Myers" writes:
>On Thu, 8 May 2003 email@example.com wrote:
>> In message <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Jason Merrill writ
>> >Why is this necessary? Do you have a continue in a statement-expression
>> >which refers to a loop outside the statement-expression?
>> _dl_map_object_deps ()
>> for (;;)
>The conclusion from a discussion three years ago, reflected in PR c/772,
>was that the specification of statement expressions should treat this sort
>of thing (jumps in or out of statement expressions) as a constraint
>violation. It just so happens that no-one has implemented that yet.
>(The discussion may not have mentioned jumps via continue, but they are
>just as problematic as those via goto.)
Understood. But the reality is that this construct is clearly used and
having tree-ssa break it won't fly.
If we're going to declare this code invalid, then we need to get the
mainline compiler doing it first.