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 15:46:19 -0600
- Subject: Re: [tree-ssa] Fix for failure to build glibc
- Reply-to: law at redhat dot com
In message <Pine.LNX.email@example.com>, "
Joseph S. Myers" writes:
>On Thu, 8 May 2003 firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
>> 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.
>Making the compiler reject the code is something that needs to be done
>deliberately, on mainline (though that doesn't mean anyone will actually
>get round to doing it before tree-ssa is merged to mainline).
> But when
>it's rejected I don't see the need for any deprecation period - such code
>has never had a sensible definition for its meaning, even if in the
>particular case in use it happens to work through luck - and glibc ought
>to be fixed not to jump out of statement expressions.
In an ideal world I would agree completely. We don't live in an ideal
world. Nearly every time we've had to make a change in how certain
corner cases of GCC's extensions are handled, we've received significant
grief from various communities, including the kernel and the glibc folks.
I suspect if tree-ssa can't compile current releases of the kernel,
glibc and other key packages, then it will effectively be DOA. Simply
saying that those packages are ill-formed isn't going to cut it IMHO.
In any event, my patch is going to have to come out -- it causes grief
with C++ (I checked in before libstc++ had started building). Opps.