This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [tree-ssa] Fix gcc.dg/tree-ssa/20030530-2.c
- From: law at redhat dot com
- To: Hans-Peter Nilsson <hp at bitrange dot com>
- Cc: Diego Novillo <dnovillo at redhat dot com>, "gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 22:39:24 -0600
- Subject: Re: [tree-ssa] Fix gcc.dg/tree-ssa/20030530-2.c
- Reply-to: law at redhat dot com
In message <Pine.BSF.firstname.lastname@example.org>, Hans-Peter
>On Thu, 12 Jun 2003 email@example.com wrote:
>> You're highly unlikely to catch this with ENABLE_CHECKING. It is not
>> a memory corruption problem (FWIW). It's just memory layout sensitive
>> because of how we hash certain objects (their address).
>So don't hash on addresses, then!
(Do you really have to?)
>Maybe this is gone, it's been a few days. In my armchair
It's gone :-)
> I'd think it should be in codingconventions.html to
>never base hash values on addresses in GCC. Just like those
>unstable sort functions (ahem!), you might get different output
>on different hosts.
Probably a good thing to do. Then it's simply a matter of fixing the
various places where we do still has on addresses :-)