This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Why does casting a function generate a run-time abort?
- From: kaih at khms dot westfalen dot de (Kai Henningsen)
- To: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: 19 Jun 2004 11:25:00 +0200
- Subject: Re: Why does casting a function generate a run-time abort?
- Comment: Unsolicited commercial mail will incur an US$100 handling fee per received mail.
- Organization: Organisation? Me?! Are you kidding?
- References: <E1A38466-C0CA-11D8-8A1Demail@example.com> <544DEFD0-C181-11D8-B4C5-00039390FFE2@apple.com> <20040618235545.GA17902@redhat.com> <20040618235545.GA17902@redhat.com> <26F65C92-C18C-11D8-B4C5-00039390FFE2@apple.com>
firstname.lastname@example.org (Ziemowit Laski) wrote on 18.06.04 in <26F65C92-C18C-11D8-B4C5-00039390FFE2@apple.com>:
> trick I came up with? I am, of course, asking for technical
> arguments, not aesthetic ones.
That's a false dichotomy. Most aesthetic arguments in programming *are*
Personally, I tend to think that aesthetical technical arguments should
nearly always trump non-aesthetical technical arguments. Doing it the
other way around gets you ugly, unmaintainable code. Like those thousands-
of-lines routines in gcc that nobody wants to touch.
In this specific case, I think the real question is "do the GIMPLE-based
optimizers need to know anything about how Objective C method calls work?"
- and it seems to me the answer is NO - there's nothing there to optimize
at that level. (Is there? Could you, for example, look up a method once
and call it often? In which case it would make sense to have both a
LOOKUPMETHOD and a CALLMETHOD. Note that that's a common manual
optimization in GNUstep ...)
RTL, of course, *does* need to know.