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]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: assertify mn10300

From: Nathan Sidwell <nathan at codesourcery dot com>
To: Alexandre Oliva <aoliva at redhat dot com>
Cc: GCC Patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
Date: Sat, 07 May 2005 10:10:56 +0100
Subject: Re: assertify mn10300
References: <427B8DAC.9080909@codesourcery.com> <oroebohzy0.fsf@livre.redhat.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>

Alexandre Oliva wrote:

I'm just a bit concerned about some of the changes from
`if (expr) abort ();' to `gcc_assert (expr);', since they change the
meaning of the program if checking is disabled, and in some cases
could result in incorrect being generated, instead of an ICE. I'm
assuming such changes were thought-out and intentional, so go for it.


such a transformation would be an error.  Can you point me at one,
because I can't see any?

nathan

--
Nathan Sidwell    ::   http://www.codesourcery.com   ::     CodeSourcery LLC
nathan@codesourcery.com    ::     http://www.planetfall.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk

Follow-Ups:
- Re: assertify mn10300
  - From: Alexandre Oliva

References:
- assertify mn10300
  - From: Nathan Sidwell
- Re: assertify mn10300
  - From: Alexandre Oliva

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