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] |
On Wed, May 18, 2005 at 02:35:46PM +0100, Nathan Sidwell wrote: > H. J. Lu wrote: > > >FWIW, it is a regression from 4.0. It is OK to use DEF_VEC_MALLOC_O > >since it is different from DEF_VEC_GC_O which gengtype won't touch. > >Now we only have DEF_VEC_O for everyone. > > > >Let me know what you want me to use. I can use DEF_VEC_P if it works. > > I suggest DEF_VEC_MALLOC_P for 4.0 and DEF_VEC_ALLOC_P(,heap) for 4.1. > Look at global.c for an example use with 'int'. I am enclosing a patch for 4.0 and a patch for 4.1. For 4.1, I have to use DEF_VEC_P (int); DEF_VEC_ALLOC_P (int, heap); in 4.1 instead of typedef enum symbol_visibility visibility; DEF_VEC_P (visibility); DEF_VEC_ALLOC_P (visibility, heap); like we can in 4.0 with typedef enum symbol_visibility visibility; DEF_VEC_MALLOC_P (visibility); It seems like a regression to me because we no loner use non-struct directly. H.J.
Attachment:
gcc-4.0-vsb-stack-3.patch
Description: Text document
Attachment:
gcc-vsb-stack-6.patch
Description: Text document
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |