This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH 1/2] Come up with function_decl_type and use it in tree_function_decl.
- From: Marc Glisse <marc dot glisse at inria dot fr>
- To: Martin Liška <mliska at suse dot cz>
- Cc: David Malcolm <dmalcolm at redhat dot com>, GCC Patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Richard Biener <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>, dominik dot infuehr at theobroma-systems dot com
- Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2019 19:15:17 +0200 (CEST)
- Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] Come up with function_decl_type and use it in tree_function_decl.
- References: <8305B5F4-2A96-4698-8C2E-3255658B5C12@theobroma-systems.com> <CAFiYyc2nZ4vSGa5d_ni0km2kwUtyd9+BScrKzxKdbhZVemail@example.com> <20171122103742.GN14653@tucnak> <BC60F078-9257-4E4F-8D94-7C41F7C7B802@theobroma-systems.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <20171129083045.GX2353@tucnak> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <alpine.DEB.email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Reply-to: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
On Tue, 2 Jul 2019, Martin Liška wrote:
After the discussion with Richi and Nathan, I made a place in tree_function_decl
and I rebased the original Dominik's patch on top of that.
So, last time there were some questions about the legality of this
transformation. Did you change the exact set of functions on which this is
applied? Or has there been a clarification in the standard saying that
this is ok? (or were we mistaken the first time to believe that there
might be an issue?)