This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: GCC's statement expression extension
- To: law at cygnus dot com
- Subject: Re: GCC's statement expression extension
- From: Michael Meissner <meissner at cygnus dot com>
- Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 22:45:06 -0400
- Cc: Richard Kenner <kenner at vlsi1 dot ultra dot nyu dot edu>, mark at codesourcery dot com, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- References: <10007280242.AA18275@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu> <1123.964751982@upchuck>
On Thu, Jul 27, 2000 at 08:39:42PM -0600, Jeffrey A Law wrote:
>
> In message <10007280242.AA18275@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu>you write:
> > If SPEC really contains invalid code, then we're between a rock and a
> > hard place. I don't think we should break the compiler just to
> > compile a benchmark. We could patch SPEC, and we can provide the
> > patch to whomever we're allowed to, under the SPEC licenses.
> >
> > Well the amusing part is that the piece of SPEC that won't compile is
> > GCC! Indeed, both GCC 2.8.1 and the last pre-EGCS FSF codebase won't
> > compile with the latest GCC.
> Inform spec if the code is invalid -- they issue patchrelease updates to
> deal with this kind of thing.
I suspect it is the obstacks use of ({ ... }) and ?: omitting the middle
argument in gcc 1.35. You should be able to compile it by the hack of using
-D__GNUC__ so that the standard vanilla compiler invocations are used instead
of the GCC builtin, but you probably don't want to do this for measuring
performance, since it will make the resulting compiler slightly slower.
This BTW is a perfect example of my point that we really can't get rid of most
of the extensions.
--
Michael Meissner, Red Hat, Inc.
PMB 198, 174 Littleton Road #3, Westford, Massachusetts 01886, USA
Work: meissner@redhat.com phone: +1 978-486-9304
Non-work: meissner@spectacle-pond.org fax: +1 978-692-4482