This is the mail archive of the 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]

Re: GCC build failed with your patch on 2001-01-09T11:35:00Z.

>>>>> Richard Henderson writes:

Richard> On Tue, Jan 09, 2001 at 02:25:37PM -0500, David Edelsohn wrote:
>> It was very poor judgment to install this destabilizing change at
>> this time, especially without more extensive testing.

Richard> I think this is a bit harsh.

Richard> Only rs6000, mips and hppa vary MAX_LONG_TYPE_SIZE like this, and
Richard> only rs6000 breaks when you build with a 64-bit H_W_I.  What you
Richard> are implying is that *every* patch must be tested on rs6000 before
Richard> it is installed, as opposed to fixing problems with the patch when
Richard> they appear.

	I disagree.  GCC's handling of constants is fundamentally broken
because it relies too much on the host system's native data types and
arithmetic manipulations and comparisons of those host values.  Because of
the overly-delicate nature of this aspect of GCC, changing those
underlying host data types must be carefully tested on many platforms.

	Fixing this problem with the rs6000 port would be great, but needs
to be done at an appropriate time in the GCC development cycle.  Days
before the gcc-3.0 branch is not that moment.  The fix itself is too

	Even beyond the breakage, I still fundamentally disagree with the
patch and its lack of cost-benefit analysis.  While rs6000 target needs to
work safely on 64-bit hosts, the patch should be redesigned as well in the
context of a larger discussion of this implicit trade-off.


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