This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: fix for PR 4447: is this really correct?
- From: Kriang Lerdsuwanakij <lerdsuwa at users dot sourceforge dot net>
- To: Joe Buck <jbuck at synopsys dot com>
- Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Sun, 02 Dec 2001 18:22:26 +0700
- Subject: Re: fix for PR 4447: is this really correct?
- References: <200112020008.QAA12709@atrus.synopsys.com>
- Reply-to: lerdsuwa at users dot sourceforge dot net
Joe Buck wrote:
>
> OK. Mark had approved applying this patch to the 3_0_release branch,
> so I guess it is the thing to do. I don't understand why the ABI is
> written this way, though. It seems odd, and since the expression must
> be constant, I don't see why it was thought better to leave it unevaluated.
>
> But, are you confident that all operators are now covered, or is it
> possible that there's another ICE lurking out there if a user tries a
> complicated expression?
>
> Joe
The only operator missing is the reinterpret_cast operator. Handling it
is somewhat messy especially when converting pointers and references -
like mangling reinterpret_cast'ing pointer should be encoded as casting
to void * followed by casting to the desired type (in conformance with
functional equivalent rule in 14.5.5.1 para 5-8).
I think it's not so important for 3.0.3. However, I plan to submit an
implementation for 3.1.
--Kriang