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: Joe Buck <jbuck at synopsys dot COM>
- To: mark at codesourcery dot com (Mark Mitchell)
- Cc: mrs at windriver dot com (mike stump),gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org (gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org),jbuck at synopsys dot COM (jbuck at synopsys dot COM),lerdsuwa at users dot sourceforge dot net (lerdsuwa at users dot sourceforge dot net)
- Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2001 09:53:13 -0800 (PST)
- Subject: Re: fix for PR 4447: is this really correct?
This issue is moot, Mark. Kriang already pointed out that the odd
behavior is evidently mandated by the ABI standard.
> --On Friday, November 30, 2001 03:21:50 PM -0800 mike stump
> <mrs@windriver.com> wrote:
>
> >> From: Joe Buck <jbuck@synopsys.COM>
> >> To: gcc@gcc.gnu.org, lerdsuwa@users.sourceforge.net
> >> Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 11:20:51 -0800 (PST)
> >
> >> Mark approved, assuming the usual testing requirements are met.
> >
> > :-(
>
> I assume that if the patch went in on the mainline it was
> already reviewed for correctness.
>
> >> I've now verified that this fix doesn't break any C++ or libstdc++
> >> tests (other tests aren't relevant since this only affects cc1plus).
> >
> > If I understand the fix, it is worse than not having it, as it hides a
> > real bug?
> >
> >> But I am now not sure that this fix is quite correct, though it does
> >> improve things.
> >
> > I think the ICE is preferable, as otherwise you have to explain that
> > you have to break the ABI, which is worse.
>
> Did this change affect the mangling of functions that we were already
> able to compile successfully?
>
> --
> Mark Mitchell mark@codesourcery.com
> CodeSourcery, LLC http://www.codesourcery.com
>