This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org 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]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: module level flags

From: Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>
To: Zack Weinberg <zack at codesourcery dot com>
Cc: Joe Buck <jbuck at synopsys dot com>, Alexandre Oliva <aoliva at redhat dot com>, Joe Buck <Joe dot Buck at synopsys dot com>, Bruce Korb <bkorb at pacbell dot net>, Robert Dewar <dewar at gnat dot com>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 17:35:38 -0700
Subject: Re: module level flags
References: <orwup1yivv.fsf@free.redhat.lsd.ic.unicamp.br> <200210021914.g92JEPB07677@piper> <20021003235040.GJ1386@codesourcery.com>

On Thu, Oct 03, 2002 at 04:50:40PM -0700, Zack Weinberg wrote:
> I believe that in other such cases, current practice is to issue a
> warning and replace just the offending operation with a call to
> abort(), which is nice and conservative.  For instance, look at stmt.c
> (expand_nl_goto_receivers).  I thought there was a case like this in
> the C++ front end but I can't find it just now.

There's one in the va_arg code.


r~

References:
- Re: module level flags
  - From: Alexandre Oliva
- Re: module level flags
  - From: Joe Buck
- Re: module level flags
  - From: Zack Weinberg

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