This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Update: status of high-priority GNATS bugs
- From: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>
- To: David Edelsohn <dje at watson dot ibm dot com>, Joe Buck <jbuck at synopsys dot com>
- Cc: "gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 00:33:36 -0700
- Subject: Re: Update: status of high-priority GNATS bugs
--On Wednesday, October 23, 2002 01:05:44 PM -0400 David Edelsohn
<dje@watson.ibm.com> wrote:
Joe Buck writes:
Joe> Sigh, so much for my theory ... in my brief gdb debug session the
Joe> infinite loop looked the same.
I think they *are* similar. I am trying to poke at the problem,
but parsers and G++'s parser are not my expertise. It may simply be that
Mark was too conservative in his patch for the other PR, like limiting it
to blev==0 (brace level).
They were related. My second patch would have caused the first test
case not to loop forever -- but G++ would still have issued a spurious
error.
The first patch made sure that we identified the start and end of
the inline function correctly; the second patch made sure that an
error in an inline function doesn't cause us to loop forever.
As you say, G++ has made great strides towards conformance, and a lot
of the regressions we are fixing now are truly corner-cases, albeit
corner-cases people have found in real code.
The most important thing about the new parser is, in a way, not that
it will be more conformant (it will be), but that it will allow us to
considerably tighten the interfaces throughout the front end. We have
a ton of code to compensate for what our parser cannot do; once we have
a parser that gets it right we can get rid of all that, and make things
a lot more transparent.
--
Mark Mitchell mark@codesourcery.com
CodeSourcery, LLC http://www.codesourcery.com