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]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: Update: status of high-priority GNATS bugs

--On Wednesday, October 23, 2002 01:05:44 PM -0400 David Edelsohn <> 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

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      
CodeSourcery, LLC  

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