This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [3.3 regression?] flag_hosted and back-ends
- From: Richard Earnshaw <rearnsha at arm dot com>
- To: dewar at gnat dot com (Robert Dewar)
- Cc: Richard dot Earnshaw at arm dot com, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, geoffk at geoffk dot org, thorpej at wasabisystems dot com
- Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 09:33:09 +0000
- Subject: Re: [3.3 regression?] flag_hosted and back-ends
- Organization: ARM Ltd.
- Reply-to: Richard dot Earnshaw at arm dot com
> No one is pretending that, it is quite evident that on some platforms
> OS support is required. My message simply pointed out that this is not
> the case on all platforms. So I would turn your message around "pretending
> that OS support is required on every platform doesn't lead us anywhere
> helpful".
Yes it does. It means that we don't set expectations for the user that
taking the address of nested functions will work everywhere without OS
support. Far better to be defensive and have users think themselves lucky
than to be aggressive and have a user that thinks they've been
hard-done-by when they find out that it doesn't work.
NB I'm talking about what the documentation should say, not necessarily
what the implementation has to do. There's no need for the implementation
to gratuitously reject taking the address of a nested function just
because -ffreestanding has been used. Just that if we've documented the
extension correctly we can then continue to issue these library calls as
required and the user will get what they've been told to expect on some
platforms.
R.