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: RFA: Adding a location_t (or pointer) to tree_exp for 3.4 only.

On Tue, Oct 07, 2003 at 12:46:04PM -0700, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 07, 2003 at 08:32:31PM +0200, Carlo Wood wrote:
> > Next, I manually investigated every place where this happened
> > and either turned off the warning (using TREE_CODE_NOCHECK or
> > with ++nocheck ... --nocheck wraps) and/or added code to handle
> I think you're completely off-track with this.  You'll get
> near 100% false hits with this scheme.

More like 80 - 90%.  But its the only sheme that garantees that
you won't miss a hit.

Did you look at the patch?  Then you'd see that there are many
places where there *is* a need to add special case handling.
Yes, most hits are for TREE_CODE(t) == SOMETHINGELSE, but you
have to look at those lines before you can see that it says
The huge amount of places where the WFL happily shows up
proves that it is not handled as automatically as you seem
to believe.

Can we now please forget about using WFL?  Trust me, the result
would be unmaintainable.

Carlo Wood <>

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