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: C constant expressions proposals


Mark Mitchell wrote:
> > Heh, this is that discussion we've already had before.
> > 
> > I'm not going to fan the flames here.

On Wed, Aug 18, 2004 at 04:00:32PM -0400, Robert Dewar wrote:
> Can you point to the thread? I can't imagine any valid
> arguments on the other (your) side.

Something has to give, because users have desires that are mutually
inconsistent:

1) get the same warnings regardless of optimization level (even -O0)
2) get high-quality warnings
3) -O0 should run fast (or at least not become still slower)

We can't have all three: to have 1) and 2), then dataflow analysis,
plus other simplifications, will need to run all the time, so -O0 would
have to run passes that aren't run now.  Without dataflow analysis,
the uninitialized-variable analysis can't be as good even as it is now.


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