This is the mail archive of the
java-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the Java project.
Re: gcj patch ping
- From: Per Bothner <per at bothner dot com>
- To: tromey at redhat dot com
- Cc: Gcc Patch List <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Java Patch List<java-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Mon, 03 Jun 2002 10:07:31 -0700
- Subject: Re: gcj patch ping
- References: <877klhckry.fsf@creche.redhat.com>
Tom Tromey wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2002-05/msg00983.html
Somewhat hacky fix for PR 6520
This doesn't seem right, not without knowing what are
the actual semantics for what fold is *supposed* to do for
constants. It seems to me wrong for fold to be modifying
existing nodes.
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2002-04/msg00393.html
Assertion facility
I'm not familiar with the assert facility, but I trust
your judgement.
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2001-12/msg02182.html
Minor optimization in bytecode generation
It seems ok. But I wonder why you need to test:
&& reloc->label != block
Also perhaps add to the comment at the top of the loop
your rationale - i.e. "this can happen when generating
a 'finally' clause".
--
--Per Bothner
per@bothner.com http://www.bothner.com/per/