This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: A patch to constify gcc.c (Really, summarizing remaining warnings)
- To: Zack Weinberg <zack at rabi dot columbia dot edu>
- Subject: Re: A patch to constify gcc.c (Really, summarizing remaining warnings)
- From: Jeffrey A Law <law at hurl dot cygnus dot com>
- Date: Thu, 11 Mar 1999 00:05:31 -0700
- cc: "Kaveh R. Ghazi" <ghazi at caip dot rutgers dot edu>, egcs-patches at cygnus dot com
- Reply-To: law at cygnus dot com
In message <199903110410.XAA24692@blastula.phys.columbia.edu>you write:
> >7a. 9 variable `???' might be clobbered by `longjmp' or `vfork'
> >7b. 5 argument `???' might be clobbered by `longjmp' or `vfork'
> > (A bit more of these also occur in the cp/ and java/ dirs.)
> >I don't know how we could fix these. Perhaps one could make the
> >parameter or variable volatile, but it doesn't really fix the problem
> >and it seems to just provoke the warning on another variable. (?)
> Where do we use longjmp and vfork? Are they necessary?
We use setjmp/longjmp in a few places when we're going to be messing around
with floating point. They are necessary.
> I sent a patch for some of these several weeks ago and got no
> comments. There was a possible bug in there: i386.h defines
> ASM_OPEN_PAREN and ASM_CLOSE_PAREN to the empty string. No one else
> does this. I could imagine the assembler getting precedences
> wrong without any parentheses. Is it really correct?
Yea, I haven't had a chance yes to wander though this (or the putc_unlocked