This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Fix powerpc64 g77
- From: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>
- To: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at integrable-solutions dot net>
- Cc: David Edelsohn <dje at watson dot ibm dot com>, "gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Alan Modra <amodra at bigpond dot net dot au>
- Date: Thu, 01 Aug 2002 14:09:50 -0700
- Subject: Re: Fix powerpc64 g77
| > If that does happen, then it is a bug (in the compiler).
|
| Why would that be a bug?
Precily because of this:
| There should be integer-manipulation
| routines that abstract away from these representation details so that
| we do not need any kind of conditional.
Well, that's not so much a bug as a missing feature. I think we all
agree that some abstract integer-manipulation routines would be a great
addition to GCC. That would simplify a lot of things.
But, we can't expect David to do that today.
Actually, since the path is known at compile time to be dead, I don't
think the compiler should be issueing such diagnostic about the runtime
behaviour.
I disagree -- and I don't know of any other compilers that work as
you suggest.
The whole point of using run-time conditionals is to allow the compiler
to issue errors and warnings about pieces of code that we would otherwise
not compile -- thereby preventing build failures for people with
machines different from our own.
--
Mark Mitchell mark@codesourcery.com
CodeSourcery, LLC http://www.codesourcery.com