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 15:21:21 -0700
- Subject: Re: Fix powerpc64 g77
--On Thursday, August 01, 2002 11:23:16 PM +0200 Gabriel Dos Reis
<gdr@integrable-solutions.net> wrote:
Mark Mitchell <mark@codesourcery.com> writes:
[...]
| > 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.
Not just because they aren't working that way means it is OK :-)
True.
| 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.
Whereas I agree with the general philosohy of the run-time
conditionals, I don't think that in this particular case, the warning
is any meaningful. It is about the value of an expression in a path
that would never be taken.
If you saw this code:
if (TARGET_HAS_FOO) {
x = 1 / 0;
}
and TARGET_HAS_FOO was 0, wouldn't you want a warning?
I think we should probably just agree to disagree. :-)
--
Mark Mitchell mark@codesourcery.com
CodeSourcery, LLC http://www.codesourcery.com