This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@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: RFC/PATCH: c-decl.c: no getdecls() for you

From: David Edelsohn <dje at watson dot ibm dot com>
To: "Zack Weinberg" <zack at codesourcery dot com>
Cc: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at false dot org>, Rainer Orth <ro at TechFak dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE>
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2004 21:11:14 -0500
Subject: Re: RFC/PATCH: c-decl.c: no getdecls() for you
References: <87oes9b0y5.fsf@egil.codesourcery.com> <200402100612.i1A6C6T32338@makai.watson.ibm.com> <874qtzzb01.fsf@egil.codesourcery.com> <200402102259.i1AMxCT34542@makai.watson.ibm.com> <877jyuwm2l.fsf@egil.codesourcery.com>

>>>>> Zack Weinberg writes:

Zack> Please look at 

Zack> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/buglist.cgi?bug_status=ASSIGNED&email1=zack%40gcc.gnu.org&emailtype1=exact&emailassigned_to1=1&component=c&component=debug

Zack> All of these bugs require the c-decl.c rewrite to fix.  Which of them
Zack> do you think we can leave unfixed in the 3.4 release series?

	And if the patch harms debugging on some target, that also would
be introducing a debugging regression.  Who's to say which was a more
important bug?  No patch is completely safe.

David

Follow-Ups:
- Re: RFC/PATCH: c-decl.c: no getdecls() for you
  - From: Zack Weinberg

References:
- RFC/PATCH: c-decl.c: no getdecls() for you
  - From: Zack Weinberg
- Re: RFC/PATCH: c-decl.c: no getdecls() for you
  - From: David Edelsohn
- Re: RFC/PATCH: c-decl.c: no getdecls() for you
  - From: Zack Weinberg
- Re: RFC/PATCH: c-decl.c: no getdecls() for you
  - From: David Edelsohn
- Re: RFC/PATCH: c-decl.c: no getdecls() for you
  - From: Zack Weinberg

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