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: GCC Status Report (2004-03-09)

From: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>
To: Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou at libertysurf dot fr>
Cc: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 08:59:10 -0800
Subject: Re: GCC Status Report (2004-03-09)
Organization: CodeSourcery, LLC
References: <200403091809.i29I9P04020607@sirius.codesourcery.com> <20040329120039.GB28220@sunsite.ms.mff.cuni.cz> <4069F420.3050702@codesourcery.com> <200403310952.36188.ebotcazou@libertysurf.fr>

Eric Botcazou wrote:

Yes. I believe I already approved this patch for 3.4, but Eric hasn't applied it yet. I'm not sure why not; perhaps I lost a message in the thread somewhere.

Because I'm not convinced it is safe: it may potentially bring back problems that have been hidden by not putting the /u flag on non-static aggregates any more. See my last message in the thread on the main mailing-list.

Eric --

I'm not sure what to say at this point.

I've been suggesting things, and you've been implementing them, and then not liking them for a couple of weeks now.

Somehow, we've got to get a fix into the compiler.

What do you suggest?

--
Mark Mitchell
CodeSourcery, LLC
(916) 791-8304
mark@codesourcery.com

Follow-Ups:
- Re: GCC Status Report (2004-03-09)
  - From: Eric Botcazou

References:
- Re: GCC Status Report (2004-03-09)
  - From: Jakub Jelinek
- Re: GCC Status Report (2004-03-09)
  - From: Mark Mitchell
- Re: GCC Status Report (2004-03-09)
  - From: Eric Botcazou

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