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: patches for c++/35319

From: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>
To: Richard Guenther <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>
Cc: Jason Merrill <jason at redhat dot com>, gcc-patches List <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
Date: Sun, 07 Dec 2008 17:27:02 -0800
Subject: Re: RFC: patches for c++/35319
References: <4939CF4E.9030204@redhat.com> <84fc9c000812060300p4422e177gb5f4e329b1142579@mail.gmail.com>

Richard Guenther wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 6, 2008 at 2:03 AM, Jason Merrill <jason@redhat.com> wrote:
>> This regression is a crash on code that we previously rejected with a syntax
>> error, due to not having a mangling for fixed-point types.  I've now
>> implemented that mangling, but that seems like a bit of an enhancement, so I
>> also have a patch that just changes the ICE to a sorry.  Opinions?
> 
> Depends on if it is an official mangling.  If not we shouldn't ship
> with it and instead
> sorry.

Jason has started a discussion of the mangling on the C++ ABI list.

Jason, if you want to put something in right away, I think the sorry is
the right call.  However, if we can get agreement on the mangling
quickly, then I think putting the mangling change in is OK; it's quite
clear that your changes are going to affect only fixed-point types.

Thanks,

-- 
Mark Mitchell
CodeSourcery
mark@codesourcery.com
(650) 331-3385 x713

References:
- RFC: patches for c++/35319
  - From: Jason Merrill
- Re: RFC: patches for c++/35319
  - From: Richard Guenther

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