This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH PING] c++-specific bits of tree-slimming patches
On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 8:13 AM, Mike Stump <mikestump@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Apr 21, 2011, at 9:59 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
>> On 04/21/2011 10:55 PM, Nathan Froyd wrote:
>>> On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 10:49:05PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
>>>> Hunh. ?How does that work? ?They fill in CASE_LABEL later? ?Can that be
>>>> changed?
>>>
>>> Yeah, tree-eh.c:lower_try_finally_switch. ?I don't know how easy it is
>>> to fix; it certainly looks non-trivial.
>>
>> Well, I tried adjusting it and regression testing seems fine so far.
>
> Unsurprising... ?It will never fail during testsuite run, and won't always fail during a bootstrap.
>
>> I can't think what the comment would be talking about with pointers not providing a stable order; I don't see anything that would rely on that.
>
> ?http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-04/msg00161.html
>
> has the details of why the code was put in. ?Essentially, the Ada boostrap on x86 linux. ?What's worse is, at the time, it would only occasionally fail, so, a bootstrap that works won't prove anything.
Well, unless we are not walking a pointer-based hashtable I don't see
how this matters here.
To Nathan: yes, UNKNOWN_LOCATION would be correct. Whoever then sets
the label should adjust it accordingly.
Richard.