This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH 00/89] Compile-time gimple-checking
- From: Jeff Law <law at redhat dot com>
- To: Richard Biener <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>, Richard Sandiford <rdsandiford at googlemail dot com>, David Malcolm <dmalcolm at redhat dot com>
- Cc: GCC Patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Fri, 02 May 2014 10:02:22 -0600
- Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/89] Compile-time gimple-checking
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <1398099480-49147-1-git-send-email-dmalcolm at redhat dot com> <877g6hhjti dot fsf at talisman dot default> <1398186366 dot 26834 dot 95 dot camel at surprise> <87lhuxfb0n dot fsf at talisman dot default> <ac354302-43e9-4ecb-9706-662814a77982 at email dot android dot com> <CAFiYyc3cMpgyCNK6pbeNAgUfSHd=0MZP-M1CGOCkqwtnm2tVuw at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAFiYyc2=uNwYchErrjwVbB7=9cZuE9MmxgZ475zQi8Ns6omTnQ at mail dot gmail dot com> <53616A8B dot 4090502 at redhat dot com> <66f4112c-2a2f-4d2b-8f8e-d2011a7982f7 at email dot android dot com>
On 05/02/14 03:09, Richard Biener wrote:
Well, it looks like David is already on that path to some extent with
the proposed gengtype changes.
Well, I'd like to see both and one affects the other. Doing the const correctness thing first seems more natural to me.
Of course both need to wait for 4.9.1.
I guess I'm just trying to figure out how to stage this stuff in. ie,
is it easier to go with the #89 patchkit, then followup with fixing the
const stuff, or is it easier to first fix the const stuff, then adjust
the #89 kit. You're recommending the latter, which is fine with me, but
I'd like David to chime in as well since he's doing the work :-)