Re: GCC 3.0 Status Report

[Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>]

>>>>> "John" == John David Anglin <dave@hiauly1.hia.nrc.ca> writes:

First, note that Vax Ultrix is not a primary platform the release, so
these patches are not a high priority for me.

    John> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2001-04/msg00762.html

I would prefer a patch that simply did something like:

  minnode = build_int_2 (TREE_INT_CST_LOW (minnode),
                         TREE_INT_CST_HIGH (minnode));
  if (unsignedp)
    TREE_TYPE (minnode) = unsigned_type_node;

I think the hack where you adjust things according to the signedness
at the end is confusing.

    John> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2001-04/msg00817.html

Certainly the bit about setting old_ac is correct.  I'll install that
part of the change.  

I think that probably the other part is correct, but can you explain
it in more detail?  Not what the problem is (I get that), but why your
fix is the correct approach?

I'm not sure that it's possible to get correct C++ semantics with the
PCC calling convention; you might end up with too many copy
constructors, for example.

ChangeLogs shouldn't have justifications in them.  They should go in
the code instead.

Thanks,

--
Mark Mitchell                   mark@codesourcery.com
CodeSourcery, LLC               http://www.codesourcery.com