addresses of labels don't work with today's CVS source

[Geoff Keating]

Brad Lucier <lucier@math.purdue.edu> writes:

> No, this is still broken.
> 
> Brad
> 
> > I see that this may have already been fixed in varasm with:
> > 
> > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2000-05/msg00166.html
> > 
> > Now for my fourth bootstrap attempt of the day ...
> > 
> > Brad
> > 

The automated testing thingie says these tests:

g++.sum g++.oliva/thunk1.C
gcc.sum gcc.c-torture/compile/920301-1.c,
gcc.sum gcc.c-torture/compile/920428-3.c,
gcc.sum gcc.c-torture/compile/941014-4.c,
gcc.sum gcc.c-torture/compile/950613-1.c,
gcc.sum gcc.c-torture/execute/920302-1.c
gcc.sum gcc.c-torture/execute/920501-4.c
gcc.sum gcc.c-torture/execute/comp-goto-1.c

were broken by:

+Wed May  3 09:29:17 2000  Richard Kenner  <kenner@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu>
+
+	* expr.c (expand_expr, case COMPONENT_REF): Don't check for checking
+	memory usage if not in a function.
+	* varasm.c (initializer_constant_valid_p, case ADDR_EXPR): Only
+	return address if static.
+

which sounds likely enough to me.

-- 
- Geoffrey Keating <geoffk@cygnus.com>