patch: cp/search.c broken
Jason Merrill
jason@redhat.com
Mon Nov 26 06:00:00 GMT 2001
>>>>> "Aldy" == Aldy Hernandez <aldyh@cygnus.com> writes:
> On Mon, Nov 26, 2001 at 02:25:35AM +0000, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
>> On 25 Nov 2001, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
>>
>> > search.c doesn't compile because there is an attempt to declare bk in
>> > the body of a function-- not after curly's. this isn't c++ guys :)
>>
>> It's perfectly valid C99. I asked before without an answer, I'll ask
>> again: non-C front ends can require GCC, what GCC version can they
>> require? That is, what native compiler version should people have
>> installed before building a cross compiler?
> i think the bottom line is k&r. isn't it?
For the gcc/ directory, yes. Not for frontends.
> just because it's valid c99 doesn't mean we should use it in gcc
> source code. we should probably stick to the lowest common (sane)
> denomitor (k&r?).
> i was bootstrapping with 2.95.3. i don't know what the regression tester
> was using, but it died too.
Bootstrapping shouldn't build the C++ frontend with anything other than a
just-built compiler.
However, my preference would be to keep the frontends buildable with 2.95,
so that we don't always have to do a bootstrap in order to build a C++
compiler. I only bootstrap to test backend changes.
Jason
More information about the Gcc-patches
mailing list