gcj patch ping

Per Bothner per@bothner.com
Mon Jun 3 10:05:00 GMT 2002


Tom Tromey wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2002-05/msg00983.html
> Somewhat hacky fix for PR 6520

This doesn't seem right, not without knowing what are
the actual semantics for what fold is *supposed* to do for
constants.  It seems to me wrong for fold to be modifying
existing nodes.

> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2002-04/msg00393.html
> Assertion facility

I'm not familiar with the assert facility, but I trust
your judgement.

> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2001-12/msg02182.html
> Minor optimization in bytecode generation

It seems ok.  But I wonder why you need to test:
   && reloc->label != block
Also perhaps add to the comment at the top of the loop
your rationale - i.e. "this can happen when generating
a 'finally' clause".
-- 
	--Per Bothner
per@bothner.com   http://www.bothner.com/per/



More information about the Gcc-patches mailing list