gcj patch ping
Tue Jun 4 15:04:00 GMT 2002
>>>>> "Per" == Per Bothner <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
>> Somewhat hacky fix for PR 6520
Per> This doesn't seem right, not without knowing what are
Per> the actual semantics for what fold is *supposed* to do for
Per> constants. It seems to me wrong for fold to be modifying
Per> existing nodes.
That makes sense. I'll investigate further.
>> Assertion facility
Per> I'm not familiar with the assert facility, but I trust
Per> your judgement.
Ok. Basically this is a straightforward implementation of the new
feature. I'll check it in.
>> Minor optimization in bytecode generation
Per> It seems ok. But I wonder why you need to test:
Per> && reloc->label != block
I believe I added that to prevent an infinite loop if the `goto's
themselves form one.
Per> Also perhaps add to the comment at the top of the loop
Per> your rationale - i.e. "this can happen when generating
Per> a 'finally' clause".
More information about the Gcc-patches