[tree-ssa] Fix for failure to build glibc
law@redhat.com
law@redhat.com
Thu May 8 20:50:00 GMT 2003
In message <Pine.LNX.4.53.0305082138220.24564@kern.srcf.societies.cam.ac.uk>, "
Joseph S. Myers" writes:
>On Thu, 8 May 2003 law@redhat.com wrote:
>
>> In message <wvlfznp2o13.fsf@prospero.boston.redhat.com>, Jason Merrill writ
>es:
>> >Why is this necessary? Do you have a continue in a statement-expression
>> >which refers to a loop outside the statement-expression?
>> Yup:
>>
>> >void
>> _dl_map_object_deps ()
>> {
>> for (;;)
>> (
>> {
>> continue;
>> "hello";
>> }
>> );
>> }
>
>The conclusion from a discussion three years ago, reflected in PR c/772,
>was that the specification of statement expressions should treat this sort
>of thing (jumps in or out of statement expressions) as a constraint
>violation. It just so happens that no-one has implemented that yet.
>(The discussion may not have mentioned jumps via continue, but they are
>just as problematic as those via goto.)
Understood. But the reality is that this construct is clearly used and
having tree-ssa break it won't fly.
If we're going to declare this code invalid, then we need to get the
mainline compiler doing it first.
jeff
More information about the Gcc-patches
mailing list