[PATCH] Avoid creating TREE_OVERFLOW constants in convert_to_integer (PR middle-end/26729)

Roger Sayle roger@eyesopen.com
Mon Apr 24 03:20:00 GMT 2006

On Thu, 20 Apr 2006, Eric Botcazou wrote:
> > If you want to say "look, i've tested it against our internal tests,
> > and it causes a regression there, here's a testcase", that's fine.
> I've exactly done that for Kazu's patch.  No reaction.  I've suggested a
> possible fix.  No reaction.  I've posted a fix.  No reaction.

My apologies if you're under the impression that your previous
e-mails have prompted no reaction.  But as I'd hoped I'd explained
in my off-list reply to you, I'm frantically investigating a
better long-term solution to this problem, instead of the partial
workarounds proposed by Jakub and yourself.  Fortunately, the current
stage of mainline allows us a little time to investigate options,
or, if necessary, to put band-aids into 4.1, and/or 4.2 once
it branches.

Rather than reject your patches outright, I'd just prefer not to
approve them unless we have to.  I hope this explains the apparent
limbo state, and why I'd asked for your patience.


More information about the Gcc-patches mailing list