bootstrap failure, current CVS, enable-checking

[Zack Weinberg]

"Kaveh R. Ghazi" wrote:
>  > From: Zack Weinberg <zack@bitmover.com>
>  > 
>  > I'm doing regular builds with --enable-checking.
> 
> 	Is there a lot of overhead when doing this?  Do you know why
> isn't it on by default in the trunk?

Moderate overhead - it adds runtime type checking to all operations on
syntax trees.  The current implementation is boneheaded, but I've got
some improvements under development.

Dunno why it isn't on by default in the trunk.  It catches all sorts
of problems just in the testsuite.  From my latest build:

noncompile/920616-2.c:1: Internal error in `pushdecl', at c-decl.c:2481:
        expected 't', have 'x' (error_mark)
noncompile/920923-1.c:21: Internal error in `c_expand_start_case', at
			  c-typeck.c:6717:
        expected 't', have 'x' (error_mark)
noncompile/921116-1.c:1: Internal error in `pushdecl', at c-decl.c:2481:
        expected 't', have 'x' (error_mark)
noncompile/940510-1.c:1: Internal error in `layout_type', at stor-layout.c:942:
        expected 't', have 'x' (error_mark)
noncompile/990416-1.c:9: Internal error in `do_jump', at expr.c:8920:
        expected 't', have 'x' (error_mark)

zw