GCC 4.2.0 Status Report (2007-03-22)

Daniel Berlin dberlin@dberlin.org
Fri Mar 30 20:37:00 GMT 2007

On 3/30/07, Richard Kenner <kenner@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu> wrote:
> > The lang hook is supposed to mark the variable as addressable.
> > The lang hook should not be changing other things that have an affect
> > on the *middle end*.  No exceptions.
> But how is it "supposed to mark the variable as addressable"?  If this
> just means setting TREE_ADDRESSABLE, what's the point of having the hook?

It also issues language specific warnings

> And if it does something *else*, how is the middle-end supposed to
> know how to undo it?
It's not supposed to be doing other things for languages that don't
want to emit warnings (or do other front-endy things with the answer)
> I guess what I'm arguing for here is either the removal of the lang
> hook or the addition of one to set a decl *non-addressable*.  As far
> as I'm concerned, I think the removal is better, but both are OK with me.
You haven't explained what you think needs undoing in *any current
language that uses the hook*.
We shouldn't be adding hooks just because some theoretical language
that doesn't exist might want to do things we don't want it to do
No wonder we have so many langhooks.

More information about the Gcc mailing list