gcj patch ping
Tom Tromey
tromey@redhat.com
Wed Jun 5 22:55:00 GMT 2002
>>>>> "Per" == Per Bothner <per@bothner.com> writes:
>> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2002-05/msg00983.html
>> 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.
>> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2002-04/msg00393.html
>> 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.
>> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2001-12/msg02182.html
>> 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".
Ok.
Tom
More information about the Java-patches
mailing list