From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25142 invoked by alias); 4 Apr 2004 03:39:00 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 25116 invoked by alias); 4 Apr 2004 03:38:59 -0000 Date: Sun, 04 Apr 2004 03:39:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20040404033859.25115.qmail@sources.redhat.com> From: "ian at wasabisystems dot com" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org In-Reply-To: <20040303083528.14400.schmid@snake.iap.physik.tu-darmstadt.de> References: <20040303083528.14400.schmid@snake.iap.physik.tu-darmstadt.de> Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug pch/14400] Cannot compile qt-x11-free-3.3.0 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-SW-Source: 2004-04/txt/msg00296.txt.bz2 List-Id: ------- Additional Comments From ian at wasabisystems dot com 2004-04-04 03:38 ------- Subject: Re: Cannot compile qt-x11-free-3.3.0 Geoffrey Keating writes: > I think that PCH that fails on one case out of a thousand is better > than PCH that fails in one thousand cases out of one thousand. Any thoughts on how difficult it would be to, when a PCH can not be loaded at the correct address, skip the PCH and try for the original header files? We'd want to issue a warning, but the result will still be better then a compiler crash, particularly since the crash will be awkward to work around without manually removing the PCH. Of course, the result will not necessarily be equivalent--the original headers might not be present, or might have been modified since the PCH was created. Ian -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14400