From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-patches-return-70193-listarch-gcc-patches=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 3252 invoked by alias); 19 Oct 2002 15:53:28 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 3243 invoked from network); 19 Oct 2002 15:53:26 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO uha.cs.bris.ac.uk) (62.30.75.143)
  by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 19 Oct 2002 15:53:26 -0000
Received: from codesourcery.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by uha.cs.bris.ac.uk (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g9JFrDo02715;
	Sat, 19 Oct 2002 16:53:14 +0100
Message-ID: <3DB17FE9.9010107@codesourcery.com>
Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2002 08:53:00 -0000
From: Nathan Sidwell <nathan@codesourcery.com>
Organization: Codesourcery LLC
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.0.1) Gecko/20021003
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Richard Henderson <rth@redhat.com>
CC: Roger Sayle <roger@eyesopen.com>, gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Update COND_EXPR section of c-tree.texi
References: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0210171217300.17590-100000@www.eyesopen.com> <20021018210832.GA4964@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SW-Source: 2002-10/txt/msg01151.txt.bz2

Richard Henderson wrote:

> 
> Is this really necessary?  As a front-end thing, maybe, but it
> would seem that the best way to handle this is to use
> 
> 	(i >= 0 ? i : (abort(), 0))
FE's must canonicalize 'cond ?: false' after all ...

nathan