Re: [PATCH 3/9] ENABLE_CHECKING refactoring: Java and Ada

[Jeff Law <law@redhat.com>]

On 10/05/2015 05:30 PM, Mikhail Maltsev wrote:
> gcc/java/ChangeLog:
>
> 2015-10-05  Mikhail Maltsev<maltsevm@gmail.com>
>
> 	* decl.c (java_mark_decl_local): Use flag_checking instead of
> 	ENABLE_CHECKING.
>
>
> gcc/ada/ChangeLog:
>
> 2015-10-05  Mikhail Maltsev<maltsevm@gmail.com>
>
> 	* gcc-interface/decl.c (gnat_to_gnu_entity): Use gcc_checking_assert.
> 	* gcc-interface/trans.c (assoc_to_constructor): Use flag_checking.
> 	* gcc-interface/utils.c (relate_alias_sets): Likewise.
> 	* gcc-interface/utils2.c (build_binary_op, build_unary_op): Use
> 	gcc_checking_assert
>
>
>
> 0003-Ada-and-Java-FE-s.patch
>
>
>  From e8de7d2dc24cff85b6c1e44157dad23c85e435e1 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Mikhail Maltsev<maltsevm@gmail.com>
> Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2015 05:06:01 +0300
> Subject: [PATCH 3/9] Ada and Java FE's
>
> ---
>   gcc/ada/gcc-interface/decl.c   |  4 +---
>   gcc/ada/gcc-interface/trans.c  | 11 ++++++-----
>   gcc/ada/gcc-interface/utils.c  |  4 +---
>   gcc/ada/gcc-interface/utils2.c | 20 ++++++++------------
>   gcc/java/decl.c                |  4 +---
>   5 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 26 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/gcc/ada/gcc-interface/utils.c b/gcc/ada/gcc-interface/utils.c
> index 0f3087d..7906495 100644
> --- a/gcc/ada/gcc-interface/utils.c
> +++ b/gcc/ada/gcc-interface/utils.c
> @@ -1499,9 +1499,7 @@ relate_alias_sets (tree gnu_new_type, tree gnu_old_type, enum alias_set_op op)
>         /* The alias set shouldn't be copied between array types with different
>   	 aliasing settings because this can break the aliasing relationship
>   	 between the array type and its element type.  */
> -#ifndef ENABLE_CHECKING
> -      if (flag_strict_aliasing)
> -#endif
> +      if (flag_checking || flag_strict_aliasing)
>   	gcc_assert (!(TREE_CODE (gnu_new_type) == ARRAY_TYPE
>   		      && TREE_CODE (gnu_old_type) == ARRAY_TYPE
>   		      && TYPE_NONALIASED_COMPONENT (gnu_new_type)
I wonder who wrote that gem initially.  I don't like conditional 
compilation, I don't like the original code here even more.  Having the 
IF, but not the true/false arms conditionally compiled is just gross.

Having said that, I hope it wasn't me that wrote the code :-)


I've installed this on the trunk.

jeff