From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19177 invoked by alias); 22 Mar 2012 18:37:41 -0000 Received: (qmail 19115 invoked by uid 22791); 22 Mar 2012 18:37:41 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from qmta07.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net (HELO qmta07.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net) (76.96.62.64) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 22 Mar 2012 18:37:28 +0000 Received: from omta12.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.44]) by qmta07.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id oiYc1i0060xGWP857idUdj; Thu, 22 Mar 2012 18:37:28 +0000 Received: from up.mrs.kithrup.com ([24.4.193.8]) by omta12.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id oidS1i0100BKwT43YidTo2; Thu, 22 Mar 2012 18:37:28 +0000 Subject: Re: remove wrong code in immed_double_const Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Mike Stump In-Reply-To: Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2012 18:37:00 -0000 Cc: Richard Sandiford , Richard Guenther , gcc-patches Patches Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <5FF5A724-3FE1-4E97-8124-542A0B8259FE@comcast.net> <87obrvd6fh.fsf@talisman.home> <87haxmgqoo.fsf@talisman.home> <7C6A7462-C1D3-4765-83FF-3B3C726D92E5@comcast.net> <8762e09sgc.fsf@talisman.home> <0A5CBD0C-FC94-4637-B230-1A83372DE91A@comcast.net> <7E568BC6-FD8F-4FD5-8ABF-43FD253D3E8F@comcast.net> <5F4F06D3-C6F0-47F2-AEB3-1760EC4D2EAE@comcast.net> To: Michael Matz X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2012-03/txt/msg01530.txt.bz2 On Mar 22, 2012, at 6:15 AM, Michael Matz wrote: > That certainly is strictly better than any of the other possibilities, I= =20 > just didn't get the impression from your second mail to this thread that= =20 > you were even considering doing that. Good I was wrong. All I wanted, was to remove the assert... The review point was, no, not un= less you fix the issues so we don't get wrong code-gen and could you make i= t sign extending as well? So, sure, sounds reasonable to me. I was going = to do the work in the end, just didn't plan on doing it today. Today, tomo= rrow, not worth quibbling over the exact date the work is done. But, my fi= nal point is, the assert is wrong, and it has to go, and (almost) gone it i= s. :-) I'm happy. > I would call it too strict, not wrong. Do you have users? Have you ever told them the compiler isn't wrong when i= t ICEs for perfectly valid code? I've never done that before, and never pl= an to, no one has convinced me it is the right approach. If you want me to= not use the term wrong, you'd need to furnish a web site that somehow prov= es your point. Wrong is what I use when that the compiler does is wrong. = It is that simple. Failing to compile valid code, is wrong. > Because there are (or were after=20 > your fixes get it) values where there was a problem. Of course that's=20 > again just splitting hair about terminology :) Yeah, I'm not into hair splitting on terminology. I'm more into actual fun= ctionality of the compiler to the end user.