From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10919 invoked by alias); 5 Jan 2007 00:17:07 -0000 Received: (qmail 10910 invoked by uid 22791); 5 Jan 2007 00:17:06 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from doa.scea.com (HELO Paris.playstation.sony.com) (64.157.7.133) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Fri, 05 Jan 2007 00:16:57 +0000 Received: from constantine.playstation.sony.com ([162.49.67.15]) by Paris.playstation.sony.com (Lotus Domino Release 6.5.5FP1) with ESMTP id 2007010416165523-158559 ; Thu, 4 Jan 2007 16:16:55 -0800 In-Reply-To: <20070105000339.GA3489@nevyn.them.org> Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: [PATCH, C++] Make Canonical ICE instead of just warn when mismatching MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 6.5.5 November 30, 2005 Message-ID: From: Andrew_Pinski@PlayStation.Sony.Com Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2007 00:17:00 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" 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: 2007-01/txt/msg00304.txt.bz2 Daniel Jacobowitz wrote on 01/04/2007 04:03:39 PM: > On Thu, Jan 04, 2007 at 07:00:22PM -0500, Andrew Pinski wrote: > > Except what Mike is talking about is not really an issue we should > > be worrying about right now because again this is an internal check. > > If GCC is broken, why try to continue? > > You haven't thought enough about the reason the warning was added as a > warning. Please go read it again, and then think about it (and don't > copy me about it again). Thanks. The only thing the warning says to me, is that GCC is broken. And if an user gets it, what can they do except complain or ignore it. With an internal compiler error, they are more willing to complain about that than a warning being there. If it was an internal error, we would have caught the issue with tramp3d earlier. The warning is useless to the common user of GCC really. I don't see why I am getting push back on a simple change that is actually obviously the correct thing to do for an internal check. Can I now then change all the internal checking ICEs into warnings because that is what the real issue here? To me, Canonical types was not thought through enough if this was a warning and the reviewer of the patch should have caught this issue when reviewing the patch in the first place. There are multiple issues with Canonical types right now, since it causes memory usage to go up around 1-2% (in C and other langauge code) which seems like not a good thing when most of the problems are really just internal to the C++ front-end rather than in generic code. Thanks, Andrew Pinski