From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: kenner@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu (Richard Kenner) To: wilson@cygnus.com Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: GCC's statement expression extension Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2000 03:49:00 -0000 Message-id: <10007301102.AA20583@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu> X-SW-Source: 2000-07/msg00989.html >From wilson@cygnus.com Fri Jul 28 00:24:22 2000 Received: from alpha2.ultra.nyu.edu by vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu (4.1/1.34) id AA18487; Fri, 28 Jul 00 00:24:22 EDT Received: from cygnus.com (runyon.cygnus.com [205.180.230.5]) by alpha2.ultra.nyu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA31914 for ; Fri, 28 Jul 2000 00:02:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from wilson.cygnus.com (wilson.cygnus.com [205.180.230.158]) by runyon.cygnus.com (8.8.7-cygnus/8.8.7) with ESMTP id VAA00201; Thu, 27 Jul 2000 21:11:14 -0700 (PDT) From: Jim Wilson Received: (wilson@localhost) by wilson.cygnus.com (8.9.3/8.6.4) id VAA21071; Thu, 27 Jul 2000 21:11:32 -0700 Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 21:11:32 -0700 Message-Id: < 200007280411.VAA21071@wilson.cygnus.com > To: kenner@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu Subject: Re: GCC's statement expression extension Newsgroups: cygnus.egcs In-Reply-To: < 10007280259.AA18359@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu > Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org Status: RO In article < 10007280259.AA18359@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu > you write: > I suspect it is the obstacks use of ({ ... }) and ?: omitting the > middle argument in gcc 1.35. > >Nope. It's an error in bc-typecd.def. Something about a float being >promoted to double. It is SPEC92 that contains gcc 1.35, and SPEC92 was obsoleted 5 years ago when SPEC95 came out. Anyone who cares about SPEC only cares about SPEC2000 now. SPEC95 had gcc 2.5.3. I haven't looked at SPEC2000 yet, but I would be surprised if it didn't have at least gcc 2.7.2. By the way, it is SPEC95 that has the bc-typecd.def problem, not SPEC92. The erroneous code (and yes, it is invalid code) appears within a #ifdef __GNUC__, so it is only gcc that could possibly fail to compile this program. And this isn't the only problem with this old code. It isn't 64-bit clean either. I had to fix several bugs to get it working on an ia64-linux machine. None of these problems justify changing how we develop gcc. Jim