From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mark Mitchell To: kenner@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: GCC's statement expression extension Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 19:26:00 -0000 Message-id: <20000727192618Z.mitchell@codesourcery.com> References: <10007280233.AA18207@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu> X-SW-Source: 2000-07/msg00903.html >>>>> "Richard" == Richard Kenner writes: Richard> True, but that's why the SPEC example is so interesting. Richard> The current version of GCC cannot compile SPEC and I Richard> don't think it's acceptable to say "well, we can get SPEC Richard> numbers on the older versions, so it doesn't matter that Richard> we can't get it on the latest compiler". If SPEC really contains invalid code, then we're between a rock and a hard place. I don't think we should break the compiler just to compile a benchmark. We could patch SPEC, and we can provide the patch to whomever we're allowed to, under the SPEC licenses. I'm much more sympathetic to preserving brokenness in the compiler to benefit a popular program that users need (like the Linux kernel) than the SPEC, which is only used by the community to evaluate the compiler. (Frankly, it's probably more often used by vendors to impress their customers than by any real users.) -- Mark Mitchell mark@codesourcery.com CodeSourcery, LLC http://www.codesourcery.com