From: mike stump <mrs@windriver.com>
To: jbuck@synopsys.com
Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org, lerdsuwa@users.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: fix for PR 4447: is this really correct?
Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2001 15:40:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200112010213.SAA17786@kankakee.wrs.com> (raw)
> From: Joe Buck <jbuck@synopsys.com>
> To: mrs@windriver.com (mike stump)
> Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 16:20:32 -0800 (PST)
> > > But I am now not sure that this fix is quite correct, though it does
> > > improve things.
> >
> > I think the ICE is preferable, as otherwise you have to explain that
> > you have to break the ABI, which is worse.
> I'd prefer to have neither the ICE nor the ABI breakage, but I'd
> prefer the latter to the former.
Personally, I didn't think it would be possible to maintain the abi,
and I previously said as much. We can get close, but it is fairly
hard. We have to decide, create more abi headaches for the future
now, or not. The benefit of the headache, is, more programs can be
compiled. It we are very serious about the abi, the answer must be
no. If we are not as serious about it, we can put the fix into the
compiler, and create the abi headache. I leave the final decision to
those folks that want to make it. I just wanted to point out the
consequence of the action and ensure that everone knew that we were
going to purposefully create a new abi incompatibility that didn't
previously exist.
> Yes. Maybe it's possible to fix the bug by applying a
> constant-folding operation to template arguments before the mangler
> is called.
They should be folded way early.
> News flash: 3.1 will have a couple of minor ABI bug fixes
:-( Such is life.
> so it seems that we're already in a position to break the ABI,
We don't just doom 3.1 to breaking, but some random future version of
the compiler, with luck, it will just be 3.1.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID
From: mike stump <mrs@windriver.com>
To: jbuck@synopsys.com
Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org, lerdsuwa@users.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: fix for PR 4447: is this really correct?
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 18:14:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200112010213.SAA17786@kankakee.wrs.com> (raw)
Message-ID: <20011130181400.kDWqYUG-hBKLetIxCYegwaGguKc4Y-StR7U83_ZzEwk@z> (raw)
> From: Joe Buck <jbuck@synopsys.com>
> To: mrs@windriver.com (mike stump)
> Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 16:20:32 -0800 (PST)
> > > But I am now not sure that this fix is quite correct, though it does
> > > improve things.
> >
> > I think the ICE is preferable, as otherwise you have to explain that
> > you have to break the ABI, which is worse.
> I'd prefer to have neither the ICE nor the ABI breakage, but I'd
> prefer the latter to the former.
Personally, I didn't think it would be possible to maintain the abi,
and I previously said as much. We can get close, but it is fairly
hard. We have to decide, create more abi headaches for the future
now, or not. The benefit of the headache, is, more programs can be
compiled. It we are very serious about the abi, the answer must be
no. If we are not as serious about it, we can put the fix into the
compiler, and create the abi headache. I leave the final decision to
those folks that want to make it. I just wanted to point out the
consequence of the action and ensure that everone knew that we were
going to purposefully create a new abi incompatibility that didn't
previously exist.
> Yes. Maybe it's possible to fix the bug by applying a
> constant-folding operation to template arguments before the mangler
> is called.
They should be folded way early.
> News flash: 3.1 will have a couple of minor ABI bug fixes
:-( Such is life.
> so it seems that we're already in a position to break the ABI,
We don't just doom 3.1 to breaking, but some random future version of
the compiler, with luck, it will just be 3.1.
next reply other threads:[~2001-12-01 2:14 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2001-11-24 15:40 mike stump [this message]
2001-11-30 18:14 ` mike stump
2001-12-01 16:14 ` Joe Buck
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2001-12-03 15:40 mike stump
2001-11-23 22:03 mike stump
2001-11-24 5:14 ` Joe Buck
2001-11-30 16:20 ` Joe Buck
2001-11-30 15:23 ` mike stump
2001-12-03 9:49 ` Mark Mitchell
2001-12-03 9:53 ` Joe Buck
2001-12-03 9:56 ` Mark Mitchell
2001-11-21 22:25 GCC 3.0.3 Joe Buck
2001-11-23 14:47 ` fix for PR 4447: is this really correct? Joe Buck
2001-11-24 20:36 ` Kriang Lerdsuwanakij
2001-11-30 23:02 ` Kriang Lerdsuwanakij
2001-12-01 16:08 ` Joe Buck
2001-12-02 3:12 ` Kriang Lerdsuwanakij
2001-12-03 9:42 ` Mark Mitchell
2001-12-01 17:32 ` Alexandre Oliva
2001-11-30 11:20 ` Joe Buck
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=200112010213.SAA17786@kankakee.wrs.com \
--to=mrs@windriver.com \
--cc=gcc@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=jbuck@synopsys.com \
--cc=lerdsuwa@users.sourceforge.net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).