From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26831 invoked by alias); 3 Dec 2001 17:53:16 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 26797 invoked from network); 3 Dec 2001 17:53:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO kiruna.synopsys.com) (204.176.20.18) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 3 Dec 2001 17:53:15 -0000 Received: from mother.synopsys.com (mother.synopsys.com [146.225.100.171]) by kiruna.synopsys.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8365EF376; Mon, 3 Dec 2001 09:53:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from atrus.synopsys.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mother.synopsys.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id JAA09613; Mon, 3 Dec 2001 09:53:01 -0800 (PST) From: Joe Buck Received: (from jbuck@localhost) by atrus.synopsys.com (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.1) id JAA23081; Mon, 3 Dec 2001 09:53:13 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <200112031753.JAA23081@atrus.synopsys.com> Subject: Re: fix for PR 4447: is this really correct? To: mark@codesourcery.com (Mark Mitchell) Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2001 09:53:00 -0000 Cc: mrs@windriver.com (mike stump), gcc@gcc.gnu.org (gcc@gcc.gnu.org), jbuck@synopsys.COM (jbuck@synopsys.COM), lerdsuwa@users.sourceforge.net (lerdsuwa@users.sourceforge.net) In-Reply-To: <92460000.1007401448@gandalf.codesourcery.com> from "Mark Mitchell" at Dec 03, 2001 09:44:08 AM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL2] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2001-12/txt/msg00066.txt.bz2 This issue is moot, Mark. Kriang already pointed out that the odd behavior is evidently mandated by the ABI standard. > --On Friday, November 30, 2001 03:21:50 PM -0800 mike stump > wrote: > > >> From: Joe Buck > >> To: gcc@gcc.gnu.org, lerdsuwa@users.sourceforge.net > >> Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 11:20:51 -0800 (PST) > > > >> Mark approved, assuming the usual testing requirements are met. > > > > :-( > > I assume that if the patch went in on the mainline it was > already reviewed for correctness. > > >> I've now verified that this fix doesn't break any C++ or libstdc++ > >> tests (other tests aren't relevant since this only affects cc1plus). > > > > If I understand the fix, it is worse than not having it, as it hides a > > real bug? > > > >> 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. > > Did this change affect the mangling of functions that we were already > able to compile successfully? > > -- > Mark Mitchell mark@codesourcery.com > CodeSourcery, LLC http://www.codesourcery.com >