From: Mark Mitchell <mark@codesourcery.com>
To: mike stump <mrs@windriver.com>,
"gcc@gcc.gnu.org" <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>,
"jbuck@synopsys.COM" <jbuck@synopsys.COM>,
"lerdsuwa@users.sourceforge.net" <lerdsuwa@users.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: fix for PR 4447: is this really correct?
Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2001 09:49:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <92460000.1007401448@gandalf.codesourcery.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200111302321.PAA17355@kankakee.wrs.com>
--On Friday, November 30, 2001 03:21:50 PM -0800 mike stump
<mrs@windriver.com> wrote:
>> From: Joe Buck <jbuck@synopsys.COM>
>> 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
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2001-12-03 17:49 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
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 [this message]
2001-12-03 9:53 ` Joe Buck
2001-12-03 9:56 ` Mark Mitchell
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2001-12-03 15:40 mike stump
2001-11-24 15:40 mike stump
2001-11-30 18:14 ` mike stump
2001-12-01 16:14 ` Joe Buck
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=92460000.1007401448@gandalf.codesourcery.com \
--to=mark@codesourcery.com \
--cc=gcc@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=jbuck@synopsys.COM \
--cc=lerdsuwa@users.sourceforge.net \
--cc=mrs@windriver.com \
/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).