Howdy,
My last two attempts to build mainline on darwin8 have failed with a
bugbox in Ada.
+===GNAT BUG
DETECTED==+
| 4.1.0 20050819 (experimental) (powerpc-apple-darwin8.3.0) GCC
error: |
| tree check: expected class expression, hav
A patch by Andrew Pinski is there:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-07/msg01666.html
But review was negative, so it was not commited.
Hope this helps,
Laurent
PS: is there a PR for this one?
On Fri, 2005-08-19 at 15:16 -0700, Chris Douty wrote:
> Howdy,
>
> My last two attempts to buil
On Sat, 2005-08-20 at 00:36 +0200, Laurent GUERBY wrote:
> A patch by Andrew Pinski is there:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-07/msg01666.html
>
> But review was negative, so it was not commited.
>
> Hope this helps,
>
> Laurent
>
> PS: is there a PR for this one?
Thanks to Andrew
On Sat, 2005-08-20 at 00:44 +0200, Laurent GUERBY wrote:
> On Sat, 2005-08-20 at 00:36 +0200, Laurent GUERBY wrote:
> > A patch by Andrew Pinski is there:
> >
> > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-07/msg01666.html
> >
> > But review was negative, so it was not commited.
> >
> > Hope this he
On Fri, Aug 19, 2005 at 09:34:35PM -0400, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> But for general IPA working on the cgraph + GIMPLE level, as is what is
> happening here, I think we really need to do something about static
> variable initializers so they are in GIMPLE.
No. How could that possibly be? We can't e
On Sat, 2005-08-20 at 19:15 -0700, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 19, 2005 at 09:34:35PM -0400, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> > But for general IPA working on the cgraph + GIMPLE level, as is what is
> > happening here, I think we really need to do something about static
> > variable initializers
On Sat, Aug 20, 2005 at 10:33:21PM -0400, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> > No. How could that possibly be?
> > We can't execute code for static
> > variable initializers, so how can we gimplify?
> What do you mean by this, exactly?
If you turn a static initializer into a code sequence, then it isn't a
s
> Sure. So far I don't see a problem though.
>
>
> > IE if we have something very funky like:
> >
> > static int c;
> > static int d;
> > static struct foo *a = &{&c, &d};
> >
> > (and if you look, andrew found a case where we are producing
> > &, so this is a possibility, AFAICT)
>
> I disbe
> And would that be because analyze_expr isn't implemented for Ada?
That doesn't bother me so much, actually (mainly because i don't care
about Ada). It's the fact that it's popping up in C/C++ that does.
>
> > IE if we have something very funky like:
> >
> > static int c;
> > static int d;
>
On Sun, Aug 21, 2005 at 11:32:34PM -0400, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> See PR 23171.
Ok.
> If analyze_expr (or something) actually did that, i'd be a very happy
> man.
> It doesn't, unfortunately.
> Another perfectly reasonable solution would be to force us to not
> generate such crap in the first plac
I disbelieve you can get this in C or C++. The fragment above is a
syntax error. AFAIK, all of this is simple laziness in the Ada front
end: generating & is how things were done at the
beginning of time, and it was easier to change this in the gimplifier
than to modify the cod
11 matches
Mail list logo
