Stefan Reinauer <ste...@coresystems.de> writes:
> On 3/15/10 8:28 PM, ron minnich wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 10:27 AM, Eric W. Biederman
>> <ebied...@xmission.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> My practical concern is that there is no support for the general case where
>>> you do:
>>> char array[5];
>>> for (i = 0; i < 5; i++) {
>>> array[i] = 7;
>>> }
>>>
>> The bigger problem is that people are trying to take this compiler
>> beyond what makes sense (to me). I'm not sure we're going to cease to
>> exist if we don't have arrays.
>>
> I agree we don't necessarily need to have such arrays. I think we just
> naturally assumed it should work,
> so no attempt to sneak anything in.
>
> What's implemented and what is not is hidden in Eric's brain and in a
> single file of 25k lines of code.
>
> If we don't want non-static non-const arrays, can we easily detect them
> in the code and give the user an error message that is better than a
> segfault?
> "You're a fool because you used non-const non-static arrays in romcc"
> would be fine. Just dropping dead without error is certainly less helpful.
We should be able to. I thought such a warning existed. So I have been
scratching my head a bit to understand why it doesn't.
>> If romcc can't do something, then work around it; we can warn people
>> about no arrays. But given that nobody has the time to really support
>> romcc (as, e.g., gcc or llvm are supported) we're taking some real
>> risks just plugging changes in.
>>
> The changes were merely trying to fix the segfaults, not implement or
> change anything big. I think we do want fixes for segfaults. Always.
Fixing segfaults and then getting code that doesn't work correctly
is worse. Always. I did my best with romcc to ensure the compile
fails if we are not going to generate the correct code.
At the same time I would much rather it be an assert than a random
segfault.
I have to run but I think this patch adds the missing check to
catch non-static arrays.
Index: romcc.c
===================================================================
--- romcc.c (revision 4892)
+++ romcc.c (working copy)
@@ -13458,6 +13458,10 @@
if ((type->type & TYPE_MASK) == TYPE_FUNCTION) {
error(state, 0, "Function prototypes not supported");
}
+ if (ident &&
+ ((type->type & TYPE_MASK) == TYPE_ARRAY) &&
+ ((type->type & STOR_MASK) != STOR_STATIC))
+ error(state, 0, "non static arrays not supported");
if (ident &&
((type->type & STOR_MASK) == STOR_STATIC) &&
((type->type & QUAL_CONST) == 0)) {
Eric
--
coreboot mailing list: coreboot@coreboot.org
http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
