On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 10:55 AM, Olivier Hainque <hain...@adacore.com> wrote:
> On Apr 3, 2012, at 16:34 , Olivier Hainque wrote:
>> Thanks a lot for following up on this one. Coincidentally, I was just
>> about to submit the alternate approach we had discussed about, after
>> David's comment at http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-11/msg01842.html.
>> This is of course a much heavier hammer so it would be nice if we can
>> indeed have a subtler way out :-)
> To clarify: the heavier approach is the one I was about to submit
> (minor variation of Joseph's proposal in the thread just referenced),
> and the subtler way out is the one you are proposing here.
We can give Alan's patch a try. I'm not sure if it is sufficient
given the experience of IBM's XL compiler. I also would rather not
use the heavier hammer, but I don't want to leave a latent bug.