On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 12:36 AM, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote: > On Sun, 15 Jun 2014, Steven Bosscher wrote: >> On Sun, Jun 15, 2014 at 1:27 PM, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote: >> > /tmp/hpautotest-gcc0/gcc/gcc/auto-inc-dec.c: In function 'void >> > merge_in_block(int, basic_block_def*)': >> > /tmp/hpautotest-gcc0/gcc/gcc/auto-inc-dec.c:1442: error: 'uid' >> > was not declared in this scope >> > make[2]: *** [auto-inc-dec.o] Error 1 >> > >> > brgds, H-P >> >> >> Bah, this is why I just *hate* all the gcc code that's only compiled >> if certain #defines are set... > > I couldn't agree more. Might not have been obvious when writing > the mosly-mechanical patch, still the auto-inc-dec.c name should > have been a red flag that a representative target should have > been tested (i.e. not x86_64 and i686).
I agree, but I think you'd agree with me if I say that Richard S. is one of the few people who almost always goes beyond the normal amount of testing required for a patch. Breakage like this will just happen to us all, every once in a while, until we compile all middle-end code at least, regardless of #defines and whatnot (conditionally compiled code, from the top of my head: CC0, scheduler, dbrsched, auto-inc-dec, HAVE_conditional_move, etc...). Ciao! Steven
