https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31128
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
--- Comment #14 from edmar at freescale dot com 2008-01-24 18:57 ---
(In reply to comment #10)
Created an attachment (id=14573)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=14573action=view) [edit]
gcc43-pr34134.patch
Patch to avoid the ICE.
I don't mind the patch which
--- Comment #13 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-03 17:48
---
I am not going to work on this anymore.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #12 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-12-04 22:01 ---
Fixed on the trunk.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31128
--- Comment #11 from sabre at nondot dot org 2007-11-28 20:57 ---
Please don't disable these. There are a variety of compilers that optionally
or only generate C code, particularly for the functional languages. This is
useful functionality for these compilers.
--
--- Comment #9 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-17 18:21 ---
*** Bug 34134 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #10 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-17 19:25 ---
Created an attachment (id=14573)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=14573action=view)
gcc43-pr34134.patch
Patch to avoid the ICE.
I don't mind the patch which disables these builtins either, but
1)
--- Comment #8 from sabre at nondot dot org 2007-05-29 15:14 ---
Right, you could do that, but it is a) not guaranteed to work going forward,
and b) expects properly structured (e.g. nested) control flow.
If I had b, I could just make a vla :)
-Chris
--
--- Comment #6 from sabre at nondot dot org 2007-05-28 17:44 ---
This is very useful for compilers generating C code (e.g. LLVM, and various
other source - C compilers). Why remove it? These compilers are generating
partially structured code, that don't have syntactic blocks required
--- Comment #7 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-05-28 19:08 ---
(In reply to comment #6)
This is very useful for compilers generating C code (e.g. LLVM, and various
other source - C compilers). Why remove it? These compilers are generating
partially structured code, that
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-03-11 01:58 ---
I have a patch to force this not to be exposed to the user, these builtin was
never documented so they should not be exposed and they are never used outside
of the internals of the compiler either.
--
pinskia at
--- Comment #3 from nicholas at mxc dot ca 2007-03-11 02:16 ---
That's fair; we were relying on an undocumented builtin (see llvm.org/PR1028).
If you remove it, can you provide a substitute?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31128
--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-03-11 02:20 ---
The solution I have for you is to use VLAs correctly and {}, basically going
lowered VLAs of __builtin_stack_restore/__builtin_stack_save/__builtin_alloca
to back VLAs.
--
--- Comment #5 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-03-11 02:57 ---
Created an attachment (id=13187)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=13187action=view)
patch which hides the stack functions
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31128
14 matches
Mail list logo
