On 24.09.2012 16:24, Basile Starynkevitch wrote: > On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 03:14:42PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote: >> On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 02:10:50PM +0200, Basile Starynkevitch wrote: >>> Ok, to say it in other words: >>> >>> experimentally, a plugin which calls fatal_error (and this is definitely >>> an >>> acceptable behavior for plugins) makes Debian GCC output the original >>> message, >>> which is very confusing since the error is really called by a plugin. >>> I have no idea if a plugin problem is considered or not as a non >>> reproducible bug. >>> But certainly, a fatal_error from a plugin's pass should not make GCC >>> gives a >>> message which suggest hardware issues, while it is simply due to some >>> plugin. >>> >>> It would be very nice if the error message contained the "plugin" word (at >>> least >>> when some plugin is used). >> >> You should get that message only if the problem is not reproduceable, i.e. >> the exit code, stdout or stderr of the compiler is different between the >> several invocations the driver retries. So, the plugin would need to emit >> different errors or exit code in each case. Is your plugin that broken? > > Could you explain a bit more what are the conditions to get that message? > What source file (of what Debian patch of GCC) is producing that?
debian/patches/gcc-ice-hack.diff -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-gcc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/50606fca.80...@debian.org