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

Reply via email to