https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116847
--- Comment #14 from Jason Merrill <jason at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #13) > Created attachment 59202 [details] > gcc15-pr116847-3.patch > > This seems to work on quick testing (just pch.exp so far). > > > I was thinking just history, we don't need to handle push in a PCH and pop > > after it. > > If people don't do it, then all the patch does is writes an extra 32-bit 0 > and reads it back. But if people do something like that, the state could > become > inconsistent, and just saving/restoring it IMHO is easier than diagnosing > issues like that. But if you strongly prefer, I can add a sorry if > (!m_push_list.empty_p ()) during PCH save and otherwise ignore that vector > (or error but then we'd need to document it; but would it be an error just > for PCH saved headers if they have more pushes than pops, or should we check > the balances on every single header (then it would need more > infrastructure)). No need, your -3 patch is OK with some function comments.
