On 05/17/2012 09:47 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 05/17/2012 05:06 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
On 05/17/2012 10:33 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
I am still puzzled by why we need to assert, as opposed to just
ignore, unless we have a plan to make a wholesale move -- but even
there I am bit
nervous.
Eh, don't ask me ;) Anyway, in terms of testing that we aren't screwing
up anything in the C++ front-end, the testsuite just passed with the
below p3 attached. That's good.
Yep, that's what the assert is for: testing that we aren't screwing up
anything in the C++ front end. If it fires, it lets us know there's
something still to fix. Sounds like it looks good so far.
If you like, I can install p3 now, but I think it would be a pity if we
can't have the warning_at bit because of that lone use in the ocbj
front-end of an explicit 'warning_at (0' (in objc-gnu-runtime-abi-01.c).
Maybe Mike has something to suggest?
Paolo.
