Sorry for my own slow response -- I've been doing more digging through
code, and didn't want to respond without a reasonable understanding...
Richard Kenner wrote:
>> However, in the case where we're passing the address of a temp slot to a
>> function, it doesn't make sense to me that this is the
Sorry I didn't reply to this earlier. I was unexpectedly in a place with
very bad network access.
> The one exception to this is if the address of the temp is taken before
> I call pop_temp_slots. In that instance, even though I may be "done"
> with the temp, it needs to live until the end of th
Richard Kenner wrote:
> I disagree. Testing is not, and should never be, a substitute for analysis.
>
> A patch is proposed because we have a reason to believe it's correct. Then
> we test to increase our confidence that it is, indeed, correct. But both
> parts are essential for any patch.
>
> I completely agree. But only up to the point defining "proper analysis" -
> bootstrapping and regtesting is required for a patch to be accepted and
> I think it is a valid request from your side to require testing of Ada on
> Sparc for this patch as you remember problems on that platform. Given
On 8/26/06, Richard Kenner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[I added the gcc list too since this is more than just a discussion about
a single patch.]
> > So, I went looking for an approach which would fix this in the C++
> > front-end instead. However, I discovered that the C front-end has a
> > si
[I added the gcc list too since this is more than just a discussion about
a single patch.]
> > So, I went looking for an approach which would fix this in the C++
> > front-end instead. However, I discovered that the C front-end has a
> > similar problem.
> > And so, not changing the
> > middle-
