[llvm-commits] [llvm-gcc-4.2] r64584 - /llvm-gcc-4.2/trunk/gcc/cgraphunit.c

[Chris Lattner]

On Feb 15, 2009, at 12:53 PM, Bill Wendling wrote:

> On Feb 15, 2009, at 10:09 AM, Chris Lattner wrote:
>
>> On Feb 15, 2009, at 6:15 AM, Anton Korobeynikov wrote:
>>
>>> Hi, Bill
>>>
>>>> Fix build failure. Can't embed a directive within a macro argument.
>>> This looks rather hacky and definitely something not suitable for
>>> non-
>>> llvm build. Why don't just move directive before gcc_assert() and
>>> have
>>> two differen gcc_assert() calls?
>>
>> Yes, I agree with Anton.  Please don't change the behavior of the  
>> non-
>> llvm build.
>>
> Actually, I was reverting what I put in there...But sure, I'll make
> the change.
>
> As for changing the behavior of non-llvm builds, there are a few
> places where that's virtually impossible. In particular, we define
> extra fields in the tree structure. But because these fields are part
> of a GTY(()) structure, it doesn't seem as if we can #ifdef them out.

The goal isn't to produce exactly the same bits in the cc1 executable,  
the goal is for the behavior to be the same.  Adding another "dead"  
field should be ok.

-Chris