On 3/15/10 9:18 PM, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
If romcc can't do something, then work around it; we can warn people about no arrays. But given that nobody has the time to really support romcc (as, e.g., gcc or llvm are supported) we're taking some real risks just plugging changes in.
The changes were merely trying to fix the segfaults, not implement or change anything big. I think we do want fixes for segfaults. Always.
Fixing segfaults and then getting code that doesn't work correctly is worse. Always.
Absolutely true. We're just only learning that we were this stupid :-)
I did my best with romcc to ensure the compile fails if we are not going to generate the correct code.
At the same time I would much rather it be an assert than a random segfault.
I have to run but I think this patch adds the missing check to catch non-static arrays.
Seems to do the job... Please send a Signed-off-by: for the books: http://www.coreboot.org/Development_Guidelines#Sign-off_Procedure
and this will make it into the tree.
You can of course check it in yourself if you wish, in any case this is Acked-by: Stefan Reinauer stepan@coresystems.de
Index: romcc.c
--- romcc.c (revision 4892) +++ romcc.c (working copy) @@ -13458,6 +13458,10 @@ if ((type->type & TYPE_MASK) == TYPE_FUNCTION) { error(state, 0, "Function prototypes not supported"); }
- if (ident &&
((type->type & TYPE_MASK) == TYPE_ARRAY) &&((type->type & STOR_MASK) != STOR_STATIC))error(state, 0, "non static arrays not supported");Eric