On 3/15/10 8:28 PM, ron minnich wrote:
On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 10:27 AM, Eric W. Biederman ebiederm@xmission.com wrote:
My practical concern is that there is no support for the general case where you do: char array[5]; for (i = 0; i < 5; i++) { array[i] = 7; }
The bigger problem is that people are trying to take this compiler beyond what makes sense (to me). I'm not sure we're going to cease to exist if we don't have arrays.
I agree we don't necessarily need to have such arrays. I think we just naturally assumed it should work, so no attempt to sneak anything in.
What's implemented and what is not is hidden in Eric's brain and in a single file of 25k lines of code.
If we don't want non-static non-const arrays, can we easily detect them in the code and give the user an error message that is better than a segfault? "You're a fool because you used non-const non-static arrays in romcc" would be fine. Just dropping dead without error is certainly less helpful.
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.
Stefan