https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87865
--- Comment #3 from Iain Buclaw <ibuclaw at gdcproject dot org> --- (In reply to r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de from comment #2) > > --- Comment #1 from Iain Buclaw <ibuclaw at gdcproject dot org> --- > > This is part of the dmd frontend which as no interaction with gcc. So > > gcc_unreachable() can't be used here. > > I see. However, if upstream dmc were built with similar warning options > than gcc, the problem would exist there as well. > > > Sounds like some independent compatibility layer is required here instead. > > That's certainly an option. Among others, what to do here depends on > how prevalent the problem is: if Solaris 10 is the only OS affected and > the other pre-Solaris 11.4 issues (especially PR d/87865) cannot be > resolved for the GCC 9 release, one might as well close the bug as > WONTFIX given Solaris 10 is obsoleted in GCC 9. This would even be automatically fixed in GCC 10, where I intend on swapping the frontend C++ sources with D, where assert() is a built-in contract and the false branch is treated as __noreturn__. But until then, this is a bootstrap problem if GCC 9 is to be used to build GCC 10 on Solaris.
