--- Comment #7 from gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-04 05:17 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> right now if we don't gimplify with -fsyntax-only, we would not be able to
> diagnostic the following:
> void f(void)
> {
> break;
> }
If that is true, then it should be considered a bug in
--- Comment #6 from gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2005-10-06 20:57
---
Subject: Re: New: -fsyntax-only runs the gimplifier
"sabre at nondot dot org" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Compiling a C++ file with -fsyntax-only -ftime-report includes time spent on
| 'tree gimplify'. U
--- Comment #5 from gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2005-10-06 20:56
---
Subject: Re: -fsyntax-only runs the gimplifier
"pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| right now if we don't gimplify with -fsyntax-only, we would not be able to
| diagnostic the follo
--- Comment #4 from sabre at nondot dot org 2005-10-06 01:51 ---
The gimplifier apparently emits these three errors:
error ("memory input %d is not directly addressable", i);
error ("invalid lvalue in asm output %d", i);
error ("too few arguments to function %");
In an ideal, modular,
