Re: gcc-12+: D / phobos runtime
ASSI writes: > Rainer Orth writes: >> Just try to configure gcc with --enable-libphobos, which overrides the >> default of LIBPHOBOS_SUPPORTED. In quite a number of cases, this just >> works, but hasn't yet been verified. You won't know until you try, >> though. > > I did that and it indeed doesn't build. then please file bugs on https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ with the details, otherwise there's nothing to be done. You can also search Bugzilla for other reports that match your problems. Besides, you can also check the Bugzilla of the upstream Dlang project: https://dlang.org/bugstats.html. Sometimes, issues have already been reported there, maybe even with a tentative patch. GCC's libphobos mostly just imports the upstream code, primarily integrating it into GCC's build system. When I ran into libphobos build problems on Solaris in the past, I went exactly that route. The GCC D maintainer, Iain Buclaw, has been extremly helpful in the process of getting things to work, but ultimately someone with an interest in the affected target, the necessary knowledge about it and access to the platform to develop and test fixes will have to do the work. Rainer -- - Rainer Orth, Center for Biotechnology, Bielefeld University
Compilation Error Regarding RID_MAX
Hi, I have merged all my patches into a single branch for better maintainability for me, but I am unable to build GCC. Initially, I faced an error related to RID_MAX, which was fixed in https://github.com/ken-matsui/gcc-gsoc23/commit/c32d49bc990acde4d3ec5654ddb81b0a7d081378. The ICE was caused by gcc_assert (RID_MAX <= 255) in gcc/c/c-parser.c. At this point, my new built-in exceeded the max keyword bound since c_token->keyword has 8 bits. This patch increased the bit size to 16 and compiled GCC successfully. However, I still encountered an unusual error and am unable to build GCC on https://github.com/ken-matsui/gcc-gsoc23/commit/c32d49bc990acde4d3ec5654ddb81b0a7d081378. This is the 4th built-in implementation after the previous RID_MAX fix patch (i.e., this increases the total number of keywords, now RID_MAX = 260). The error message indicates that there is a missing parenthesis after 'unsigned' for the expression (unsigned __int128). /home/kmatsui/gcc/objdir/gcc/include/bmi2intrin.h:86:38: error: expected ‘)’ before ‘__int128’ 86 | unsigned __int128 __res = (unsigned __int128) __X * __Y; | ~^ | ) /home/kmatsui/gcc/objdir/gcc/include/bmi2intrin.h:86:29: error: initializer element is not constant 86 | unsigned __int128 __res = (unsigned __int128) __X * __Y; | I reordered the commits, but it seems that the 4th built-in (RID_MAX = 260) after the RID_MAX tweak fails, regardless of what the 4th is. (i.e., the __remove_pointer implementation itself is not the reason.) I have pushed the branch to https://github.com/ken-matsui/gcc-gsoc23/commits/me/gsoc23. Could someone please help me inspect the issue and provide your suggestions? Sincerely, Ken Matsui
Re: Compilation Error Regarding RID_MAX
On Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 9:09 PM Ken Matsui via Gcc wrote: > > Hi, > > I have merged all my patches into a single branch for better > maintainability for me, but I am unable to build GCC. Initially, I > faced an error related to RID_MAX, which was fixed in > https://github.com/ken-matsui/gcc-gsoc23/commit/c32d49bc990acde4d3ec5654ddb81b0a7d081378. > The ICE was caused by gcc_assert (RID_MAX <= 255) in gcc/c/c-parser.c. > At this point, my new built-in exceeded the max keyword bound since > c_token->keyword has 8 bits. This patch increased the bit size to 16 > and compiled GCC successfully. > > However, I still encountered an unusual error and am unable to build > GCC on > https://github.com/ken-matsui/gcc-gsoc23/commit/c32d49bc990acde4d3ec5654ddb81b0a7d081378. > This is the 4th built-in implementation after the previous RID_MAX fix > patch (i.e., this increases the total number of keywords, now RID_MAX > = 260). The error message indicates that there is a missing > parenthesis after 'unsigned' for the expression (unsigned __int128). > > /home/kmatsui/gcc/objdir/gcc/include/bmi2intrin.h:86:38: error: > expected ‘)’ before ‘__int128’ >86 | unsigned __int128 __res = (unsigned __int128) __X * __Y; > | ~^ > | ) > /home/kmatsui/gcc/objdir/gcc/include/bmi2intrin.h:86:29: error: > initializer element is not constant >86 | unsigned __int128 __res = (unsigned __int128) __X * __Y; > | > > I reordered the commits, but it seems that the 4th built-in (RID_MAX = > 260) after the RID_MAX tweak fails, regardless of what the 4th is. > (i.e., the __remove_pointer implementation itself is not the reason.) >From c-common.h: #define C_SET_RID_CODE(id, code) \ (((struct c_common_identifier *) (id))->node.rid_code = (unsigned char) code) This is definitely incorrect now. It should be using `unsigned short`. Thanks, Andrew > > I have pushed the > branch to https://github.com/ken-matsui/gcc-gsoc23/commits/me/gsoc23. > Could someone please help me inspect the issue and provide your > suggestions? > > Sincerely, > Ken Matsui
Re: Compilation Error Regarding RID_MAX
On Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 9:35 PM Ken Matsui wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 9:23 PM Andrew Pinski wrote: > > > > On Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 9:09 PM Ken Matsui via Gcc wrote: > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > I have merged all my patches into a single branch for better > > > maintainability for me, but I am unable to build GCC. Initially, I > > > faced an error related to RID_MAX, which was fixed in > > > https://github.com/ken-matsui/gcc-gsoc23/commit/c32d49bc990acde4d3ec5654ddb81b0a7d081378. > > > The ICE was caused by gcc_assert (RID_MAX <= 255) in gcc/c/c-parser.c. > > > At this point, my new built-in exceeded the max keyword bound since > > > c_token->keyword has 8 bits. This patch increased the bit size to 16 > > > and compiled GCC successfully. > > > > > > However, I still encountered an unusual error and am unable to build > > > GCC on > > > https://github.com/ken-matsui/gcc-gsoc23/commit/c32d49bc990acde4d3ec5654ddb81b0a7d081378. > > > This is the 4th built-in implementation after the previous RID_MAX fix > > > patch (i.e., this increases the total number of keywords, now RID_MAX > > > = 260). The error message indicates that there is a missing > > > parenthesis after 'unsigned' for the expression (unsigned __int128). > > > > > > /home/kmatsui/gcc/objdir/gcc/include/bmi2intrin.h:86:38: error: > > > expected ‘)’ before ‘__int128’ > > >86 | unsigned __int128 __res = (unsigned __int128) __X * __Y; > > > | ~^ > > > | ) > > > /home/kmatsui/gcc/objdir/gcc/include/bmi2intrin.h:86:29: error: > > > initializer element is not constant > > >86 | unsigned __int128 __res = (unsigned __int128) __X * __Y; > > > | > > > > > > I reordered the commits, but it seems that the 4th built-in (RID_MAX = > > > 260) after the RID_MAX tweak fails, regardless of what the 4th is. > > > (i.e., the __remove_pointer implementation itself is not the reason.) > > > > From c-common.h: > > #define C_SET_RID_CODE(id, code) \ > > (((struct c_common_identifier *) (id))->node.rid_code = (unsigned char) > > code) > > > > This is definitely incorrect now. It should be using `unsigned short`. > > > > That worked! Thank you so much! > > I would like to attribute this change to you, but if you're > comfortable with it, could you please share the relevant commit > information (name and email address)? Andrew Pinski Thanks, Andrew > > > Thanks, > > Andrew > > > > > > > > I have pushed the > > > branch to https://github.com/ken-matsui/gcc-gsoc23/commits/me/gsoc23. > > > Could someone please help me inspect the issue and provide your > > > suggestions? > > > > > > Sincerely, > > > Ken Matsui
Re: Compilation Error Regarding RID_MAX
On Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 9:23 PM Andrew Pinski wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 9:09 PM Ken Matsui via Gcc wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > I have merged all my patches into a single branch for better > > maintainability for me, but I am unable to build GCC. Initially, I > > faced an error related to RID_MAX, which was fixed in > > https://github.com/ken-matsui/gcc-gsoc23/commit/c32d49bc990acde4d3ec5654ddb81b0a7d081378. > > The ICE was caused by gcc_assert (RID_MAX <= 255) in gcc/c/c-parser.c. > > At this point, my new built-in exceeded the max keyword bound since > > c_token->keyword has 8 bits. This patch increased the bit size to 16 > > and compiled GCC successfully. > > > > However, I still encountered an unusual error and am unable to build > > GCC on > > https://github.com/ken-matsui/gcc-gsoc23/commit/c32d49bc990acde4d3ec5654ddb81b0a7d081378. > > This is the 4th built-in implementation after the previous RID_MAX fix > > patch (i.e., this increases the total number of keywords, now RID_MAX > > = 260). The error message indicates that there is a missing > > parenthesis after 'unsigned' for the expression (unsigned __int128). > > > > /home/kmatsui/gcc/objdir/gcc/include/bmi2intrin.h:86:38: error: > > expected ‘)’ before ‘__int128’ > >86 | unsigned __int128 __res = (unsigned __int128) __X * __Y; > > | ~^ > > | ) > > /home/kmatsui/gcc/objdir/gcc/include/bmi2intrin.h:86:29: error: > > initializer element is not constant > >86 | unsigned __int128 __res = (unsigned __int128) __X * __Y; > > | > > > > I reordered the commits, but it seems that the 4th built-in (RID_MAX = > > 260) after the RID_MAX tweak fails, regardless of what the 4th is. > > (i.e., the __remove_pointer implementation itself is not the reason.) > > From c-common.h: > #define C_SET_RID_CODE(id, code) \ > (((struct c_common_identifier *) (id))->node.rid_code = (unsigned char) > code) > > This is definitely incorrect now. It should be using `unsigned short`. > That worked! Thank you so much! I would like to attribute this change to you, but if you're comfortable with it, could you please share the relevant commit information (name and email address)? > Thanks, > Andrew > > > > > I have pushed the > > branch to https://github.com/ken-matsui/gcc-gsoc23/commits/me/gsoc23. > > Could someone please help me inspect the issue and provide your > > suggestions? > > > > Sincerely, > > Ken Matsui
Re: Compilation Error Regarding RID_MAX
On Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 9:38 PM Andrew Pinski wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 9:35 PM Ken Matsui wrote: > > > > On Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 9:23 PM Andrew Pinski wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 9:09 PM Ken Matsui via Gcc > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > I have merged all my patches into a single branch for better > > > > maintainability for me, but I am unable to build GCC. Initially, I > > > > faced an error related to RID_MAX, which was fixed in > > > > https://github.com/ken-matsui/gcc-gsoc23/commit/c32d49bc990acde4d3ec5654ddb81b0a7d081378. > > > > The ICE was caused by gcc_assert (RID_MAX <= 255) in gcc/c/c-parser.c. > > > > At this point, my new built-in exceeded the max keyword bound since > > > > c_token->keyword has 8 bits. This patch increased the bit size to 16 > > > > and compiled GCC successfully. > > > > > > > > However, I still encountered an unusual error and am unable to build > > > > GCC on > > > > https://github.com/ken-matsui/gcc-gsoc23/commit/c32d49bc990acde4d3ec5654ddb81b0a7d081378. > > > > This is the 4th built-in implementation after the previous RID_MAX fix > > > > patch (i.e., this increases the total number of keywords, now RID_MAX > > > > = 260). The error message indicates that there is a missing > > > > parenthesis after 'unsigned' for the expression (unsigned __int128). > > > > > > > > /home/kmatsui/gcc/objdir/gcc/include/bmi2intrin.h:86:38: error: > > > > expected ‘)’ before ‘__int128’ > > > >86 | unsigned __int128 __res = (unsigned __int128) __X * __Y; > > > > | ~^ > > > > | ) > > > > /home/kmatsui/gcc/objdir/gcc/include/bmi2intrin.h:86:29: error: > > > > initializer element is not constant > > > >86 | unsigned __int128 __res = (unsigned __int128) __X * __Y; > > > > | > > > > > > > > I reordered the commits, but it seems that the 4th built-in (RID_MAX = > > > > 260) after the RID_MAX tweak fails, regardless of what the 4th is. > > > > (i.e., the __remove_pointer implementation itself is not the reason.) > > > > > > From c-common.h: > > > #define C_SET_RID_CODE(id, code) \ > > > (((struct c_common_identifier *) (id))->node.rid_code = (unsigned char) > > > code) > > > > > > This is definitely incorrect now. It should be using `unsigned short`. > > > > > > > That worked! Thank you so much! > > > > I would like to attribute this change to you, but if you're > > comfortable with it, could you please share the relevant commit > > information (name and email address)? > > Andrew Pinski > Thank you! > Thanks, > Andrew > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Andrew > > > > > > > > > > > I have pushed the > > > > branch to https://github.com/ken-matsui/gcc-gsoc23/commits/me/gsoc23. > > > > Could someone please help me inspect the issue and provide your > > > > suggestions? > > > > > > > > Sincerely, > > > > Ken Matsui
