Hello all,
I am trying to analyze the optimized results of following code. The
intent is to unpack a 64-bit integer into a struct containing eight
8-bit integers. The optimized result was very promising at first, but
I then discovered that whenever the unpacking function gets inlined
into anothe
On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 6:35 AM, Michael Matz wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, 16 Feb 2016, H.J. Lu wrote:
>
>> Here is the new definition:
>>
>> An empty type is a type where it and all of its subobjects (recursively)
>> are of class, structure, union, or array type. No memory slot nor
>> register shoul
On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 6:35 AM, Michael Matz wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, 16 Feb 2016, H.J. Lu wrote:
>
>> Here is the new definition:
>>
>> An empty type is a type where it and all of its subobjects (recursively)
>> are of class, structure, union, or array type. No memory slot nor
>> register shoul
You've convinced me that this isn't a bug, but I assume you'd agree
its weird at best. I tested it with clang and it works as I'd expect:
$ make
clang -x c -m64 -O3 -Wall -o test.o -c test.c
objdump -d test.o > test.txt
clang -m64 -O3 -Wall test.o -o test
wink@wink-desktop:~/prgs/large_fields_are_
Hi,
On Tue, 16 Feb 2016, H.J. Lu wrote:
> Here is the new definition:
>
> An empty type is a type where it and all of its subobjects (recursively)
> are of class, structure, union, or array type. No memory slot nor
> register should be used to pass or return an object of empty type.
The triv
On 18/02/16 11:40, Prasad Ghangal wrote:
Wouldn't it be nice instead of multiple warnings if gcc gives single
warning like :
68425.c:3:34: warning: excess elements in array initializer (6
elements, expected 2)
const int array[2] = { 1, 2, 3 ,6 ,89 ,193};
On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 5:27 PM, Cristina Georgiana Opriceana
wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I inserted a new local var decl in gimple, a pointer which is
> malloc'ed and now I am trying to read/write in that memory.
>
> int *mumu;
> mumu = malloc ( 40 * sizeof (int));
> mumu[1] = 10;
>
> The following state
I was looking at https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68425
For testcase
const int array[2] = { 1, 2, 3 ,6 ,89 ,193};
gcc 6.0.0 produces warnings like (spacing may get disturbed by gmail) :
68425.c: In function ‘main’:
68425.c:3:34: warning: excess elements in array initializer
Hi,
> struct fields {
> long long unsigned f0:12;
> long long unsigned f1:52;
> } __attribute__((__packed__));
the C99 standard ISO/IEC 9899 forbids this type:
6.7.2.1 Structure and union specifiers
4 A bit-field shall have a type that is a qualified or unqualified version of
_Bool, signed
