On Mon, 2018-04-30 at 15:38 -0400, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
> On 04/30/2018 03:21 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> > Nathan, is this a regression for this testcase? IIUC the local
> > types
> > and the local variables should have no linkage, and not conflict.
> >
>
> that does seem plausible. Freddie,
On 04/30/2018 03:21 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 30 April 2018 at 20:02, Freddie Chopin wrote:
Here's a minimal test case:
-- >8 -- >8 -- >8 -- >8 -- >8 -- >8 -- >8 -- >8 -- >8 --
$ cat test.cpp
Nathan, is this a regression for this testcase? IIUC the local types
and the local variables s
On 30 April 2018 at 20:02, Freddie Chopin wrote:
> Here's a minimal test case:
>
> -- >8 -- >8 -- >8 -- >8 -- >8 -- >8 -- >8 -- >8 -- >8 --
>
> $ cat test.cpp
>
> extern "C"
> {
>
> void f1()
> {
> union some_type{
> char a[2];
> int b;
> } variable;
> }
>
> void f2()
> {
> union some
Here's a minimal test case:
-- >8 -- >8 -- >8 -- >8 -- >8 -- >8 -- >8 -- >8 -- >8 --
$ cat test.cpp
extern "C"
{
void f1()
{
union some_type{
char a[2];
int b;
} variable;
}
void f2()
{
union some_type{
char a[2];
int b;
} variable;
}
}
$ arm-none-eabi-gcc test.cpp -c
Hi!
I've compiled gcc 8.0.1-RC-20180427 to test it with my projects.
There's one new warning for which I cannot tell whether this is a bug
in headers or a bug in gcc.
I have a header from ARM that looks like this (there are more such
functions than these two):
-- >8 -- >8 -- >8 -- >8 -- >8 -- >8
