Re: LLVM disagrees with GCC on bitfield handling

2017-10-27 Thread Bingfeng Mei
HI, Joseph, Thanks for detailed explanation. Cheers, Bingfeng On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 5:11 PM, Joseph Myers wrote: > There is a line of C90 DRs and associated textual history (compare the > relevant text in C90 and C99, or see my comparison of it in WG14 reflector > message 11100 (18 Apr 2006))

Re: LLVM disagrees with GCC on bitfield handling

2017-10-26 Thread Joseph Myers
There is a line of C90 DRs and associated textual history (compare the relevant text in C90 and C99, or see my comparison of it in WG14 reflector message 11100 (18 Apr 2006)) to the effect of bit-fields acting like they have a type with the given number of bits; that line is what's followed by

LLVM disagrees with GCC on bitfield handling

2017-10-26 Thread Bingfeng Mei
Hi, Sorry if this question has been raised in past. I am running GCC testsuite for our LLVM port. There are several failures related to bitfields handling (pr32244-1.c, bitfld-3.c bitfld-5.c, etc) that LLVM disagrees with GCC. Taking pr32444-1.c as example, struct foo { unsigned long long b:40;