--- Comment #7 from hjl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-07 22:23 ---
Subject: Bug 42439
Author: hjl
Date: Thu Jan 7 22:22:32 2010
New Revision: 155713
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=155713
Log:
Backport tests from mainline
2010-01-07 H.J. Lu
Backport
--- Comment #6 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-30 21:30 ---
Fixed for 4.5 (allowing this dubious code with a pedwarn-if-pedantic,
since this is done in several similar cases).
--
jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #5 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-30 21:28 ---
Subject: Bug 42439
Author: jsm28
Date: Wed Dec 30 21:28:45 2009
New Revision: 155526
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=155526
Log:
PR c/42439
* c-decl.c (check_bitfield_type_and_wi
--- Comment #4 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2009-12-25 17:15 ---
*** Bug 42504 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
hjl dot tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #3 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-20 13:15 ---
Ugh. The kernel should stick to the usual pattern of arrays with negative
sizes instead of bitfields ...
I wouldn't mind if this would be closed as invalid (even though technically
a regression to a former accepts-
--- Comment #2 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2009-12-20 01:16 ---
Subject: Re: New: Linux kernel BUILD_BUG_ON() broke
This is a different sort of not-an-integer-constant-expression from the
previous cases the kernel was found to use with invalid unevaluated
operands (I asked i
--- Comment #1 from andi-gcc at firstfloor dot org 2009-12-20 00:54 ---
Created an attachment (id=19352)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=19352&action=view)
preprocessed file
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42439
