https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78174
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78174
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Other such spots are in gimple.h (e.g. gimple_statement_with_ops,
gimple_statement_with_memory_ops, gcall, gphi, gasm. Most likely we have other
spots with that.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78174
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
No, I've also explained what to do about the u.fld thing.
sed -n '/^DEF_RTL_EXPR/{s/DEF_RTL_EXPR([^,]*,[^,]*, "//;s/".*$//;p}' rtl.def |
sort -u
shows we have at most 8 fields right now, so we could define so
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78174
--- Comment #8 from Martin Sebor ---
Okay, thanks. Your comments seem to be focused on my patch and not so much on
this problem that was exposed by it. I realize I invited those comments with
my response and do want to continue to have that dis
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78174
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #6)
> (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #5)
>
> Do you have an explanation of why it's "just incorrect?" or an example where
> it results in warning on valid code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78174
--- Comment #6 from Martin Sebor ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #5)
Do you have an explanation of why it's "just incorrect?" or an example where it
results in warning on valid code?
I have found another compiler that issues a warni
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78174
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78174
--- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor ---
Yes, rtx_note derives from rtx_insn which derives from rtx_def which is where
the union containing the one-element fld array is defined.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78174
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #2)
> I realize
> that GCC sometimes treats even one element arrays (and even bigger if
> they're last) as zero-length even though that's not documented anywhere
> (AFA
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78174
--- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor ---
The problem can be reduced to the following test case that triggers the warning
even with unpatched GCC (and prior releases).
$ cat b.c && g++ -O2 -S -Wall b.c
struct A { int i, j; };
struct B { int i0, j0, i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78174
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
I think the warning is not called for and here is why. There is no way in both
C89 and C++ (in C99 there is) to say the array at the end of a struct (even
inside an union) is a variable length. So GCC decid
11 matches
Mail list logo
