fix=/home/dwitte/builds/gcc-trunk/obj/../installed
--enable-languages=c,c++
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.5.0 20090825 (experimental) (GCC)
--
Summary: C frontend botches type.name for typedef chains
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
--- Comment #1 from dwitte at mozilla dot com 2009-08-26 02:09 ---
Created an attachment (id=18425)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=18425&action=view)
testcase
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41172
--- Comment #2 from dwitte at mozilla dot com 2009-08-26 02:13 ---
Also, this bug applies to ENUMERAL_TYPEs and UNION_TYPEs in addition to
RECORD_TYPEs.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41172
--- Comment #4 from dwitte at mozilla dot com 2009-08-26 04:25 ---
Then how does the compiler determine type equality? By looking at the variant
chain? By determining the originating type somehow? If you can point me to the
procedure it uses to do this, perhaps we can duplicate it in
--- Comment #6 from dwitte at mozilla dot com 2009-08-26 05:52 ---
Well, if it's comparing two existing types, sure. :)
How does it work in the case where the parser is dealing with the declaration
|bar_t func()|, and it wants to determine if it's seen the declaration of
|bar
--- Comment #11 from dwitte at mozilla dot com 2009-11-24 21:12 ---
Anthony, any chance you could pick this fix up for libffi 3.0.9?
--
dwitte at mozilla dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from dwitte at mozilla dot com 2010-09-09 22:03 ---
FWIW our libffi is basically libffi git head: http://github.com/atgreen/libffi
Which is regularly synced to gcc libffi.
--
dwitte at mozilla dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from dwitte at mozilla dot com 2010-09-10 00:46 ---
This is on x86_64. (I can't change the field, though. Can someone else?)
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45623
--- Comment #2 from dwitte at mozilla dot com 2010-09-15 16:17 ---
I'd recommend upstreaming things directly to the maintainer, Anthony Green
(that's what I do). If you'd like, close this out, and post the patch to
libffi-disc...@sourceware.org and CC gr...@redhat.com?
--- Comment #3 from dwitte at mozilla dot com 2010-09-15 16:18 ---
(Oh, and please include a description of your change in ChangeLog -- makes his
job easier.)
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45677
--- Comment #5 from dwitte at mozilla dot com 2010-09-15 17:24 ---
Yeah, that sounds right to me. The final alignment really wants to be the
alignment of whatever comes next, right? Which happens to be cif->flags, so 8
is fine. I wonder if just assuming 8 is fragile, but since we
11 matches
Mail list logo
