On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 3:29 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 11:19 AM, Marek Polacek wrote:
>> On Wed, May 07, 2014 at 11:31:38AM -0700, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>> > OK, though I'm not sure if the "lp64" conditions are right in the testcase
>>>
>>> It should be !ia32 instead of lp64.
>>
>> Ok,
On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 11:19 AM, Marek Polacek wrote:
> On Wed, May 07, 2014 at 11:31:38AM -0700, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> > OK, though I'm not sure if the "lp64" conditions are right in the testcase
>>
>> It should be !ia32 instead of lp64.
>
> Ok, I changed lp64 to ! { ia32 } and committed the patch no
On 06/02/14 00:52, Marek Polacek wrote:
Ping.
On Sun, May 25, 2014 at 11:30:51AM +0200, Marek Polacek wrote:
On Mon, May 05, 2014 at 10:27:03PM +0200, Marek Polacek wrote:
In this PR the issue is that we reject (valid) code such as
_Alignas (long long) long long foo;
with -m32, because we trip
Ping.
On Sun, May 25, 2014 at 11:30:51AM +0200, Marek Polacek wrote:
> On Mon, May 05, 2014 at 10:27:03PM +0200, Marek Polacek wrote:
> > In this PR the issue is that we reject (valid) code such as
> > _Alignas (long long) long long foo;
> > with -m32, because we trip this condition:
> >
> >a
On Mon, May 05, 2014 at 10:27:03PM +0200, Marek Polacek wrote:
> In this PR the issue is that we reject (valid) code such as
> _Alignas (long long) long long foo;
> with -m32, because we trip this condition:
>
>alignas_align = 1U << declspecs->align_log;
>if (alignas_align < TYPE_ALIGN_UNI
On Wed, May 07, 2014 at 11:31:38AM -0700, H.J. Lu wrote:
> > OK, though I'm not sure if the "lp64" conditions are right in the testcase
>
> It should be !ia32 instead of lp64.
Ok, I changed lp64 to ! { ia32 } and committed the patch now.
Marek
On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 10:15 AM, Joseph S. Myers
wrote:
> On Mon, 5 May 2014, Marek Polacek wrote:
>
>> In this PR the issue is that we reject (valid) code such as
>> _Alignas (long long) long long foo;
>> with -m32, because we trip this condition:
>>
>>alignas_align = 1U << declspecs->align_l
On Mon, 5 May 2014, Marek Polacek wrote:
> In this PR the issue is that we reject (valid) code such as
> _Alignas (long long) long long foo;
> with -m32, because we trip this condition:
>
>alignas_align = 1U << declspecs->align_log;
>if (alignas_align < TYPE_ALIGN_UNIT (type))
> {
>
On Tue, May 06, 2014 at 10:14:42AM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > Hmm, but isn't TYPE_ALIGN_UNIT wrong then?
>
> No, after all, you don't want to change __alignof__ (long long), that is
> pretty essential part of ABI.
Yeah, as I understand things, for x86_64 __alignof__ (T) returns
*preferred* a
On Tue, May 06, 2014 at 10:04:33AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 10:27 PM, Marek Polacek wrote:
> > In this PR the issue is that we reject (valid) code such as
> > _Alignas (long long) long long foo;
> > with -m32, because we trip this condition:
> >
> >alignas_align =
On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 10:27 PM, Marek Polacek wrote:
> In this PR the issue is that we reject (valid) code such as
> _Alignas (long long) long long foo;
> with -m32, because we trip this condition:
>
>alignas_align = 1U << declspecs->align_log;
>if (alignas_align < TYPE_ALIGN_UNIT (type))
On Mon, May 05, 2014 at 10:27:03PM +0200, Marek Polacek wrote:
> In this PR the issue is that we reject (valid) code such as
> _Alignas (long long) long long foo;
> with -m32, because we trip this condition:
>
>alignas_align = 1U << declspecs->align_log;
>if (alignas_align < TYPE_ALIGN_UNI
In this PR the issue is that we reject (valid) code such as
_Alignas (long long) long long foo;
with -m32, because we trip this condition:
alignas_align = 1U << declspecs->align_log;
if (alignas_align < TYPE_ALIGN_UNIT (type))
{
if (name)
error_at (loc, "%<_Alignas%> spe
13 matches
Mail list logo
