On 9/13/18 7:30 AM, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
> On 08/31/18 19:45, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
>> On 08/31/18 16:42, Jeff Law wrote:
>>> On 08/31/2018 01:08 AM, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
Hi,
when re-testing the new STRING_CST semantic patch here:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-0
On 9/13/18 7:30 AM, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
> On 08/31/18 19:45, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
>> On 08/31/18 16:42, Jeff Law wrote:
>>> On 08/31/2018 01:08 AM, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
Hi,
when re-testing the new STRING_CST semantic patch here:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-0
On 08/31/18 19:45, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
> On 08/31/18 16:42, Jeff Law wrote:
>> On 08/31/2018 01:08 AM, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>>
>>> when re-testing the new STRING_CST semantic patch here:
>>> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-08/msg01569.html
>>>
>>> I noticed that the (my) fix
On 08/31/18 16:42, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 08/31/2018 01:08 AM, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>>
>> when re-testing the new STRING_CST semantic patch here:
>> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-08/msg01569.html
>>
>> I noticed that the (my) fix for PR 87053 does still use
>> semantic properties
On 08/31/2018 01:08 AM, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
> when re-testing the new STRING_CST semantic patch here:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-08/msg01569.html
>
> I noticed that the (my) fix for PR 87053 does still use
> semantic properties of the STRING_CST that is not compatible
Hi,
when re-testing the new STRING_CST semantic patch here:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-08/msg01569.html
I noticed that the (my) fix for PR 87053 does still use
semantic properties of the STRING_CST that is not compatible
with the new proposed STRING_CST semantics.
That means that c
