> -Original Message-
> From: Jason Merrill [mailto:ja...@redhat.com]
> Sent: Monday, August 19, 2013 2:23 PM
> To: Iyer, Balaji V; Rainer Orth
> Cc: Jakub Jelinek; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; Marek Polacek
> (pola...@redhat.com)
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix for PR c/574
On 08/19/2013 12:40 PM, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
+ /* If it is a built-in array notation function, then the return type of
+ the function is the element type of the array passed in as array
+ notation (i.e. the first parameter of the function). */
+ if (flag_enable_cilkplus && TREE_CODE (
> -Original Message-
> From: Jason Merrill [mailto:ja...@redhat.com]
> Sent: Monday, August 19, 2013 10:46 AM
> To: Iyer, Balaji V; Rainer Orth
> Cc: Jakub Jelinek; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; Marek Polacek
> (pola...@redhat.com)
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix for PR c/574
On 08/19/2013 10:37 AM, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
I just want to make sure I get what you are saying. Are you suggesting
that I do this in finish_call_expr() instead of cp_build_binary_op() ?
I think build_cxx_call is the right place.
Jason
> -Original Message-
> From: Jason Merrill [mailto:ja...@redhat.com]
> Sent: Monday, August 19, 2013 10:20 AM
> To: Iyer, Balaji V; Rainer Orth
> Cc: Jakub Jelinek; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; Marek Polacek
> (pola...@redhat.com)
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix for PR c/574
On 08/19/2013 10:06 AM, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
Well, it is described in cilkplus.def. The return type of it changes based on
the array that is passed in. So, it is given a fake type. Thus, we need to fix
it up here.
Right, but it should be fixed up when the CALL_EXPR is created, rather
than w
> -Original Message-
> From: Jason Merrill [mailto:ja...@redhat.com]
> Sent: Monday, August 19, 2013 9:51 AM
> To: Iyer, Balaji V; Rainer Orth
> Cc: Jakub Jelinek; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; Marek Polacek
> (pola...@redhat.com)
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix for PR c/574
On 08/18/2013 07:42 PM, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
On 08/16/2013 02:13 PM, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
+ /* If it is a built-in array notation function, then the return type of
+ the function is the type of the array passed in as array notation. */
Ah, then the comment should say "...is the elemen
> -Original Message-
> From: Jason Merrill [mailto:ja...@redhat.com]
> Sent: Saturday, August 17, 2013 12:55 AM
> To: Iyer, Balaji V; Rainer Orth
> Cc: Jakub Jelinek; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; Marek Polacek
> (pola...@redhat.com)
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix for PR c/574
On 08/16/2013 02:13 PM, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
+ /* If it is a built-in array notation function, then the return type of
+ the function is the type of the array passed in as array notation. */
How can the function return an array?
float x, A[10];
x = __sec_reduce_add (A[:]); // The sec_
> -Original Message-
> From: Jason Merrill [mailto:ja...@redhat.com]
> Sent: Friday, August 16, 2013 2:08 PM
> To: Iyer, Balaji V; Rainer Orth
> Cc: Jakub Jelinek; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; Marek Polacek
> (pola...@redhat.com)
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix for PR c/574
On 08/12/2013 01:16 PM, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
+ /* If it is a built-in array notation function, then the return type of
+ the function is the type of the array passed in as array notation. */
How can the function return an array?
Jason
hat.com)
> Subject: RE: [PATCH] Fix for PR c/57490
>
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Rainer Orth [mailto:r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de]
> > Sent: Friday, August 09, 2013 7:54 AM
> > To: Iyer, Balaji V
> > Cc: Jakub Jelinek; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu
> -Original Message-
> From: Rainer Orth [mailto:r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2013 9:38 AM
> To: Iyer, Balaji V
> Cc: Jakub Jelinek; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; Marek Polacek
> (pola...@redhat.com)
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix for PR
Hi Iyer,
>> thanks for the patch. I've just bootstrapped it on i386-pc-solaris2.10
>> and all an-
>> if.c failures are gone. That said, I wonder why we need the separate
>> pr57490.c
>> testcase, which is practically a preprocessed version of an-if.c with the
>> HAVE_IO
>> code removed.
>
> Well
> -Original Message-
> From: Rainer Orth [mailto:r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2013 7:18 AM
> To: Iyer, Balaji V
> Cc: Jakub Jelinek; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; Marek Polacek
> (pola...@redhat.com)
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix for PR
Hi Iyer,
>First off, my sincerest apologies for letting this bug slip the cracks. I
> am attaching a patch that seem to work fine with the .i file that you have
> submitted in bugzilla for both C and C++. Please let me know if this fix
> works for you and if it is OK for trunk.
thanks for
> -Original Message-
> From: Rainer Orth [mailto:r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de]
> Sent: Friday, August 09, 2013 7:54 AM
> To: Iyer, Balaji V
> Cc: Jakub Jelinek; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; Marek Polacek
> (pola...@redhat.com)
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix for PR c/5
> -Original Message-
> From: Rainer Orth [mailto:r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de]
> Sent: Friday, August 09, 2013 7:54 AM
> To: Iyer, Balaji V
> Cc: Jakub Jelinek; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; Marek Polacek
> (pola...@redhat.com)
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix for PR c/5
aji V
>>>> Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; Rainer Orth
>>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix for PR c/57490
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Jul 01, 2013 at 05:02:57PM +, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
>>>> > OK. The fixed patch is attached. Here are the ChangeLog en
Rainer Orth writes:
> "Iyer, Balaji V" writes:
>
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: Jakub Jelinek [mailto:ja...@redhat.com]
>>> Sent: Monday, July 01, 2013 1:09 PM
>>> To: Iyer, Balaji V
>>> Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; Rainer
"Iyer, Balaji V" writes:
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Jakub Jelinek [mailto:ja...@redhat.com]
>> Sent: Monday, July 01, 2013 1:09 PM
>> To: Iyer, Balaji V
>> Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; Rainer Orth
>> Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix for PR c/5
> -Original Message-
> From: Jakub Jelinek [mailto:ja...@redhat.com]
> Sent: Monday, July 01, 2013 1:09 PM
> To: Iyer, Balaji V
> Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; Rainer Orth
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix for PR c/57490
>
> On Mon, Jul 01, 2013 at 05:02:57PM +, Iyer
On Mon, Jul 01, 2013 at 05:02:57PM +, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Jakub Jelinek [mailto:ja...@redhat.com]
> > Sent: Monday, July 01, 2013 12:24 PM
> > To: Iyer, Balaji V
> > Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; Rainer Orth
&
On Mon, Jul 01, 2013 at 05:02:57PM +, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
> OK. The fixed patch is attached. Here are the ChangeLog entries:
>
> gcc/cp/ChangeLog
> 2013-07-01 Balaji V. Iyer
>
Still
PR c/57490
hasn't been added to cp/ChangeLog and c/ChangeLog entries.
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/gcc
> -Original Message-
> From: Jakub Jelinek [mailto:ja...@redhat.com]
> Sent: Monday, July 01, 2013 12:24 PM
> To: Iyer, Balaji V
> Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; Rainer Orth
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix for PR c/57490
>
> On Mon, Jul 01, 2013 at 04:17:37PM +00
On Mon, Jul 01, 2013 at 04:17:37PM +, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
> gcc/c/ChangeLog
> +2013-07-01 Balaji V. Iyer
> +
The PR c/57490 line belongs to all ChangeLog entries related to the fix, not
just testsuite.
> + * c-array-notation.c (fix_conditional_array_notations_1): Added a
> +
Hello Everyone,
This patch fixes the issue in PR 57490. The issue was that, the C and
C++ implementation was not handling array notations inside TRUTH_*_EXPR. I
added them and added the .i test case. Is this OK for trunk?
Here are ChangeLog entries:
gcc/c/ChangeLog
+2013-07-01 Balaji
28 matches
Mail list logo
