I think this caused PR68932 - FAIL:
obj-c++.dg/property/at-property-23.mm -fgnu-runtime (internal compiler
error)
Sorry about that. I'll look into it today.
Martin
I think this caused PR68932 - FAIL:
obj-c++.dg/property/at-property-23.mm -fgnu-runtime (internal compiler
error)
Sorry about that. I'll look into it today.
Martin
On 14/12/15 17:45, Martin Sebor wrote:
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
2015-12-02 Martin Sebor
c++/42121
c++/68478
c++/68613
c++/68689
c++/68710
* g++.dg/compat/struct-layout-1_generate.c: Avoid generating
further fields after the first flexible
On 12/14/2015 11:45 AM, Martin Sebor wrote:
+ if (NULL_TREE == size)
Usually NULL_TREE goes on the right.
@@ -8744,6 +8748,7 @@ compute_array_index_type (tree name, tree size,
tsubst_flags_t complain)
else
pedwarn (input_location, OPT_Wpedantic, "ISO C++ forbids zero-s
On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 09:45:16AM -0700, Martin Sebor wrote:
> --- a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/compat/struct-layout-1_generate.c
> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/compat/struct-layout-1_generate.c
> @@ -605,8 +605,11 @@ getrandll (void)
>return ret;
> }
>
> +/* Generate a subfield. The object pointe
Ping:
The most recent patch revealed a problem in the test suite where
the g++.dg/compat/struct-layout-1_generate.c program generates
structs with invalid flexible array members. The attached patch
fixes the generator to avoid that.
Jason,
Are there any further changes you'd like to suggest fo
Thanks for the review and the helpful hints!
I've reworked and simplified the diagnostic part of the patch and
corrected the remaining issues I uncovered while testing the new
version (failing to reject some invalid flexible array members in
base classes). Please find the new version in the atta
On 12/03/2015 11:42 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
+ if (next && TREE_CODE (next) == FIELD_DECL)
This will break if there's a non-field between the array and the next field.
@@ -4114,7 +4115,10 @@ walk_subobject_offsets (tree type,
/* Avoid recursing into objects that are not interes
On Thu, 3 Dec 2015, Martin Sebor wrote:
> The only C change in this patch is to include the size of excessively
> large types in diagnostics (I found knowing the size helpful when
> adding tests and I think it might be helpful to others as well).
I don't see what that C change has to do with flex
> The patch should bring C++ support for flexible array members closer
> to C (most of the same constructs should be accepted and rejected).
> The only C change in this patch is to include the size of excessively
> large types in diagnostics (I found knowing the size helpful when
> adding tests an
[CC Jason for the C++ changes and Joseph for the one C change.]
Attached is a reworked and expanded patch for the bug plus three
others in the same area that I uncovered while developing and
testing the former patch:
c++/68689 - flexible array members in unions accepted in C++
c++/68478 - flexib
Bug 42121 - g++ should warn or error on internal 0 size array in
struct, is a request to diagnose declarations of flexible array
members that aren't last in the enclosing struct, such as in the
following:
struct S
{
int a;
char b[]; // invalid
int c;
};
The
12 matches
Mail list logo
