On Wed, 2020-04-22 at 11:50 +0200, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches wrote:
> Hi!
>
> On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 03:58:52PM +0100, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> > > if (TREE_CODE (field) != FIELD_DECL)
> > > continue;
> > >
> > > - sub_count = aapcs_vfp_sub_candidate (TREE_TYPE (field),
On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 01:33:45PM +0100, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> Jakub Jelinek writes:
> > On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 12:17:02PM +0100, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> >> But my point was that, if the DECL_NAME does actually act to exclude
> >
> > I'm fine with dropping DECL_NAME test there, on the ot
Jakub Jelinek writes:
> On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 12:17:02PM +0100, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> But my point was that, if the DECL_NAME does actually act to exclude
>
> I'm fine with dropping DECL_NAME test there, on the other side would like to
> add
> && TYPE_SIZE (TREE_TYPE (field))
> && !int
On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 12:17:02PM +0100, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> But my point was that, if the DECL_NAME does actually act to exclude
I'm fine with dropping DECL_NAME test there, on the other side would like to
add
&& TYPE_SIZE (TREE_TYPE (field))
&& !integer_zerop (TYPE_SIZE (TREE_TYPE (f
Richard Biener writes:
> On Wed, 22 Apr 2020, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>
>> Jakub Jelinek writes:
>> > On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 11:45:19AM +0100, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> >> Given what was said on irc about DECL_NAME not necessarily being
>> >> significant for DECL_ARTIFICIAL decls, would it be
On Wed, 22 Apr 2020, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> Jakub Jelinek writes:
> > On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 11:45:19AM +0100, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> >> Given what was said on irc about DECL_NAME not necessarily being
> >> significant for DECL_ARTIFICIAL decls, would it be better to drop
> >> this part
Jakub Jelinek writes:
> On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 11:45:19AM +0100, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> Given what was said on irc about DECL_NAME not necessarily being
>> significant for DECL_ARTIFICIAL decls, would it be better to drop
>> this part of the check?
>
> My preference was have it as narrow as
On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 12:58:52PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Apr 2020, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 11:45:19AM +0100, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> > > Given what was said on irc about DECL_NAME not necessarily being
> > > significant for DECL_ARTIFICIAL decls, w
On Wed, 22 Apr 2020, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 11:45:19AM +0100, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> > Given what was said on irc about DECL_NAME not necessarily being
> > significant for DECL_ARTIFICIAL decls, would it be better to drop
> > this part of the check?
>
> My preference w
On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 11:45:19AM +0100, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> Given what was said on irc about DECL_NAME not necessarily being
> significant for DECL_ARTIFICIAL decls, would it be better to drop
> this part of the check?
My preference was have it as narrow as possible for the time being,
be
Jakub Jelinek writes:
> Hi!
>
> On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 03:58:52PM +0100, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> >if (TREE_CODE (field) != FIELD_DECL)
>> > continue;
>> >
>> > - sub_count = aapcs_vfp_sub_candidate (TREE_TYPE (field), modep);
>> > + /* Ignore C++17 empty base fiel
On Wed, 22 Apr 2020, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 03:58:52PM +0100, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> > > if (TREE_CODE (field) != FIELD_DECL)
> > > continue;
> > >
> > > - sub_count = aapcs_vfp_sub_candidate (TREE_TYPE (field), modep);
> > > + /* Ignore
Hi!
On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 03:58:52PM +0100, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> > if (TREE_CODE (field) != FIELD_DECL)
> > continue;
> >
> > - sub_count = aapcs_vfp_sub_candidate (TREE_TYPE (field), modep);
> > + /* Ignore C++17 empty base fields, while their type indicate
13 matches
Mail list logo
