Hi Martin,
On Tue, Aug 06, 2024 at 04:43:27PM GMT, Martin Uecker wrote:
> There are also *.sum files which you can diff against a build
> without your patch to see whether there are any regressions.
In my working copy, it all looks good. Thanks! I'll mention that in v5.
Have a lovely night!
Al
Hi Joseph,
On Tue, Aug 06, 2024 at 08:50:19PM GMT, Joseph Myers wrote:
> static int f(), f2();
> int a[10][10];
> int x;
>
> void
> g()
> {
> __lengthof__ (a[f()]); // Should be valid that f is not defined.
> int b[x][x];
> __lengthof__ (b[f2()]); // Should be invalid that f2 is not defined
On Tue, 6 Aug 2024, Alejandro Colomar wrote:
> > Next question for the specification, implementation and tests: how does
> > this feature interact with the rules on external definitions (the contexts
> > in which it's OK to refer to an identifier with internal or external
> > linkage that's nev
Hi Joseph!
On Tue, Aug 06, 2024 at 05:38:50PM GMT, Joseph Myers wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Aug 2024, Alejandro Colomar wrote:
>
> > - The tests seem to work as expected if I compile them manually, and
> >run (the one that should be run) as a normal program. The one that
> >should not be run als
On Tue, 6 Aug 2024, Alejandro Colomar wrote:
> - The tests seem to work as expected if I compile them manually, and
>run (the one that should be run) as a normal program. The one that
>should not be run also gives the expected diagnostics.
>Can anyone give advice of why it's not runn
[CC += David, Florian, Andreas]
On Tue, Aug 06, 2024 at 03:59:11PM GMT, Qing Zhao wrote:
> Hi, Alex,
Hi Qing,
> I noticed that all your 4 versions of the patches and the
> corresponding discussion are all in the same email thread, it’s very
> inconvenient to read. Can you start a new email threa
Hi, Alex,
I noticed that all your 4 versions of the patches and the corresponding
discussion are all in the same email thread, it’s very inconvenient to read.
Can you start a new email thread for each of the new version of the patch?
(i.e, Please not reply to the previous version when you have a
Hi Martin,
On Tue, Aug 06, 2024 at 04:43:27PM GMT, Martin Uecker wrote:
> > When running `make check -j24 -Orecurse |& tee log`, this is what I see:
> >
> > FAIL: gcc.dg/lengthof-compile.c (test for excess errors)
> >
> > Is there any way to see more details?
>
> See gcc/testsuite/g
Am Dienstag, dem 06.08.2024 um 16:12 +0200 schrieb Alejandro Colomar:
> Hi Martin,
>
> On Tue, Aug 06, 2024 at 03:37:13PM GMT, Martin Uecker wrote:
> > Am Dienstag, dem 06.08.2024 um 14:22 +0200 schrieb Alejandro Colomar:
> > > Hi!
> > >
> > > - The tests seem to work as expected if I compile th
Hi Martin,
On Tue, Aug 06, 2024 at 03:37:13PM GMT, Martin Uecker wrote:
> Am Dienstag, dem 06.08.2024 um 14:22 +0200 schrieb Alejandro Colomar:
> > Hi!
> >
> > - The tests seem to work as expected if I compile them manually, and
> >run (the one that should be run) as a normal program. The o
Am Dienstag, dem 06.08.2024 um 14:22 +0200 schrieb Alejandro Colomar:
> Hi!
>
> - The tests seem to work as expected if I compile them manually, and
>run (the one that should be run) as a normal program. The one that
>should not be run also gives the expected diagnostics.
>Can anyone
On Tue, Aug 06, 2024 at 02:22:38PM GMT, Alejandro Colomar wrote:
> Hi!
>
> v4:
>
> - Only evaluate the operand if the top array is VLA. Inner VLAs are
>ignored. [Joseph, Martin]
>This proved very useful for compile-time diagnostics, since we have
>more cases that are constant expre
Hi!
v4:
- Only evaluate the operand if the top array is VLA. Inner VLAs are
ignored. [Joseph, Martin]
This proved very useful for compile-time diagnostics, since we have
more cases that are constant expressions.
- Document the evaluation rules, which are unique to this operator
(s
13 matches
Mail list logo
