OK.
Jason
Hi,
On 09/21/2011 03:25 AM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 09/20/2011 08:38 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
+ if (int128_integer_type_node == NULL_TREE)
+error ("%<__int128%> is not supported by this target");
In this case we should unset explicit_int128.
Also remove this code:
else if (
On 09/20/2011 08:38 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
+ if (int128_integer_type_node == NULL_TREE)
+ error ("%<__int128%> is not supported by this target");
In this case we should unset explicit_int128.
Also remove this code:
else if (explicit_int128 && TREE_CODE (type) != INTEGER_T
Hi,
> On 09/20/2011 10:19 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
>> + if (explicit_int128 && pedantic && ! in_system_header)
>> +pedwarn (input_location, OPT_pedantic,
>> + "ISO C++ does not support %<__int128%> for %qs", name);
>
> Yep, like that. But we also want the check for null integer128_t
On 09/20/2011 10:19 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
+ if (explicit_int128 && pedantic && ! in_system_header)
+pedwarn (input_location, OPT_pedantic,
+"ISO C++ does not support %<__int128%> for %qs", name);
Yep, like that. But we also want the check for null integer128_type_node.
Jas
On 09/20/2011 03:45 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
On 09/20/2011 03:12 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
No, I think we want to complain about __int128 when -pedantic unless
we're in a system header, as C does. The right fix is to move the
__int128 code out of the if (unsigned_p || ...) block, and to
suppre
On 09/20/2011 03:12 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
No, I think we want to complain about __int128 when -pedantic unless
we're in a system header, as C does. The right fix is to move the
__int128 code out of the if (unsigned_p || ...) block, and to suppress
the pedwarn when in_system_header.
Ok, I'l
On 09/20/2011 08:09 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
as I tried to analyze/explain in the audit trail, apparently we are
doing something bogus in grokdeclarator wrt unsigned __int128, which
leads to the latter being wrongly rejected with -pedantic-errors, at
variance with plain __int128 or __int128_t / _
