On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 04:06:56PM +0200, Marek Polacek wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 04:02:36PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 03:00:54PM +0100, James Greenhalgh wrote:
> > > Likewise on ARM. The testcase is fairly obviously not going to work
> > > for any target with 3
On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 04:02:36PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 03:00:54PM +0100, James Greenhalgh wrote:
> > Likewise on ARM. The testcase is fairly obviously not going to work
> > for any target with 32-bit long:
> >
> > struct S
> > {
> > long l: 1;
> > long
On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 03:00:54PM +0100, James Greenhalgh wrote:
> Likewise on ARM. The testcase is fairly obviously not going to work
> for any target with 32-bit long:
>
> struct S
> {
> long l: 1;
> long l2: 41;
> unsigned long ul: 1;
> unsigned long ul2: 41;
> } s;
>
>
On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 11:14:31PM +, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 7:38 AM, Marek Polacek wrote:
> > In this testcase we were crashing while trying to gimplify a switch, because
> > the types of the switch condition and case constants didn't match. This ICE
> > started with my -Ws
On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 7:38 AM, Marek Polacek wrote:
> In this testcase we were crashing while trying to gimplify a switch, because
> the types of the switch condition and case constants didn't match. This ICE
> started with my -Wswitch-with-enum-bit-fields fix where I used the unlowered
> type
On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 7:38 AM, Marek Polacek wrote:
> In this testcase we were crashing while trying to gimplify a switch, because
> the types of the switch condition and case constants didn't match. This ICE
> started with my -Wswitch-with-enum-bit-fields fix where I used the unlowered
> type
OK.
Jason
