On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 12:25 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 12:19:26PM +0100, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote:
>> Is this a valid example for what you have in mind ?
>>
>> struct baz
>> {
>> char a[1024];
>> };
>> struct foo : baz
>> {
>> };
>>
>> int bar (struct foo b, int x)
>
On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 12:19:26PM +0100, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote:
> Is this a valid example for what you have in mind ?
>
> struct baz
> {
> char a[1024];
> };
> struct foo : baz
> {
> };
>
> int bar (struct foo b, int x)
No, I meant say:
struct A {};
struct B { A a[1024]; };
int bar (stru
On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 11:36 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 11:25:07AM +0100, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote:
>> > I see the test failing on aarch64-none-linux-gnu (native)
>> > with no output, just:
>> > spawn [open ...]
>> > FAIL: g++.dg/abi/empty13.C -std=gnu++98 execution tes
On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 11:25:07AM +0100, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote:
> > I see the test failing on aarch64-none-linux-gnu (native)
> > with no output, just:
> > spawn [open ...]
> > FAIL: g++.dg/abi/empty13.C -std=gnu++98 execution test
> >
> > And I see it passing on aarch64-none-elf.
>
> IIRC
On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 10:41 AM, Kyrill Tkachov
wrote:
>
> On 14/04/16 09:02, Christophe Lyon wrote:
>>
>> On 13 April 2016 at 22:12, Jason Merrill wrote:
>>>
>>> On 04/13/2016 03:18 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 03:11:34PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
>
> com
On 14/04/16 09:02, Christophe Lyon wrote:
On 13 April 2016 at 22:12, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 04/13/2016 03:18 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 03:11:34PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
commit 761983a023b5217ef831a43f423779940c788ecf
Author: Jason Merrill
Date: Tue Apr 12 13:1
On 13 April 2016 at 22:12, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On 04/13/2016 03:18 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 03:11:34PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
>>>
>>> commit 761983a023b5217ef831a43f423779940c788ecf
>>> Author: Jason Merrill
>>> Date: Tue Apr 12 13:16:50 2016 -0400
>>>
>>>
On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 1:12 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On 04/13/2016 03:18 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 03:11:34PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
>>>
>>> commit 761983a023b5217ef831a43f423779940c788ecf
>>> Author: Jason Merrill
>>> Date: Tue Apr 12 13:16:50 2016 -0400
>>
On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 1:12 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On 04/13/2016 03:18 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 03:11:34PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
>>>
>>> commit 761983a023b5217ef831a43f423779940c788ecf
>>> Author: Jason Merrill
>>> Date: Tue Apr 12 13:16:50 2016 -0400
>>
On 12/04/16 16:27 -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
A revision of the patch previously posted at
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-03/msg00841.html
To recap quickly, the C++ compiler has used a different calling
convention for passing empty classes, because C++ says they have size
1, while t
On 04/13/2016 03:18 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 03:11:34PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
commit 761983a023b5217ef831a43f423779940c788ecf
Author: Jason Merrill
Date: Tue Apr 12 13:16:50 2016 -0400
gcc/
* cfgexpand.c (pass_expand::execute): Handle attribute abi_
On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 03:11:34PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
> commit 761983a023b5217ef831a43f423779940c788ecf
> Author: Jason Merrill
> Date: Tue Apr 12 13:16:50 2016 -0400
>
> gcc/
> * cfgexpand.c (pass_expand::execute): Handle attribute abi_warning.
> * expr.c (expand_expr_
On 04/13/2016 11:54 AM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 04/13/2016 11:32 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 04:27:48PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
Unfortunately, a drawback of doing this in the front end is that it's
difficult to warn only about affected cases; the front end doesn't know
On 04/13/2016 11:32 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 04:27:48PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
Unfortunately, a drawback of doing this in the front end is that it's
difficult to warn only about affected cases; the front end doesn't know
what's actually going to be emitted, and has t
On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 04:27:48PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
> Unfortunately, a drawback of doing this in the front end is that it's
> difficult to warn only about affected cases; the front end doesn't know
> what's actually going to be emitted, and has to warn conservatively, leading
> to false
15 matches
Mail list logo
