ochen
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Martin Uecker
> > Sent: Friday, December 22, 2023 5:39 PM
> > To: gcc-regress...@gcc.gnu.org; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; Jiang, Haochen
> > ; Joseph Myers
> > Subject: Re: [r14-6770 Regression] FAIL:
FAIL: gcc.dg/gnu23-tag-4.c (test for excess
> errors) on Linux/x86_64
>
>
> Hm, this is weird, as it really seems to depend on the -march= So if
> there is
> really a difference between those structs which make them incompatible on
> some archs, we should not co
Hm, this is weird, as it really seems to depend on the
-march= So if there is really a difference
between those structs which make them incompatible on
some archs, we should not consider them to be
compatible in general.
struct g { int a[n]; int b; } *y;
{ struct g { int a[4]; int b; } *y2
On Linux/x86_64,
23fee88f84873b0b8b41c8e5a9b229d533fb4022 is the first bad commit
commit 23fee88f84873b0b8b41c8e5a9b229d533fb4022
Author: Martin Uecker
Date: Tue Aug 15 14:58:32 2023 +0200
c23: tag compatibility rules for struct and unions
caused
FAIL: gcc.dg/gnu23-tag-4.c (test for
