Re: Compilation Error Regarding RID_MAX
On Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 9:38 PM Andrew Pinski wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 9:35 PM Ken Matsui wrote: > > > > On Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 9:23 PM Andrew Pinski wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 9:09 PM Ken Matsui via Gcc > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > I have merged all my patches into a single branch for better > > > > maintainability for me, but I am unable to build GCC. Initially, I > > > > faced an error related to RID_MAX, which was fixed in > > > > https://github.com/ken-matsui/gcc-gsoc23/commit/c32d49bc990acde4d3ec5654ddb81b0a7d081378. > > > > The ICE was caused by gcc_assert (RID_MAX <= 255) in gcc/c/c-parser.c. > > > > At this point, my new built-in exceeded the max keyword bound since > > > > c_token->keyword has 8 bits. This patch increased the bit size to 16 > > > > and compiled GCC successfully. > > > > > > > > However, I still encountered an unusual error and am unable to build > > > > GCC on > > > > https://github.com/ken-matsui/gcc-gsoc23/commit/c32d49bc990acde4d3ec5654ddb81b0a7d081378. > > > > This is the 4th built-in implementation after the previous RID_MAX fix > > > > patch (i.e., this increases the total number of keywords, now RID_MAX > > > > = 260). The error message indicates that there is a missing > > > > parenthesis after 'unsigned' for the expression (unsigned __int128). > > > > > > > > /home/kmatsui/gcc/objdir/gcc/include/bmi2intrin.h:86:38: error: > > > > expected ‘)’ before ‘__int128’ > > > >86 | unsigned __int128 __res = (unsigned __int128) __X * __Y; > > > > | ~^ > > > > | ) > > > > /home/kmatsui/gcc/objdir/gcc/include/bmi2intrin.h:86:29: error: > > > > initializer element is not constant > > > >86 | unsigned __int128 __res = (unsigned __int128) __X * __Y; > > > > | > > > > > > > > I reordered the commits, but it seems that the 4th built-in (RID_MAX = > > > > 260) after the RID_MAX tweak fails, regardless of what the 4th is. > > > > (i.e., the __remove_pointer implementation itself is not the reason.) > > > > > > From c-common.h: > > > #define C_SET_RID_CODE(id, code) \ > > > (((struct c_common_identifier *) (id))->node.rid_code = (unsigned char) > > > code) > > > > > > This is definitely incorrect now. It should be using `unsigned short`. > > > > > > > That worked! Thank you so much! > > > > I would like to attribute this change to you, but if you're > > comfortable with it, could you please share the relevant commit > > information (name and email address)? > > Andrew Pinski > Thank you! > Thanks, > Andrew > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Andrew > > > > > > > > > > > I have pushed the > > > > branch to https://github.com/ken-matsui/gcc-gsoc23/commits/me/gsoc23. > > > > Could someone please help me inspect the issue and provide your > > > > suggestions? > > > > > > > > Sincerely, > > > > Ken Matsui
Re: Compilation Error Regarding RID_MAX
On Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 9:35 PM Ken Matsui wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 9:23 PM Andrew Pinski wrote: > > > > On Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 9:09 PM Ken Matsui via Gcc wrote: > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > I have merged all my patches into a single branch for better > > > maintainability for me, but I am unable to build GCC. Initially, I > > > faced an error related to RID_MAX, which was fixed in > > > https://github.com/ken-matsui/gcc-gsoc23/commit/c32d49bc990acde4d3ec5654ddb81b0a7d081378. > > > The ICE was caused by gcc_assert (RID_MAX <= 255) in gcc/c/c-parser.c. > > > At this point, my new built-in exceeded the max keyword bound since > > > c_token->keyword has 8 bits. This patch increased the bit size to 16 > > > and compiled GCC successfully. > > > > > > However, I still encountered an unusual error and am unable to build > > > GCC on > > > https://github.com/ken-matsui/gcc-gsoc23/commit/c32d49bc990acde4d3ec5654ddb81b0a7d081378. > > > This is the 4th built-in implementation after the previous RID_MAX fix > > > patch (i.e., this increases the total number of keywords, now RID_MAX > > > = 260). The error message indicates that there is a missing > > > parenthesis after 'unsigned' for the expression (unsigned __int128). > > > > > > /home/kmatsui/gcc/objdir/gcc/include/bmi2intrin.h:86:38: error: > > > expected ‘)’ before ‘__int128’ > > >86 | unsigned __int128 __res = (unsigned __int128) __X * __Y; > > > | ~^ > > > | ) > > > /home/kmatsui/gcc/objdir/gcc/include/bmi2intrin.h:86:29: error: > > > initializer element is not constant > > >86 | unsigned __int128 __res = (unsigned __int128) __X * __Y; > > > | > > > > > > I reordered the commits, but it seems that the 4th built-in (RID_MAX = > > > 260) after the RID_MAX tweak fails, regardless of what the 4th is. > > > (i.e., the __remove_pointer implementation itself is not the reason.) > > > > From c-common.h: > > #define C_SET_RID_CODE(id, code) \ > > (((struct c_common_identifier *) (id))->node.rid_code = (unsigned char) > > code) > > > > This is definitely incorrect now. It should be using `unsigned short`. > > > > That worked! Thank you so much! > > I would like to attribute this change to you, but if you're > comfortable with it, could you please share the relevant commit > information (name and email address)? Andrew Pinski Thanks, Andrew > > > Thanks, > > Andrew > > > > > > > > I have pushed the > > > branch to https://github.com/ken-matsui/gcc-gsoc23/commits/me/gsoc23. > > > Could someone please help me inspect the issue and provide your > > > suggestions? > > > > > > Sincerely, > > > Ken Matsui
Re: Compilation Error Regarding RID_MAX
On Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 9:23 PM Andrew Pinski wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 9:09 PM Ken Matsui via Gcc wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > I have merged all my patches into a single branch for better > > maintainability for me, but I am unable to build GCC. Initially, I > > faced an error related to RID_MAX, which was fixed in > > https://github.com/ken-matsui/gcc-gsoc23/commit/c32d49bc990acde4d3ec5654ddb81b0a7d081378. > > The ICE was caused by gcc_assert (RID_MAX <= 255) in gcc/c/c-parser.c. > > At this point, my new built-in exceeded the max keyword bound since > > c_token->keyword has 8 bits. This patch increased the bit size to 16 > > and compiled GCC successfully. > > > > However, I still encountered an unusual error and am unable to build > > GCC on > > https://github.com/ken-matsui/gcc-gsoc23/commit/c32d49bc990acde4d3ec5654ddb81b0a7d081378. > > This is the 4th built-in implementation after the previous RID_MAX fix > > patch (i.e., this increases the total number of keywords, now RID_MAX > > = 260). The error message indicates that there is a missing > > parenthesis after 'unsigned' for the expression (unsigned __int128). > > > > /home/kmatsui/gcc/objdir/gcc/include/bmi2intrin.h:86:38: error: > > expected ‘)’ before ‘__int128’ > >86 | unsigned __int128 __res = (unsigned __int128) __X * __Y; > > | ~^ > > | ) > > /home/kmatsui/gcc/objdir/gcc/include/bmi2intrin.h:86:29: error: > > initializer element is not constant > >86 | unsigned __int128 __res = (unsigned __int128) __X * __Y; > > | > > > > I reordered the commits, but it seems that the 4th built-in (RID_MAX = > > 260) after the RID_MAX tweak fails, regardless of what the 4th is. > > (i.e., the __remove_pointer implementation itself is not the reason.) > > From c-common.h: > #define C_SET_RID_CODE(id, code) \ > (((struct c_common_identifier *) (id))->node.rid_code = (unsigned char) > code) > > This is definitely incorrect now. It should be using `unsigned short`. > That worked! Thank you so much! I would like to attribute this change to you, but if you're comfortable with it, could you please share the relevant commit information (name and email address)? > Thanks, > Andrew > > > > > I have pushed the > > branch to https://github.com/ken-matsui/gcc-gsoc23/commits/me/gsoc23. > > Could someone please help me inspect the issue and provide your > > suggestions? > > > > Sincerely, > > Ken Matsui
Re: Compilation Error Regarding RID_MAX
On Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 9:09 PM Ken Matsui via Gcc wrote: > > Hi, > > I have merged all my patches into a single branch for better > maintainability for me, but I am unable to build GCC. Initially, I > faced an error related to RID_MAX, which was fixed in > https://github.com/ken-matsui/gcc-gsoc23/commit/c32d49bc990acde4d3ec5654ddb81b0a7d081378. > The ICE was caused by gcc_assert (RID_MAX <= 255) in gcc/c/c-parser.c. > At this point, my new built-in exceeded the max keyword bound since > c_token->keyword has 8 bits. This patch increased the bit size to 16 > and compiled GCC successfully. > > However, I still encountered an unusual error and am unable to build > GCC on > https://github.com/ken-matsui/gcc-gsoc23/commit/c32d49bc990acde4d3ec5654ddb81b0a7d081378. > This is the 4th built-in implementation after the previous RID_MAX fix > patch (i.e., this increases the total number of keywords, now RID_MAX > = 260). The error message indicates that there is a missing > parenthesis after 'unsigned' for the expression (unsigned __int128). > > /home/kmatsui/gcc/objdir/gcc/include/bmi2intrin.h:86:38: error: > expected ‘)’ before ‘__int128’ >86 | unsigned __int128 __res = (unsigned __int128) __X * __Y; > | ~^ > | ) > /home/kmatsui/gcc/objdir/gcc/include/bmi2intrin.h:86:29: error: > initializer element is not constant >86 | unsigned __int128 __res = (unsigned __int128) __X * __Y; > | > > I reordered the commits, but it seems that the 4th built-in (RID_MAX = > 260) after the RID_MAX tweak fails, regardless of what the 4th is. > (i.e., the __remove_pointer implementation itself is not the reason.) >From c-common.h: #define C_SET_RID_CODE(id, code) \ (((struct c_common_identifier *) (id))->node.rid_code = (unsigned char) code) This is definitely incorrect now. It should be using `unsigned short`. Thanks, Andrew > > I have pushed the > branch to https://github.com/ken-matsui/gcc-gsoc23/commits/me/gsoc23. > Could someone please help me inspect the issue and provide your > suggestions? > > Sincerely, > Ken Matsui
