Sandra, Bernd,
Can you take a look at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59734
It seems a siimple case still doesn't work as expected. Did I miss anything?
Thanks,
Joey
> I don't see constants in that test.
// Test for int128 enums.
// { dg-do compile { target int128 } }
// { dg-options "" }
enum E {
e1 = 0x,
e2, e3
} e = e3;
#define SA(I,X) int a##I[(X)? 1 : -1]
SA(1, sizeof(E) == sizeof(__int128));
> Integer constant types should be tak
On Wed, 8 Jan 2014, DJ Delorie wrote:
> > I think a patch is more useful once believe feature-complete, which
> > means replacing the __int128 support with the new mechanism.
>
> One of the side-effects of taking out the existing __int128 support is
> that __int128 isn't in the integer_type_kind
> I think a patch is more useful once believe feature-complete, which
> means replacing the __int128 support with the new mechanism.
One of the side-effects of taking out the existing __int128 support is
that __int128 isn't in the integer_type_kind list, so isn't a type
that is usable for constan
> -Original Message-
> From: Richard Biener [mailto:richard.guent...@gmail.com]
> Sent: 08 January 2014 14:42
> To: Paulo Matos
> Cc: Andrew Haley; gcc@gcc.gnu.org; Jan Hubicka
> Subject: Re: Infinite number of iterations in loop [v850, mep]
>
> Well. We have
>
> Loop 2 is simple:
> si
On 2014-01-08 13:31:40 +, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> I advise making such suggestions direct to WG14. (I don't know if such
> names should be reserved for correctly rounded complex arithmetic as well
> - where ordinary complex multiplication and division are not expected to
> be correctly rou
On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 3:09 PM, Paulo Matos wrote:
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Richard Biener [mailto:richard.guent...@gmail.com]
>> Sent: 08 January 2014 11:03
>> To: Paulo Matos
>> Cc: Andrew Haley; gcc@gcc.gnu.org
>> Subject: Re: Infinite number of iterations in loop [v850, mep]
>>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Richard Biener [mailto:richard.guent...@gmail.com]
> Sent: 08 January 2014 11:03
> To: Paulo Matos
> Cc: Andrew Haley; gcc@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: Infinite number of iterations in loop [v850, mep]
>
> That was refering to the case with extern b. For the abo
Hi, is there a way in libcpp, to figure out the previous directive
that was parsed correctly ? I guess the current directive being parsed
is stored in cpp_reader.directive by run_directive() /
_cpp_handle_directive(), but wasn't able to figure out for previous
directive(s). Shall I need to explicit
A number of the links in 4.8.2 docs are broken (trunk seem to be OK).
http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/4.8.2/gcc/ has 404s for the following:
http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-4.8.2/gcc/i386-and-x86-64-Options.html#i386-and-x86-64-Options
http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-4.8.2/gcc/IA-64-Options.ht
On Wed, 8 Jan 2014, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> On 2014-01-07 16:45:49 +, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> > Sure, such a correctly rounded function is useful just like correctly
> > rounded versions of other functions. The proposed C bindings reserve cr*
> > names *only* for the specific functions li
On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 4:47 PM, Paulo Matos wrote:
>> -Original Message-
>> From: gcc-ow...@gcc.gnu.org [mailto:gcc-ow...@gcc.gnu.org] On Behalf Of Paulo
>> Matos
>> Sent: 13 November 2013 16:14
>> To: Andrew Haley
>> Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
>> Subject: RE: Infinite number of iterations in loo
On 2014-01-07 16:45:49 +, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> Sure, such a correctly rounded function is useful just like correctly
> rounded versions of other functions. The proposed C bindings reserve cr*
> names *only* for the specific functions listed in 9.2 where IEEE 754
> recommends correctly r
13 matches
Mail list logo
