https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68162
--- Comment #15 from Joseph S. Myers ---
Author: jsm28
Date: Wed Dec 2 18:24:23 2015
New Revision: 231194
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=231194&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix TYPE_MAIN_VARIANT construction for arrays of qualified typedefs (PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68162
--- Comment #14 from Richard Biener ---
I'll wait for after GCC 5.3 for the backport.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68162
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|5.3 |5.4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68162
--- Comment #13 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Nov 30 08:24:06 2015
New Revision: 231058
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=231058&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-11-30 Richard Biener
PR c/68162
* dwarf2out.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68162
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68162
--- Comment #12 from Joseph S. Myers ---
Could you post your dwarf2out.c patch to gcc-patches for review?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68162
--- Comment #11 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Thu, 12 Nov 2015, jsm28 at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68162
>
> --- Comment #10 from Joseph S. Myers ---
> I have verified that the patch in commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68162
--- Comment #10 from Joseph S. Myers ---
I have verified that the patch in comment#7, (a) on its own and (b) together
with my patch, does not cause any regressions on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu. My
inclination would be that this patch should go in, wit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68162
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to jos...@codesourcery.com from comment #8)
> I don't know what DWARF semantics are meant to be, but the language
> semantics are definitely that in C array types are always unqualified,
> wherea
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68162
--- Comment #8 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
I don't know what DWARF semantics are meant to be, but the language
semantics are definitely that in C array types are always unqualified,
whereas in C++, while the qualifiers still apply t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68162
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
With the latest patch we again get the broken
<1><50>: Abbrev Number: 8 (DW_TAG_variable)
<51> DW_AT_name: (indirect string, offset: 0x73): harry
<55> DW_AT_decl_file : 1
<56> D
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68162
--- Comment #6 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
On Thu, 5 Nov 2015, mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> Started with r218985.
That's what I expected, but my analysis says that that change was OK and
the underlying cause is incorrectly
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68162
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68162
--- Comment #4 from Joseph S. Myers ---
Created attachment 36649
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36649&action=edit
Patch that preserves the typedef but does not fix the debug test failure
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68162
--- Comment #3 from Joseph S. Myers ---
Created attachment 36648
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36648&action=edit
Minimal patch for grokdeclarator
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68162
Joseph S. Myers changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68162
Joseph S. Myers changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
17 matches
Mail list logo
