http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45878
--- Comment #16 from Richard Guenther 2010-10-13
20:30:17 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Oct 13 20:30:10 2010
New Revision: 165435
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=165435
Log:
2010-10-13 Richard Guenther
PR objc/4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45878
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45878
--- Comment #15 from Nicola Pero 2010-10-13
18:47:52 UTC ---
Try the following testcase, which requires no includes:
==
typedef struct objc_object { Class class_pointer; } *id;
typedef unsigned char BOOL;
@interface Object
{
Cla
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45878
--- Comment #14 from Richard Guenther 2010-10-13
18:37:55 UTC ---
Hm, where are objc headers in a build tree? I can't seem to compile the
original testcase:
/obj/trunk-g/gcc$ ./xgcc -B. -S gimple_call.m
gimple_call.m:1:22: fatal error: objc/obj
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45878
--- Comment #13 from Richard Guenther 2010-10-13
18:25:12 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Oct 13 18:25:08 2010
New Revision: 165430
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=165430
Log:
2010-10-13 Richard Guenther
PR objc/4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45878
--- Comment #12 from Nicola Pero 2010-10-13
16:58:34 UTC ---
Yes, the testcase still fails for me after applying the patch.
By the way, Richard, thanks a lot for looking into this. I really appreciate
it :-)
Thanks
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45878
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45878
--- Comment #10 from Iain Sandoe 2010-10-13 15:27:09
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> Yes, I have already extracted a testcase from GNUstep - it's in the first
> comment in the issue. :-)
>
> On my Linux i386, that (valid) piece of code fails
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45878
--- Comment #9 from Dominique d'Humieres 2010-10-13
15:16:39 UTC ---
With the patch in comment #6 and revision 164908, I get the same results as
with revision 164908 reverted on powerpc-apple-darwin9:
=== objc Summary for unix/-m
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45878
--- Comment #8 from Nicola Pero 2010-10-13 15:05:13
UTC ---
Yes, I have already extracted a testcase from GNUstep - it's in the first
comment in the issue. :-)
On my Linux i386, that (valid) piece of code fails to compile with 'internal
compiler
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45878
--- Comment #7 from Iain Sandoe 2010-10-13 14:25:57
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> (In reply to comment #5)
thanks for the patch ...
> It is likely a miscommunication (or lack of definition) on what the middle-end
> expects from an OBJ_TYP
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45878
--- Comment #6 from Richard Guenther 2010-10-13
13:54:54 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> I think the patch that broke this should be backed out until the semantics are
> sorted out. I think the middle-end people should decide on which part of
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45878
m...@gcc.gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45878
--- Comment #5 from mrs at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-10-12
16:38:16 UTC ---
I think the patch that broke this should be backed out until the semantics are
sorted out. I think the middle-end people should decide on which part of the
compiler is wrong,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45878
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mrs at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4 from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45878
--- Comment #2 from Iain Sandoe 2010-10-04 09:25:18
UTC ---
hm, I made a very simple root object like this [omitting the cruft to declare
the types & routines for both NeXT and GNU runtimes].
@interface myRootObject {
@public
Class isa;
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45878
--- Comment #3 from Richard Guenther 2010-10-04
10:12:17 UTC ---
Well, what happens is that ObjC (not necessarily incorrectly) assumes that
an OBJ_TYPE_REF acts as a function type conversion. Folding OTOH simply
replaces the called function with
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45878
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
18 matches
Mail list logo
