--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-22
05:49 ---
Confirmed.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
E
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-19
21:24 ---
Hmm, Does anyone know how these union are supposed to be passed on ia64-*-hpux,
if by referrence
then the warning is correct and the testcase should not be tested on this
target. This is an ABI Issue.
-
--- Additional Comments From wilson at specifixinc dot com 2005-02-19
23:15 ---
Subject: Re: gcc.dg/transparent-union-* fail on ia64-hpux
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> --- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-19
> 21:24 ---
> Hmm, Does any
--- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2005-02-20
13:03 ---
Jim, these are transparent unions, I thought that they were passed using the
convention of the first element in the union.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20094
--- Additional Comments From wilson at specifixinc dot com 2005-02-21
23:11 ---
Subject: Re: gcc.dg/transparent-union-* fail on ia64-hpux
giovannibajo at libero dot it wrote:
> --- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2005-02-20
> 13:03 ---
> Jim, these are
--- Additional Comments From wilson at specifixinc dot com 2005-02-21
23:19 ---
Subject: Re: gcc.dg/transparent-union-* fail on ia64-hpux
giovannibajo at libero dot it wrote:
> --- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2005-02-20
> 13:03 ---
> Jim, these are
--- Additional Comments From jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-30 19:19
---
My newly added test transparent-union-4.c fails on ia64-hpux for the same
reason.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20094
--- Additional Comments From wilson at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-16
21:32 ---
The MEMBER_TYPE_FORCES_BLK definition was changed Aug 3.
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-08/msg00166.html
The Aug 4 ia64-hp-hpux11 testsuite reports no longer show any transparent union
failures.
