Hi all,
I tried both:
(SAME_BINFO_TYPE_P (context_for_name_lookup (decl), parent_binfo))
and
(SAME_BINFO_TYPE_P (TYPE_BINFO (context_for_name_lookup (decl)),
parent_binfo))
but both caused around 80 regressions because it was returning false when
it should have been returning true. No idea why.
On 2/4/21 1:48 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Wed, Feb 3, 2021 at 6:12 PM Martin Sebor wrote:
On 2/3/21 5:01 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Mon, Feb 1, 2021 at 5:20 PM Martin Sebor wrote:
I have pushed the tree.h comments in g:6a2053773b8. I will wait
for an approval of the changes to the
Ping:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-February/564597.html
On 1/31/21 5:31 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
The initial -Wnonnull implementation in the middle end took place
too late in the pipeline (just before expansion), and as a result
was prone to false positives (bug 78817). In
Ping 2:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-January/564059.html
On 1/29/21 10:20 AM, Martin Sebor wrote:
Ping: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-January/564059.html
On 1/21/21 4:38 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
The hack I put in compute_objsize() last January for pr93200
Ping 2:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-January/563894.html
On 1/29/21 10:22 AM, Martin Sebor wrote:
Ping:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-January/563894.html
On 1/19/21 5:56 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
Similar to the problem reported for -Wstringop-overflow in
Ping 2:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-January/564060.html
On 1/29/21 7:56 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
Ping: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-January/564060.html
On 1/21/21 4:46 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
The initial patch I posted is missing initialization for a
>
> I think at least something like "Improve private access checking." would
> be better. No need to be verbose in the ChangeLog. :)
That sounds like a good idea, I will change it.
Yup, this one.
Awesome.
Yeah, that can be a pain. Best if your editor does it for you. If you
> use vim,
On Fri, 5 Feb 2021 17:25:10 +0100
Tobias Burnus wrote:
> (CC fortran@)
>
> Hi Julian,
>
> not doing an extensive review yet, but the following gives an ICE
> with this patch applied. (I believe the others are already in, aren't
> they?)
>
> type t
> integer :: i, j
> end type t
> type t2
>
