On 12/7/22 05:08, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
Hi Andrew!
On 2022-12-02T09:12:23-0500, Andrew MacLeod via Gcc-patches
wrote:
This consists of 3 changes which stronger type checking has indicated
are non-compliant with the type field.
I'm curious what that "stronger type checking" is?
with no regressions. OK for trunk?
>
> Andrew
> From d1003e853d1813105eef6e441578e5bea9de8d03 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Andrew MacLeod
> Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2022 13:07:28 -0500
> Subject: [PATCH] Fix a few incorrect accesses.
>
> This consists of 3 changes which stro
On 12/2/22 09:52, Richard Biener wrote:
On Fri, Dec 2, 2022 at 3:13 PM Andrew MacLeod via Gcc-patches
wrote:
This consists of 3 changes which stronger type checking has indicated
are non-compliant with the type field.
I doubt they are super important because there has not been a trap
On Fri, Dec 2, 2022 at 3:13 PM Andrew MacLeod via Gcc-patches
wrote:
>
> This consists of 3 changes which stronger type checking has indicated
> are non-compliant with the type field.
>
> I doubt they are super important because there has not been a trap
> triggered by them, and they have been in
anyway, just silently never trigger.
Bootstraps on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu with no regressions. OK for trunk?
Andrew
From d1003e853d1813105eef6e441578e5bea9de8d03 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Andrew MacLeod
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2022 13:07:28 -0500
Subject: [PATCH] Fix a few incorrect accesses
