I thought I already approved that patch. If not, consider this approval.
Jason
On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 12:34 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 06/15/2016 05:47 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 11:13:28AM -0600, Martin Sebor wrote:
Here is an untested
On 06/15/2016 05:47 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 11:13:28AM -0600, Martin Sebor wrote:
Here is an untested patch for that. Except that the middle-end considers
conversions between BOOLEAN_TYPE and single bit unsigned type as useless,
so in theory this can't work well, and
On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 08:08:22AM -0600, Martin Sebor wrote:
> I like the idea of being able to use the built-ins for this, but
> I think it would be confusing for them to follow subtly different
> rules for C than for C++. Since the value of the last argument
I think it isn't that hard to
On 06/15/2016 06:16 AM, Joseph Myers wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jun 2016, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
The only thing I'm unsure about is what to do with bitfield types.
For __builtin_{add,sub,mul}_overflow it is not an issue, as one can't take
address of a bitfield. For __builtin_{add,sub,mul}_overflow_p
On Wed, 15 Jun 2016, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> The only thing I'm unsure about is what to do with bitfield types.
> For __builtin_{add,sub,mul}_overflow it is not an issue, as one can't take
> address of a bitfield. For __builtin_{add,sub,mul}_overflow_p right now,
> the C FE doesn't promote the
On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 11:13:28AM -0600, Martin Sebor wrote:
> >Here is an untested patch for that. Except that the middle-end considers
> >conversions between BOOLEAN_TYPE and single bit unsigned type as useless,
> >so in theory this can't work well, and in practice only if we are lucky
>