Re: [PATCH] c: Fix bogus vector initialisation error [PR96377]

2020-08-03 Thread Richard Sandiford
Jakub Jelinek writes: > On Mon, Aug 03, 2020 at 01:26:34PM +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote: >> On Jul 31 2020, Richard Sandiford wrote: >> >> >* gcc.dg/pr96377-1.c: New test. >> >* gcc.dg/pr96377-2.c: Likewise. >> >> Excess errors: >>

Re: [PATCH] c: Fix bogus vector initialisation error [PR96377]

2020-08-03 Thread Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches
On Mon, Aug 03, 2020 at 01:26:34PM +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote: > On Jul 31 2020, Richard Sandiford wrote: > > > * gcc.dg/pr96377-1.c: New test. > > * gcc.dg/pr96377-2.c: Likewise. > > Excess errors: > /daten/gcc/gcc-20200801/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr96377-2.c:11:1: warning: GCC > vector

Re: [PATCH] c: Fix bogus vector initialisation error [PR96377]

2020-08-03 Thread Andreas Schwab
On Jul 31 2020, Richard Sandiford wrote: > * gcc.dg/pr96377-1.c: New test. > * gcc.dg/pr96377-2.c: Likewise. Excess errors: /daten/gcc/gcc-20200801/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr96377-2.c:11:1: warning: GCC vector passed by reference: non-standard ABI extension with no compatibility

Re: [PATCH] c: Fix bogus vector initialisation error [PR96377]

2020-07-31 Thread Joseph Myers
On Fri, 31 Jul 2020, Richard Sandiford wrote: > Tested on aarch64-linux-gnu, aarch64_be-elf and x86_64-linux-gnu. > OK to instal? OK. -- Joseph S. Myers jos...@codesourcery.com

Re: [PATCH] c: Fix bogus vector initialisation error [PR96377]

2020-07-31 Thread Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches
On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 11:41:59AM +0100, Richard Sandiford wrote: > @@ -10135,11 +10176,7 @@ process_init_element (location_t loc, struct c_expr > value, bool implicit, > /* Otherwise, if we have come to a subaggregate, >and we don't have an element of its type, push into it.

[PATCH] c: Fix bogus vector initialisation error [PR96377]

2020-07-31 Thread Richard Sandiford
One of the problems in this PR was that if we had: vector_type1 array[] = { vector_value1 }; process_init_element would only treat vector_value1 as initialising a vector_type1 if they had the same TYPE_MAIN_VARIANT. This has several problems: (1) It gives confusing error messages if the