On 6/9/21 4:47 AM, Robin Dapp wrote:
As you say, the logic is convoluted. Let's simplify it rather than
make
it more convoluted. One possibility would be to change || to | toavoid
the shortcut, and then
bool note = lastalign > curalign;
if (note)
curalign = lastalign;
I went with your
As you say, the logic is convoluted. Let's simplify it rather than make
it more convoluted. One possibility would be to change || to | to avoid
the shortcut, and then
bool note = lastalign > curalign;
if (note)
curalign = lastalign;
I went with your suggestion in the attached v2.
On 6/1/21 9:20 AM, Robin Dapp wrote:
As you say, the logic is convoluted. Let's simplify it rather than make
it more convoluted. One possibility would be to change || to | to avoid
the shortcut, and then
bool note = lastalign > curalign;
if (note)
curalign = lastalign;
I went with your
This is the revised testsuite change with v2 adding a check for no
separate note for
__attribute__((aligned (32), aligned (4)).
Regards
Robin
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/Wattributes.c b/gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/Wattributes.c
index 4ad90441b4d..a97e5ad5f74 100644
---
As you say, the logic is convoluted. Let's simplify it rather than make
it more convoluted. One possibility would be to change || to | to avoid
the shortcut, and then
bool note = lastalign > curalign;
if (note)
curalign = lastalign;
I went with your suggestion in the attached v2.
On 5/25/21 11:15 AM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 5/25/21 4:38 AM, Robin Dapp wrote:
Hi Martin and Jason,
The removal of the dead code looks good to me. The change to
"re-init lastalign" doesn't seem right. When it's zero it means
the conflict is between two attributes on the same declaration,
in
On 5/25/21 4:38 AM, Robin Dapp wrote:
Hi Martin and Jason,
The removal of the dead code looks good to me. The change to
"re-init lastalign" doesn't seem right. When it's zero it means
the conflict is between two attributes on the same declaration,
in which case the note shouldn't be printed
Hi Martin and Jason,
The removal of the dead code looks good to me. The change to
"re-init lastalign" doesn't seem right. When it's zero it means
the conflict is between two attributes on the same declaration,
in which case the note shouldn't be printed (it would just point
to the same
On 5/19/21 6:03 PM, Martin Sebor via Gcc-patches wrote:
On 5/3/21 8:53 AM, Robin Dapp via Gcc-patches wrote:
Hi,
on s390 a warning test fails:
inline int ATTR ((cold, aligned (8)))
finline_hot_noret_align (int);
inline int ATTR ((warn_unused_result))
finline_hot_noret_align (int);
inline
On 5/3/21 8:53 AM, Robin Dapp via Gcc-patches wrote:
Hi,
on s390 a warning test fails:
inline int ATTR ((cold, aligned (8)))
finline_hot_noret_align (int);
inline int ATTR ((warn_unused_result))
finline_hot_noret_align (int);
inline int ATTR ((aligned (4)))
finline_hot_noret_align (int);
on s390 a warning test fails:
inline int ATTR ((cold, aligned (8)))
finline_hot_noret_align (int);
inline int ATTR ((warn_unused_result))
finline_hot_noret_align (int);
inline int ATTR ((aligned (4)))
finline_hot_noret_align (int); /* { dg-warning "ignoring attribute
.aligned \\(4\\).
Ping.
bd1e28c23f2efcdb061959852a91deb6 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Robin Dapp
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2021 10:51:18 +0200
Subject: [PATCH 1/2] c-family: Copy DECL_USER_ALIGN even if DECL_ALIGN is
similar.
When re-declaring a function with differing attributes DECL_USER_ALIGN
is usually not merged/copied wh
13 matches
Mail list logo
