This defect concerns bitfield layout in the Microsoft ABI. This is a
fix for gcc-8.
As well as MINGW targets, MS-ABI can be enabled on PowerPC & SuperH by
suitable use of attributes or options.
When I folded TYPE_METHODS into TYPE_FIELDS, the 'am I the last field'
check of place_field could
On August 29, 2018 7:36:15 PM GMT+02:00, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
>This defect concerns bitfield layout in the Microsoft ABI. This is a
>fix for gcc-8.
>
>As well as MINGW targets, MS-ABI can be enabled on PowerPC & SuperH by
>suitable use of attributes or options.
>
>When I folded TYPE_METHODS in
On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 01:36:15PM -0400, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
> --- gcc/cp/class.c(revision 263959)
> +++ gcc/cp/class.c(working copy)
> @@ -4041,6 +4041,32 @@ layout_nonempty_base_or_field (record_la
>field_p = true;
> }
>
> + /* PR c++/87137 When ms_bitfield_layout_p is
在 2018-08-30 01:36, Nathan Sidwell 写道:
But, it would be bad to make that particular ABI fix in a point release,
so this patch just reverts the regression I caused. Sadly, because it
requires understanding TEMPLATE_DECL, we can't simply update
place_field. Instead I temporarily stitch out unde
On 08/29/2018 11:06 PM, Liu Hao wrote:
It is strictly an ABI break but I doubt whether code in real world that
got broken by this bug ever exists. Usually when people expect
consecutive bitfields to be packed into a single word they wouldn't put
irrelevant declarations between them.
You're p
On 08/30/2018 11:59 AM, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
> On 08/29/2018 11:06 PM, Liu Hao wrote:
>
>> It is strictly an ABI break but I doubt whether code in real world
>> that got broken by this bug ever exists. Usually when people expect
>> consecutive bitfields to be packed into a single word they wouldn
On Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 5:09 PM JonY <10wa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 08/30/2018 11:59 AM, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
> > On 08/29/2018 11:06 PM, Liu Hao wrote:
> >
> >> It is strictly an ABI break but I doubt whether code in real world
> >> that got broken by this bug ever exists. Usually when people
Hi,
On Thu, 30 Aug 2018, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
> > struct foo
> > {
> > unsigned a : 21;
> > union x1 { char x; };
> > unsigned b : 11;
> > union x1 u;
> > };
>
> (for C++) this happens to be a case we already get right. I think
> that'd be a C vendor extension, I don
On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 10:35 AM, Michael Matz wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, 30 Aug 2018, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
>
>> > struct foo
>> >{
>> > unsigned a : 21;
>> > union x1 { char x; };
>> > unsigned b : 11;
>> > union x1 u;
>> >};
>>
>> (for C++) this happens to be a case we
On Fri, 31 Aug 2018, Jason Merrill wrote:
> > Anonymous structures and unions are in C11 (and before that a widely
> > accepted extension).
>
> This isn't an anonymous union, it's named "x1". I don't think that
> line declares a field in C, either.
Indeed, the case where the field has a tag is
10 matches
Mail list logo
