On Tue, 2020-03-17 at 14:27 +0100, Christophe Lyon wrote:
>
> > Jeff pointed out off-list that using:
> >
> >N: ... /* { dg-error {...} } */
> > N+1: /* { dg-error {...} "" { target *-*-* } .-1 } */
> >
> > led to two identical test names for line N. This was causing the
> > results
On Mon, 16 Mar 2020 at 19:59, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
>
> Christophe Lyon via Gcc-patches writes:
> > On Wed, 11 Mar 2020 at 00:37, Joseph Myers wrote:
> >>
> >> On Tue, 10 Mar 2020, Christophe Lyon wrote:
> >>
> >> > sizeless-1.c and sizeless-2.c have the same code, but the latter is
> >> >
On Mon, 16 Mar 2020 at 19:59, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
>
> Christophe Lyon via Gcc-patches writes:
> > On Wed, 11 Mar 2020 at 00:37, Joseph Myers wrote:
> >>
> >> On Tue, 10 Mar 2020, Christophe Lyon wrote:
> >>
> >> > sizeless-1.c and sizeless-2.c have the same code, but the latter is
> >> >
Christophe Lyon via Gcc-patches writes:
> On Wed, 11 Mar 2020 at 00:37, Joseph Myers wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 10 Mar 2020, Christophe Lyon wrote:
>>
>> > sizeless-1.c and sizeless-2.c have the same code, but the latter is
>> > compiled with -msve-vector-bits=256 and expects different
>> >
On Fri, 13 Mar 2020, Christophe Lyon via Gcc-patches wrote:
> The attached small patch fixes the problem (tested on arm and aarch64).
> OK?
>
> gcc/c/ChangeLog:
>
> 2020-03-13 Christophe Lyon
>
> * c-typeck.c (process_init_element): Handle constructor_type with
> type size
On Wed, 11 Mar 2020 at 00:37, Joseph Myers wrote:
>
> On Tue, 10 Mar 2020, Christophe Lyon wrote:
>
> > sizeless-1.c and sizeless-2.c have the same code, but the latter is
> > compiled with -msve-vector-bits=256 and expects different
> > warnings/errors.
> > For line 33:
> > svint8_t
On Tue, 10 Mar 2020, Christophe Lyon wrote:
> sizeless-1.c and sizeless-2.c have the same code, but the latter is
> compiled with -msve-vector-bits=256 and expects different
> warnings/errors.
> For line 33:
> svint8_t *invalid_sve_sc_ptr = &(svint8_t) { *global_sve_sc_ptr };
> we now have:
>
On Tue, 10 Mar 2020 at 01:52, Joseph Myers wrote:
>
> On Mon, 9 Mar 2020, Christophe Lyon wrote:
>
> > Hi Joseph,
> >
> > I've noticed that your patch introduces regressions on aarch64:
> > FAIL: gcc.target/aarch64/sve/acle/general-c/sizeless-1.c
> > -march=armv8.2-a+sve (test for errors, line
On Mon, 9 Mar 2020, Christophe Lyon wrote:
> Hi Joseph,
>
> I've noticed that your patch introduces regressions on aarch64:
> FAIL: gcc.target/aarch64/sve/acle/general-c/sizeless-1.c
> -march=armv8.2-a+sve (test for errors, line 33)
> we now get
>
On Fri, 6 Mar 2020 at 00:50, Joseph Myers wrote:
>
> Bug 93577, apparently a regression (although it isn't very clear to me
> exactly when it was introduced; tests I made with various past
> compilers produced inconclusive results, including e.g. ICEs appearing
> with 64-bit-host compilers for
Bug 93577, apparently a regression (although it isn't very clear to me
exactly when it was introduced; tests I made with various past
compilers produced inconclusive results, including e.g. ICEs appearing
with 64-bit-host compilers for some versions but not 32-bit-host
compilers for the same
11 matches
Mail list logo
