Hi Janne,
How about adding charlen_zero_node and one_node like the others have it to
prevent repeating ourselves?
- Andre
Am 12. Dezember 2016 20:39:38 MEZ, schrieb Janne Blomqvist
<blomqvist.ja...@gmail.com>:
>On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 7:39 PM, Andre Vehreschild <ve...@gmx.de>
>wrote:
>> Hi Janne,
>>
>> I found that you are favoring build_int_cst (size_type_node, 0) over
>> size_zero_node. Is there a reason to this?
>
>Yes. AFAIU size_zero_node is a zero constant for sizetype which is not
>the same as size_type_node.
>
>AFAIK the difference is that size_type_node is the C size_t type,
>whereas sizetype is a GCC internal type used for address expressions.
>On a "normal" target I understand that they are the same size, but
>there are some slight differences in semantics, e.g. size_type_node
>like C unsigned integer types is defined to wrap around on overflow
>whereas sizetype is undefined on overflow.
>
>I don't know if GCC supports some strange targets with some kind of
>segmented memory where the size of sizetype would be different from
>size_type_node, but I guess it's possible in theory at least.
>
>That being said, now that you mention in I should be using
>build_zero_cst (some_type_node) instead of
>build_int_cst(some_type_node, 0). There's also build_one_cst that I
>should use.
>
>> Furthermore did I have to patch this:
>>
>> diff --git a/gcc/fortran/dump-parse-tree.c
>b/gcc/fortran/dump-parse-tree.c
>> index 585f25d..f374558 100644
>> --- a/gcc/fortran/dump-parse-tree.c
>> +++ b/gcc/fortran/dump-parse-tree.c
>> @@ -465,7 +465,7 @@ show_expr (gfc_expr *p)
>> break;
>>
>> case BT_HOLLERITH:
>> - fprintf (dumpfile, "%dH", p->representation.length);
>> + fprintf (dumpfile, "%zdH", p->representation.length);
>> c = p->representation.string;
>> for (i = 0; i < p->representation.length; i++, c++)
>> {
>>
>> to bootstrap on x86_64-linux/f23.
>
>Ah, thanks for the catch. I'll fix it by using HOST_WIDE_INT_PRINT_DEC
>since I'll have to change gfc_charlen_t to be a typedef form
>HOST_WIDE_INT (see my answer to FX).
>
>> And I have this regression:
>>
>> FAIL: gfortran.dg/allocate_deferred_char_scalar_1.f03 -O1 (test
>for excess
>> errors)
>>
>> allocate_deferred_char_scalar_1.f03:184:0:
>>
>> p = '12345679'
>>
>> Warning: '__builtin_memcpy' writing 8 bytes into a region of size 5
>overflows
>> the destination [-Wstringop-overflow=]
>> allocate_deferred_char_scalar_1.f03:242:0:
>>
>> p = 4_'12345679'
>>
>> Warning: '__builtin_memcpy' writing 32 bytes into a region of size 20
>overflows
>> the destination [-Wstringop-overflow=]
>
>I'm seeing that too, but I assumed they would be fixed by Paul's
>recent patch which I don't yet have in my tree yet due to the git
>mirror being stuck..
>
>> Btw, the patch for changing the ABI of the coarray-libs is already
>nearly done.
>> I just need to figure that what the state of regressions is with and
>without my
>> change.
>
>Thanks.
>
>I'll produce an updated patch with the changes discussed so far.
--
Andre Vehreschild * Kreuzherrenstr. 8 * 52062 Aachen
Tel.: +49 241 929 10 18 * ve...@gmx.de
