On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 3:59 AM, Szabolcs Nagy <szabolcs.n...@arm.com> wrote:
> On 17/08/17 15:56, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 6:52 AM, Joseph Myers <jos...@codesourcery.com>
>> wrote:
>>> On Sat, 8 Jul 2017, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>>
>>>> +@item -Wpacked-not-aligned @r{(C, C++, Objective-C and Objective-C++
>>>> only)}
>>>> +@opindex Wpacked-not-aligned
>>>> +@opindex Wno-packed-not-aligned
>>>> +Warn if a structure field with explicitly specified alignment in a
>>>> +packed struct or union is misaligned. For example, a warning will
>>>> +be issued on @code{struct S}, like, @code{warning: alignment 1 of
>>>> +'struct S' is less than 8}, in this code:
>>>
>>> Use @samp for warnings quoted in the manual, as previously discussed.
>>>
>>> OK with that change, in the absence of C++ maintainer objections within 48
>>> hours.
>>>
>>
>> Here is the updated patch. I moved c++ changes to merge_decls, where
>> alignment is merged, and check_bitfield_type_and_width, where bit-fields
>> are checked.
>>
>> Tested on x86-64 and i686.
>>
>
> i assume packed semantics is same on arm so these
> should warn on arm too ?
>
> on arm i see:
>
> FAIL: gcc.dg/pr53037-2.c (test for warnings, line 8)
> FAIL: gcc.dg/pr53037-2.c (test for warnings, line 16)
> FAIL: gcc.dg/pr53037-2.c (test for warnings, line 32)
> FAIL: gcc.dg/pr53037-3.c (test for warnings, line 8)
> FAIL: gcc.dg/pr53037-3.c (test for warnings, line 16)
> FAIL: gcc.dg/pr53037-3.c (test for warnings, line 32)
>
> FAIL: g++.dg/pr53037-2.C -std=gnu++98 (test for warnings, line 6)
> FAIL: g++.dg/pr53037-2.C -std=gnu++98 (test for warnings, line 16)
> FAIL: g++.dg/pr53037-2.C -std=gnu++98 (test for warnings, line 29)
> FAIL: g++.dg/pr53037-2.C -std=gnu++11 (test for warnings, line 6)
> FAIL: g++.dg/pr53037-2.C -std=gnu++11 (test for warnings, line 16)
> FAIL: g++.dg/pr53037-2.C -std=gnu++11 (test for warnings, line 29)
> FAIL: g++.dg/pr53037-2.C -std=gnu++14 (test for warnings, line 6)
> FAIL: g++.dg/pr53037-2.C -std=gnu++14 (test for warnings, line 16)
> FAIL: g++.dg/pr53037-2.C -std=gnu++14 (test for warnings, line 29)
> FAIL: g++.dg/pr53037-3.C -std=gnu++98 (test for warnings, line 6)
> FAIL: g++.dg/pr53037-3.C -std=gnu++98 (test for warnings, line 16)
> FAIL: g++.dg/pr53037-3.C -std=gnu++98 (test for warnings, line 29)
> FAIL: g++.dg/pr53037-3.C -std=gnu++11 (test for warnings, line 6)
> FAIL: g++.dg/pr53037-3.C -std=gnu++11 (test for warnings, line 16)
> FAIL: g++.dg/pr53037-3.C -std=gnu++11 (test for warnings, line 29)
> FAIL: g++.dg/pr53037-3.C -std=gnu++14 (test for warnings, line 6)
> FAIL: g++.dg/pr53037-3.C -std=gnu++14 (test for warnings, line 16)
> FAIL: g++.dg/pr53037-3.C -std=gnu++14 (test for warnings, line 29)
>
See:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53037#c29
--
H.J.
