On Wed, 3 Apr 2019, Christophe Lyon wrote: > Hi! > > On Fri, 29 Mar 2019 at 20:02, Jeff Law <l...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > On 3/29/19 9:09 AM, Jason Merrill wrote: > > > On Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 4:48 AM Richard Biener <rguent...@suse.de> wrote: > > >> > > >> On Thu, 28 Mar 2019, Jason Merrill wrote: > > >> > > >>> On 3/26/19 4:40 AM, Richard Biener wrote: > > >>>> On Mon, 18 Mar 2019, Richard Biener wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>>> On Fri, 15 Mar 2019, Jason Merrill wrote: > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> On 3/15/19 9:33 AM, Richard Biener wrote: > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> The following is an attempt to fix PR71598 where C (and C++?) have > > >>>>>>> an implementation-defined compatible integer type for each enum > > >>>>>>> and the TBAA rules mandate that accesses using a compatible type > > >>>>>>> are allowed. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> This does not apply to C++; an enum does not alias its underlying > > >>>>>> type. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Thus the following different patch, introducing c_get_alias_set and > > >>>>> only doing the special handling for C family frontends (I assume > > >>>>> that at least ObjC is also affected). > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Bootstrap & regtest running on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, OK? > > >>>> > > >>>> Ping. Also consider the additional testcase below to be added. > > >>>> > > >>>> Richard. > > >>>> > > >>>> 2019-03-18 Richard Biener <rguent...@suse.de> > > >>>> > > >>>> PR c/71598 > > >>>> * gimple.c: Include langhooks.h. > > >>>> (gimple_get_alias_set): Treat enumeral types as the underlying > > >>>> integer type. > > >>> > > >>> Won't this affect all languages? > > >> > > >> It affects all languages during the LTO optimization phase, yes. > > >> There's unfortunately no way around that at the moment. > > > > > > Ah, well. Looks good to me, then. > > Likewise. And with Joseph largely offline right now, that's going to > > have to be sufficient :-) > > > > > I've noticed minor new errors at link time on arm with the 2 new testcases. > pr71598-1.c complains on arm-none-eabi because > arm-none-eabi/bin/ld: warning: /ccu5w26t.o uses 32-bit enums yet the > output is to use variable-size enums; use of enum values across > objects may fail > > conversely, pr71598-2.c complains on arm-none-linux-gnueabi* because: > arm-none-linux-gnueabi/bin/ld: warning: /ccl5OUKi.o uses variable-size > enums yet the output is to use 32-bit enums; use of enum values across > objects may fail > > In both cases this is because crt0.o is built with the opposite > (default) short-enum option than the testcase, so the linker sees a > mismatch between crt0.o and pr71598-X.o. > > Shall I add target-dependent dg-warning directives in the testcases, > or is there a better way?
Maybe dg-skip the test for target_short_enums which seems to exist? Can you try if that works and if so, commit the fix? Thanks, Richard.
