Re: c/7873: arm-linux-gcc fails when assigning address to a bit field

2002-09-25 Thread Richard Earnshaw
> On Wed, 2002-09-25 at 10:05, Richard Earnshaw wrote: > > > python2.3 now builds fine on arm-linux with this patch. It's not yet > > > checked into the 3.2 branch. > > > > Why on earth would a real application want to put part of a pointer into a > > bit-field? That sounds like it is highly non

Re: c/7873: arm-linux-gcc fails when assigning address to a bit field

2002-09-25 Thread Philip Blundell
On Wed, 2002-09-25 at 10:05, Richard Earnshaw wrote: > > python2.3 now builds fine on arm-linux with this patch. It's not yet > > checked into the 3.2 branch. > > Why on earth would a real application want to put part of a pointer into a > bit-field? That sounds like it is highly non-portable.

Re: c/7873: arm-linux-gcc fails when assigning address to a bit field

2002-09-25 Thread Richard Earnshaw
> python2.3 now builds fine on arm-linux with this patch. It's not yet > checked into the 3.2 branch. Why on earth would a real application want to put part of a pointer into a bit-field? That sounds like it is highly non-portable. R.

Re: c/7873: arm-linux-gcc fails when assigning address to a bit field

2002-09-24 Thread Matthias Klose
python2.3 now builds fine on arm-linux with this patch. It's not yet checked into the 3.2 branch. Richard Earnshaw writes: > > > >How-To-Repeat: > > > > /** Run "arm-linux-gcc -c" on this preprocessed segment : **/ > > > > > > unsigned int x0 = 0; > > > > typedef struct { > > unsigned int

Re: c/7873: arm-linux-gcc fails when assigning address to a bit field

2002-09-10 Thread Richard Earnshaw
> >How-To-Repeat: > > /** Run "arm-linux-gcc -c" on this preprocessed segment : **/ > > > unsigned int x0 = 0; > > typedef struct { > unsigned int field1 : 20; > unsigned int field2 : 12; > } XX; > > static XX yy; > > static void foo (void) > { > yy.field1 = (unsigned int ) (&x0);