Re: asr(4) error with new clang/llvm

2015-01-02 Thread Ed Maste
On 2 January 2015 at 04:07, David Chisnall wrote: > > The correct solution is to declare the array to have 0 elements (although > this will break C++ code). A zero-length array at the end of a structure is > specifically defined by the C standard (since C99) to be a variable-length > array. A

Re: asr(4) error with new clang/llvm

2015-01-02 Thread David Chisnall
On 2 Jan 2015, at 05:00, Ed Maste wrote: > > It's a variable length array in a struct / union. Other than being > confusing and now triggering a warning after the clang update it > should be fine. > > Most likely we need to build asr with -Werror disabled for that > warning, perhaps -Wno-error-a

Re: asr(4) error with new clang/llvm

2015-01-01 Thread Scott Long
> On Jan 2, 2015, at 12:00 AM, Ed Maste wrote: > > On 1 January 2015 at 23:13, Steven Hartland wrote: >> >> On 02/01/2015 01:23, Bjoern A. Zeeb wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> you need the next line of source to see that while the union only defines >>> Simple[1], the comparison goes up to SG_LIS

Re: asr(4) error with new clang/llvm

2015-01-01 Thread Garrett Cooper
On Jan 1, 2015, at 21:00, Ed Maste wrote: > On 1 January 2015 at 23:13, Steven Hartland wrote: >> >> On 02/01/2015 01:23, Bjoern A. Zeeb wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> you need the next line of source to see that while the union only defines >>> Simple[1], the comparison goes up to SG_LIST (or so

Re: asr(4) error with new clang/llvm

2015-01-01 Thread Ed Maste
On 1 January 2015 at 23:13, Steven Hartland wrote: > > On 02/01/2015 01:23, Bjoern A. Zeeb wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> you need the next line of source to see that while the union only defines >> Simple[1], the comparison goes up to SG_LIST (or something) which is indeed >> defined as 58. Cn someone

Re: asr(4) error with new clang/llvm

2015-01-01 Thread Steven Hartland
On 02/01/2015 01:23, Bjoern A. Zeeb wrote: Hi, you need the next line of source to see that while the union only defines Simple[1], the comparison goes up to SG_LIST (or something) which is indeed defined as 58. Cn someone fix this? This makes i386 compiles failing currently. /scratch/t

asr(4) error with new clang/llvm

2015-01-01 Thread Bjoern A. Zeeb
Hi, you need the next line of source to see that while the union only defines Simple[1], the comparison goes up to SG_LIST (or something) which is indeed defined as 58. Cn someone fix this? This makes i386 compiles failing currently. /scratch/tmp/bz/head.svn/sys/modules/asr/../../dev/asr/a