Snapshot gcc-11-20221021 is now available on
https://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/11-20221021/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 11 git branch
with the following options: git://gcc.gnu.org/git/gcc.git branch
* Joseph Myers:
>> Other tests look like they might be intended to be built in C89 mode,
>> e.g. gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/compile/386.c, although it's not
>> immediately obvious to me what they test.
>
> For tests that might be deliberately testing implicit function
> declarations or unprotot
On Fri, 21 Oct 2022, Florian Weimer wrote:
> > while typeof was enabled by default for -std=gnu* anyway
> > in previous releases so is a lower risk.
>
> Do the semantics of typeof change to align with C++, so that typeof
> (int) becomes invalid?
No. Both typeof (expr) and typeof (type) are val
* Joseph Myers:
> On Fri, 21 Oct 2022, Florian Weimer via Gcc wrote:
>
>> Do you have a list of C2X features that are likely to impact autoconf
>> tests? Or planned changes in the GCC 13 and 14 default language modes
>> that reject constructs previous accepted as an extension?
>
> I think by far
On Fri, 21 Oct 2022, Florian Weimer via Gcc wrote:
> Do you have a list of C2X features that are likely to impact autoconf
> tests? Or planned changes in the GCC 13 and 14 default language modes
> that reject constructs previous accepted as an extension?
I think by far the biggest risk - for bui
On Fri, 21 Oct 2022, Arsen Arsenović via Gcc wrote:
> Ping on this patch.
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-October/603574.html
>
> For context, see the rest of this thread. TL;DR is that `int main'
> should implicitly return 0 on freestanding, without the other burdens of
>
* Joseph Myers:
> On Fri, 21 Oct 2022, Florian Weimer via Gcc wrote:
>
>> Is this really possible? For function pointers, it's an ABI change.
>> int (*) () and int (*) (void) have different calling conventions on some
>> ABIs (e.g., powerpc64le-linux-gnu). The ABI difference goes away once
>> th
On Fri, 21 Oct 2022, Florian Weimer via Gcc wrote:
> Is this really possible? For function pointers, it's an ABI change.
> int (*) () and int (*) (void) have different calling conventions on some
> ABIs (e.g., powerpc64le-linux-gnu). The ABI difference goes away once
> the callees are rebuilt, a
On Friday, 21 October 2022 21:55:53 CEST Florian Weimer wrote:
> That's the implicit function declaration/implicit int change. This
> won't happen in GCC 13, it's too late for that. I tried to make this
> change a couple of years in Fedora, and just flipping the compiler
> flag Does Not Work. I
On Fri, 21 Oct 2022, Florian Weimer via Gcc wrote:
> What should we do about these when they are not relevant to what's being
> tested? For example, gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/execute/ieee/mzero6.c
> has this:
>
> int main ()
> {
> if (__builtin_copysign (1.0, func (0.0 / -5.0, 10)) !=
On Fri, 21 Oct 2022, Florian Weimer via Gcc wrote:
> What's the expected default behavior for GCC 14 regarding old-style
> function definitions (function definitions which do not have a
> prototype)? I assume if GCC 14 defaults to C2x mode, these no longer
> valid constructs would be rejected by
On Friday, 21 October 2022 21:14:54 CEST Marek Polacek via Gcc wrote:
> commit 0a91bdaf177409a2a5e7895bce4f0e7091b4b3ca
> Author: Joseph Myers
> Date: Wed Sep 7 13:56:25 2022 +
>
> c: New C2x keywords
>
> which says:
>
> As with the removal of unprototyped functions, this change h
* Arsen Arsenović:
> On Friday, 21 October 2022 21:14:54 CEST Marek Polacek via Gcc wrote:
>> commit 0a91bdaf177409a2a5e7895bce4f0e7091b4b3ca
>> Author: Joseph Myers
>> Date: Wed Sep 7 13:56:25 2022 +
>>
>> c: New C2x keywords
>>
>> which says:
>>
>> As with the removal of unprot
On Fri, Oct 21, 2022 at 08:31:09PM +0200, Florian Weimer via Gcc wrote:
> * Joseph Myers:
>
> > I'm working on adding various C2x features to the C front end (and
> > elsewhere in GCC as applicable).
> >
> > I suspect I won't get all the C2x features done for GCC 13. If anyone
> > else is inter
* Joseph Myers:
> I'm working on adding various C2x features to the C front end (and
> elsewhere in GCC as applicable).
>
> I suspect I won't get all the C2x features done for GCC 13. If anyone
> else is interested in adding C2x features, I'd encourage looking at some
> of the following, which
* Florian Weimer via Gcc:
> * Jakub Jelinek:
>
>> On Fri, Oct 21, 2022 at 11:17:40AM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
>>> So we would patch the tests?
>>
>> Depends on how large the patch is, but I'd say so.
>>
>>> I guess we can make sure we use “int main
>>> (void)” etc. at the same time.
>>
>> Why
Ping on this patch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-October/603574.html
For context, see the rest of this thread. TL;DR is that `int main'
should implicitly return 0 on freestanding, without the other burdens of
main (hosted should remain unchanged, as well as non-int `main's).
* Jakub Jelinek:
> On Fri, Oct 21, 2022 at 11:17:40AM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
>> So we would patch the tests?
>
> Depends on how large the patch is, but I'd say so.
>
>> I guess we can make sure we use “int main
>> (void)” etc. at the same time.
>
> Why? Isn't int main () {} in C2X the same
On Fri, Oct 21, 2022 at 11:17:40AM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> So we would patch the tests?
Depends on how large the patch is, but I'd say so.
> I guess we can make sure we use “int main
> (void)” etc. at the same time.
Why? Isn't int main () {} in C2X the same thing as int main (void) {} ?
* Jakub Jelinek:
> On Fri, Oct 21, 2022 at 10:40:16AM +0200, Florian Weimer via Gcc wrote:
>> What should we do about these when they are not relevant to what's being
>> tested? For example, gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/execute/ieee/mzero6.c
>> has this:
>>
>> int main ()
>> {
>> if (__bu
On Fri, Oct 21, 2022 at 10:40:16AM +0200, Florian Weimer via Gcc wrote:
> What should we do about these when they are not relevant to what's being
> tested? For example, gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/execute/ieee/mzero6.c
> has this:
>
> int main ()
> {
> if (__builtin_copysign (1.0, func (
What should we do about these when they are not relevant to what's being
tested? For example, gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/execute/ieee/mzero6.c
has this:
int main ()
{
if (__builtin_copysign (1.0, func (0.0 / -5.0, 10)) != -1.0)
abort ();
exit (0);
}
but no include files, so
22 matches
Mail list logo
