On Mon, Nov 14, 2022 at 09:19:26AM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Sam James:
>
> > Would you be able to backport 6be2672e4ee41c566a9e072088a263bab5f7
> > and 885b6660c17fb91980b5682514ef54668e544b02 to the active <13
> > branches?
>
> Jakub, okay to backport these two (to 12, 11, 10 I presu
> On 14 Nov 2022, at 08:19, Florian Weimer wrote:
>
> * Sam James:
>
>> Would you be able to backport 6be2672e4ee41c566a9e072088a263bab5f7
>> and 885b6660c17fb91980b5682514ef54668e544b02 to the active <13
>> branches?
>
> Jakub, okay to backport these two (to 12, 11, 10 I presume)?
(Yes
* Sam James:
> Would you be able to backport 6be2672e4ee41c566a9e072088a263bab5f7
> and 885b6660c17fb91980b5682514ef54668e544b02 to the active <13
> branches?
Jakub, okay to backport these two (to 12, 11, 10 I presume)?
commit 6be2672e4ee41c566a9e072088a263bab5f7
Author: Florian Weimer
> On 21 Oct 2022, at 09:40, 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,
* 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
* 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 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
* 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
* 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
15 matches
Mail list logo
