On Nov 14, 2017, at 3:21 PM, Joseph Myers wrote:
>
> On Tue, 14 Nov 2017, Mike Stump wrote:
>> The testsuite/gcc.c-torture/execute/pr34971.c seems wrong to me. The
>> type of the expression x.b << 8 has size 8, a size 8 integral type is a
>> 64-bit type. If the result is a 64-bit type, then i
On Tue, 14 Nov 2017, Mike Stump wrote:
> The testsuite/gcc.c-torture/execute/pr34971.c seems wrong to me. The
> type of the expression x.b << 8 has size 8, a size 8 integral type is a
> 64-bit type. If the result is a 64-bit type, then it's argument (x.b)
> was a 64-bit type. In C++, we obse
The testsuite/gcc.c-torture/execute/pr34971.c seems wrong to me. The type of
the expression x.b << 8 has size 8, a size 8 integral type is a 64-bit type.
If the result is a 64-bit type, then it's argument (x.b) was a 64-bit type. In
C++, we observed what they meant in the C language standard
(I wrote:)
> > Can we similarly promise or say something for accesses of the
> > containing struct as a whole?
No takers?
> Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2010 11:34:04 -0400
> From: DJ Delorie
> Should be the same as before, I would think.
Primarily I want them similarly defined. I wasn't expecting
thos
> Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2010 11:53:31 -0400
> From: Daniel Jacobowitz
> On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 11:34:04AM -0400, DJ Delorie wrote:
> > > Can we similarly promise or say something for accesses of the
> > > containing struct as a whole?
> > I hadn't considered those cases (when would you want to copy a
On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 11:34:04AM -0400, DJ Delorie wrote:
>
> > Can we similarly promise or say something for accesses of the
> > containing struct as a whole?
>
> I hadn't considered those cases (when would you want to copy a
> *peripheral* ?) Should be the same as before, I would think.
Not
> Can we similarly promise or say something for accesses of the
> containing struct as a whole?
I hadn't considered those cases (when would you want to copy a
*peripheral* ?) Should be the same as before, I would think.
> From: DJ Delorie
> Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2010 18:53:54 -0400
A bit of thread hijacking (moving it to gcc@) I'm afraid, but
it's too related to pass up on the opportunity...
> Index: gcc/doc/invoke.texi
> ===
> --- gcc/doc/invoke.texi
