Re: gcc.c-torture/execute/stdarg-2.c: long vs int

2005-08-23 Thread Mark Mitchell
DJ Delorie wrote: This certainly wasn't my intention, please change it to 79L. How's this? It passes both m32c and x86-64. 2005-08-23 DJ Delorie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * gcc.c-torture/execute/stdarg-2.c (main): Make sure long constants have the L suffix. OK. -- Mark Mitche

Re: gcc.c-torture/execute/stdarg-2.c: long vs int

2005-08-23 Thread DJ Delorie
> This certainly wasn't my intention, please change it to 79L. How's this? It passes both m32c and x86-64. 2005-08-23 DJ Delorie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * gcc.c-torture/execute/stdarg-2.c (main): Make sure long constants have the L suffix. Index: gcc.c-torture/execute/stdarg-2.c

Re: gcc.c-torture/execute/stdarg-2.c: long vs int

2005-08-23 Thread Jakub Jelinek
On Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 08:38:01PM -0400, DJ Delorie wrote: > > This test assumes that integer constants passed as varargs are > promoted to a type at least as big as "long", which is not valid on 16 > bit hosts. For example: > > void > f1 (int i, ...) > { > va_start (gap, i); > x = va_arg (

gcc.c-torture/execute/stdarg-2.c: long vs int

2005-08-22 Thread DJ Delorie
This test assumes that integer constants passed as varargs are promoted to a type at least as big as "long", which is not valid on 16 bit hosts. For example: void f1 (int i, ...) { va_start (gap, i); x = va_arg (gap, long); int main (void) { f1 (1, 79); if (x != 79) abort (); Sho