http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50294
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
URL|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50294
--- Comment #11 from Eric Botcazou 2012-05-26
13:26:01 UTC ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Sat May 26 13:25:55 2012
New Revision: 187914
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=187914
Log:
PR ada/50294
* gnat.dg/array21.adb: Ne
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50294
--- Comment #10 from rguenther at suse dot de
2011-12-01 09:34:31 UTC ---
On Sat, 19 Nov 2011, ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50294
>
> --- Comment #9 from Eric Botcazou 2011-11-19
> 21:35:48
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50294
--- Comment #9 from Eric Botcazou 2011-11-19
21:35:48 UTC ---
> Thus the question - what should stor-layout do with domain types
> that wrap the wrong way around (i.e. are of wrong type because Ada
> turns everything into sizetype instead of [s]s
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50294
--- Comment #8 from Eric Botcazou 2011-11-19
21:25:17 UTC ---
Created attachment 25861
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25861
Improved testcase
It should fail everywhere.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50294
--- Comment #7 from Eric Botcazou 2011-09-06
10:21:42 UTC ---
> And 32-bit for 32-bit targets? sizetype is 32bits there ...
No, 64-bit type are supported universally. Of course your mileage may vary for
array types indexed with a 64-bit type..
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50294
--- Comment #6 from rguenther at suse dot de
2011-09-06 09:52:38 UTC ---
On Tue, 6 Sep 2011, ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50294
>
> --- Comment #5 from Eric Botcazou 2011-09-06
> 09:14:28 U
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50294
--- Comment #5 from Eric Botcazou 2011-09-06
09:14:28 UTC ---
> My idea with fixing the Ada issue would be to conditionally use a signed
> or unsigned (sizetype) domain type. Not sure if all of the middle-end
> copes well with ssizetype domains
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50294
--- Comment #4 from Richard Guenther 2011-09-06
08:31:56 UTC ---
My idea with fixing the Ada issue would be to conditionally use a signed
or unsigned (sizetype) domain type. Not sure if all of the middle-end
copes well with ssizetype domains (bu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50294
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50294
--- Comment #2 from Richard Guenther 2011-09-05
14:06:57 UTC ---
Index: gcc/varasm.c
===
--- gcc/varasm.c(revision 178527)
+++ gcc/varasm.c(working copy)
@@ -4746,9 +
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50294
--- Comment #1 from Richard Guenther 2011-09-05
13:59:44 UTC ---
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-09/msg00280.html fixes the
Storage_Error issue but still ICEs because of the forced sign-extension
in output_constructor_regular_field which w
12 matches
Mail list logo
