--- Additional Comments From zack at codesourcery dot com 2004-11-27 20:25
---
Subject: Re: [4.0 Regression] C4x fails miserably
I have no plans to do anything about this bug. Someone who cares
about C4x should look at it.
zw
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16621
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-27
20:14 ---
Yes I did verify it was fixed:
[zhivago:gcc/objdir-c4x/gcc] pinskia% cat t.c
int i[2];
[zhivago:gcc/objdir-c4x/gcc] pinskia% ./cc1 -version t.c
GNU C version 4.0.0 20041126 (experimental) (c4x-unknown-elf)
--- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2004-11-27
20:13 ---
Reopening until someone builds a C4x compiler and test it first-hand.
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-27
20:10 ---
Have you actually verified that this is fixed?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16621
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-27
19:15 ---
But again ways this is now fixed.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-27
19:13 ---
Yes libcpp still uses HOST_WIDE_INT:
include/cpplib.h:typedef unsigned HOST_WIDE_INT cpp_num_part;
plus we use cpp_num_part all over the place in libcpp.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1
--- Additional Comments From neroden at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-27
18:44 ---
libcpp no longer uses HOST_WIDE_INT.
The computation which leads to the error is done in c-decl.c in "target
arithmetic" as follows:
/* Compute the maximum valid index, that is, si
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-27
00:36 ---
Any news on this bug, it has been opened for a while now (4 months) and no news
about it.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16621
