Re: [PATCH] avoid treating more incompatible redeclarations as builtin-ins [PR94040]

2020-03-18 Thread Martin Sebor via Gcc-patches
On 3/18/20 1:04 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: On Wed, Mar 18, 2020 at 12:57:18PM -0600, Martin Sebor via Gcc-patches wrote: I noticed this last night: https://sourceware.org/pipermail/glibc-cvs/2020q1/069150.html Presumably that's the fix. Or maybe for REAL_TYPE just care here about TYPE_MODE

Re: [PATCH] avoid treating more incompatible redeclarations as builtin-ins [PR94040]

2020-03-18 Thread Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches
On Wed, Mar 18, 2020 at 12:57:18PM -0600, Martin Sebor via Gcc-patches wrote: > I noticed this last night: > > https://sourceware.org/pipermail/glibc-cvs/2020q1/069150.html > > Presumably that's the fix. Or maybe for REAL_TYPE just care here about TYPE_MODE which should be all that matters? I

Re: [PATCH] avoid treating more incompatible redeclarations as builtin-ins [PR94040]

2020-03-18 Thread Martin Sebor via Gcc-patches
On 3/18/20 8:30 AM, Jeff Law wrote: On Wed, 2020-03-18 at 14:25 +, Szabolcs Nagy wrote: The 03/13/2020 10:45, Martin Sebor via Gcc-patches wrote: On 3/12/20 7:17 PM, Joseph Myers wrote: On Thu, 5 Mar 2020, Martin Sebor wrote: Tested on x86_64-linux. Is this acceptable for GCC 10? How a

Re: [PATCH] avoid treating more incompatible redeclarations as builtin-ins [PR94040]

2020-03-18 Thread Jeff Law via Gcc-patches
On Wed, 2020-03-18 at 14:25 +, Szabolcs Nagy wrote: > The 03/13/2020 10:45, Martin Sebor via Gcc-patches wrote: > > On 3/12/20 7:17 PM, Joseph Myers wrote: > > > On Thu, 5 Mar 2020, Martin Sebor wrote: > > > > > > > Tested on x86_64-linux. Is this acceptable for GCC 10? How about 9? > > > >

Re: [PATCH] avoid treating more incompatible redeclarations as builtin-ins [PR94040]

2020-03-18 Thread Szabolcs Nagy
The 03/13/2020 10:45, Martin Sebor via Gcc-patches wrote: > On 3/12/20 7:17 PM, Joseph Myers wrote: > > On Thu, 5 Mar 2020, Martin Sebor wrote: > > > > > Tested on x86_64-linux. Is this acceptable for GCC 10? How about 9? > > > > OK for GCC 10. > > Thank you. I committed it to trunk in r10-71

Re: [PATCH] avoid treating more incompatible redeclarations as builtin-ins [PR94040]

2020-03-18 Thread Szabolcs Nagy
The 03/13/2020 10:45, Martin Sebor via Gcc-patches wrote: > On 3/12/20 7:17 PM, Joseph Myers wrote: > > On Thu, 5 Mar 2020, Martin Sebor wrote: > > > > > Tested on x86_64-linux. Is this acceptable for GCC 10? How about 9? > > > > OK for GCC 10. > > Thank you. I committed it to trunk in r10-71

Re: [PATCH] avoid treating more incompatible redeclarations as builtin-ins [PR94040]

2020-03-13 Thread Joseph Myers
On Fri, 13 Mar 2020, Martin Sebor via Gcc-patches wrote: > On 3/12/20 7:17 PM, Joseph Myers wrote: > > On Thu, 5 Mar 2020, Martin Sebor wrote: > > > > > Tested on x86_64-linux. Is this acceptable for GCC 10? How about 9? > > > > OK for GCC 10. > > Thank you. I committed it to trunk in r10-71

Re: [PATCH] avoid treating more incompatible redeclarations as builtin-ins [PR94040]

2020-03-13 Thread Martin Sebor via Gcc-patches
On 3/6/20 2:11 AM, Richard Biener wrote: On Fri, Mar 6, 2020 at 2:04 AM Martin Sebor wrote: Treating incompatible redeclarations of built-in functions as built-ins is a problem not just for the middle-end but even for the C front-end itself, when different parts of it make different assumptio

Re: [PATCH] avoid treating more incompatible redeclarations as builtin-ins [PR94040]

2020-03-13 Thread Martin Sebor via Gcc-patches
On 3/12/20 7:17 PM, Joseph Myers wrote: On Thu, 5 Mar 2020, Martin Sebor wrote: Tested on x86_64-linux. Is this acceptable for GCC 10? How about 9? OK for GCC 10. Thank you. I committed it to trunk in r10-7162. Do you not want me to commit it to GCC 9 or are you leaving it up to me? Ma

Re: [PATCH] avoid treating more incompatible redeclarations as builtin-ins [PR94040]

2020-03-12 Thread Joseph Myers
On Thu, 5 Mar 2020, Martin Sebor wrote: > Tested on x86_64-linux. Is this acceptable for GCC 10? How about 9? OK for GCC 10. -- Joseph S. Myers jos...@codesourcery.com

Re: [PATCH] avoid treating more incompatible redeclarations as builtin-ins [PR94040]

2020-03-06 Thread Richard Biener
On Fri, Mar 6, 2020 at 2:04 AM Martin Sebor wrote: > > Treating incompatible redeclarations of built-in functions as built-ins > is a problem not just for the middle-end but even for the C front-end > itself, when different parts of it make different assumptions about > what is and isn't valid.

[PATCH] avoid treating more incompatible redeclarations as builtin-ins [PR94040]

2020-03-05 Thread Martin Sebor
Treating incompatible redeclarations of built-in functions as built-ins is a problem not just for the middle-end but even for the C front-end itself, when different parts of it make different assumptions about what is and isn't valid. The test case that is the subject of this bug report (a GCC 9