> The other changes are OK.
Committed those then. Thanks!
On Wed, 15 Oct 2014, DJ Delorie wrote:
> > I don't see what the stor-layout.c changes have to do with that
> > description, or why they are correct (they look wrong to me; the
> > existing addition of BITS_PER_UNIT_LOG + 1 looks logically correct
> > for bitsizetype).
>
> sooo... the type for bit
> I don't see what the stor-layout.c changes have to do with that
> description, or why they are correct (they look wrong to me; the
> existing addition of BITS_PER_UNIT_LOG + 1 looks logically correct
> for bitsizetype).
sooo... the type for bitsizetype will *always* be a bigger type than
sizety
On Wed, 15 Oct 2014, DJ Delorie wrote:
> A few more cases where pointers were assumed to be whole bytes.
> Ok?
I don't see what the stor-layout.c changes have to do with that
description, or why they are correct (they look wrong to me; the existing
addition of BITS_PER_UNIT_LOG + 1 looks logica
A few more cases where pointers were assumed to be whole bytes.
Ok?
Index: gcc/c-family/c-cppbuiltin.c
===
--- gcc/c-family/c-cppbuiltin.c (revision 216287)
+++ gcc/c-family/c-cppbuiltin.c (working copy)
@@ -668,13 +668,13 @@ cpp_ato
