On Wed, 1 Aug 2018, Bogdan Harjoc wrote:
> > seen_error () is the idiomatic way of testing whether an error has been
> > reported.
>
> The updated patch is attached and includes a test that passes with:
>
> make check-gcc RUNTESTFLAGS="dg.exp=union-duplicate-field.c"
Thanks, committed.
--
J
On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 1:20 AM, Joseph Myers wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Aug 2018, Bogdan Harjoc wrote:
>
>> So array[0] < component < array[2], which loops (I removed the gdb p
>> commands for field_array[1] and so on).
>
> Is the key thing here that you end up with DECL_NAME (field) == NULL_TREE,
> but D
On Wed, 1 Aug 2018, Bogdan Harjoc wrote:
> So array[0] < component < array[2], which loops (I removed the gdb p
> commands for field_array[1] and so on).
Is the key thing here that you end up with DECL_NAME (field) == NULL_TREE,
but DECL_NAME (field_array[bot]) != NULL_TREE - and in this particu
#define foo(a) did it, thanks!
As Joseph suspected, the hang/no hang result depended on the values of
DECL_NAME pointers:
- with #define foo(a) plus the testcase from bugzilla id 86690 and no
-save-temps, the "return s.a" that triggers lookup_field() will find
the sorted field_array containing:
On Tue, 31 Jul 2018, Bogdan Harjoc wrote:
> With fresh git sources and contrib/gcc_update the tests pass:
>
> === gcc Summary ===
>
> # of expected passes 133500
> # of expected failures 422
> # of unsupported tests 2104
>
> gcc-build/gcc/xgcc version 9.0.0 20180730 (experimental) (GCC)
>
> I
Hi,
Thanks for submitting the patch.
Bogdan Harjoc writes:
> With fresh git sources and contrib/gcc_update the tests pass:
>
> === gcc Summary ===
>
> # of expected passes 133500
> # of expected failures 422
> # of unsupported tests 2104
>
> gcc-build/gcc/xgcc version 9.0.0 20180730 (experiment
With fresh git sources and contrib/gcc_update the tests pass:
=== gcc Summary ===
# of expected passes 133500
# of expected failures 422
# of unsupported tests 2104
gcc-build/gcc/xgcc version 9.0.0 20180730 (experimental) (GCC)
I wasn't able to reduce the input to avoid including and as
it on
On Fri, 27 Jul 2018, Bogdan Harjoc wrote:
> If a struct contains an anonymous union and both have a field with the
> same name, detect_field_duplicates_hash() will replace one of them
> with NULL. If compilation doesn't stop immediately, it may later call
> lookup_field() on the union, which false
