This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: g++ build failure (Was: C++ PATCH: PR 12735)
- From: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>
- To: Richard dot Earnshaw at arm dot com
- Cc: "Joseph S. Myers" <jsm at polyomino dot org dot uk>, Joern Rennecke <joern dot rennecke at superh dot com>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: 13 Nov 2003 08:40:50 -0800
- Subject: Re: g++ build failure (Was: C++ PATCH: PR 12735)
- Organization: CodeSourcery, LLC
- References: <200311131617.hADGHsG17607@pc960.cambridge.arm.com>
On Thu, 2003-11-13 at 08:17, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> > On Thu, 13 Nov 2003, Joern Rennecke wrote:
> > > exists in c99, it is not compatible with any pointer type, and
> > > thus assigning a union tree_node * to ok is a constraint violation
> > > of 22.214.171.124 .
> > The last case of 126.96.36.199#1 ("the left operand has type _Bool and the
> > right is a pointer") is the one that applies.
> > But the requirement for cross-compilers to build with 2.95 means we can't
> > use this (or other properties of _Bool that distinguish it from other
> > integer types) in GCC.
> Indeed. However, in this case the patch is trivial. Just change the
> declaration of ok to a tree and we can use an implicit NULL check.
> I'm just testing with this change:
That is clearly correct. Thanks for fixing that!
Mark Mitchell <email@example.com>