This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: expanding addrs for initializers

From: DJ Delorie <dj at redhat dot com>
To: richard dot guenther at gmail dot com
Cc: rth at redhat dot com, ebotcazou at adacore dot com, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 12:09:42 -0400
Subject: Re: expanding addrs for initializers
References: <200508190348.j7J3mQa7007351@greed.delorie.com> <200509010203.j8123Ba7000797@greed.delorie.com> <200509181912.20573.ebotcazou@adacore.com> <200509192000.j8JK0MCO022091@greed.delorie.com> <20050919201322.GC4208@redhat.com> <200509192032.j8JKWiXr022665@greed.delorie.com> <84fc9c000510061401t2d65e36ds35850b9724dfa442@mail.gmail.com> <200510062114.j96LE129008614@greed.delorie.com> <20051006212208.GB13559@redhat.com> <200510071845.j97IjQkr022391@greed.delorie.com> <84fc9c000510110734t76ae3560w14f24c88b77e6d0c@mail.gmail.com>

> g++.dg/init/struct3.C still fails, because instead of restricting
> the error to expanding conversions, you restricted it to truncating
> conversions.

Grrr.  I *did* regression test it.  Investigation shows that my
"unpatched" build had remnants of an older patch in it, so that test
failed both before and after.  Sigh.

Thanks for catching this.

References:
- Re: expanding addrs for initializers
  - From: Richard Guenther
- Re: expanding addrs for initializers
  - From: DJ Delorie
- Re: expanding addrs for initializers
  - From: Richard Henderson
- Re: expanding addrs for initializers
  - From: DJ Delorie
- Re: expanding addrs for initializers
  - From: Richard Guenther

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]