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: [patch c++]: PR c++/44294 abi/bitfield12.C regression

From: Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou at adacore dot com>
To: "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph at codesourcery dot com>
Cc: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, "H.J. Lu" <hjl dot tools at gmail dot com>, Kai Tietz <ktietz70 at googlemail dot com>, Jason Merrill <jason at redhat dot com>
Date: Thu, 27 May 2010 21:15:37 +0200
Subject: Re: [patch c++]: PR c++/44294 abi/bitfield12.C regression
References: <AANLkTimqIDPWav_nsXylKMhMYsEyf-PQgsQvJERo3z3L@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTikpBDQnRq7Tz9uET6_QkVh6UNVEvTWtDlq9XkYE@mail.gmail.com> <Pine.LNX.4.64.1005271839190.23205@digraph.polyomino.org.uk>

> Are you sure this is safe?  There have often been problems in the past
> with targets using machine modes to determine the function-calling ABI,
> which means that anything that could change the mode assigned to a
> structure or union type is dangerous unless you can show it won't affect
> any targets using modes to determine ABIs.

And the patch is backwards, MAX_FIXED_MODE_SIZE should be used to determine 
whether __int128 is supported for the target, not the other way around.

-- 
Eric Botcazou

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [patch c++]: PR c++/44294 abi/bitfield12.C regression
  - From: H.J. Lu

References:
- [patch c++]: PR c++/44294 abi/bitfield12.C regression
  - From: Kai Tietz
- Re: [patch c++]: PR c++/44294 abi/bitfield12.C regression
  - From: H.J. Lu
- Re: [patch c++]: PR c++/44294 abi/bitfield12.C regression
  - From: Joseph S. Myers

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