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: Darwin bootstrap failure following wide int merge


On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 11:40 AM, Richard Biener
<richard.guenther@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 10:24 AM, Richard Sandiford
> <rdsandiford@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> Richard Biener <richard.guenther@gmail.com> writes:
>>> On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 8:50 AM, Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 08:36:31AM -0700, Mike Stump wrote:
>>>>> On May 26, 2014, at 2:22 AM, FX <fxcoudert@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> >> This causes GCC bootstrap to fail on Darwin systems (whose system
>>>>> > compiler is clang-based). Since PR 61146 was resolved as INVALID
>>>>> > (but Iâm not sure itâs the right call, see below), Iâve filed a
>>>>> > separate report for the bootstrap issue
>>>>> > (https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61315).
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Since my PR has been closed twice by Andrew Pinski (âitâs clangâs
>>>>> > fault, bouh ouhâ), Iâd ask the maintainers to step in. Can we
>>>>> > please provide a GCC that works for the default darwin setup? Or at
>>>>> > least drop darwin as secondary target and document the failure?
>>>>>
>>>>> The best coarse of action, post a patch, have it reviewed and put in.
>>>>> Current action, a patch has been posted, the review is outstanding, Iâd
>>>>> like to see it put in; though, I am curious why the casts were there in
>>>>> the first place.
>>>>
>>>> Note, haven't added them there, but from what I can test, the casts there
>>>> can serve as a compile time check that the right type is used, e.g.
>>>> unsigned long i;
>>>>
>>>> void
>>>> foo (void)
>>>> {
>>>>   asm volatile ("# %0 %1" : "=r" ((unsigned long long) i) : "0"
>>>> ((unsigned long long) 0));
>>>> }
>>>
>>> Ah, interesting.  A not-so-hineous extension then.
>>
>> In that case, how about just protecting the include with:
>>
>> #if GCC_VERSION >= 4300 && (W_TYPE_SIZE == 32 || defined (__SIZEOF_INT128__))
>>
>> rather than:
>>
>> #if GCC_VERSION >= 3000 && (W_TYPE_SIZE == 32 || defined (__SIZEOF_INT128__))
>>
>> so that clang will fail the version check?  At the end of the day we
>> only really care what happens during stage 2 and 3.  Cross-compilers
>> built with recentish gccs will still benefit.
>
> Works for me (thus, pre-approved with a comment explaining the version
> choice).

Btw, testing coverage would ask for && defined (__OPTIMIZE__), too, disabling
that path in stage1 unconditionally even for new GCC.

Richard.

> Thanks,
> Richard.
>
>> Thanks,
>> Richard


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