This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Darwin bootstrap failure following wide int merge (was: we are starting the wide int merge)
- From: Richard Biener <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>
- To: FX <fxcoudert at gmail dot com>
- Cc: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>, Mike Stump <mikestump at comcast dot net>, echristo at gmail dot com, Stan Shebs <stanshebs at earthlink dot net>, GCC Development <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>, glisse at gcc dot gnu dot org, Richard Sandiford <rdsandiford at googlemail dot com>, Kenneth Zadeck <zadeck at naturalbridge dot com>, gcc-patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Gerald Pfeifer <gerald at pfeifer dot com>
- Date: Wed, 28 May 2014 11:38:55 +0200
- Subject: Re: Darwin bootstrap failure following wide int merge (was: we are starting the wide int merge)
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <97BE9F46-EB35-4B06-9065-915D7259E701 at gmail dot com> <769D0D77-6DB3-421F-9006-326B0E2B42FE at gmail dot com> <71C2DDBB-87AE-491D-9074-F5744B8AFF61 at comcast dot net> <20140528065033 dot GV10386 at tucnak dot redhat dot com> <CAFiYyc2tLShbmh_4RzMqCO+yky8voEOhTpY1aqjYMLq+dAP8Pg at mail dot gmail dot com> <494AF306-EB09-4F70-BCF8-95E892BF618B at gmail dot com>
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 10:24 AM, FX <email@example.com> wrote:
>> Yeah, a portable (C and C++) static assert would be nice. And also pushing
>> this to gmp then.
>> In the meantime I see nothing wrong in "merging" from GMP.
> One question, one comment:
> 1. can I count your âI see nothing wrongâ as an approval, as in âglobal reviewers can approve changes to any part of the compiler or associated librariesâ?
Well, kind of. But Jakub is as well, so I don't want to override him. So
please wait for an ack from Jakub. I agree with him that the casts
served a purpose and that, if removed, they need to be replaced with
an appropriate assertion measure.
Given that inline asm is a GCC extension calling those casts another
extension from the LLVM side is really odd. In fact I think the casts
are a very good way of doing this kind of assertions. Are they documented
in that regard? If so I'd say it's really really LLVM that should be fixed
and the workaround on the GCC side is to pass that -fhineous-gnu-extensions
> 2. I think your quotes around âmergingâ mean youâre not actually thinking of a merge, but for clarificationâs sake: GMPâs longlong.h has apparently a long history of its own, and has many differences with GCCâs version. The closest thing to an âupstreamâ for us would probably be glibc (see the diff attached), from which we last merged on 2014-04-22.
I see. I suppose the gcc side includes the proposed patch and glibc
still has those casts, right? In that case there is nothing to merge
from glibc (but to glibc eventually).