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: [testcase] Failure with new bitfield patch (was Re: [RFA] Fix type of bitfields)

From: Neil Booth <neil at daikokuya dot demon dot co dot uk>
To: Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>, Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>,gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 19:18:36 +0000
Subject: Re: [testcase] Failure with new bitfield patch (was Re: [RFA] Fix type of bitfields)
References: <20020128214305.GA27635@daikokuya.demon.co.uk> <20020201153420.O618@sunsite.ms.mff.cuni.cz> <20020201092325.C10263@redhat.com> <20020201123853.C10157@devserv.devel.redhat.com> <20020201105340.D10318@redhat.com>

Richard Henderson wrote:-

> FWIW, Neil, fixing this should be as simple as passing 
> build_nonstandard_integer_type a parameter with the 
> desired alignment.  Which you can extract from the original
> type.

That implies we can have more than one integer type with the
same range of values, so alignment would need to go in the
hash too.  Is that right?

Neil.

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [testcase] Failure with new bitfield patch (was Re: [RFA] Fix type of bitfields)
  - From: Richard Henderson

References:
- [testcase] Failure with new bitfield patch (was Re: [RFA] Fix type of bitfields)
  - From: Jakub Jelinek
- Re: [testcase] Failure with new bitfield patch (was Re: [RFA] Fix type of bitfields)
  - From: Richard Henderson
- Re: [testcase] Failure with new bitfield patch (was Re: [RFA] Fix type of bitfields)
  - From: Jakub Jelinek
- Re: [testcase] Failure with new bitfield patch (was Re: [RFA] Fix type of bitfields)
  - From: Richard Henderson

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