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] |
Second try, (hopefully) with all complaints addressed. Bootstrapped and tested on i686-pc-linux-gnu. Jan >>> "Joseph S. Myers" <jsm@polyomino.org.uk> 07.07.04 14:07:45 >>> On Wed, 7 Jul 2004, Jan Beulich wrote: > 2004-07-07 Jan Beulich <jbeulich@novell.com> > > PR c/7054 > * tree.h (initial_max_fld_align): Declare > * stor-layout.c (initial_max_fld_align): Define and initialize. > (maximum_field_alignment): Initialize to the same value. > * common.opt: Add -fpack-struct= variant of switch. > * opts.c: Handle -fpack-struct= variant of switch. > * c-pragma.c: Change #pragma pack() handling so that is becomes > compatible to other compilers: accept individual 'push' > argument, > make final pop restore (command line) default, correct > interaction > of push/pop and sole specification of a new alignment (so that > the > sequence #pragma pack(push) - #pragma pack(<n>) becomes > identical > to #pragma pack(push, <n>). > * testsuite/gcc.dg/pack-test-2.c: Adjust to permit and check > #pragma pack(push). We can't consider patches without proper documentation. This needs (a) documentation for the new command-line option syntax, (b) documentation for the pragma changes (and it seems for the pragma itself, which as you evidently understand what it's meant to do at present you're best placed to write), (c) for what seems to be a new target macro DEFAULT_PACK_STRUCT. > /home/jbeulich/src/gcc/mainline/2004-07-05.10.09/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/abi/vbase10.C 2004-01-08 > 04:32:11.000000000 +0100 > +++ > 2004-07-05.10.09/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/abi/vbase10.C 2004-05-27 > 10:57:09.000000000 +0200 Not mentioned in the ChangeLog entry. Why is this testcase being changed? > /home/jbeulich/src/gcc/mainline/2004-07-05.10.09/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/Wpadded.c 2003-06-10 > 01:04:50.000000000 +0200 > +++ 2004-07-05.10.09/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/Wpadded.c 2004-05-26 > 15:38:24.000000000 +0200 Likewise. > /home/jbeulich/src/gcc/mainline/2004-07-05.10.09/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/c99-flex-array-4.c 2002-08-17 > 16:48:28.000000000 +0200 > +++ > 2004-07-05.10.09/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/c99-flex-array-4.c 2004-05-26 > 17:19:15.000000000 +0200 Likewise. It seems clearly inappropriate for standards testcases to have any special options like you're adding. (But this testcase is expected to become obsolete, as the draft C99 TC2 (N1060) would remove the defective requirement from the standard.) -- Joseph S. Myers http://www.srcf.ucam.org/~jsm28/gcc/ jsm@polyomino.org.uk (personal mail) jsm28@gcc.gnu.org (Bugzilla assignments and CCs)
Attachment:
gcc-mainline-pragma-pack.patch
Description: Binary data
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |