This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH] Fix gnatchop on powerpc*-linux
- From: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>
- To: Olivier Hainque <hainque at adacore dot com>
- Cc: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, Michael Meissner <meissner at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com>, David Edelsohn <dje dot gcc at gmail dot com>
- Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2009 10:58:33 +0200
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix gnatchop on powerpc*-linux
- References: <20090831161837.GD2884@tyan-ft48-01.lab.bos.redhat.com> <20090901084102.GA22202@cardhu.act-europe.fr>
- Reply-to: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>
On Tue, Sep 01, 2009 at 10:41:03AM +0200, Olivier Hainque wrote:
> > @@ -2013,7 +2014,7 @@ maybe_wrap_free (tree data_ptr, tree dat
> > = build_binary_op
> > (POINTER_PLUS_EXPR, ptr_void_type_node,
> > convert (ptr_void_type_node, data_ptr),
> > - size_int (-POINTER_SIZE/BITS_PER_UNIT));
> > + size_int (-(HOST_WIDE_INT) POINTER_SIZE/BITS_PER_UNIT));
>
> For the latter expression, I think the intent would be more
> clearly conveyed as
>
> -(HOST_WIDE_INT)POINTER_SIZE / BITS_PER_UNIT
>
> I believe the coding standard allows this and I'd adjust the former
> expression accordingly.
I don't think that's correct according to the coding conventions, there
must be space after the cast ), see -cs in indent options.
But surely I can use
size_int (-(HOST_WIDE_INT) POINTER_SIZE / BITS_PER_UNIT));
Would that be sufficient?
FYI, the claim about 55% of acats failures was for 4.4 backport only, I've
looked at wrong results. On the trunk the posted patch fixes bootstrap
with Ada and in the testsuite:
=== acats Summary ===
# of expected passes 2310
# of unexpected failures 5
*** FAILURES: c43205b c46051a c52102a c52102c c87b39a
=== gnat Summary ===
# of expected passes 1370
# of expected failures 10
Jakub