This is the mail archive of the 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 (was: we are starting the wide int merge)

On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 10:24 AM, FX <> 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).


> Thanks,
> FX

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