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: pr66345.c size_t assumption bug


On 06/08/2015 06:58 PM, DJ Delorie wrote:
The testcase for pr 66345 assumes size_t is "unsigned long" instead of
using the real type, which causes failures on some 16-bit targets.
Ok?


Also, I note that some tests check for __SIZE_TYPE__ as I do below,
and others use it unconditionally as a replacement for size_t.  Is
there a convention?
I doubt there's a well defined convention. Particularly for the torture tests, many of which are very very old.


	* gcc.dg/torture/pr66345.c: Fix assumption about size_t type.
OK.

jeff



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