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: [PATCH] correct maximum valid alignment in error message (PR 89812)

From: Paul Koning <paulkoning at comcast dot net>
To: Jeff Law <law at redhat dot com>
Cc: Martin Sebor <msebor at gmail dot com>, "gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2019 12:43:30 -0400
Subject: Re: [PATCH] correct maximum valid alignment in error message (PR 89812)
References: <91b01cb1-b0e5-f39b-a437-16252f421253@gmail.com> <8139e71e-084a-9e9e-c836-7774103c36a3@redhat.com>

> On Mar 25, 2019, at 12:07 PM, Jeff Law <law@redhat.com> wrote:
> 
>> ...
>> 1) Does GCC support building with compilers where int is not 32
>>    bits wide, or where BITS_PER_UNIT is not 3? (I.e., either is
>>    less or more?)
> We've certainly supported 16 bit ints in the past.  H8/300 would be an
> example.  It defaults to 16 bit ints.  But I don't think we've tested
> that in a very long time -- my tester is only testing with -mint32.

pdp11 is set up the same way (16 bit int is the default, -mint32 supported).  I run most of my pdp11 tests (including gcc testsuite runs) with the default 16 bit ints.  I haven't seen issues related to int size handing in the GCC core.

	paul

References:
- [PATCH] correct maximum valid alignment in error message (PR 89812)
  - From: Martin Sebor
- Re: [PATCH] correct maximum valid alignment in error message (PR 89812)
  - From: Jeff Law

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