This is the mail archive of the gcc@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]

Re: host_integerp vs [] decls


At 03:10 20.09.2001, DJ Delorie wrote:

> > However, please follow the directions of the comment and remove the
> > special case from pop_level_1.  Also update the documentation such
> > that "deprecated" is now "illegal".
>
>It took a while to get the right warnings for flexible vs zero-length
>arrays, and I had to adjust some of the test cases to detect the right
>warnings, but here it all is.  No regressions on x86 linux.
>
>2001-09-19  DJ Delorie  <dj@redhat.com>
>
>         * c-typeck.c (really_start_incremental_init): Discriminate
>         between zero-length arrays and flexible arrays.
>         (push_init_level): Detect zero-length arrays and handle them
>         like fixed-sized arrays.
>         * expr.c (store_constructor): Handle zero-length arrays and
>         flexible arrays correctly.
>         * doc/extend.texi: Update zero-length array notes.
>
>2001-09-19  DJ Delorie  <dj@redhat.com>
>
>         * gcc.dg/20000926-1.c: Update expected warning messages.
>         * gcc.dg/array-2.c: Likewise, and test for warnings too.
>         * gcc.dg/array-4.c: Likewise, and don't verify the zero-length
>         array.

What about the XFAIL in gcc.dg/array-5.c?

Franz.


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