This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Darwin bootstrap failure following wide int merge (was: we are starting the wide int merge)
- From: Richard Biener <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>
- To: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Mike Stump <mikestump at comcast dot net>, FX <fxcoudert at gmail dot com>, echristo at gmail dot com, Stan Shebs <stanshebs at earthlink dot net>, GCC Development <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>, glisse at gcc dot gnu dot org, Richard Sandiford <rdsandiford at googlemail dot com>, Kenneth Zadeck <zadeck at naturalbridge dot com>, gcc-patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Gerald Pfeifer <gerald at pfeifer dot com>
- Date: Wed, 28 May 2014 10:13:56 +0200
- Subject: Re: Darwin bootstrap failure following wide int merge (was: we are starting the wide int merge)
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <97BE9F46-EB35-4B06-9065-915D7259E701 at gmail dot com> <769D0D77-6DB3-421F-9006-326B0E2B42FE at gmail dot com> <71C2DDBB-87AE-491D-9074-F5744B8AFF61 at comcast dot net> <20140528065033 dot GV10386 at tucnak dot redhat dot com>
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 8:50 AM, Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 08:36:31AM -0700, Mike Stump wrote:
>> On May 26, 2014, at 2:22 AM, FX <fxcoudert@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> This causes GCC bootstrap to fail on Darwin systems (whose system compiler is clang-based). Since PR 61146 was resolved as INVALID (but Iâm not sure itâs the right call, see below), Iâve filed a separate report for the bootstrap issue (https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61315).
>> >
>> > Since my PR has been closed twice by Andrew Pinski (âitâs clangâs fault, bouh ouhâ), Iâd ask the maintainers to step in. Can we please provide a GCC that works for the default darwin setup? Or at least drop darwin as secondary target and document the failure?
>>
>> The best coarse of action, post a patch, have it reviewed and put in.
>> Current action, a patch has been posted, the review is outstanding, Iâd
>> like to see it put in; though, I am curious why the casts were there in
>> the first place.
>
> Note, haven't added them there, but from what I can test, the casts there
> can serve as a compile time check that the right type is used, e.g.
> unsigned long i;
>
> void
> foo (void)
> {
> asm volatile ("# %0 %1" : "=r" ((unsigned long long) i) : "0" ((unsigned long long) 0));
> }
Ah, interesting. A not-so-hineous extension then.
> errors out on x86_64 -m32, but compiles fine with -m64, because in the
> latter case the type has the correct size, while in the former case it
> doesn't. So, perhaps instead of removing the casts we should replace them
> with some kind of static assertions (whether
> extern char foobar[sizeof (arg) == sizeof (UDItype) && __builtin_classify_type (arg) == 1 ? 1 : -1];
> or __builtin_types_compatible_p, or C++ templates for C++, ...
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.
Richard.
> Jakub