This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH] Fix PR60930
- From: Richard Biener <rguenther at suse dot de>
- To: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Jeff Law <law at redhat dot com>, Bill Schmidt <wschmidt at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2014 10:59:19 +0200 (CEST)
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix PR60930
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <1398356446 dot 659 dot 123 dot camel at gnopaine> <5359D492 dot 4070702 at redhat dot com> <20140425061543 dot GI1817 at tucnak dot redhat dot com>
On Fri, 25 Apr 2014, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 09:20:50PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> > > PR tree-optimization/60930
> > > * gcc.dg/torture/pr60930.c: New test.
> > Doesn't the test depend on long long being at least 64 bits?
>
> But that is guaranteed by C99, isn't it?
But the testcase isn't built with -std=c99.
> 5.2.4.2.1 says:
>
> ... Their implementation-defined values shall be equal or greater in magnitude
> (absolute value) to those shown, with the same sign.
> ...
> - maximum value for an object of type unsigned long long int ULLONG_MAX
> 18446744073709551615 // 2 64 â 1
> >
> > What we've done for these kinds of tests in the past is:
> >
> > if (sizeof (whatever) < needed size)
> > exit (0);
> >
> > Another approach would be to use an effective target test and skip
> > the test if the target doesn't have a suitable long long. Look in
> > testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp for the various target
>
> If it was some other type, sure, one could use int32plus, lp64, etc.
> target, or #if __SIZEOF_type__ == ...
I suggest the latter (#if).
Ok with that change.
Thanks,
Richard.