This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH] Fix PR60930
- From: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>
- To: Richard Biener <rguenther at suse dot de>
- 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 11:12:57 +0200
- 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> <alpine dot LSU dot 2 dot 11 dot 1404251058440 dot 18709 at zhemvz dot fhfr dot qr>
- Reply-to: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>
On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 10:59:19AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> 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.
It could, but it really doesn't matter. For C89 we provide long long
as an extension on all targets, and I'm not aware of any target supported by
GCC where long long type precision would be different between C89 and C99
mode, that would be an ABI nightmare.
AVR has a non-default -mint8 option that makes it C incompatible (e.g. 8-bit
int, 16-bit long and 32-bit long long), but I guess nobody sane would try to
run the full gcc testsuite with that option, that would break 50% of tests
at least.
I think we have plenty of testcases which just assume long long is at least
64-bit.
Jakub