[Patch] Backport fix for PR 52085 to gcc-5-branch?

Richard Biener richard.guenther@gmail.com
Tue Oct 18 08:12:00 GMT 2016


On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 6:57 PM, Senthil Kumar Selvaraj
<senthil_kumar.selvaraj@atmel.com> wrote:
>
> Richard Biener writes:
>
>> On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 12:21 PM, Senthil Kumar Selvaraj
>> <senthil_kumar.selvaraj@atmel.com> wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>>   The fix for PR 52085 went into trunk when trunk was 6.0. I ran into the
>>>   same issue on a gcc 5.x and found that the fix didn't get backported.
>>>
>>>   Bootstrapped and reg tested below patch with x86-64-pc-linux. Ok to
>>>   backport to gcc-5-branch?
>>
>> Ok with me but please double-check there was no fallout.
>
> I boostrapped and ran against x86_64-pc-linux again, just to be sure.
> No regressions.

I meant fallout only fixed with followup patches.  ISTR some in that area
but I might confuse it with another patch.  Marek might remember.

Richard.

> I'll run the reg tests against arm-none-eabi. Can I commit it if that
> passes?
>
> Regards
> Senthil
>>
>> Richard.
>>
>>> Regards
>>> Senthil
>>>
>>> gcc/c/ChangeLog
>>>
>>> 2016-10-17  Senthil Kumar Selvaraj  <senthil_kumar.selvaraj@atmel.com>
>>>
>>>   Backport from mainline
>>>         2015-04-25  Marek Polacek  <polacek@redhat.com>
>>>         PR c/52085
>>>         * c-decl.c (finish_enum): Copy over TYPE_ALIGN.  Also check for "mode"
>>>         attribute.
>>>
>>> gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
>>> 2016-10-17  Senthil Kumar Selvaraj  <senthil_kumar.selvaraj@atmel.com>
>>>
>>>         Backport from mainline
>>>         2015-04-25  Marek Polacek  <polacek@redhat.com>
>>>         PR c/52085
>>>         * gcc.dg/enum-incomplete-2.c: New test.
>>>         * gcc.dg/enum-mode-1.c: New test.
>>>
>>>
>>> diff --git gcc/c/c-decl.c gcc/c/c-decl.c
>>> index d1e7444..c508e7f 100644
>>> --- gcc/c/c-decl.c
>>> +++ gcc/c/c-decl.c
>>> @@ -8050,7 +8050,7 @@ finish_enum (tree enumtype, tree values, tree attributes)
>>>
>>>    /* If the precision of the type was specified with an attribute and it
>>>       was too small, give an error.  Otherwise, use it.  */
>>> -  if (TYPE_PRECISION (enumtype))
>>> +  if (TYPE_PRECISION (enumtype) && lookup_attribute ("mode", attributes))
>>>      {
>>>        if (precision > TYPE_PRECISION (enumtype))
>>>         {
>>> @@ -8078,6 +8078,7 @@ finish_enum (tree enumtype, tree values, tree attributes)
>>>    TYPE_MIN_VALUE (enumtype) = TYPE_MIN_VALUE (tem);
>>>    TYPE_MAX_VALUE (enumtype) = TYPE_MAX_VALUE (tem);
>>>    TYPE_UNSIGNED (enumtype) = TYPE_UNSIGNED (tem);
>>> +  TYPE_ALIGN (enumtype) = TYPE_ALIGN (tem);
>>>    TYPE_SIZE (enumtype) = 0;
>>>    TYPE_PRECISION (enumtype) = TYPE_PRECISION (tem);
>>>
>>> diff --git gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/enum-incomplete-2.c gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/enum-incomplete-2.c
>>> new file mode 100644
>>> index 0000000..5970551
>>> --- /dev/null
>>> +++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/enum-incomplete-2.c
>>> @@ -0,0 +1,41 @@
>>> +/* PR c/52085 */
>>> +/* { dg-do compile } */
>>> +/* { dg-options "" } */
>>> +
>>> +#define SA(X) _Static_assert((X),#X)
>>> +
>>> +enum e1;
>>> +enum e1 { A } __attribute__ ((__packed__));
>>> +enum e2 { B } __attribute__ ((__packed__));
>>> +SA (sizeof (enum e1) == sizeof (enum e2));
>>> +SA (_Alignof (enum e1) == _Alignof (enum e2));
>>> +
>>> +enum e3;
>>> +enum e3 { C = 256 } __attribute__ ((__packed__));
>>> +enum e4 { D = 256 } __attribute__ ((__packed__));
>>> +SA (sizeof (enum e3) == sizeof (enum e4));
>>> +SA (_Alignof (enum e3) == _Alignof (enum e4));
>>> +
>>> +enum e5;
>>> +enum e5 { E = __INT_MAX__ } __attribute__ ((__packed__));
>>> +enum e6 { F = __INT_MAX__ } __attribute__ ((__packed__));
>>> +SA (sizeof (enum e5) == sizeof (enum e6));
>>> +SA (_Alignof (enum e5) == _Alignof (enum e6));
>>> +
>>> +enum e7;
>>> +enum e7 { G } __attribute__ ((__mode__(__byte__)));
>>> +enum e8 { H } __attribute__ ((__mode__(__byte__)));
>>> +SA (sizeof (enum e7) == sizeof (enum e8));
>>> +SA (_Alignof (enum e7) == _Alignof (enum e8));
>>> +
>>> +enum e9;
>>> +enum e9 { I } __attribute__ ((__packed__, __mode__(__byte__)));
>>> +enum e10 { J } __attribute__ ((__packed__, __mode__(__byte__)));
>>> +SA (sizeof (enum e9) == sizeof (enum e10));
>>> +SA (_Alignof (enum e9) == _Alignof (enum e10));
>>> +
>>> +enum e11;
>>> +enum e11 { K } __attribute__ ((__mode__(__word__)));
>>> +enum e12 { L } __attribute__ ((__mode__(__word__)));
>>> +SA (sizeof (enum e11) == sizeof (enum e12));
>>> +SA (_Alignof (enum e11) == _Alignof (enum e12));
>>> diff --git gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/enum-mode-1.c gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/enum-mode-1.c
>>> new file mode 100644
>>> index 0000000..a701123
>>> --- /dev/null
>>> +++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/enum-mode-1.c
>>> @@ -0,0 +1,10 @@
>>> +/* { dg-do compile } */
>>> +
>>> +enum e1 { A = 256 } __attribute__((__mode__(__byte__))); /* { dg-error "specified mode too small for enumeral values" } */
>>> +enum e2 { B = 256 } __attribute__((__packed__, __mode__(__byte__))); /* { dg-error "specified mode too small for enumeral values" } */
>>> +
>>> +enum e3 { C = __INT_MAX__ } __attribute__((__mode__(__QI__))); /* { dg-error "specified mode too small for enumeral values" } */
>>> +enum e4 { D = __INT_MAX__ } __attribute__((__packed__, __mode__(__QI__))); /* { dg-error "specified mode too small for enumeral values" } */
>>> +
>>> +enum e5 { E = __INT_MAX__ } __attribute__((__mode__(__HI__))); /* { dg-error "specified mode too small for enumeral values" } */
>>> +enum e6 { F = __INT_MAX__ } __attribute__((__packed__, __mode__(__HI__))); /* { dg-error "specified mode too small for enumeral values" } */
>



More information about the Gcc-patches mailing list