h8300-elf build broken

Marc Glisse marc.glisse@inria.fr
Wed May 9 08:41:00 GMT 2012


On Wed, 9 May 2012, Richard Guenther wrote:

> On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 1:24 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis
> <gdr@integrable-solutions.net> wrote:
>> On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 5:14 PM, DJ Delorie <dj@redhat.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> I assume this is a size_t vs int type problem, but the diagnostic
>>> points to the function declaration, not to an actual binary
>>> expression, and I can't figure out what it's complaining about:
>>
>> My mailer uses proportional fonts so I can't make sense of the
>> diagnostics with the carets :-/
>>
>>>
>>> Note: my current patchset is:
>>>
>>> Index: libstdc++-v3/include/std/bitset
>>> ===================================================================
>>> --- libstdc++-v3/include/std/bitset     (revision 186562)
>>> +++ libstdc++-v3/include/std/bitset     (working copy)
>>> @@ -1374,13 +1374,13 @@ _GLIBCXX_BEGIN_NAMESPACE_CONTAINER
>>>       void
>>>       bitset<_Nb>::
>>>       _M_copy_from_ptr(const _CharT* __s, size_t __len,
>>>                       size_t __pos, size_t __n, _CharT __zero, _CharT __one)
>>>       {
>>>        reset();
>>> -       const size_t __nbits = std::min(_Nb, std::min(__n, __len - __pos));
>>> +       const size_t __nbits = std::min(_Nb, std::min(__n, (size_t)(__len - __pos)));
>>
>> style nits: It should be size_t(__len - __pos), and not (size_t)(__len - __pos).
>> Same for the other hunk.  Patch OK with those changes.
>
> This looks like a middle-end ICE that is at most worked around by the above
> change.  So I don't believe we should paper over it like this during stage1.

I agree that the ICE should be fixed, but sadly the patch will still be 
necessary because of platforms where size_t is unsigned short (I didn't 
know those existed...) and because std::max is picky about having the same 
type for both arguments (the papers about improving it for C++11 were 
rejected).

-- 
Marc Glisse



More information about the Libstdc++ mailing list