https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18374
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18374
--- Comment #4 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #3)
> I think this is another one of those meta-bugs that falls victim to the
> change in the way meta-bugs are done; swapping the "blocks" and "depends on"
> fields
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18374
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18374
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-02-26
11:33:15 UTC ---
On the other hand we do have a mismatch between caller and callee, for C at
least:
short barshort (short a)
{
return a;
}
short foo1short
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-17
13:13 ---
Here is a bug which says the oposite should be done (as arguments are already
done): PR 15484.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18374
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed||1
Last reconfirmed|-00-00 00:00:00
Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-17
Here is a bug which says the oposite should be done (as arguments are
already done): PR 15484.
Unless I misunderstand; C's promotion/evaluation semantics need not
be literally applied, but must only yield equivalent results
--
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
Keywords||meta-bug, missed-
|
