On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 10:12:24AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 6:57 PM, Senthil Kumar Selvaraj
> <senthil_kumar.selva...@atmel.com> wrote:
> >
> > Richard Biener writes:
> >
> >> On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 12:21 PM, Senthil Kumar Selvaraj
> >> <senthil_kumar.selva...@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.
I'm not convinced it is desirable to backport such changes, it affects ABI,
people are used to deal with minor ABI changes in between major GCC
releases, but we'd need a strong reason to change it between minor releases.
> >>> 2016-10-17 Senthil Kumar Selvaraj <senthil_kumar.selva...@atmel.com>
> >>>
> >>> Backport from mainline
> >>> 2015-04-25 Marek Polacek <pola...@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.selva...@atmel.com>
> >>>
> >>> Backport from mainline
> >>> 2015-04-25 Marek Polacek <pola...@redhat.com>
> >>> PR c/52085
> >>> * gcc.dg/enum-incomplete-2.c: New test.
> >>> * gcc.dg/enum-mode-1.c: New test.
Jakub
