On Thu, 2012-05-10 at 18:49 +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 11:44:27AM -0500, William J. Schmidt wrote:
> > Backporting this patch to 4.7 fixes a problem building Fedora 17.
> > Bootstrapped and regression tested on powerpc64-unknown-linux-gnu. Is
> > the backport OK?
>
> For 4.7 I'd very much prefer a less intrusive change (i.e. change
> the java langhook) instead, but I'll defer to Richard if he prefers
> this over that.
OK. If that's desired, this is the possible change to the langhook:
Index: gcc/java/typeck.c
===================================================================
--- gcc/java/typeck.c (revision 187158)
+++ gcc/java/typeck.c (working copy)
@@ -189,6 +189,12 @@ java_type_for_size (unsigned bits, int unsignedp)
return unsignedp ? unsigned_int_type_node : int_type_node;
if (bits <= TYPE_PRECISION (long_type_node))
return unsignedp ? unsigned_long_type_node : long_type_node;
+ /* A 64-bit target with TImode requires 128-bit type definitions
+ for bitsizetype. */
+ if (int128_integer_type_node
+ && bits == TYPE_PRECISION (int128_integer_type_node))
+ return (unsignedp ? int128_unsigned_type_node
+ : int128_integer_type_node);
return 0;
}
which also fixed the problem and bootstraps without regressions.
Whichever you guys prefer is fine with me.
Thanks,
Bill
>
> > 2012-05-10 Bill Schmidt <[email protected]>
> >
> > Backport from trunk:
> > 2012-03-12 Richard Guenther <[email protected]>
> >
> > * tree.c (signed_or_unsigned_type_for): Use
> > build_nonstandard_integer_type.
> > (signed_type_for): Adjust documentation.
> > (unsigned_type_for): Likewise.
> > * tree-pretty-print.c (dump_generic_node): Use standard names
> > for non-standard integer types if available.
>
> Jakub
>
