Re: [Ur] sanity checking
Karn Kallio wrote: Well, looking at the code I thought that it should output both, because gcc is supposed to support non-constant initializers. But I am not really any help, because I do not know enough about gcc to say. One thing that I do notice in your example is that the printf should be leaving an integer in the __uwf_1 position of tmp but how could there be space for it (as uw_unit should occupy 0 size) ... I think this is a confusion between the comma separator between initializer elements and the comma operator in expressions. I think my use of parentheses triggers interpretation as the latter, not the former. I'm going to try to figure out the GCC bug report procedure and submit this test case. ___ Ur mailing list Ur@impredicative.com http://www.impredicative.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ur
Re: [Ur] sanity checking
Karn Kallio wrote: Well, looking at the code I thought that it should output both, because gcc is supposed to support non-constant initializers. But I am not really any help, because I do not know enough about gcc to say. One thing that I do notice in your example is that the printf should be leaving an integer in the __uwf_1 position of tmp but how could there be space for it (as uw_unit should occupy 0 size) ... I think this is a confusion between the comma separator between initializer elements and the comma operator in expressions. I think my use of parentheses triggers interpretation as the latter, not the former. You are right of course ... I did think it was two initializer elements, but now I see that your example initializes the first leaving the second to default ... ___ Ur mailing list Ur@impredicative.com http://www.impredicative.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ur
[Ur] sanity checking
Same here with gcc (GCC) 4.4.3 [kkal...@eka:~/scratch/test]$ gcc test.c [kkal...@eka:~/scratch/test]$ ./a.out Outer ___ Ur mailing list Ur@impredicative.com http://www.impredicative.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ur
Re: [Ur] sanity checking
Karn Kallio wrote: Same here with gcc (GCC) 4.4.3 [kkal...@eka:~/scratch/test]$ gcc test.c [kkal...@eka:~/scratch/test]$ ./a.out Outer Thanks. The other important question is whether, when you look at the code, you also expect it to output two lines, not just one. ___ Ur mailing list Ur@impredicative.com http://www.impredicative.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ur
Re: [Ur] sanity checking
Karn Kallio wrote: Same here with gcc (GCC) 4.4.3 [kkal...@eka:~/scratch/test]$ gcc test.c [kkal...@eka:~/scratch/test]$ ./a.out Outer Thanks. The other important question is whether, when you look at the code, you also expect it to output two lines, not just one. Well, looking at the code I thought that it should output both, because gcc is supposed to support non-constant initializers. But I am not really any help, because I do not know enough about gcc to say. One thing that I do notice in your example is that the printf should be leaving an integer in the __uwf_1 position of tmp but how could there be space for it (as uw_unit should occupy 0 size) ... ___ Ur mailing list Ur@impredicative.com http://www.impredicative.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ur
