[Bug target/109939] Invalid return type for __builtin_arm_ssat: Unsigned instead of signed

2023-05-23 Thread dev at benjarobin dot fr via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109939 --- Comment #2 from Benjamin Robin --- New test case with exactly same problem since __ssat() calls __builtin_arm_ssat(): ``` #include int dbg_ssat_out; int dbg_ssat_in; void test_arm_ssat(void) { dbg_ssat_out = __ssat(dbg_ssat_in, 16);

[Bug target/109939] New: Invalid return type for __builtin_arm_ssat: Unsigned instead of signed

2023-05-23 Thread dev at benjarobin dot fr via Gcc-bugs
: normal Priority: P3 Component: target Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: dev at benjarobin dot fr Target Milestone: --- The warning is triggered with the following test case: ``` int dbg_ssat_out; int dbg_ssat_in; void test_arm_ssat(void

[Bug target/52991] [6/7/8 Regression] attribute packed broken on mingw32?

2018-02-28 Thread dev at benjarobin dot fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52991 --- Comment #34 from Benjamin Robin --- Thank you a lot for the fix. I have no idea what I did yesterday when I did test bf-ms-layout-2.c (Yes the test was wrong, and by default cannot compile under Visual Studio VC) The test can be slightly imp

[Bug target/52991] [6/7/8 Regression] attribute packed broken on mingw32?

2018-02-27 Thread dev at benjarobin dot fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52991 --- Comment #30 from Benjamin Robin --- The test cases bf-ms-layout.c and bf-ms-layout-2.c are valid. You can test it with an online compiler, for example: http://rextester.com/l/c_online_compiler_visual

[Bug target/52991] [6/7/8 Regression] attribute packed broken on mingw32?

2017-12-29 Thread dev at benjarobin dot fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52991 --- Comment #26 from Benjamin Robin --- I try to work on this bug, by curiosity... And I did found 3 bug in the current layout of structure when ms_bitfield_layout_p = 1: ** 1) Basic packing (the failing test): -

[Bug preprocessor/71115] Missing warning: excess elements in struct initializer

2016-05-14 Thread dev at benjarobin dot fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71115 --- Comment #4 from Benjamin Robin --- If I preprocessed the source with GCC then compile it with Clang, I do not have the warning. Bug inside the compiler or the preprocessor ?

[Bug c/71115] Missing warning: excess elements in struct initializer

2016-05-14 Thread dev at benjarobin dot fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71115 --- Comment #3 from Benjamin Robin --- If I preprocessed the source with clang then compile it with GCC, I do have the warning. This looks like it is related to the way NULL is expanded.

[Bug c/71115] Missing warning: excess elements in struct initializer

2016-05-14 Thread dev at benjarobin dot fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71115 --- Comment #2 from Benjamin Robin --- Created attachment 38489 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38489&action=edit Preprocessed by Clang source file t.c attached

[Bug c/71115] Missing warning: excess elements in struct initializer

2016-05-14 Thread dev at benjarobin dot fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71115 --- Comment #1 from Benjamin Robin --- Created attachment 38488 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38488&action=edit Preprocessed by GCC source file t.c attached

[Bug c/71115] New: Missing warning: excess elements in struct initializer

2016-05-14 Thread dev at benjarobin dot fr
Component: c Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: dev at benjarobin dot fr Target Milestone: --- Created attachment 38487 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38487&action=edit Source test case with the command line used With GCC 6.1.1 2016050