https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71255
--- Comment #31 from Florian Weimer ---
Fixed via r7-1272. Thanks!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71255
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|SUSPENDED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71255
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|7.0 |---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71255
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|SUSPENDED
--- Comment #29 from Marek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71255
--- Comment #28 from Florian Weimer ---
We can put such a version check into the glibc headers and see how it works out
in practice. As long as there is consensus to fix any related breakage
(related to the attribute and forward declarations)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71255
--- Comment #27 from Marek Polacek ---
Typo: I meant __GNUC__ >= 7 as this is fixed for GCC 7 and onwards.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71255
--- Comment #26 from Marek Polacek ---
(In reply to Florian Weimer from comment #22)
> (In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #21)
> > The testcase in Comment 14 should now compile fine.
>
> What's the best way to detect that a compiler has
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71255
--- Comment #25 from Florian Weimer ---
(In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #23)
> (In reply to Florian Weimer from comment #22)
> > (In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #21)
> > > The testcase in Comment 14 should now compile fine.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71255
--- Comment #24 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #23)
> (In reply to Florian Weimer from comment #22)
> > (In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #21)
> > > The testcase in Comment 14 should now compile
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71255
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71255
--- Comment #22 from Florian Weimer ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #21)
> The testcase in Comment 14 should now compile fine.
What's the best way to detect that a compiler has this fix? We cannot use a
configure check. Is there
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71255
--- Comment #21 from Marek Polacek ---
The testcase in Comment 14 should now compile fine.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71255
--- Comment #20 from Florian Weimer ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #19)
> On Fri, 27 May 2016, fw at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71255
> >
> > --- Comment #18 from Florian Weimer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71255
--- Comment #19 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Fri, 27 May 2016, fw at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71255
>
> --- Comment #18 from Florian Weimer ---
> (In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71255
--- Comment #18 from Florian Weimer ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #17)
> On Fri, 27 May 2016, fw at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> > I think the real question is whether it matters anywhere if a pointer to an
> > incomplete struct
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71255
--- Comment #17 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Fri, 27 May 2016, fw at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71255
>
> --- Comment #16 from Florian Weimer ---
> (In reply to Marek Polacek from comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71255
--- Comment #16 from Florian Weimer ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #15)
> Yeah, only the C++ side was changed. I think it's wrong that we reject the
> testcase in Comment 14 in C (I have a fix for that).
Good.
> But even with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71255
--- Comment #15 from Marek Polacek ---
Yeah, only the C++ side was changed. I think it's wrong that we reject the
testcase in Comment 14 in C (I have a fix for that).
But even with that fixed we still need the new #pragma because of the second
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71255
--- Comment #14 from Florian Weimer ---
I believe the equivalent C test case:
#include
struct sockaddr;
struct sockaddr *f();
struct __attribute__((may_alias)) sockaddr {};
struct sockaddr *f()
{
return NULL;
}
still does not work:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71255
--- Comment #13 from Marek Polacek ---
I'd like to point out that the test case
struct sockaddr;
struct sockaddr *f();
struct __attribute__((may_alias)) sockaddr {};
struct sockaddr *f()
{
return nullptr;
}
(from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71255
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71255
--- Comment #11 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Tue, 24 May 2016, mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71255
>
> --- Comment #10 from Marek Polacek ---
> Well, so far my plan is to gather
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71255
--- Comment #10 from Marek Polacek ---
Well, so far my plan is to gather symbols in
#pragma GCC may_alias SYMBOL
to some vector of symbols and then when declaring a SYMBOL check if it's in the
vector and if so, apply the may_alias attribute.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71255
--- Comment #9 from Florian Weimer ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #8)
> While a pragma might work I'd say for the case in question we'd like to
> have a "tentative" forward declaration that can be merged with subsequent
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71255
--- Comment #8 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Tue, 24 May 2016, mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71255
>
> --- Comment #7 from Marek Polacek ---
> But before I start, do y'all feel like
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71255
--- Comment #7 from Marek Polacek ---
But before I start, do y'all feel like this attribute should be applicable too
all symbols the may_alias attribute is applicable to? I.e. not just structs,
but other decls, too.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71255
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
27 matches
Mail list logo
