subject:"\[Bug libfortran\/95418\] \[11 Regression\] Static assert going off on MinGW"

[Bug libfortran/95418] [11 Regression] Static assert going off on MinGW

2020-06-01 Thread ubizjak at gmail dot com

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95418 Uroš Bizjak changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug libfortran/95418] [11 Regression] Static assert going off on MinGW

2020-06-01 Thread cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95418 --- Comment #10 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Uros Bizjak : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:832c1192eba6dd100e2f757e30ea6373f782ff55 commit r11-774-g832c1192eba6dd100e2f757e30ea6373f782ff55 Author: Uros Bizjak Date: Mon

[Bug libfortran/95418] [11 Regression] Static assert going off on MinGW

2020-05-31 Thread tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95418 --- Comment #9 from Thomas Koenig --- (In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #6) > Thomas, > > Contrary to my other libgfortran contribution, I was under the impression > that the patch touches only deep architectural details of the x87 chip,

[Bug libfortran/95418] [11 Regression] Static assert going off on MinGW

2020-05-31 Thread markus.boeck02 at gmail dot com

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95418 --- Comment #8 from Markus Böck --- Tested the above patch and the build failure is gone now

[Bug libfortran/95418] [11 Regression] Static assert going off on MinGW

2020-05-31 Thread ubizjak at gmail dot com

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95418 --- Comment #7 from Uroš Bizjak --- Created attachment 48649 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48649=edit Untested patch. Can someone with an access to MinGW target please test the attached patch? The layout is defined by

[Bug libfortran/95418] [11 Regression] Static assert going off on MinGW

2020-05-31 Thread ubizjak at gmail dot com

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95418 --- Comment #6 from Uroš Bizjak --- (In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #3) > Adding the author of the patch. > > Uros: I find no discussion of this patch on the fortran mailing list. > Please remember to do so in the future if you touch

[Bug libfortran/95418] [11 Regression] Static assert going off on MinGW

2020-05-31 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95418 --- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #4) > Looks like: >unsigned short int __cs_selector; > - unsigned short int __opcode; > + unsigned int __opcode:11; > + unsigned int __unused4:5; > > For

[Bug libfortran/95418] [11 Regression] Static assert going off on MinGW

2020-05-31 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95418 --- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski --- Looks like: unsigned short int __cs_selector; - unsigned short int __opcode; + unsigned int __opcode:11; + unsigned int __unused4:5; For Windows ABI, the int causes the bitfield to start at the next