[Sorry for responding to such an old patch]
Jakub Jelinek writes:
> +/* For two FIELD_DECLs in the same chain, return -1 if field1
> + comes before field2, 1 if field1 comes after field2 and
> + 0 if field1 == field2. */
> +
> +static int
> +field_decl_cmp (tree field1, tree field2)
> +{
>
On Tue, 31 Jul 2018, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 08:04:58PM +, Joseph Myers wrote:
> > On Tue, 24 Jul 2018, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> >
> > > Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux and i686-linux, ok for trunk and
> > > release branches?
> > >
> > > 2018-07-24 Jakub Jelinek
On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 08:04:58PM +, Joseph Myers wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Jul 2018, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> > Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux and i686-linux, ok for trunk and
> > release branches?
> >
> > 2018-07-24 Jakub Jelinek
> >
> > PR c/85704
> > * c-typeck.c
On Tue, 24 Jul 2018, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux and i686-linux, ok for trunk and
> release branches?
>
> 2018-07-24 Jakub Jelinek
>
> PR c/85704
> * c-typeck.c (field_decl_cmp): New function.
> (output_pending_init_elements): Use it for
Hi!
On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 10:57:56AM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux and i686-linux, ok for trunk and
> release branches?
>
> 2018-07-24 Jakub Jelinek
>
> PR c/85704
> * c-typeck.c (field_decl_cmp): New function.
>
Hi!
Starting with r258497 aka PR46921 fix the C FE can loop forever
in initializers where a zero length field's initializer has side-effects
(in this testcase merely because it is a compound literal) and that
zero length field is followed by some other fields.
Previously, we'd throw initializers
