On 1/28/19 12:29 PM, Marek Polacek wrote:
On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 11:55:21AM -0500, Jason Merrill wrote:
The new test fails on arm-eabi (with newlib, but passes on on arm*linux*):
FAIL: g++.dg/cpp0x/enum37.C -std=c++14 (test for excess errors)
FAIL: g++.dg/cpp0x/enum37.C -std=c++17 (test for
On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 11:55:21AM -0500, Jason Merrill wrote:
> > > The new test fails on arm-eabi (with newlib, but passes on on arm*linux*):
> > > FAIL: g++.dg/cpp0x/enum37.C -std=c++14 (test for excess errors)
> > > FAIL: g++.dg/cpp0x/enum37.C -std=c++17 (test for excess errors)
> > >
> > >
On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 10:40 AM Marek Polacek wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 10:37:01AM +0100, Christophe Lyon wrote:
> > On Sun, 27 Jan 2019 at 01:25, Jason Merrill wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 6:22 PM Marek Polacek wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 12:14:07PM
On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 10:37:01AM +0100, Christophe Lyon wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Jan 2019 at 01:25, Jason Merrill wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 6:22 PM Marek Polacek wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 12:14:07PM -0500, Jason Merrill wrote:
> > > > On 1/25/19 12:09 PM, Marek Polacek
On Sun, 27 Jan 2019 at 01:25, Jason Merrill wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 6:22 PM Marek Polacek wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 12:14:07PM -0500, Jason Merrill wrote:
> > > On 1/25/19 12:09 PM, Marek Polacek wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 10:55:55AM -0600, Tim Song wrote:
> >
On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 6:22 PM Marek Polacek wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 12:14:07PM -0500, Jason Merrill wrote:
> > On 1/25/19 12:09 PM, Marek Polacek wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 10:55:55AM -0600, Tim Song wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 4:14 PM Jason Merrill wrote:
> > >
On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 12:14:07PM -0500, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On 1/25/19 12:09 PM, Marek Polacek wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 10:55:55AM -0600, Tim Song wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 4:14 PM Jason Merrill wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On 1/24/19 2:16 PM, Marek Polacek wrote:
> > > > >
On 1/25/19 12:09 PM, Marek Polacek wrote:
On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 10:55:55AM -0600, Tim Song wrote:
On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 4:14 PM Jason Merrill wrote:
On 1/24/19 2:16 PM, Marek Polacek wrote:
This test ICEs since r159006 which added
type = ENUM_UNDERLYING_TYPE (type);
to
On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 10:55:55AM -0600, Tim Song wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 4:14 PM Jason Merrill wrote:
> >
> > On 1/24/19 2:16 PM, Marek Polacek wrote:
> > > This test ICEs since r159006 which added
> > >
> > > type = ENUM_UNDERLYING_TYPE (type);
> > >
> > > to type_promotes_to. In
On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 4:14 PM Jason Merrill wrote:
>
> On 1/24/19 2:16 PM, Marek Polacek wrote:
> > This test ICEs since r159006 which added
> >
> > type = ENUM_UNDERLYING_TYPE (type);
> >
> > to type_promotes_to. In this test ENUM_UNDERLYING_TYPE is null because we
> > haven't yet parsed
On 1/24/19 2:16 PM, Marek Polacek wrote:
This test ICEs since r159006 which added
type = ENUM_UNDERLYING_TYPE (type);
to type_promotes_to. In this test ENUM_UNDERLYING_TYPE is null because we
haven't yet parsed '}' of the enum and the underlying type isn't fixed, and
so checking
This test ICEs since r159006 which added
type = ENUM_UNDERLYING_TYPE (type);
to type_promotes_to. In this test ENUM_UNDERLYING_TYPE is null because we
haven't yet parsed '}' of the enum and the underlying type isn't fixed, and
so checking TYPE_UNSIGNED crashed.
I've added some checks to
12 matches
Mail list logo
