Re: [patch 2/6] scalar-storage-order merge: C front-end

> It won’t. Fixing the language line for the options and a make to ensure it > still builds for you is enough testing. I was talking about the feature itself though, not about the option per se. The feature is tested for C & C++ but not for ObjC & ObjC++ so there might be surprises. > None

Re: [patch 2/6] scalar-storage-order merge: C front-end

On Oct 30, 2015, at 1:56 AM, Eric Botcazou wrote: >> It won’t. Fixing the language line for the options and a make to ensure it >> still builds for you is enough testing. > > I was talking about the feature itself though, not about the option per se. > The feature is

Re: [patch 2/6] scalar-storage-order merge: C front-end

Why is -fsso-struct= listed only for C and C++, not ObjC and ObjC++? Almost all C options should be supported for ObjC and almost all C++ options should be supported for ObjC++ (and the existing cases that aren't in c.opt generally look dubious). -- Joseph S. Myers jos...@codesourcery.com

Re: [patch 2/6] scalar-storage-order merge: C front-end

On 10/28/2015 10:43 AM, Joseph Myers wrote: Why is -fsso-struct= listed only for C and C++, not ObjC and ObjC++? Almost all C options should be supported for ObjC and almost all C++ options should be supported for ObjC++ (and the existing cases that aren't in c.opt generally look dubious). I

Re: [patch 2/6] scalar-storage-order merge: C front-end

> Why is -fsso-struct= listed only for C and C++, not ObjC and ObjC++? Because it was not tested with the latter 2 languages at all and may require specific adjustments in the respective front-ends to work. > Almost all C options should be supported for ObjC and almost all C++ > options should

Re: [patch 2/6] scalar-storage-order merge: C front-end

On Oct 28, 2015, at 3:04 PM, Eric Botcazou wrote: >> Why is -fsso-struct= listed only for C and C++, not ObjC and ObjC++? > > Because it was not tested with the latter 2 languages at all and may require > specific adjustments in the respective front-ends to work. It

Re: [patch 2/6] scalar-storage-order merge: C front-end

On Wed, 28 Oct 2015, Mike Stump wrote: > On Oct 28, 2015, at 3:04 PM, Eric Botcazou wrote: > >> Why is -fsso-struct= listed only for C and C++, not ObjC and ObjC++? > > > > Because it was not tested with the latter 2 languages at all and may > > require > > specific

Re: [patch 2/6] scalar-storage-order merge: C front-end

> > + if (BYTES_BIG_ENDIAN != WORDS_BIG_ENDIAN) > > +error ("scalar_storage_order is not supported"); > > You might want to consider indicating why it's not supported. Not that > I expect folks to be using this on a pdp11 :-) Done, I added "because endianness is not uniform". > > -

Re: [patch 2/6] scalar-storage-order merge: C front-end

On 10/06/2015 05:02 AM, Eric Botcazou wrote: This is the C front-end + C family part. * doc/extend.texi (type attributes): Document scalar_storage_order. (Structure-Packing Pragmas): Rename into... (Structure-Layout Pragmas): ...this. Document scalar_storage_order.

[patch 2/6] scalar-storage-order merge: C front-end

This is the C front-end + C family part. * doc/extend.texi (type attributes): Document scalar_storage_order. (Structure-Packing Pragmas): Rename into... (Structure-Layout Pragmas): ...this. Document scalar_storage_order. * doc/invoke.texi (C Dialect Options):

Re: [patch 2/6] scalar-storage-order merge: C front-end

You appear to be duplicating the documentation of an unrelated attribute. Merge glitch, now fixed, thanks. What happens when typeof is applied to a field with reversed storage order? You mean a scalar field contained in an aggregate type with reverse SSO? Then nothing, nothing is changed

Re: [patch 2/6] scalar-storage-order merge: C front-end

illegal - invalid or not permitted The ISO standard for Ada contains this (1.1.2 Structure): Legality Rules 27 Rules that are enforced at compile time. A construct is legal if it obeys all of the Legality Rules. and illegal is documented in the Index. But the standard for C doesn't, so I'll

Re: [patch 2/6] scalar-storage-order merge: C front-end

A very cursory glance at the patch set but should we restrict this attribute to apply only to scalar types rather than allow them on vector extensions. I haven't had enough coffee this morning but a first thought is that if it does apply on vector type extensions, clarifying the lane

Re: [patch 2/6] scalar-storage-order merge: C front-end

On Tue, 16 Jun 2015, Eric Botcazou wrote: +@item unused +@cindex @code{unused} type attribute +When attached to a type (including a @code{union} or a @code{struct}), +this attribute means that variables of that type are meant to appear +possibly unused. GCC does not produce a warning for

Re: [patch 2/6] scalar-storage-order merge: C front-end

On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 2:06 AM, Ramana Radhakrishnan ramana.radhakrish...@foss.arm.com wrote: On 16/06/15 09:54, Eric Botcazou wrote: This is the C front-end + C family part. * doc/extend.texi (type attributes): Document scalar_storage_order. * doc/invoke.texi (Warnings):

[patch 2/6] scalar-storage-order merge: C front-end

This is the C front-end + C family part. * doc/extend.texi (type attributes): Document scalar_storage_order. * doc/invoke.texi (Warnings): Document -Wno-scalar-storage-order. c-family/ * c-common.c (c_common_attributes): Add scalar_storage_order.

Re: [patch 2/6] scalar-storage-order merge: C front-end

On 16/06/15 09:54, Eric Botcazou wrote: This is the C front-end + C family part. * doc/extend.texi (type attributes): Document scalar_storage_order. * doc/invoke.texi (Warnings): Document -Wno-scalar-storage-order. c-family/ * c-common.c (c_common_attributes): Add

Re: [patch 2/6] scalar-storage-order merge: C front-end

Eric Botcazou ebotca...@adacore.com writes: This is the C front-end + C family part. * doc/extend.texi (type attributes): Document scalar_storage_order. * doc/invoke.texi (Warnings): Document -Wno-scalar-storage-order. c-family/ * c-common.c (c_common_attributes): Add