Re: intptr fixes for the testsuite

2012-04-11 Thread Tristan Gingold

On Apr 11, 2012, at 3:55 PM, Bernd Schmidt wrote:

 I'm working on a target where intptr_t and pointers are larger than
 size_t and ptrdiff_t. The testsuite has problems in this area, since we
 often use the latter two types for casting from/to pointers, leading to
 unwanted warnings. In some cases I've checked the corresponding PRs and
 found that the original testcases used something like plain int or long.

Would this target be able to host gcc ?

Tristan.



Re: intptr fixes for the testsuite

2012-04-11 Thread Bernd Schmidt
On 04/11/2012 04:02 PM, Tristan Gingold wrote:
 
 On Apr 11, 2012, at 3:55 PM, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
 
 I'm working on a target where intptr_t and pointers are larger than
 size_t and ptrdiff_t. The testsuite has problems in this area, since we
 often use the latter two types for casting from/to pointers, leading to
 unwanted warnings. In some cases I've checked the corresponding PRs and
 found that the original testcases used something like plain int or long.
 
 Would this target be able to host gcc ?

I do not wish to think about this :) It's embedded, so hopefully no one
will try.

In principle, I'd think any target with enough memory can be made to
host gcc, with varying amounts of work.


Bernd



Re: intptr fixes for the testsuite

2012-04-11 Thread Mike Stump
On Apr 11, 2012, at 7:04 AM, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
 On 04/11/2012 04:02 PM, Tristan Gingold wrote:
 
 On Apr 11, 2012, at 3:55 PM, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
 I'm working on a target where intptr_t and pointers are larger than
 size_t and ptrdiff_t. The testsuite has problems in this area, since we
 often use the latter two types for casting from/to pointers, leading to
 unwanted warnings. In some cases I've checked the corresponding PRs and
 found that the original testcases used something like plain int or long.
 
 Would this target be able to host gcc ?
 
 I do not wish to think about this :) It's embedded, so hopefully no one
 will try.
 
 In principle, I'd think any target with enough memory can be made to
 host gcc, with varying amounts of work.

I've hosted gcc on mine, mainly as a code generation correctness check...  It's 
nice having a simulator and enough address bits, you can just plop down yet 
more memory and presto, everything just works.  The more annoying aspect is 
having to wire up stat and readdir for sim.  Fork and exec, are more trivial by 
comparison.  Some gcc ports might not have enough address bits, that might be 
the only hard requirement that one cannot fudge.


Re: intptr fixes for the testsuite

2012-04-11 Thread Mike Stump
On Apr 11, 2012, at 6:55 AM, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
 I'm working on a target where intptr_t and pointers are larger than
 size_t and ptrdiff_t.

Hum, we question your sanity  :-)

 Ok?

Ok.  I hope you tested it on your target too!


Re: intptr fixes for the testsuite

2012-04-11 Thread Tristan Gingold

On Apr 11, 2012, at 4:52 PM, Mike Stump wrote:

 On Apr 11, 2012, at 7:04 AM, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
 On 04/11/2012 04:02 PM, Tristan Gingold wrote:
 
 On Apr 11, 2012, at 3:55 PM, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
 I'm working on a target where intptr_t and pointers are larger than
 size_t and ptrdiff_t. The testsuite has problems in this area, since we
 often use the latter two types for casting from/to pointers, leading to
 unwanted warnings. In some cases I've checked the corresponding PRs and
 found that the original testcases used something like plain int or long.
 
 Would this target be able to host gcc ?
 
 I do not wish to think about this :) It's embedded, so hopefully no one
 will try.
 
 In principle, I'd think any target with enough memory can be made to
 host gcc, with varying amounts of work.
 
 I've hosted gcc on mine, mainly as a code generation correctness check...  
 It's nice having a simulator and enough address bits, you can just plop down 
 yet more memory and presto, everything just works.  The more annoying aspect 
 is having to wire up stat and readdir for sim.  Fork and exec, are more 
 trivial by comparison.  Some gcc ports might not have enough address bits, 
 that might be the only hard requirement that one cannot fudge.

VMS is an host/target where pointers (64 bits) can be larger than size_t and 
ptrdiff_t.
We can run gcc on it, but we also still have a very few patches to submit to 
achieve that!

Tristan.