From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
 id 9F0C3383E815; Sun, 31 May 2020 19:34:57 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 9F0C3383E815
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
 s=default; t=1590953697;
 bh=aMkAnbei0fNHs1O/IREEeuRgn/BFob8+a/Um0LgkmL0=;
 h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
 b=FbaMHEHET/HXnQJ0uSDWRZ4IVVEKsWed6AXlk1gbKNJI3aUzdRzOnS0jDF2g/wCw4
 zy2snp+aBlIMjyKTXqq+WSirSklOKYPIbDhHENSWSvCmm4K5dz7sf6+hvXdaV0/paz
 DTHSflNu4flxrsz9rPl3yZWXJQb+W3nYTPnzF87w=
From: "ubizjak at gmail dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug libfortran/95418] [11 Regression] Static assert going off on
 MinGW
Date: Sun, 31 May 2020 19:34:57 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: libfortran
X-Bugzilla-Version: 11.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: 
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: ubizjak at gmail dot com
X-Bugzilla-Status: WAITING
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 11.0
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-95418-4-tHjFXIlnSg@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-95418-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-95418-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-BeenThere: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Gcc-bugs mailing list <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/options/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 31 May 2020 19:34:57 -0000

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D95418

--- Comment #6 from Uro=C5=A1 Bizjak <ubizjak at gmail dot com> ---
(In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #3)
> Adding the author of the patch.
>=20
> Uros: I find no discussion of this patch on the fortran mailing list.
> Please remember to do so in the future if you touch the libgfortran
> or gcc/fortran directories.

Thomas,

Contrary to my other libgfortran contribution, I was under the impression t=
hat
the patch touches only deep architectural details of the x87 chip, and shou=
ld
be (and in fact is) independent of libgfortran implementation.

I would like to point out that the part, referred in Comment #4 unifies the
structure definition with the ones in libgcc soft-fp and libatomic. So, if =
this
change turns out to be problematic for MinGW, then the existing definitions=
 in
libgcc in libatomic are wrong as well. Actually, libgcc sfp-machine.h defin=
es:

#ifdef __MINGW32__
  /* Make sure we are using gnu-style bitfield handling.  */
#define _FP_STRUCT_LAYOUT  __attribute__ ((gcc_struct))
#endif

which should probably be added to libgfortran fpu-387.h (and libatomic fenv=
.c).=