Re: [PATCH] libgfortran: Fix -Wincompatible-pointer-types errors

[Richard Earnshaw <Richard.Earnshaw@foss.arm.com>]

On 05/12/2023 10:59, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 05, 2023 at 10:57:50AM +0000, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
>> On 05/12/2023 10:51, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>>> On Tue, Dec 05, 2023 at 10:47:34AM +0000, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
>>>>> The following patch makes libgfortran build on i686-linux after hacking up
>>>>> --- kinds.h.xx	2023-12-05 00:23:00.133365064 +0100
>>>>> +++ kinds.h	2023-12-05 11:19:24.409679808 +0100
>>>>> @@ -10,8 +10,8 @@ typedef GFC_INTEGER_2 GFC_LOGICAL_2;
>>>>>     #define HAVE_GFC_LOGICAL_2
>>>>>     #define HAVE_GFC_INTEGER_2
>>>>> -typedef int32_t GFC_INTEGER_4;
>>>>> -typedef uint32_t GFC_UINTEGER_4;
>>>>> +typedef long GFC_INTEGER_4;
>>>>> +typedef unsigned long GFC_UINTEGER_4;
>>>>
>>>> That doesn't look right for a 64-bit processor.  Presumably 4 means 4 bytes,
>>>
>>> i686-linux is an ILP32 target, which I chose exactly because I regularly build
>>> it, had a tree with it around and because unlike 64-bit targets there are 2
>>> standard 32-bit signed integer types.  Though, normally int32_t there is
>>> int rather than long int and so the errors only appeared after this hack.
>>>
>>
>> My point is that on aarch64/x86_64 etc, this will make GFC_INTEGER_4 a
>> 64-bit type, whereas previously it was 32-bit.
> 
> Sure.  The above patch is a hack for a generated header.  I'm not proposing
> that as a change, just explaining how I've verified the actual patch on
> i686-linux with such a hack.
> 
> 	Jakub
> 

Ah, I understand now.

I've successfully built arm and aarch64 cross toolchains with this patch 
(newlib).  So LGTM, thanks.

R.