From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11518 invoked by alias); 20 Jun 2014 09:39:38 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 11497 invoked by uid 89); 20 Jun 2014 09:39:36 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-3.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Fri, 20 Jun 2014 09:39:35 +0000 Received: from int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.27]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s5K9dUuP018046 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 20 Jun 2014 05:39:31 -0400 Received: from tucnak.zalov.cz (ovpn-116-32.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.116.32]) by int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s5K9dSWG027132 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 20 Jun 2014 05:39:30 -0400 Received: from tucnak.zalov.cz (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tucnak.zalov.cz (8.14.8/8.14.7) with ESMTP id s5K9dRRm017397; Fri, 20 Jun 2014 11:39:27 +0200 Received: (from jakub@localhost) by tucnak.zalov.cz (8.14.8/8.14.8/Submit) id s5K9dNxP017396; Fri, 20 Jun 2014 11:39:23 +0200 Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2014 09:39:00 -0000 From: Jakub Jelinek To: Marek Polacek Cc: GCC Patches , Jason Merrill , "Joseph S. Myers" , Richard Biener , Jeff Law Subject: Re: [PATCH] Implement -fsanitize=bounds and internal calls in FEs Message-ID: <20140620093923.GW31640@tucnak.redhat.com> Reply-To: Jakub Jelinek References: <20140616103907.GD17965@redhat.com> <20140616112304.GD19001@tucnak.redhat.com> <20140619145653.GL17965@redhat.com> <20140619171931.GR31640@tucnak.redhat.com> <20140620084304.GN17965@redhat.com> <20140620085747.GV31640@tucnak.redhat.com> <20140620093426.GP17965@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20140620093426.GP17965@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2014-06/txt/msg01590.txt.bz2 On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 11:34:26AM +0200, Marek Polacek wrote: > On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 10:57:47AM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 10:43:04AM +0200, Marek Polacek wrote: > > > + > > > + /* Internal function code. */ > > > + ENUM_BITFIELD(internal_fn) ifn : 5; > > > > Any reason for the " : 5" here? I mean, the union also contains > > unsigned int, so it doesn't hurt if you use full 32 bits for it there, > > and it should be faster and you won't run into problems when we'll have > > more than 32 internal functions. > > The sole reason was that all other ENUM_BITFIELDs have it - on the > other hand, they're not in a union and here the bit-field is > pointless. I'll drop it. Well, no point to use ENUM_BITFIELD either, just use enum internal_fn ifn; ? Jakub