From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-patches-return-397259-listarch-gcc-patches=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 83133 invoked by alias); 8 May 2015 16:40:32 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-patches.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 83097 invoked by uid 89); 8 May 2015 16:40:31 -0000
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none
X-Virus-Found: No
X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-0.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KAM_MXURI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=no version=3.3.2
X-HELO: mail.ud10.udmedia.de
Received: from ud10.udmedia.de (HELO mail.ud10.udmedia.de) (194.117.254.50) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Fri, 08 May 2015 16:40:29 +0000
Received: (qmail 18074 invoked from network); 8 May 2015 18:40:26 +0200
Received: from unknown (HELO x4) (ud10?360p3@91.65.248.138)  by mail.ud10.udmedia.de with ESMTPSA (DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted, authenticated); 8 May 2015 18:40:26 +0200
Date: Fri, 08 May 2015 16:40:00 -0000
From: Markus Trippelsdorf <markus@trippelsdorf.de>
To: Steve Ellcey <sellcey@imgtec.com>
Cc: Marek Polacek <polacek@redhat.com>, Jeff Law <law@redhat.com>,	Joseph Myers <joseph@codesourcery.com>,	Martin Sebor <msebor@redhat.com>,	GCC Patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>,	Jason Merrill <jason@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [C/C++ PATCH] Implement -Wshift-negative-value (PR c/65179)
Message-ID: <20150508164026.GE402@x4>
References: <20150507191532.GH3384@redhat.com> <1431103107.14613.192.camel@ubuntu-sellcey>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1431103107.14613.192.camel@ubuntu-sellcey>
X-SW-Source: 2015-05/txt/msg00697.txt.bz2

On 2015.05.08 at 09:38 -0700, Steve Ellcey wrote:
> 
> This patch has broken the glibc build.  I am not sure if the problem is
> a bug in your patch or a bug in the code used by glibc.  Here is a
> cutdown test case from glibc (timezone/scheck.c).  This code compiled
> before your patch but now it fails with:
> 
> x.c:4:3: error: initializer element is not constant
>    ((((time_t) -1) < 0)
> 
> 
> 
> __extension__ typedef long int __time_t;
> typedef __time_t time_t;
> static time_t const time_t_min =
>   ((((time_t) -1) < 0)
>    ? (time_t) -1 << (8 * sizeof (time_t) - 1)
>    : 0)
> 

See: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66066

-- 
Markus