From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 72087 invoked by alias); 15 Mar 2016 19:32:15 -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 72076 invoked by uid 89); 15 Mar 2016 19:32:15 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=HContent-Transfer-Encoding:8bit 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; Tue, 15 Mar 2016 19:32:14 +0000 Received: from int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22]) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E3CBE486D0; Tue, 15 Mar 2016 19:32:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [10.3.113.138] (ovpn-113-138.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.113.138]) by int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id u2FJWBM5005539; Tue, 15 Mar 2016 15:32:12 -0400 Subject: Re: PING^1: [PATCH] Add TYPE_EMPTY_RECORD for C++ empty class To: "H.J. Lu" References: <20160302162538.66068C88E@oc7340732750.ibm.com> <56E82BC4.7070401@redhat.com> Cc: Ulrich Weigand , GCC Patches , Jakub Jelinek , Richard Biener , Markus Trippelsdorf From: Jason Merrill Message-ID: <56E8633B.8070303@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2016 19:32:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-SW-Source: 2016-03/txt/msg00857.txt.bz2 On 03/15/2016 12:00 PM, H.J. Lu wrote: > On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 8:35 AM, Jason Merrill wrote: >> I'm concerned about how this patch changes both target-independent code and >> target-specific code, with a passing remark that other targets might need to >> make similar changes. I'm also concerned about the effect of this on other >> languages that might not want the same change. So, here's an alternative >> patch that implements the change in the front end (and includes your >> testcases, thanks!). >> >> Thoughts? > > On x86-64, I got > > /export/gnu/import/git/sources/gcc/libstdc++-v3/src/c++11/cxx11-shim_facets.cc:273:23: > error: empty class ‘std::__facet_shims::other_abi {aka > std::integral_constant}’ parameter passing ABI changes in > -fabi-version=10 (GCC 6) [-Werror=abi] > __collate_transform(other_abi{}, _M_get(), st, lo, hi); Right, need to remove the -Werror=abi bit from the patch until Jonathan updates libstdc++. Jason