From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24368 invoked by alias); 30 Sep 2014 19:34:01 -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 24353 invoked by uid 89); 30 Sep 2014 19:34:01 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: resqmta-ch2-02v.sys.comcast.net Received: from resqmta-ch2-02v.sys.comcast.net (HELO resqmta-ch2-02v.sys.comcast.net) (69.252.207.34) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES128-SHA encrypted) ESMTPS; Tue, 30 Sep 2014 19:33:59 +0000 Received: from resomta-ch2-18v.sys.comcast.net ([69.252.207.114]) by resqmta-ch2-02v.sys.comcast.net with comcast id xXZK1o0072Udklx01XZxcC; Tue, 30 Sep 2014 19:33:57 +0000 Received: from [IPv6:2001:558:6045:a4:40c6:7199:cd03:b02d] ([IPv6:2001:558:6045:a4:40c6:7199:cd03:b02d]) by resomta-ch2-18v.sys.comcast.net with comcast id xXZu1o0062ztT3H01XZusH; Tue, 30 Sep 2014 19:33:56 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\)) Subject: Re: Fix for "FAIL: tmpdir-gcc.dg-struct-layout-1/t028 c_compat_x_tst.o compile, (internal compiler error)" From: Mike Stump In-Reply-To: Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2014 19:34:00 -0000 Cc: Richard Earnshaw , Andreas Schwab , David Sherwood , "gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org" , "vmakarov@redhat.com" , Richard Sandiford Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <7C2EA902-25FC-426B-A413-712744DA453D@comcast.net> References: <000001cfd995$c7bcafe0$57360fa0$@arm.com> <8738b9leiv.fsf@e105548-lin.cambridge.arm.com> <87y4t1jreq.fsf@e105548-lin.cambridge.arm.com> <542AB5C5.1030908@arm.com> To: "Joseph S. Myers" X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2014-09/txt/msg02691.txt.bz2 On Sep 30, 2014, at 9:15 AM, Joseph S. Myers wrot= e: > On Tue, 30 Sep 2014, Richard Earnshaw wrote: >=20 >> GCC is written in C++ these days, so technically, you need the C++ >> standard :-) >=20 > And, while C++14 requires plain int bit-fields to be signed, GCC is=20 > written in C++98/C++03. So, seemingly left unstated in the thread is what is required by the langua= ge standard we write in=85 From c++98: It is implementa- tion-defined whether bit-fields and objects of char type are repre- sented as signed or unsigned quantities. The signed specifier forces char objects and bit-fields to be signed; it is redundant with other integral types. So, I think you need a signed on bitfields if your want them to be signed. = It doesn=92t matter what g++ does, if we want to be portable to any C++ c= ompiler.