From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7916 invoked by alias); 18 Nov 2012 19:15:28 -0000 Received: (qmail 7883 invoked by uid 22791); 18 Nov 2012 19:15:27 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-5.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,KHOP_RCVD_TRUST,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_YE X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail-we0-f175.google.com (HELO mail-we0-f175.google.com) (74.125.82.175) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Sun, 18 Nov 2012 19:15:23 +0000 Received: by mail-we0-f175.google.com with SMTP id t44so1698243wey.20 for ; Sun, 18 Nov 2012 11:15:22 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.180.24.193 with SMTP id w1mr6002373wif.22.1353266122475; Sun, 18 Nov 2012 11:15:22 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.217.64.194 with HTTP; Sun, 18 Nov 2012 11:15:22 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <20121115215319.AE4ACC0916@torture.tor.corp.google.com> Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2012 19:15:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: VEC re-write [patch 01/25] From: Andrew Pinski To: Diego Novillo Cc: Hans-Peter Nilsson , gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-IsSubscribed: yes 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 X-SW-Source: 2012-11/txt/msg01511.txt.bz2 On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 9:12 AM, Diego Novillo wrote: > On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 12:05 PM, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote: >> On Sat, 17 Nov 2012, Diego Novillo wrote: >>> I have now committed all 25 parts of this patch as rev 193595. Please >>> CC me on any problems that you think may be related to this rewrite. >> >> That seems to have trigged some bug in gcc-4.4-era. See >> PR55381. There are a lot of suspicious warnings from vec.h. >> It smells a bit like a host gcc bug, but I'll have to find a >> newer version where it builds to confirm. (If so, "hopefully" >> it's as "simple" as upping the minimum host gcc version or >> blacklisting gcc-4.4.x.) > > Yeah, I got those warnings in my sparc and hppa builds, but they are > harmless. Strictly speaking offsetof cannot be applied to non-PODs. > The only thing that makes that class non-POD is the protected > attribute, but that does not alter the physical layout. So the > compiler is emitting a harmless warning (newer versions have > tightened the check to warn when you are using offsetof on a non-base > class). But then we are no longer writing in C++. Is there a reason why this warning does not break the build? We should not be using offsetof with non-PODs. Thanks, Andrew Pinski > > My cris-elf builds worked fine, but config-list.mk only builds stage > 1, it does not build libgfortran. Can you give me instructions on how > to build your target on my x86 workstation? > > > Thanks. Diego.