From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wm1-x32c.google.com (mail-wm1-x32c.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::32c]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9D73F3851C3D for ; Wed, 5 May 2021 07:05:32 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 sourceware.org 9D73F3851C3D Received: by mail-wm1-x32c.google.com with SMTP id 4-20020a05600c26c4b0290146e1feccd8so457890wmv.1 for ; Wed, 05 May 2021 00:05:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=sJjI2lp6fDoi/PFJ7HUyz51OgiwyYmPaXPa8Usb/gdI=; b=DgrNY0LXpnjC9AL7OYTe3gdaXNRt1xl4P7qiUrlnmND3tlV13ZnlQ10MGRQCaZ95yJ 2S8PcTQ5DS4ivtFNe7uFbuwl7mYL+WiwsgTvQx0WY5K4UX/jtFKoEMEgevy7TQBlL3+f x0OKiG/fwGj50QSJwSorOCwknBuTF8X2zxnnXVI15JfZpNwzxysncX34NXkgJ6m7bteL G4BDp26sMIhVr/7BHKxZzVMJDAWHrUQn9znPkr67nvtDXXDMpJU1QybBfjklPgIYoZwF 2l5pF5Xmd6gazM5x/Q0nFe+ZdnmhdzRprVbsc1kHJADalCnPGdgBq0ae3W6GWcCPxl9L FRMQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5321Xn6+kkzNgdXL4GTCw589fIJL+JiNVpdubT+83JRF5RoDzZAE sazQQYOxsZ201pwn76gGnEs= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJx9NSBC+btFtkuz6k7XTKqUduvnE5G5OCQFHLhyuodZjC9CtwUoMNYzGBm7jPQKowAlP0Xfqg== X-Received: by 2002:a1c:b60b:: with SMTP id g11mr8389088wmf.68.1620198330899; Wed, 05 May 2021 00:05:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.212] (host81-138-1-83.in-addr.btopenworld.com. [81.138.1.83]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id a21sm4773943wmj.34.2021.05.05.00.05.29 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 05 May 2021 00:05:30 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; delsp=yes; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\)) Subject: Re: RFC: Changing AC_PROG_CC to AC_PROG_CC_C99 in top level configure From: Iain Sandoe In-Reply-To: <20210505001825.GN22624@bubble.grove.modra.org> Date: Wed, 5 May 2021 08:05:29 +0100 Cc: Nick Clifton , gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, "H.J. Lu" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Message-Id: References: <8c1b0ed9-e6f3-9c22-45c5-c2680a2a4830@polymtl.ca> <3e562764-ce93-d4a2-fbba-dc622c9b5bb7@redhat.com> <3c76d8a1-d029-237d-054c-0ff65eb063cb@polymtl.ca> <20210505001825.GN22624@bubble.grove.modra.org> To: Alan Modra X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273) X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, DKIM_VALID_EF, FREEMAIL_FROM, GIT_PATCH_0, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS, TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on server2.sourceware.org X-BeenThere: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gcc-patches mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 05 May 2021 07:05:34 -0000 Alan Modra via Gcc-patches wrote: > On 2021-05-04 8:42 a.m., Nick Clifton wrote: >> Hi Guys, >> >> On 4/30/21 7:36 PM, Simon Marchi wrote: >>> I think this fix is obvious enough, I encourage you to push it, >> >> OK - I have pushed the patch to the mainline branches of both >> the gcc and binutils-gdb repositories. > > Thanks Nick! Incidentally, I checked the AC_PROG_CC_C99 change on > both binutils and gcc mainline using gcc-4.9. > > To build gcc on x86_64 I found the following patch necessary to avoid > lots of > error: uninitialized const member ‘stringop_algs::stringop_strategy::max’ > error: uninitialized const member ‘stringop_algs::stringop_strategy::alg’ > when compiling config/i386/i386-options.c. These can't be cured by > configuring with --disable-stage1-checking. > > diff --git a/gcc/config/i386/i386.h b/gcc/config/i386/i386.h > index 97d6f3863cb..cc3b1b6d666 100644 > --- a/gcc/config/i386/i386.h > +++ b/gcc/config/i386/i386.h > @@ -73,8 +73,8 @@ struct stringop_algs > { > const enum stringop_alg unknown_size; > const struct stringop_strategy { > - const int max; > - const enum stringop_alg alg; > + int max; > + enum stringop_alg alg; > int noalign; > } size [MAX_STRINGOP_ALGS]; > }; does this relate to / fix PR 100246 (which seems to fire for some GCC versions as well as older clang)? Iain