From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-patches-return-406955-listarch-gcc-patches=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 18606 invoked by alias); 9 Sep 2015 12:29:20 -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 18583 invoked by uid 89); 9 Sep 2015 12:29:18 -0000
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none
X-Virus-Found: No
X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2
X-Spam-User: qpsmtpd, 2 recipients
X-HELO: mail-io0-f175.google.com
Received: from mail-io0-f175.google.com (HELO mail-io0-f175.google.com) (209.85.223.175) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES128-GCM-SHA256 encrypted) ESMTPS; Wed, 09 Sep 2015 12:29:10 +0000
Received: by iofb144 with SMTP id b144so19765219iof.1;        Wed, 09 Sep 2015 05:29:08 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.107.160.194 with SMTP id j185mr7390977ioe.37.1441801748490; Wed, 09 Sep 2015 05:29:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.36.133.5 with HTTP; Wed, 9 Sep 2015 05:29:08 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <m3a8swut74.fsf@pepe.airs.com>
References: <CAGWvnymArrXV9uWhkLBow6Di8_WaZP_w3fO-kf3cwbg6nWr8=A@mail.gmail.com>	<5474EA6F-E6C0-4FA0-B299-C0D9558D6ACB@gmail.com>	<CAGWvny==F7BJ3SfiJQzaUcL3E0nvjOSe+LmRSkLYyhBUc_Lcsg@mail.gmail.com>	<CAGWvnynRJVQUrpJfBvjkiF_vx2HQY01uOZNQvEP2kVqbtc=rMw@mail.gmail.com>	<9A070869-B851-4D20-A4E3-3D4D9746A6E3@gmail.com>	<CAGWvnynCSzSfJensW4g2yoipF9U4Vxmwrh9Wd84713=Qt180kA@mail.gmail.com>	<91FF19E4-8EA4-49D9-8103-94C4E7969C3E@comcast.net>	<m3a8swut74.fsf@pepe.airs.com>
Date: Wed, 09 Sep 2015 13:00:00 -0000
Message-ID: <CAGWvnym8sQgJZXjBxv47sDwUPwSM=V5G1KY5A5kBzLtsHaRSTA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH, fortran] PR 53379 Backtrace on error termination
From: David Edelsohn <dje.gcc@gmail.com>
To: Ian Lance Taylor <ian@airs.com>
Cc: Mike Stump <mikestump@comcast.net>, FX <fxcoudert@gmail.com>, 	GCC Patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>, Fortran List <fortran@gcc.gnu.org>, 	Janne Blomqvist <blomqvist.janne@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-SW-Source: 2015-09/txt/msg00580.txt.bz2

On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 12:12 AM, Ian Lance Taylor <ian@airs.com> wrote:
> Mike Stump <mikestump@comcast.net> writes:
>
>> Not a big issue, but slightly better if (O_CLOEXEC>>32) != 0 is also
>> true.  See, if AIX should ever define this to a sensible value, the
>> above would disappear the feature.  However, if they did, then this
>> expression should then be false.
>
> Yes, I think this might be even better in code.  How about something
> like
>
>   /* On some versions of AIX O_CLOEXEC does not fit in int, so use a
>      cast to force it.  */
>   descriptor = open (filename, (int) (O_RDONLY | O_BINARY | O_CLOEXEC));
>
> Does that work on AIX?

Yes, that approach also fixes the warning and the build failure.

Thanks, David