From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 101971 invoked by alias); 28 Apr 2015 21:35:26 -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 101959 invoked by uid 89); 28 Apr 2015 21:35:25 -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,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: relay1.mentorg.com Received: from relay1.mentorg.com (HELO relay1.mentorg.com) (192.94.38.131) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Tue, 28 Apr 2015 21:35:22 +0000 Received: from nat-ies.mentorg.com ([192.94.31.2] helo=SVR-IES-FEM-01.mgc.mentorg.com) by relay1.mentorg.com with esmtp id 1YnD9x-0001GQ-OV from joseph_myers@mentor.com ; Tue, 28 Apr 2015 14:35:17 -0700 Received: from digraph.polyomino.org.uk (137.202.0.76) by SVR-IES-FEM-01.mgc.mentorg.com (137.202.0.104) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.3.224.2; Tue, 28 Apr 2015 22:35:16 +0100 Received: from jsm28 (helo=localhost) by digraph.polyomino.org.uk with local-esmtp (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1YnD9u-00057R-Ua; Tue, 28 Apr 2015 21:35:15 +0000 Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2015 22:23:00 -0000 From: Joseph Myers To: Marek Polacek CC: GCC Patches Subject: Re: C PATCH for c/65345 (file-scope _Atomic expansion, this time with floats) In-Reply-To: <20150414160845.GA6541@redhat.com> Message-ID: References: <20150414160845.GA6541@redhat.com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.10 (DEB 1266 2009-07-14) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" X-SW-Source: 2015-04/txt/msg01794.txt.bz2 On Tue, 14 Apr 2015, Marek Polacek wrote: > You were right: my earlier fix for c/65345 only handled non-float types. > This patch thus handles even the float types. The fix is analogical to the > previous: use create_tmp_var_raw and TARGET_EXPR to avoid ICE. > > This only fixes x86 though, other arches will need something similar. You'll > notice that the tests are XFAILed on arches other than i?86/x86_64, hope that > is fine. I don't think default XFAILing is appropriate; like c11-atomic-exec-5.c, I think the failures should be visible to show that there is something target-specific to be done (and then target maintainers can choose to XFAIL with reference to a bug filed in Bugzilla if they so wish, but the default should be non-XFAILed). I also think you should identify the targets that look like they would be affected (based on source code inspection) and inform the relevant target maintainers of the issue and of the appropriate approach for a fix. Apart from the XFAILing, the patch is OK in the absence of x86 back-end maintainer objections within 48 hours. -- Joseph S. Myers joseph@codesourcery.com