From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-vk1-xa36.google.com (mail-vk1-xa36.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::a36]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 41B343858C20 for ; Thu, 14 Sep 2023 04:08:00 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org 41B343858C20 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=cs.washington.edu Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=cs.washington.edu Received: by mail-vk1-xa36.google.com with SMTP id 71dfb90a1353d-495c9eb8911so252532e0c.2 for ; Wed, 13 Sep 2023 21:08:00 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cs.washington.edu; s=goo201206; t=1694664479; x=1695269279; darn=gcc.gnu.org; h=content-transfer-encoding:to:subject:message-id:date:from :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=UFNLpOQ5m17wBWQZuyzEUWZ+sNRBtErtPowin6bI0UM=; b=AI10cHUE7pubz00UA+96vpvfFF2Y92bHLaQjc7dmgM6rpoxb1T8pzFv2q/NqRkIN3K fS6CdewEGw0N4SB+h0ba245ISp6YYeqRsl2xMZfhcKHttvzTwBUnc3VJu+7Fd7ZL3pVc G5GixfRimblgbzNtuZ5Z/Ter5iKr06pSXOmCQ= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1694664479; x=1695269279; h=content-transfer-encoding:to:subject:message-id:date:from :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=UFNLpOQ5m17wBWQZuyzEUWZ+sNRBtErtPowin6bI0UM=; b=KODRcCg+xHTYELq1IraZSF1XxM0lnRDCS2Z+wulM0l1MWaNkq1ifQzmqvTOLfYOPwL qK4EbiX4M6wB4auhpZYKAY1l7cxzIs2L/j2Vj92LfG8zIIbSEp7gudQPb7zz4A1vb4az bCv5Miez6vb51v5WZawQrHVeOcbWKnOyh9IsjnN7DcCrZv5zhe5NDtx/7M8wr3fX88oa 2+3dUMG3lkaPHlMvcPGlYCFuoAjmSOUUti3xQTksNO9uMJLGv8pcAa2ZoW5kRA6TtHOg huKJMq7wd2sMnlLB0FnRdhsYkkazGgusQ1HgJXrKAMhZ/HCC7o8RfERKCAMMszqPF7MX mJpQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YycVvo1ooq9WbdouAqAtAv1eND9D5P6UEBreMX5sytFyOZM2KLz k3OEf7QrCBWPZbarK6iArbJ5KmBjPqk51K4WR+6LIrHKPaM5m7q1AhE= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IEPL0j4JIeCrNUuTB003auO2RX7s0wxn/u92eLzMJpD3EV0J4PJHRSGr1mgsGGM9po6vLuzrujh8He7fzRbZDc= X-Received: by 2002:a1f:c547:0:b0:495:dcd0:471 with SMTP id v68-20020a1fc547000000b00495dcd00471mr4392832vkf.5.1694664479282; Wed, 13 Sep 2023 21:07:59 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 From: Ken Matsui Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2023 21:07:23 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Compilation Error Regarding RID_MAX To: gcc@gcc.gnu.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org List-Id: Hi, I have merged all my patches into a single branch for better maintainability for me, but I am unable to build GCC. Initially, I faced an error related to RID_MAX, which was fixed in https://github.com/ken-matsui/gcc-gsoc23/commit/c32d49bc990acde4d3ec5654ddb= 81b0a7d081378. The ICE was caused by gcc_assert (RID_MAX <=3D 255) in gcc/c/c-parser.c. At this point, my new built-in exceeded the max keyword bound since c_token->keyword has 8 bits. This patch increased the bit size to 16 and compiled GCC successfully. However, I still encountered an unusual error and am unable to build GCC on https://github.com/ken-matsui/gcc-gsoc23/commit/c32d49bc990acde4d3ec= 5654ddb81b0a7d081378. This is the 4th built-in implementation after the previous RID_MAX fix patch (i.e., this increases the total number of keywords, now RID_MAX =3D 260). The error message indicates that there is a missing parenthesis after 'unsigned' for the expression (unsigned __int128). /home/kmatsui/gcc/objdir/gcc/include/bmi2intrin.h:86:38: error: expected =E2=80=98)=E2=80=99 before =E2=80=98__int128=E2=80=99 86 | unsigned __int128 __res =3D (unsigned __int128) __X * __Y; | ~ ^~~~~~~~~ | ) /home/kmatsui/gcc/objdir/gcc/include/bmi2intrin.h:86:29: error: initializer element is not constant 86 | unsigned __int128 __res =3D (unsigned __int128) __X * __Y; | I reordered the commits, but it seems that the 4th built-in (RID_MAX =3D 260) after the RID_MAX tweak fails, regardless of what the 4th is. (i.e., the __remove_pointer implementation itself is not the reason.) I have pushed the branch to https://github.com/ken-matsui/gcc-gsoc23/commits/me/gsoc23. Could someone please help me inspect the issue and provide your suggestions? Sincerely, Ken Matsui