X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mailnull set sender to djgpp-workers-bounces using -f
From: Martin Str|mberg <ams AT ludd DOT luth DOT se>
Message-Id: <200112261450.PAA13723@father.ludd.luth.se>
Subject: Re: gcc 3.03 and libc sources
In-Reply-To: <200112261402.PAA13636@father.ludd.luth.se> from Martin Str|mberg at "Dec 26, 2001 03:02:47 pm"
To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2001 15:50:55 +0100 (MET)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL54 (25)]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk

According to Martin Str|mberg:
> According to Eli Zaretskii:
> > > From: Martin Str|mberg <ams AT ludd DOT luth DOT se>
> > > Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2001 13:29:20 +0100 (MET)
> > > > > > > -                   type->stubinfo->struct_length : 0
> > > > > > > +                   (unsigned int)(type->stubinfo->struct_length) : 0
> 
>                     + (argc+1)*sizeof(short)))
> (Added for context.)
> 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > This is really ridiculous on the part of gcc!!  Does it help to say 0U 
> > > > > > instead of just 0, and leave the struct_length part alone?
> > > > > 
> > > > > No. Because the struct_length is signed.
> > > > 
> > > > Then what's the problem?  Does GCC treat 0 as unsigned?  Does 0L
> > > > instead help?
> > > 
> > > The problem is as in the other cases: we have a situation of bool ?
> > > signed : unsigned.
> > 
> > Yes, but who is the unsigned here?  You say that struct_length is
> > signed, which leaves us with zero.  That's why I suggested to try 0L.

> I'll try 0L and see what happens.

0L doesn't help.


Right,

						MartinS