code review 10150043: cmd/cgo: makes clang happy by not using __gcc_struct__ ... (issue 10150043)

[minu...@gmail.com]

Reviewers: golang-dev1,

Message:
Hello golan...@googlegroups.com (cc: golan...@googlegroups.com),

I'd like you to review this change to
https://code.google.com/p/go/


Description:
cmd/cgo: makes clang happy by not using __gcc_struct__ attribute.

Please review this at https://codereview.appspot.com/10150043/

Affected files:
M src/cmd/cgo/out.go


Index: src/cmd/cgo/out.go
===================================================================
--- a/src/cmd/cgo/out.go
+++ b/src/cmd/cgo/out.go
@@ -488,7 +488,7 @@
// Use __gcc_struct__ to work around http://gcc.gnu.org/PR52991 on x86,
// and http://golang.org/issue/5603.
extraAttr := ""
- if goarch == "amd64" || goarch == "386" {
+ if !strings.Contains(p.gccName(), "clang") && (goarch == "amd64" ||
goarch == "386") {
extraAttr = ", __gcc_struct__"
}
fmt.Fprintf(fgcc, "\t%s __attribute__((__packed__%v)) *a = v;\n", ctype,
extraAttr)

[ia...@golang.org]

LGTM

Doesn't this mean that we are going to have the same bug with clang in
the future?

https://codereview.appspot.com/10150043/

[minux]

On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 1:01 AM, <ia...@golang.org> wrote:

Doesn't this mean that we are going to have the same bug with clang in
the future?

Haha, good question for clang developers.

i can only imagine clang introduces a clang_struct attribute.... oh...

btw, why does the GCC PR remain unfixed for so long (there is even a patch

on the bugzilla)?

[minu...@gmail.com]

*** Submitted as
https://code.google.com/p/go/source/detail?r=578baa4acf63 ***

cmd/cgo: makes clang happy by not using __gcc_struct__ attribute.

R=golang-dev, iant
CC=golang-dev
https://codereview.appspot.com/10150043


https://codereview.appspot.com/10150043/

[Ian Lance Taylor]

On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 11:37 AM, minux <minu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> btw, why does the GCC PR remain unfixed for so long (there is even a patch
> on the bugzilla)?

I don't know why it hasn't been fixed. The patch in the bugzilla
entry seems to be wrong, but I'm still surprised that the GCC Windows
maintainers haven't pushed harder on this. Part of the problem is of
course that most GCC developers do not use Windows.

Ian