On 11/09/2009 06:33 AM, Kaveh R. Ghazi wrote:
From: David Edelsohn dje@gmail.com
AIX Shell is KSH.
The problem is shell append += and libtool not running with the same
shell used by configure.
Hm, the mpc configure script actually has a check for shell +=, and on
my solaris box it
On 11/09/2009 12:03 AM, Basile STARYNKEVITCH wrote:
is gcc-trunk -flto -O2 aimed for medium sized programs (something like
bash), or for bigger ones (something like the linux kernel, the Xorg
server, the Qt or GTK graphical toolkit libraries, or bootstrapping GCC
itself.
My understanding is
On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 10:44 AM, Tobias Burnus bur...@net-b.de wrote:
On 11/09/2009 12:03 AM, Basile STARYNKEVITCH wrote:
is gcc-trunk -flto -O2 aimed for medium sized programs (something like
bash), or for bigger ones (something like the linux kernel, the Xorg
server, the Qt or GTK graphical
徐持恒 wrote:
These days, I’m trying to build gcc-4.4.2 + binutils-2.20 + gmp + mpfr in
Msys+MinGW and Cygwin environment.
The builds on both environments are OK, but I cannot run make check, or
make check-gcc.
Finally, I found, that, to run test, you must first install guile, autogen,
2009/11/9 Kai Ruottu kai.ruo...@wippies.com:
I myself would be more interested to get these tests for MinGW-hosted
tools to work on Linux because that is
the preferred build platform for MinGW-hosted tools for me. Some years
ago I produced more than 100
binutils+GCC+GDB/Insight toolchains for
On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 18:03, Basile STARYNKEVITCH
bas...@starynkevitch.net wrote:
Perhaps the question is when not to use -flto and use -fwhopr instead?
I don't think anyone has systematically tried to determine these
limits. The original design tried to address a specific instance of a
On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 1:35 PM, Diego Novillo dnovi...@google.com wrote:
On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 18:03, Basile STARYNKEVITCH
bas...@starynkevitch.net wrote:
Perhaps the question is when not to use -flto and use -fwhopr instead?
I don't think anyone has systematically tried to determine these
2009/11/6 Richard Henderson r...@redhat.com:
On 11/06/2009 05:29 AM, Mohamed Shafi wrote:
The target that i am working on has 1 2 bit shift-add patterns.
GCC is not generating shift-add patterns when the shift count is 1. It
is currently generating add operations. What should be done to
On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 07:47, Richard Guenther
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
So I don't believe you ;) Even with 400 thousand cgraph nodes
you'd run out of virtual memory on 32bits unless the cgraph
node size on 32bit is less than 10 bytes which it is of course not ...
You are right. I
2009/11/6 Ian Lance Taylor i...@google.com:
Mohamed Shafi shafi...@gmail.com writes:
It is generating with data registers. Here is the pattern that i have
written:
(define_insn *saddl
[(set (match_operand:SI 0 register_operand =r,d)
(plus:SI (mult:SI (match_operand:SI 1
Dave Hudson wrote:
On Thu, 2009-11-05 at 18:05 +, Ian Bolton wrote:
I think I may have made a breakthrough!
As mentioned above, IRA is correctly increasing the cost for TOP_REGS
when an allocno in region 1 is being used in one of our special
instructions that needs BOTTOM_REGS. We
2009/10/22 Richard Henderson r...@redhat.com:
On 10/21/2009 07:25 AM, Mohamed Shafi wrote:
For accessing a-b GCC generates the following code:
move.l (sp-16), d3
lsrr.l #16, d3
move.l (sp-12),d2
asll #16,d2
or d3,d2
cmpeq.w #2,d2
Hi Joern,
After checking in the patch to provide unique pass names for all passes,
I created
svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches/ici-20091108-branch
and merged in the patches from:
http://gcc-ici.svn.sourceforge.net/svnroot/gcc-ici/branches/patch-gcc-4.4.0-ici-2.0
Could you please
徐持恒 wrote:
Thank you, I'll give it a try.
But can you tell me why there are no testresult of MinGW or Cygwin on
gcc-testresults mailinglist ?
That's not correct. I haven't done it for a few weeks because I've been
busy on other stuff, but Christian J. is still posting them regularly for
After checking in the patch to provide unique pass names for all passes,
I created
svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches/ici-20091108-branch
and merged in the patches from:
http://gcc-ici.svn.sourceforge.net/svnroot/gcc-ici/branches/patch-gcc-4.4.0-ici-2.0
By the way, not to forget - we
Still making great progress.
The process is being simplified.
I have a question. I need to remap long names to short, and I
wish to use #defines to do this as it is portable.
So I have a whole lot of:
#define align_functions ZZZ_1
#define align_functions_log ZZZ_2
etc
and I have put them
Yes I understand. I'm trying to give multiple options to the users in
order to either have this enabled or not actually.
I'm running into one issue. In order for this to work, it would be
better if I could keep the top of the frame and the stack pointer in
two separate registers. This way,
Mohamed Shafi shafi...@gmail.com writes:
Ok the constrain for address register is 'a'. Thats typo in the
pattern that i given here. The proper pattern is
(define_insn *saddl
[(set (match_operand:SI 0 register_operand =a,d)
(plus:SI (mult:SI (match_operand:SI 1 register_operand
Eric Botcazou ebotca...@adacore.com writes:
I was looking through the gcc-4.5 primary and secondary platform list
to ensure we have coverage for MPC testing. It occurs to me that some
of the OS versions are outdated.
I've included the list from the page
Jean Christophe Beyler jean.christophe.bey...@gmail.com writes:
How can I force the prologue to keep this instruction. It is useless
only in the case that there is no function call or no alloca. But I
have a case where there is a function call and it is still removed.
Make the hard frame
Eric Botcazou ebotca...@adacore.com writes:
I was looking through the gcc-4.5 primary and secondary platform list
to ensure we have coverage for MPC testing. It occurs to me that some
of the OS versions are outdated.
I've included the list from the page
Paul Edwards mutazi...@gmail.com writes:
Now all code needs to be exposed to this. ie libiberty and
gcc. To fit in with the new style of building, I basically want
to update ansidecl.h to do a:
#ifdef PUREISO
#include mshort.h
#endif
Does that seem reasonable?
The ISO C99 standard
On 11/09/2009 06:13 AM, Mohamed Shafi wrote:
Ok i have comparison patterns written in RImode. When you say that i
will wind up with a selection of patterns do you mean to say that i
should have patterns for operations that operate on full 40bits in
RImode and disable the corresponding SImode
Dennis Clarke writes:
Eric Botcazou ebotca...@adacore.com writes:
I was looking through the gcc-4.5 primary and secondary platform list
to ensure we have coverage for MPC testing. It occurs to me that some
of the OS versions are outdated.
I've included the list from the page
you can buy a support contract for it then you have a valid platform in
commercial use.
You can get support for the OpenSolaris distribution if you like
I just went and looked ... you are correct, they have three levels in
fact. It looks like $1080 for premium, $720 is standard business
On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 5:50 PM, Dennis Clarke dcla...@blastwave.org wrote:
you can buy a support contract for it then you have a valid platform in
commercial use.
You can get support for the OpenSolaris distribution if you like
I just went and looked ... you are correct, they have three
Hello,
I need to pass a tree node (section name from processing pragmas)
from C frontend to main GCC body (used in TARGET_INSERT_ATTRIBUTES).
I store the node in a global pointer array delcared in target.c.
But the tree node is garbage collected in the end of c-parser
pass, and causes an ICE
I actually already did put it as a fixed register using the
FIXED_REGISTER macro. However, I have not yet tested the EPILOGUE_USES
because it said that : The stack and frame pointer are already
assumed to be used as needed.
My current port defines a different FRAME_POINTER_REGNUM from the
Quoting Joern Rennecke amyl...@spamcop.net:
I think we could have the ICI event flexibility/stability with lower
overhead if the event sender requests an event identifier number (which
can be allocated after the numbers of the gcc 4.5 static event enum values)
for an event name at or before the
Bingfeng Mei b...@broadcom.com writes:
I need to pass a tree node (section name from processing pragmas)
from C frontend to main GCC body (used in TARGET_INSERT_ATTRIBUTES).
I store the node in a global pointer array delcared in target.c.
But the tree node is garbage collected in the end of
Hi Joern,
I think we could have the ICI event flexibility/stability with lower
overhead if the event sender requests an event identifier number (which
can be allocated after the numbers of the gcc 4.5 static event enum values)
for an event name at or before the first event with that name,
Now all code needs to be exposed to this. ie libiberty and
gcc. To fit in with the new style of building, I basically want
to update ansidecl.h to do a:
#ifdef PUREISO
#include mshort.h
#endif
Does that seem reasonable?
The ISO C99 standard requires that an identifier have 31 significant
hello,
wanting to know if there's a pure64 patch for 4.5.0
right now I've plugged in a pure64 patch for 4.4.1
on 4.5.0.
will this be good or is there more to that needs to be added.
http://patches.cross-lfs.org/dev/gcc-4.4.1-pure64-1.patch
Justin P. Mattock
I know very well the spirit of MinGW, it want to provide a native Win32
development evrionment.
The issue is : many of the host tools have not been ported or very hard to
be ported to pure MinGW/Win32 environment, for example, bash. This is why
Msys exist. Msys essensially a fork of Cygwin 1.3.
Dave Korn wrote:
Justin Mattock wrote:
==1830== Command: c++ -o jsxml.o -c -DOSTYPE=Linux2.6 -DOSARCH=Linux
Ah, you're running it on the c++ utility and it's reporting the stats for
that, but how it works is that c++ (and gcc, g++, et al) is just a
driver, that parses the
Quoting Grigori Fursin gfur...@gmail.com:
I am a bit confused about your above example - you suggest to add
this functionality on top of current ICI or substitute it?
The idea was to replace it. The current event implementation has two
issues:
- It is very different from the existing GCC
Justin P. Mattock justinmatt...@gmail.com writes:
wanting to know if there's a pure64 patch for 4.5.0
right now I've plugged in a pure64 patch for 4.4.1
on 4.5.0.
will this be good or is there more to that needs to be added.
http://patches.cross-lfs.org/dev/gcc-4.4.1-pure64-1.patch
You
On Mon, 9 Nov 2009, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
On 11/09/2009 06:33 AM, Kaveh R. Ghazi wrote:
From: David Edelsohn dje@gmail.com
AIX Shell is KSH.
The problem is shell append += and libtool not running with the same
shell used by configure.
Hm, the mpc configure script actually has
Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
Justin P. Mattockjustinmatt...@gmail.com writes:
wanting to know if there's a pure64 patch for 4.5.0
right now I've plugged in a pure64 patch for 4.4.1
on 4.5.0.
will this be good or is there more to that needs to be added.
The following valid code snippet triggers an ICE since GCC 4.4.0:
===
templatetypename T struct A
{
operator T();
A() { T (A::*f)() = A::operator T; }
};
Aint a;
===
bug.cc: In constructor 'AT::A() [with
--
reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.4.3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41994
--- Comment #8 from rootkit85 at yahoo dot it 2009-11-09 08:55 ---
1) define real geode
2) what CPU do I have?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41989
--- Comment #9 from rootkit85 at yahoo dot it 2009-11-09 09:01 ---
Read here pag. 15:
http://www.amd.com/files/connectivitysolutions/geode/geode_lx/33234F_LX_databook.pdf
The instruction set supported by the core is a combination
of Intel Pentium® processor, AMD Athlon processor, and
--- Comment #10 from ubizjak at gmail dot com 2009-11-09 09:34 ---
(In reply to comment #8)
1) define real geode
2) what CPU do I have?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geode_%28processor%29#AMD_Geode
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41989
--- Comment #5 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-09 10:09 ---
It might be a latent issue even with MPC installed. Kaveh should investigate.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-09 10:16 ---
Which is because the gimplifier thinks this is an error for the frontend to
pass through:
Breakpoint 1, fancy_abort (
file=0x10b1ab8 /space/rguenther/src/svn/trunk/gcc/gimplify.c, line=7173,
--- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-09 10:18 ---
Confirmed.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #11 from ubizjak at gmail dot com 2009-11-09 10:28 ---
OK, according to your benchmarks and documentation qoute, it looks we have to
split geode-lx out of generic geode option.
So, can you confirm, that the difference between generic geode and geode-lx is
presence of CMOV
--- Comment #12 from ubizjak at gmail dot com 2009-11-09 10:28 ---
Reopened to clear this geode mess.
--
ubizjak at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #13 from ubizjak at gmail dot com 2009-11-09 10:34 ---
Created an attachment (id=18997)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=18997action=view)
Patch that introduces geode-lx CPU option
Can you patch the compiler with attached patch?
gcc -march=native -###
--- Comment #2 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-09 10:45 ---
Caused by http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=144618
--
jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #14 from ubizjak at gmail dot com 2009-11-09 10:47 ---
(In reply to comment #11)
There is also geode NX, IIRC it represents itself as Athlon, but someone
should
confirm this.
According to [1], cpuid for Geode NX returns AMD Geode NX 1750, and this
string doesn't
--- Comment #33 from davek at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-09 11:05 ---
This has been working fine for some time now, so closing. Verified by building
r154011: no debuginfo problems.
--
davek at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #9 from davek at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-09 11:09 ---
Inactive for over a year, and was most likely a system or environment problem
rather than a bug in gcc itself, so closing. HEAD currently builds fine.
--
davek at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What
I know this is nitpicky, but I haven't found references to it (or the whys) in
the database.
I am not a lawyer, but I think that according to [0][1], the following program
should not compile:
#include iostream
template typename T
void f (T t) {
g (t);
}
int main () {
fint (42);
} //
--- Comment #15 from ubizjak at gmail dot com 2009-11-09 11:48 ---
(In reply to comment #7)
-march=geode disables cmov because the real geode does not have cmov :).
No, all geodes have cmov.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41989
--- Comment #1 from redi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-09 12:01 ---
probably related to PR 23885 and/or PR 16635
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41995
--- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-09 12:18 ---
EDG accepts it in strict mode though I also think it's invalid.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41995
--- Comment #9 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-09 13:02 ---
Hm, a build issue. Let's make this P2 for now.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41619
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Last
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41883
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Priority|P3 |P2
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41888
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41889
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41905
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|ice-on-valid-code |ice-on-invalid-code
Priority|P3
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41926
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41930
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41957
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41963
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41994
--- Comment #2 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2009-11-09 13:16 ---
Subject: Re: ICE on invalid dereferencing of void *
On Mon, 9 Nov 2009, rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
the C standard doesn't claim dereferencing a void pointer is invalid, so
the gimplifier should deal
--- Comment #16 from rootkit85 at yahoo dot it 2009-11-09 13:17 ---
Yes, it seems that even old Geode has such instructions:
# cat /proc/cpuinfo
processor : 0
vendor_id : Geode by NSC
cpu family : 5
model : 9
model name : Unknown
stepping: 1
cpu
--- Comment #3 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-09 13:44 ---
Neither testcase crashes for me anymore (x86-64, with and without -m32).
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from shailen dot n dot jain at gmail dot com 2009-11-09
13:47 ---
(In reply to comment #1)
Created an attachment (id=15274)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=15274action=view) [edit]
Add AIX 64bit support
I was trying to compile Mozilla Firefox
--- Comment #5 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-09 13:48 ---
Hm.
(gdb) call debug_generic_expr (chrec)
{{1, +, {2, +, 1}_2}_1, +, 1}_2
how can this happen? Why does evolution_function_is_affine_multivariate_p
not reject this chrec?
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #11 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-09 13:49
---
Does this still happen with current trunk, esp. after the EH rewrite?
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #6 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-09 13:51 ---
Seems to be fixed with current trunk. Please open if it is not.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #6 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-09 13:59 ---
*** Bug 41957 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-09 13:59 ---
Indeed. Same symptoms at least:
(gdb) call debug_generic_expr (chrec)
{0, +, {2, +, 1}_4}_4
This one fails for me with -m32 only though.
The chrec isn't quite {2, +, 1}_4 - I think the IV evolves as 0, 3, 4, 5,
--
jason at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |jason at gcc dot gnu dot org
|dot org
--- Comment #17 from ubizjak at gmail dot com 2009-11-09 15:10 ---
(In reply to comment #16)
Yes, it seems that even old Geode has such instructions:
So, I guess they should be listed under config X86_CMOV in
linux-2.6/arch/x86/Kconfig.cpu.
--
--- Comment #7 from reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-09 15:15
---
Unfortunately the problem still persists, see following testcase
which crashes in the same fashion when compiled with -O3 -m32
on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu.
--
reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
--- Comment #8 from reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-09 15:16
---
Created an attachment (id=18998)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=18998action=view)
Self-contained testcase that crashes with -O3 -m32
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41290
--- Comment #18 from rootkit85 at yahoo dot it 2009-11-09 15:26 ---
As I did here?
http://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/51410/
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41989
--
jason at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |jason at gcc dot gnu dot org
|dot org
--- Comment #1 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-09 15:47 ---
This got fixed on the trunk with PR41317 and on the 4.4 branch also works well
with the backport of that patch (which I'm using for roughly a month on
redhat/gcc-4_4-branch because it cured some __builtin_object_size
--- Comment #2 from rguenther at suse dot de 2009-11-09 15:51 ---
Subject: Re: [4.3/4.4/4.5 Regression] Spurious array
subscript is above bounds warning
On Mon, 9 Nov 2009, jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
--- Comment #1 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-09 15:47
--- Comment #10 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-09 15:55
---
Confirmed. It passes if I add -fno-ipa-cp, maybe martin can have a look.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-09 16:00 ---
Actually this is a combition of two issues really. First is argument dependent
lookup for fundamental types, do they have an assoicated namespaces (I think
there is a bug report for that)?
And then the other bug
--- Comment #2 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-09 17:11
---
I see that it fails on HP-UX as well. That's probably because there is
something missing in the fallback routines in config/pa, namely:
fs-signal_frame = 1;
just before
return _URC_NO_REASON;
--
Current mainline as of 20091106 fails to compile on IRIX 6.5:
/vol/gcc/src/gcc-dist/gcc/lto/lto-elf.c: In function 'lto_elf_file_open':
/vol/gcc/src/gcc-dist/gcc/lto/lto-elf.c:561:28: error: expected ')' before
'PRId64'
cc1: warnings being treated as errors
--- Comment #2 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-09 17:18 ---
This is happening because in C++ mode the body of bar looks like
D.1729 = foo ();
D.1728 = D.1729;
whereas in the C front end it looks like
D.1986 = foo ();
and so gimple_seq_may_fallthru says that the body can
--- Comment #7 from navinkumar+bugs at gmail dot com 2009-11-09 17:35
---
(From update of attachment 18986)
#include iostream
#include stdint.h
#include tuple
#include type_traits
struct empty_t {
template typename Arg
explicit empty_t(Arg arg) { }
};
template int N,
--- Comment #3 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-09 17:36 ---
/* { dg-do compile } */
/* { dg-options -march=armv5te -g -O2 } */
extern int a;
extern char b;
extern int foo (void);
void
test (void)
{
int c;
b = foo () ? '~' : '\0';
while ((c = foo ()))
if (c == '7')
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot
|
--- Comment #8 from navinkumar+bugs at gmail dot com 2009-11-09 17:39
---
Created an attachment (id=19000)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=19000action=view)
demonstrates scenarios when zero-size base class optimization fails, compile
with flag: -std=c++0x
--
--- Comment #9 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2009-11-09 17:51
---
For the record, the Intel compiler, also implementing the IA64 C++ ABI, behaves
exactly the same as GCC.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39981
1 - 100 of 132 matches
Mail list logo
