Can someone summarize what the most useful warnings people are expecting
that -Wall would bring?
I suspect not all of -Wall would actually be welcome/a good idea by default,
and we might be looking for a better compromise where most warnings are
enabled by default, but not all.
In particular,
On 04/04/2012 10:44 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
Hi,
For GCC-4.8, I would like to turn on -Wall by default.
Comments?
I'd just like to explicitly mention (the obvious fact that)
that this has the effect of breaking builds of projects that carefully
craft their warning set to be able to use
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 7:53 PM, Lawrence Crowl cr...@google.com wrote:
On 4/4/12, Richard Guenther richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Apr 4, 2012 Bernd Schmidt ber...@codesourcery.com wrote:
On 04/04/2012 11:06 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
So - I'll veto the switch unless I see 1) and 2).
On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 3:58 AM, Pedro Alves pal...@redhat.com wrote:
On 04/04/2012 10:44 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
Hi,
For GCC-4.8, I would like to turn on -Wall by default.
Comments?
I'd just like to explicitly mention (the obvious fact that)
that this has the effect of breaking
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 5:17 PM, Ian Lance Taylor i...@google.com wrote:
Andrew Haley a...@redhat.com writes:
On 04/04/2012 03:56 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
Andrew Haley a...@redhat.com writes:
On 04/04/2012 10:44 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
For GCC-4.8, I would like to turn on -Wall by
On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 6:21 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis
g...@integrable-solutions.net wrote:
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 8:19 PM, Robert Dewar de...@adacore.com wrote:
On 4/4/2012 7:03 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
Again, this proposal does not come out of a whim.
But it does seem to come out of a few
On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 4:32 AM, Richard Guenther
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 5:17 PM, Ian Lance Taylor i...@google.com wrote:
Andrew Haley a...@redhat.com writes:
On 04/04/2012 03:56 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
Andrew Haley a...@redhat.com writes:
On 04/04/2012
On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 11:32 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis
g...@integrable-solutions.net wrote:
On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 3:58 AM, Pedro Alves pal...@redhat.com wrote:
On 04/04/2012 10:44 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
Hi,
For GCC-4.8, I would like to turn on -Wall by default.
Comments?
I'd just like
On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 4:36 AM, Richard Guenther
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 6:21 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis
g...@integrable-solutions.net wrote:
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 8:19 PM, Robert Dewar de...@adacore.com wrote:
On 4/4/2012 7:03 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
Again,
On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 4:39 AM, Richard Guenther
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
Btw, it would be more reasonable to enable a subset of warnings that
we enable at -Wall by default.
Which ones for example?
Here is a (partial) list:
-Wformat
-Wchar-subscripts
-Wmissing-braces
On 04/05/2012 10:39 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
... [-Wall + -Werror] ...
Btw, it would be more reasonable to enable a subset of warnings that
we enable at -Wall by default. Notably those that if they were not
false positives, would lead to undefined behavior at runtime. Specifically
I
On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 11:46 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis
g...@integrable-solutions.net wrote:
On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 4:39 AM, Richard Guenther
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
Btw, it would be more reasonable to enable a subset of warnings that
we enable at -Wall by default.
Which ones for
On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 4:51 AM, Richard Guenther
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 11:46 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis
g...@integrable-solutions.net wrote:
On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 4:39 AM, Richard Guenther
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
Btw, it would be more reasonable to
On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 4:51 AM, Richard Guenther
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
Here is a (partial) list:
-Wformat
-Wchar-subscripts
-Wmissing-braces
-Wparentheses
-Wreturn-type
-Wsequence-point
-Wstrict-aliasing
-Wswitch
-Waddress
-Wstrict-overflow
-Warray-bounds
The simpler requests are -Wall by default. (there are some occasional
-pedantic).
The ones I've heard in person -- with the requesters quite competent and
respectable programmers -- are in less polite words what I can possibly
convey in this discussion. Adding more options isn't on the
On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 5:04 AM, Arnaud Charlet char...@adacore.com wrote:
The simpler requests are -Wall by default. (there are some occasional
-pedantic).
The ones I've heard in person -- with the requesters quite competent and
respectable programmers -- are in less polite words what I can
From the list I gave earlier:
-Wformat
-Wimplicit
-Wreturn-type
-Wsequence-point
-Wswitch
-Waddress
-Wstrict-aliasing
-Wenum-compare
-Wreorder
-Wpointer-sign
OK, the above list looks reasonable to me at least as a starting point
that could be a bit refined (not
On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 5:16 AM, Arnaud Charlet char...@adacore.com wrote:
From the list I gave earlier:
-Wformat
-Wimplicit
-Wreturn-type
-Wsequence-point
-Wswitch
-Waddress
-Wstrict-aliasing
-Wenum-compare
-Wreorder
-Wpointer-sign
OK, the above list looks
On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 5:16 AM, Arnaud Charlet char...@adacore.com wrote:
From the list I gave earlier:
-Wformat
-Wimplicit
-Wreturn-type
-Wsequence-point
-Wswitch
-Waddress
-Wstrict-aliasing
-Wenum-compare
-Wreorder
-Wpointer-sign
OK, the above list looks
On 4/5/2012 12:17 AM, Miles Bader wrote:
Robert Dewarde...@adacore.com writes:
We have run into people running benchmarks where they were
specifically prohibited from using other than the default
options, and gcc fared badly in such comparisons.
Yeah, there was the silly benchmark at
Well, if you write code so obvious that -Wuninitialized is annoying then:
No, the code is certainly not obvious, and improving -Wuninitialized although
a nice goal is likely to require lots of effort, likely at the expense of
removing some useful warnings.
either the implementation of
On 4/5/2012 12:23 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
-Wall is roughtly equivalent to -gnatwa in the GNAT front end,
and this is definitely NOT on by default. If you run GNAT in
default mode, there are virtually no false positives, since
the only warnings on by default are the kind of warnings that
say
On 4/5/2012 2:39 AM, Arnaud Charlet wrote:
Can someone summarize what the most useful warnings people are expecting
that -Wall would bring?
I suspect not all of -Wall would actually be welcome/a good idea by default,
and we might be looking for a better compromise where most warnings are
On 04/04/2012 07:02 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
Oh, wow. Really? That's a big change. Time to be brave, I guess,
but I very much like the idea of a gcc that does just what it's told;
making -Wall the default is a big break with tradition.
Sometimes, we have to be brave to challenge
On 2012-04-04 20:01:27 +0100, Andrew Haley wrote:
On 04/04/2012 07:11 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
Really? Such as what?
Such as I wrote a perfectly legal C program, and gcc spewed out
a ton of messages.
What's a legal C program?
--
Vincent Lefèvre vinc...@vinc17.net - Web:
On 04/05/2012 11:50 AM, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
On 2012-04-04 20:01:27 +0100, Andrew Haley wrote:
On 04/04/2012 07:11 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
Really? Such as what?
Such as I wrote a perfectly legal C program, and gcc spewed out
a ton of messages.
What's a legal C program?
It's
On 2012-04-05 10:48:29 +0100, Pedro Alves wrote:
On 04/05/2012 10:39 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
... [-Wall + -Werror] ...
Btw, it would be more reasonable to enable a subset of warnings that
we enable at -Wall by default. Notably those that if they were not
false positives, would
On 2012-04-05 11:55:45 +0100, Andrew Haley wrote:
On 04/05/2012 11:50 AM, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
On 2012-04-04 20:01:27 +0100, Andrew Haley wrote:
On 04/04/2012 07:11 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
Really? Such as what?
Such as I wrote a perfectly legal C program, and gcc spewed out
a
From developer perspective, we think that -Wall is so simple to
remember, because
in fact, we are used to handle so many complex things that this one five
letter is nothing. However, users aren't as sophisticated as we would like
them to (I am not being condescending.) The way we have to
On 04/04/2012 03:17 PM, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
On Sat, 31 Mar 2012, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
Note there's nothing I'm planning to do, nor I should do, in this regard:
the two setups described above are both already supported by the current
automake implementation (but the last one is not
On 2012-04-05 06:26:43 -0400, Robert Dewar wrote:
Well a lot of users have been burned by using optimization
options, either becausae of compiler bugs, or because of bugs
in their own code triggered by optimization. So the requirement
of not using any optimization options is not that uncommon.
On 2012-04-05 06:42:02 -0400, Robert Dewar wrote:
c) warnings about things that are not errors but seem like
sloppy or unnecessary code (e.g. unused variables).
This is sometimes an error, e.g. a variable name is used in the code
instead another one (but of course, such warnings won't be able
On 4/5/2012 8:06 AM, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
On 2012-04-05 06:26:43 -0400, Robert Dewar wrote:
Well a lot of users have been burned by using optimization
options, either becausae of compiler bugs, or because of bugs
in their own code triggered by optimization. So the requirement
of not using any
On 04/05/2012 02:45 PM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
I personally don't buy the can't remember argument. When you use
GCC, you just have to remember -g, -O, -W and that's pretty much it.
It is not that they can't remember. I am a TA at a moderately basic
programming course,
and student submit home
On 2012-04-05 08:17:57 -0400, Robert Dewar wrote:
On 4/5/2012 8:06 AM, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
But no-optimizations (-O0) should not necessarily be the default
for these reasons.
I think it is a problem that even at -O1 the debugger is
seriously limited, especially for an inexperienced user.
On 4/5/2012 8:28 AM, Michael Veksler wrote:
It is not that they can't remember. I am a TA at a moderately basic
programming course,
and student submit home assignments with horrible errors. These errors,
such as
free(*str) or *str=malloc(n) are easily be caught by -Wall. I have to
remember to
On 04/04/2012 08:20 AM, Diego Novillo wrote:
On 4/4/12 5:06 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
Btw, I think we should only start forcing C++ when 1) there is a
branch/patch out
that shows benefit from using C++. I previously mentioned that I'd
like to see
2) a patch that _properly_ wraps a C++ class
On 05.04.2012 16:33, Robert Dewar wrote:
On 4/5/2012 8:28 AM, Michael Veksler wrote:
It is not that they can't remember. I am a TA at a moderately basic
programming course,
and student submit home assignments with horrible errors. These errors,
such as
free(*str) or *str=malloc(n) are easily
On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 2:17 PM, Robert Dewar de...@adacore.com wrote:
On 4/5/2012 8:06 AM, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
On 2012-04-05 06:26:43 -0400, Robert Dewar wrote:
Well a lot of users have been burned by using optimization
options, either becausae of compiler bugs, or because of bugs
in
It's on my large TODO list, somewhere at the bottom, to propose
to make -O1 stop after early optimizations and drop right to
expansion from there. That would turn optimization expectations
upside-down of course, but early optimizations should be mostly
reducing code size (and thus increase
On 04/05/2012 03:33 PM, Robert Dewar wrote:
Wouldn't it be better in a moderately basic programming course to
provide standard canned scripts that set things up nicely for students
including the switches they need? Indeed for such a course wouldn't it
be better to use an appropriate IDE, so
On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 2:41 PM, Pedro Lamarão pedro.lama...@gmail.com wrote:
On 04/04/2012 08:20 AM, Diego Novillo wrote:
On 4/4/12 5:06 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
Btw, I think we should only start forcing C++ when 1) there is a
branch/patch out
that shows benefit from using C++. I
On Thu, Apr 05, 2012 at 03:28:54PM +0300, Michael Veksler wrote:
On 04/05/2012 02:45 PM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
I personally don't buy the can't remember argument. When you use
GCC, you just have to remember -g, -O, -W and that's pretty much
it.
Many of the students don't know of -Wall because
On Thu, Apr 05, 2012 at 02:30:10PM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
On 2012-04-05 08:17:57 -0400, Robert Dewar wrote:
On 4/5/2012 8:06 AM, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
But no-optimizations (-O0) should not necessarily be the default
for these reasons.
I think it is a problem that even at -O1
On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 2:49 PM, Robert Dewar de...@adacore.com wrote:
It's on my large TODO list, somewhere at the bottom, to propose
to make -O1 stop after early optimizations and drop right to
expansion from there. That would turn optimization expectations
upside-down of course, but early
On 04/05/2012 03:43 PM, Andrey Belevantsev wrote:
FWIW, in our basic programming course students have to hand their
homework to an automated testing system which forces the compiler
options we think useful, including all the relevant warning switches
and -Werror. Of course, there is a web page
On 4/5/2012 8:59 AM, Michael Veksler wrote:
They use an IDE, which is either Code-Blocks or Dev-C++, which run on
Windows, but these IDEs don't turn -Wall on by default. As for the advice
to use -Wall, there is so much to advise and so little time, and the
sheer
mass of information confuses
Hi Ulrich.
I'm getting back to this after a long hiatus.
I have reviewed the 'W' code in PRINT_OPERAND:
else if (CODE == 'W')
{
/* hand-built sign-extension of signed 32-bit to 64-bit */
mvs_page_lit += 8;
if (0 = INTVAL (XV)) {
fprintf (FILE, =XL8');
} else {
On 5 April 2012 11:03, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
Note that some of the above depend on optimization flag settings
(and optimization happening). Those are not good candidates - I think
good candidates are those that would still be fully operational with
-fsyntax-only.
I am not sure
On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 8:58 AM, Jonathan Wakely jwakely@gmail.com wrote:
On 5 April 2012 11:03, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
Note that some of the above depend on optimization flag settings
(and optimization happening). Those are not good candidates - I think
good candidates are those that
On 5 April 2012 11:16, Arnaud Charlet wrote:
OK, the above list looks reasonable to me at least as a starting point
that could be a bit refined (not sure -Wstrict-aliasing is so useful by
default for instance for legacy code),
-Wstrict-aliasing is only active when -fstrict-aliasing is on, and
On 2012-04-05 15:09:32 +0200, Erik Trulsson wrote:
Better would be to improve the output from -O1 so it is usable by a
debugger, even if this might require generating slightly less optimized
code at -O1 than is done now.
This contradicts what you say below.
What is missing to me is a
On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 5:29 AM, Arnaud Charlet char...@adacore.com wrote:
Well, if you write code so obvious that -Wuninitialized is annoying then:
No, the code is certainly not obvious, and improving -Wuninitialized although
a nice goal is likely to require lots of effort, likely at the
On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 09:04, Richard Guenther
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 2:41 PM, Pedro Lamarão pedro.lama...@gmail.com wrote:
Is anyone currently working or this?
I'm not experienced in the code base, but this project seems fascinating.
I'm not aware of
On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 5:50 AM, Andrew Haley a...@redhat.com wrote:
On 04/04/2012 07:02 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
Oh, wow. Really? That's a big change. Time to be brave, I guess,
but I very much like the idea of a gcc that does just what it's told;
making -Wall the default is a big
On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 4:21 PM, Diego Novillo dnovi...@google.com wrote:
On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 09:04, Richard Guenther
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 2:41 PM, Pedro Lamarão pedro.lama...@gmail.com
wrote:
Is anyone currently working or this?
I'm not experienced
On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 6:45 AM, Eric Botcazou ebotca...@adacore.com wrote:
From developer perspective, we think that -Wall is so simple to
remember, because
in fact, we are used to handle so many complex things that this one five
letter is nothing. However, users aren't as sophisticated as we
this is drifting, but since we talking about teaching (which is part of my
daytime job)
On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 7:33 AM, Robert Dewar de...@adacore.com wrote:
Wouldn't it be better in a moderately basic programming course to
provide standard canned scripts that set things up nicely for students
On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 10:24, Richard Guenther
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
Which means never, because I think it's a prerequesite for switching?
No. I was not clear. By done, I meant that GCC builds with C++ in
all the platforms we can test.
I'm sending a testing plan later today with
On 4/5/12, Richard Guenther richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Apr 4, 2012 Lawrence Crowl cr...@google.com wrote:
On 4/4/12, Richard Guenther richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
Making tree or gimple a C++ class with inheritance and
whatever is indeed a huge waste of time and existing
On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 10:36 AM, Diego Novillo dnovi...@google.com wrote:
On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 10:24, Richard Guenther
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
Which means never, because I think it's a prerequesite for switching?
No. I was not clear. By done, I meant that GCC builds with C++ in
Gabriel Dos Reis g...@integrable-solutions.net writes:
If it is the non-expert that would be caught in code so non-obvious that
-Wuninitialized would trip into false positives, then it is highly
likely that the code might in fact contain an error.
I wish this were the case, but alas I
On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 3:24 PM, Russ Allbery r...@stanford.edu wrote:
Gabriel Dos Reis g...@integrable-solutions.net writes:
If it is the non-expert that would be caught in code so non-obvious that
-Wuninitialized would trip into false positives, then it is highly
likely that the code might
On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 3:16 PM, David Edelsohn dje@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 10:36 AM, Diego Novillo dnovi...@google.com wrote:
On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 10:24, Richard Guenther
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
Which means never, because I think it's a prerequesite for
On 4/5/2012 4:24 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:
Gabriel Dos Reisg...@integrable-solutions.net writes:
If it is the non-expert that would be caught in code so non-obvious that
-Wuninitialized would trip into false positives, then it is highly
likely that the code might in fact contain an error.
I
Snapshot gcc-4.5-20120405 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.5-20120405/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.5 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches
On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 4:35 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis
g...@integrable-solutions.net wrote:
xlc -fno-exceptions -fno-rtti conftest.c
fails. I don't think -fno-rtti -fno-exceptions does what GCC expects.
Thanks for these data. I think -fno-rtti and -fno-exceptions don't make
much sense at the
On 04/05/2012 11:29 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
this is drifting, but since we talking about teaching (which is part of my
daytime job)
On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 7:33 AM, Robert Dewarde...@adacore.com wrote:
Wouldn't it be better in a moderately basic programming course to
provide standard
I have made this change:
C:\devel\gcc\gcc\config\i370cvs diff -c -r 1.23 i370.md
Index: i370.md
===
RCS file: c:\cvsroot/gcc/gcc/config/i370/i370.md,v
retrieving revision 1.23
retrieving revision 1.24
diff -c -r1.23 -r1.24
***
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52840
--- Comment #4 from Bernhard Reutner-Fischer aldot at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-04-05 07:00:41 UTC ---
Author: aldot
Date: Thu Apr 5 07:00:30 2012
New Revision: 186156
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=186156
Log:
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52840
Bernhard Reutner-Fischer aldot at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52839
--- Comment #15 from Alan Modra amodra at gmail dot com 2012-04-05 08:06:30
UTC ---
Many hours later one of my 32-bit tests failed, but I'm relieved to say it was
only the pthread_once bug.
#0 0x0fbd839c in raise () from /lib/power7/libc.so.6
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52839
--- Comment #16 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-04-05
08:09:53 UTC ---
I think we want a macro saying atomics are available for 'int' (which libstdc++
needs for its own uses) and a separate macro saying atomics are available for
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52415
--- Comment #6 from Michal Hlavinka mhlavink at redhat dot com 2012-04-05
08:12:54 UTC ---
We can see this bug on avr target too.
Following code does not work:
DirEnttmp = eeFs.files[i_fileId1];
eeFs.files[i_fileId1] =
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52876
Bug #: 52876
Summary: [x32] - Sign extend 32 to 64bit then clear upper
32bits fails O1 or higher
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52876
--- Comment #1 from Steffen Schmidt steffen-schmidt at siemens dot com
2012-04-05 08:19:24 UTC ---
Created attachment 27097
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27097
Example code v2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52876
--- Comment #2 from Steffen Schmidt steffen-schmidt at siemens dot com
2012-04-05 08:19:49 UTC ---
Created attachment 27098
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27098
Example code v3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52876
--- Comment #3 from Steffen Schmidt steffen-schmidt at siemens dot com
2012-04-05 08:20:23 UTC ---
Created attachment 27099
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27099
Assembly -O0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52876
--- Comment #4 from Steffen Schmidt steffen-schmidt at siemens dot com
2012-04-05 08:21:03 UTC ---
Created attachment 27100
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27100
Assembly -O1 -mx32 gcc 4.7.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52876
--- Comment #5 from Steffen Schmidt steffen-schmidt at siemens dot com
2012-04-05 08:21:38 UTC ---
Created attachment 27101
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27101
Assembly -O1 -mx32 gcc 4.6.3 x32 branch
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52860
Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52874
--- Comment #3 from Andreas Schwab sch...@linux-m68k.org 2012-04-05 09:13:36
UTC ---
gcc-h...@gcc.gnu.org and libc-h...@sourceware.org are the mailings list where
this kind of question is on-topic.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52867
--- Comment #3 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-04-05
10:03:10 UTC ---
Btw, as the ICE happens in the _host_ compiler which is 4.2.x this is even
longer unsupported.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52868
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||52272
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52645
--- Comment #13 from Rainer Orth ro at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-04-05 10:04:50
UTC ---
Author: ro
Date: Thu Apr 5 10:04:40 2012
New Revision: 186161
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=186161
Log:
Restore HAVE_INET6 tests (PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52645
Rainer Orth ro at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52876
Uros Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||52854
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52876
Uros Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on|52854 |52838
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52866
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52664
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52621
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-*-*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52465
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.7.1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52123
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.7.1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51214
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.7.1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50946
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.6.4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52122
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.6.4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52621
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||spop at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52839
--- Comment #17 from Alan Modra amodra at gmail dot com 2012-04-05 12:05:01
UTC ---
I spent quite a bit of time today looking at libpthread and can't spot a
problem in pthread_mutex_lock and pthread_mutex_unlock.
I wonder if the problem is that
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52614
--- Comment #10 from William J. Schmidt wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-04-05 12:11:58 UTC ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Thu Apr 5 12:11:50 2012
New Revision: 186163
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=186163
Log:
gcc/testsuite:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24985
--- Comment #22 from Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-04-05
12:13:01 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #21)
Created attachment 27093 [details]
Patch to prune caret diagnostics from gcc output
Actually, this seems like a better
1 - 100 of 223 matches
Mail list logo
