--- Comment #10 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2009-01-28 08:02 ---
Subject: Bug 38984
Author: bonzini
Date: Wed Jan 28 08:02:31 2009
New Revision: 143721
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=143721
Log:
gcc:
2009-01-28 Paolo Bonzini bonz...@gnu.org
PR
--- Comment #11 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2009-01-28 08:04 ---
fixed though 38985 still holds.
--
bonzini at gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from kazu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-28 08:40 ---
I've got a patch.
--
kazu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #7 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-28 09:36 ---
Fixed.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #7 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-28 09:36 ---
Fixed.
--- Comment #8 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-28 09:36 ---
Subject: Bug 38908
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Jan 28 09:36:41 2009
New Revision: 143722
URL:
extern double cos(double);
void test2(double x, double y)
{
if (cos(y10 ? x : -y) != cos(y10 ? x : y))
link_error ();
}
PRE figures out new full redundancies because it phi-translates. This leads
to missed optimizations wrt the SCCVN value-numbers because we do not iterate
with the new
--- Comment #6 from rguenther at suse dot de 2009-01-28 10:39 ---
Subject: Re: [4.4 Regression] g++.dg/init/const7.C XFAILed
On Tue, 27 Jan 2009, jason at redhat dot com wrote:
--- Comment #5 from jason at redhat dot com 2009-01-27 23:25 ---
Subject: Re: [4.4 Regression]
--- Comment #21 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-28 10:40 ---
Subject: Bug 38934
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Jan 28 10:40:06 2009
New Revision: 143723
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=143723
Log:
PR middle-end/38934
* tree-vrp.c
--- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-28 11:07 ---
Confirmed.
void foo(const char *, ...)
#define pf(FMT, ARGS ...) foo(FMT, ## ARGS)
int bar(void)
{
pf(Hello,
%s!,
world);
}
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
+++ This bug was initially created as a clone of Bug #38934 +++
This failure is not worked around by FRE unlike 38932.
/* { dg-do compile } */
/* { dg-options -O2 --std=gnu99 } */
/* This variable needed only to work around earlier optimizations than VRP. */
unsigned char g;
extern void
--- Comment #22 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-28 11:20 ---
The ICE is fixed on the trunk, for the different warning behavior between
32-bit HWI and 64-bit HWI configured gcc I've opened PR38999.
--
jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--
jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.3.4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38999
--- Comment #1 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2009-01-28 11:27 ---
Two warnings for 3.3.
--
bonzini at gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
--- Comment #13 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2009-01-28 11:29 ---
WONTFIX on 4.2/4.3 since anyway the real fix depends on 38985.
--
bonzini at gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #13 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2009-01-28 11:50 ---
Aren't loads protected by the gimple_set_has_volatile_ops anyway?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38985
--- Comment #12 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2009-01-28 11:29 ---
To be precise:
--
bonzini at gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED
--- Comment #14 from rguenther at suse dot de 2009-01-28 12:08 ---
Subject: Re: [4.2/4.3/4.4 Regression] missing
constraints for pointers accessed directly via their address
On Wed, 28 Jan 2009, bonzini at gnu dot org wrote:
--- Comment #13 from bonzini at gnu dot org
--- Comment #4 from matz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-28 12:22 ---
I'm fairly sure it's the same underlying problem. The emitted file numbers
(in the .s file for debug info) are in garbage collected memory. Hence
the directives emitted when the PCH is not yet loaded and those
--- Comment #8 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-28 12:14 ---
Subject: Bug 38926
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Jan 28 12:14:09 2009
New Revision: 143725
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=143725
Log:
2009-01-28 Richard Guenther rguent...@suse.de
PR
--- Comment #9 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-28 12:26 ---
Fixed.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #4 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-28 12:47 ---
Back in time I traced the failure back to possibly
2008-04-05 Ben Elliston b...@au.ibm.com
* tree-cfg.c (need_fake_edge_p): Return false for calls to
builtins that return exactly once and do not
/usr/local/gcc/gcc-20090128/Build/gcc/testsuite/g++/../../g++
-B/usr/local/gcc/gcc-20090128/Build/gcc/testsuite/g++/../../
/usr/local/gcc/gcc-20090128/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/debug/template1.C -nostdinc++
-I/usr/local/gcc/gcc-20090128/Build/ia64-suse-linux/libstdc++-v3/include/ia64-suse-linux
-I/usr
It doesn't build on SLES10 either, libelf0-0.8.10-36, it ICEs during
build of libgcc:
...
/gcc/spec/sb-haydn-df-64/gcc/libgcc/../gcc/libgcc2.c:1102: internal
compiler error: Segmentation fault
Please submit a full bug report,
with preprocessed source if appropriate.
See
--- Comment #15 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-28 13:34 ---
Created an attachment (id=17196)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=17196action=view)
PR38740.C
Simplified testcase.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38740
--- Comment #1 from dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-28 13:41
---
Additional information on the failure and a suggestion on a possible fix:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2009-01/msg00074.html
--
dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #40 from rob1weld at aol dot com 2009-01-28 13:52 ---
Notes from 38820: I had Known to fail set to 4.4.0 4.3.2
Another 'proof' this is a Bug.
You are allowed to build GCC after you set (reasonable) Environment
variables. Examples are:
export set CC=gcc -v
export set CC=gcc
--- Comment #2 from hjl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-28 14:05 ---
Subject: Bug 38996
Author: hjl
Date: Wed Jan 28 14:04:52 2009
New Revision: 143729
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=143729
Log:
2009-01-28 H.J. Lu hongjiu...@intel.com
PR middle-end/38996
I have a complex C++ application, which used to work at least until gcc-4.4.0
snapshot 20081219, which now segfaults in a strange way.
double distance_2(NODE *P_node1, NODE *P_node2)
{
return
sqrt(((*P_node1).globalx-(*P_node2).globalx)*((*P_node1).globalx-(*P_node2).globalx)+
--- Comment #1 from r dot emrich at de dot tecosim dot com 2009-01-28
14:20 ---
Created an attachment (id=17197)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=17197action=view)
assembler source
This one works.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39002
--- Comment #2 from r dot emrich at de dot tecosim dot com 2009-01-28
14:22 ---
Created an attachment (id=17198)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=17198action=view)
assembler source which segfaults
This one segfaults at ret statment at the end.
--
--- Comment #3 from falk at debian dot org 2009-01-28 14:25 ---
We need the preprocessed source of a *complete* (including main) program to be
able to reproduce this.
--
falk at debian dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from r dot emrich at de dot tecosim dot com 2009-01-28
14:27 ---
What I can try is finding the revision which causes the fault.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39002
Bug in lto revision 143731 (gcc 4.4 revision 143712 works fine)
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=g++lto-
COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/usr/local/libexec/gcc/i686-pc-linux-gnu/4.4.0/lto-wrapper
Target: i686-pc-linux-gnu
Configured with: ../configure --program-suffix=lto- --with-arch=pentium-m
--- Comment #1 from rubidium at openttd dot org 2009-01-28 14:42 ---
Created an attachment (id=17199)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=17199action=view)
result of gcc -save-temps
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39003
--- Comment #5 from falk at debian dot org 2009-01-28 14:44 ---
(In reply to comment #4)
What I can try is finding the revision which causes the fault.
While that would certainly be helpful, it's unlikely that anybody would be
willing to debug this without a usable testcase.
--
--- Comment #6 from r dot emrich at de dot tecosim dot com 2009-01-28
14:45 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
We need the preprocessed source of a *complete* (including main) program to be
able to reproduce this.
That's a little bit difficult here. It's a really large application.
But
--- Comment #2 from ramana dot r at gmail dot com 2009-01-28 14:49 ---
(In reply to comment #0)
It doesn't build on SLES10 either, libelf0-0.8.10-36, it ICEs during
build of libgcc:
...
/gcc/spec/sb-haydn-df-64/gcc/libgcc/../gcc/libgcc2.c:1102: internal
compiler error:
I got
cc1: warnings being treated as errors
../../src-lto/gcc/lto-function-in.c: In function âinput_local_var_declâ:
../../src-lto/gcc/lto-function-in.c:1135: error: unused variable âcontext_tagâ
../../src-lto/gcc/lto-function-in.c:1134: error: unused variable âcontextâ
make[5]: ***
--- Comment #7 from r dot emrich at de dot tecosim dot com 2009-01-28
14:57 ---
Anyway I will try to create a self contained small testcase.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39002
--- Comment #1 from dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-28 15:05
---
Subject: Bug 39004
Author: dnovillo
Date: Wed Jan 28 15:05:16 2009
New Revision: 143731
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=143731
Log:
PR middle-end/39004
* lto-function-in.c
--- Comment #2 from dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-28 15:17
---
Fixed. http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-01/msg01367.html
--
dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #16 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-28 15:20 ---
The problem is -O0 together with -fdelayed-branch. Shouldn't we just reject it
or silently not do dbr at !optimize? If it is really important to support (I
don't see any rationale for it), then the problem is that
I got many
f951: warning: command line option -flto is valid for C/C++ but not for
Fortran
f951: warning: command line option -fwhopr is valid for C/C++ but not for
Fortran
Can we don't test LTO on testcases which don't support it?
--
Summary: [LTO]: Not all testcases support LTO
--- Comment #4 from zadeck at naturalbridge dot com 2009-01-28 16:03
---
Subject: Re: [4.3/4.4 Regression] life passes dump
option still documented
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
--- Comment #3 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-24 10:20
---
GCC 4.3.3 is
--- Comment #17 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-28 16:05 ---
Subject: Bug 38740
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Jan 28 16:05:41 2009
New Revision: 143733
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=143733
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/38740
* reorg.c
--- Comment #18 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-28 16:06 ---
Fixed.
--
jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
--- Comment #7 from jason at redhat dot com 2009-01-28 16:29 ---
Subject: Re: [4.4 Regression] g++.dg/init/const7.C XFAILed
rguenther at suse dot de wrote:
Why do it in the FE? This seems like a language-independent optimization.
Do it in the FE if the FE wants it to be optimized
--- Comment #2 from kkylheku at gmail dot com 2009-01-28 16:30 ---
(In reply to comment #1)
Confirmed.
Thanks. By the way, I started looking at patching this. My suspicions were
confirmed that this is a case of pasting together invalid tokens. The compiler
sees the tokens
--- Comment #8 from r dot emrich at de dot tecosim dot com 2009-01-28
16:52 ---
Created an attachment (id=17200)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=17200action=view)
self contained testcase
cross compiled to target x86_64-pc-mingw32 segfaults.
commandline:
--- Comment #9 from r dot emrich at de dot tecosim dot com 2009-01-28
17:01 ---
Created an attachment (id=17201)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=17201action=view)
preproccesed source
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39002
--- Comment #10 from r dot emrich at de dot tecosim dot com 2009-01-28
17:01 ---
Created an attachment (id=17202)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=17202action=view)
assembler source
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39002
--- Comment #11 from r dot emrich at de dot tecosim dot com 2009-01-28
17:06 ---
I vote for P1 because it's a secondary platform.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39002
--- Comment #5 from doko at ubuntu dot com 2009-01-28 17:08 ---
PR38292 shows similiar error messages
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38977
Reported by Clive Page, http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2009-01/msg00335.html
Fails with gfortran 4.1, 4.2, 4.3 and 4.4, but works with NAG f95, g95, ifort
(9.1, 11.0), openf95.
The proper result of the test program is:
--
normal
1 2 3 4
10 20
--- Comment #9 from bangerth at gmail dot com 2009-01-28 17:27 ---
Created an attachment (id=17203)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=17203action=view)
Failing testcase
Richard,
I hate to break the news to you but there are even more cases. Attached
is a file that
--- Comment #10 from bangerth at gmail dot com 2009-01-28 17:28 ---
Re-open
--
bangerth at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED
--- Comment #9 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-28 17:31 ---
*** Bug 39006 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-28 17:31 ---
This is the same as PR38852 and the fix for that one works for this too.
Paul
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 38852 ***
--
pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #10 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-28 17:33 ---
Marked up the severity to that of PR39006.
Paul
--
pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #6 from aesok at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-28 17:53 ---
Fixed.
--
aesok at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
--- Comment #12 from r dot emrich at de dot tecosim dot com 2009-01-28
18:04 ---
fault came up between 2nd and 9th of January.
With visual c++ 2005 there is no problem.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39002
--- Comment #1 from mikael at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-28 18:14 ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 38259 ***
--
mikael at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from mikael at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-28 18:14 ---
*** Bug 38993 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
mikael at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from kazu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-28 18:17 ---
Subject: Bug 38997
Author: kazu
Date: Wed Jan 28 18:16:57 2009
New Revision: 143739
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=143739
Log:
gcc/
PR tree-optimization/38997
*
--- Comment #3 from kazu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-28 18:17 ---
Subject: Bug 38997
Author: kazu
Date: Wed Jan 28 18:17:13 2009
New Revision: 143740
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=143740
Log:
gcc/
PR tree-optimization/38997
*
--- Comment #4 from kazu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-28 18:18 ---
Patch committed.
--
kazu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #19 from vapier at gentoo dot org 2009-01-28 18:20 ---
are corresponding changes needed for hppa/sparc considering this bug discussed
them originally ?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38740
--- Comment #5 from hjl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-28 18:21 ---
Subject: Bug 38992
Author: hjl
Date: Wed Jan 28 18:21:19 2009
New Revision: 143741
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=143741
Log:
gcc/
2009-01-28 H.J. Lu hongjiu...@intel.com
PR
--- Comment #6 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2009-01-28 18:49 ---
I bootstrapped it on RHEL5/ia32, RHEL5/ia64 and Fedora 10/x86-64.
There are many failures in testsuite. I don't believe they are
caused by my patch. Fixed.
--
hjl dot tools at gmail dot com changed:
--- Comment #7 from dnovillo at google dot com 2009-01-28 18:56 ---
Subject: Re: [LTO] Bootstrap failed on RHEL5/ia32 and
RHEL5/ia64
On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 13:49, hjl dot tools at gmail dot com
gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org wrote:
I bootstrapped it on RHEL5/ia32, RHEL5/ia64 and
--- Comment #13 from r dot emrich at de dot tecosim dot com 2009-01-28
19:06 ---
The changes in revision 143118 to revesion 143120 are causing the fault.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39002
--- Comment #3 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2009-01-28 19:26 ---
Fixed.
--
hjl dot tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2009-01-28 19:27 ---
I changed to configure lto branch with --enable-languages=c,c++,lto.
--
hjl dot tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #5 from richard dot guenther at gmail dot com 2009-01-28 19:42
---
Subject: Re: [4.3/4.4 Regression] life passes dump
option still documented
On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 5:03 PM, Kenneth Zadeck
zad...@naturalbridge.com wrote:
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
--- Comment #8 from rguenther at suse dot de 2009-01-28 19:44 ---
Subject: Re: [4.4 Regression] g++.dg/init/const7.C XFAILed
On Wed, 28 Jan 2009, jason at redhat dot com wrote:
Subject: Re: [4.4 Regression] g++.dg/init/const7.C XFAILed
rguenther at suse dot de wrote:
Why do it
Consider:
void
foo (int *__restrict__ p, int *__restrict__ q, int count)
{
while (--count = 0)
{
*p++ = 0;
*q++ = 0;
}
}
I get:
$ ./cc1 -quiet -O2 -ftree-loop-distribution min.c
min.c: In function 'foo':
min.c:2: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault
Please submit a
--- Comment #1 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2009-01-28 20:11 ---
On Linux/ia32, I got
Executing on host: /export/gnu/import/svn/gcc-test/bld/gcc/xgcc
-B/export/gnu/import/svn/gcc-test/bld/gcc/ -O1 -flto -w -c -m32 -o
20021204-1.o
On Linux/ia32, revision 143741 gave
Executing on host: /export/gnu/import/svn/gcc-test/bld/gcc/xgcc
-B/export/gnu/import/svn/gcc-test/bld/gcc/ -O0 -flto -w -c -m32 -o
920428-4.o
/export/gnu/import/svn/gcc-test/src-lto/gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/compile/920428-4.c
(timeout = 300)
On Linux/ia32, revision 143741 gave
/export/gnu/import/svn/gcc-test/bld/gcc/xgcc
-B/export/gnu/import/svn/gcc-test/bld/gcc/
/export/gnu/import/svn/gcc-test/src-lto/gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/execute/2822-1.c
-w -O0 -flto -lm -m32 -o
--- Comment #2 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-28 20:35 ---
Adjust summary, change to enhancement.
I would really like to use std::is_standard_layout in the testsuite, so that
these requirements for cstdatomic, mutex, and condition_variable can be
validated for libstdc++
--- Comment #1 from dnovillo at google dot com 2009-01-28 20:36 ---
Subject: Re: New: [LTO] ICE: in make_decl_rtl, at
varasm.c:1288
Thanks for the bug reports.
At this stage, I'm not sure if it's useful to file a bug report for
every test in the GCC testsuite. These
On Linux/x86-64, revision 143741
# valgrind --tool=memcheck /export/gnu/import/svn/gcc-test/bld/gcc/cc1 -quiet
-v -imultilib 32 -iprefix
/export/gnu/import/svn/gcc-test/bld/gcc/../lib/gcc/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/4.4.0/
-isystem /export/gnu/import/svn/gcc-test/bld/gcc/include -isystem
--- Comment #11 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-28 20:49
---
# VUSE D.86121_223(D) { D.86121 }
# vis_224 = VDEF vis_91 { vis }
vis = D.86121;
cp_expr_size returns 1 for the objects.
var_decl 0xb5eb5c08 D.86121
type record_type 0xb62bfbc8 dfs_visitor
--- Comment #11 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-28 20:52 ---
Created an attachment (id=17204)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=17204action=view)
Updated patch
Following discussion on fortran list and #gfortran, a more restrictive test is
needed.
--
pault
--- Comment #12 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-28 20:54
---
This needs to be dealt from within the frontend, possibly like Mark suggested
by inventing another predicate (I assume that CLASSTYPE_EMPTY_P is used for
some C++ standard stuff so we cannot just change that). It
Bootstrap breaks while configuring libgcc. Distribution is f10.
Here the conftest.c which fails:
/* confdefs.h. */
#define PACKAGE_NAME GNU C Runtime Library
#define PACKAGE_TARNAME libgcc
#define PACKAGE_VERSION 1.0
#define PACKAGE_STRING GNU C Runtime Library 1.0
#define
while loop is badly formatted in the following example. Although an obvious
bug, this type of thing can occur when modifying existing code having do-while
statements and converting them to while statements.
bool f()
{
return true;
}
void g()
{
bool b( false );
while ( !b )
{
b =
--- Comment #1 from dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-28 21:08
---
This is the same issue reported in 39001, except that it happens on a different
file.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 39001 ***
--
dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What
--- Comment #3 from dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-28 21:08
---
*** Bug 39011 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #9 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-28 21:08 ---
The #c6 patch doesn't make sense to me.
Two alternative testcases:
inline __attribute__ ((always_inline))
void A (void)
{
int i;
asm volatile ( : =m (i));
A ();
A ();
}
int
main ()
{
A ();
return 0;
}
--- Comment #2 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2009-01-28 21:12 ---
Are all data in IL aligned according to psABI?
--
hjl dot tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-28 21:16 ---
That is perfectly valid code.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38937
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38977
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38985
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Priority|P3 |P2
--- Comment #10 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-28 21:47 ---
Further testcases:
inline __attribute__((always_inline))
void A (void)
{
A ();
A ();
A ();
}
int
main ()
{
A ();
return 0;
}
and:
inline void A (void);
inline void B (void);
inline __attribute__
--- Comment #2 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-28 21:49 ---
Subject: Bug 39006
Author: pault
Date: Wed Jan 28 21:48:53 2009
New Revision: 143743
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=143743
Log:
2009-01-28 Paul Thomas pa...@gcc.gnu.org
PR
--- Comment #12 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-28 21:49 ---
Subject: Bug 38852
Author: pault
Date: Wed Jan 28 21:48:53 2009
New Revision: 143743
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=143743
Log:
2009-01-28 Paul Thomas pa...@gcc.gnu.org
PR
--- Comment #13 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-28 21:52 ---
Fixed on trunk.
Paul
--
pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
1 - 100 of 121 matches
Mail list logo
