Andrew Pinski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
the one thing I have not heard through this
discussion is the real reason why the C standards comittee decided
signed overflow as being undefined.
I wasn't there, but my impression is that many of the optimization
issues we've talked about in this
* Basile STARYNKEVITCH [EMAIL PROTECTED] [070102 22:49]:
Maybe, instead of using built-ins, we could extend the __attribute__
facility for functions (and expect the libc developers to progressively use
them). Eg
void free(void*) __attribute((pointer_invalid(1)));
would mean that
On Mon, 2007-01-01 at 22:27 -0500, Richard Kenner wrote:
I don't think -frisky is a good name for that option. A better name
would be -fstrict.
Or -pedantic? ;-)
-pedantic-codegen
:)
Laurent
Andrew Pinski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
|
| [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Kenner) writes:
|
|Many portable C programs assume that signed integer overflow wraps
around
|reliably using two's complement arithmetic.
|
|
| I was looking for an adjective that mean the programs work on
Paul Eggert [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| Here are further patches I checked into the Autoconf documentation to
| reflect today's comments (some of which I received privately). Thanks
| to all of you. The trickiest bit was documenting one simple way to
| reliably detect overflow without
Andrew Pinski writes:
This will always cause a trap on x86, even with -fwrapv so really
-fwrapv has a bug on x86. I will file this bug sometime later
tomorrow. Oh and fixing this bug will actually slow down users
of -fwrapv even more than what it is currently does because
you can no
Hello folks,
This is my last post on the subject of mcount.
I have spent a quite bit of time on this to find out
that the results of myserious crashes is the mcount variable.
(with help from Ian Lance Taylor).
I have reported the issue to both gcc and
i686-pc-linux-gnu
Using built-in specs.
Target: i686-pc-linux-gnu
Configured with: /disk2/Downloads/gcc/gcc-4.1.1/configure
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.1.1
Fedora Core release 5 (Bordeaux)
Kernel \r on an \m
Linux 2.6.15-1.2054_FC5 #1 Tue Mar 14 15:48:33 EST 2006 i686 i686 i386
GNU/Linux
Adam Sulmicki [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In spirit making OSS better, I took the extra effor to report
findings back to both lists. In reward I got flamed on both list.
You got flamed on the gcc list? I don't see any flames there. All I
told you was to use the gcc-help mailing
On 03 Jan 2007 10:07:57 -0800, Ian Lance Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Adam Sulmicki [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In spirit making OSS better, I took the extra effor to report
findings back to both lists. In reward I got flamed on both list.
You got flamed on the gcc list? I
On Wed, Jan 03, 2007 at 10:18:36AM -0800, Seongbae Park wrote:
In fact, by default, gcc for the i386 targets will call _mcount. gcc
for i386 GNU/Linux targets was changed to call mcount instead of
_mcount with this patch:
Thu Mar 30 06:20:36 1995 H.J. Lu ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
*
Seongbae Park [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I remember someone wanting to provide his own mcount().
Presumably, mcount() is weak in libc to cover such a use case ?
Yes, mcount() is weak in libc. But it seems to me that you can
provide your own mcount even if it has to be named _mcount, since libc
H. J. Lu writes:
On Wed, Jan 03, 2007 at 10:18:36AM -0800, Seongbae Park wrote:
In fact, by default, gcc for the i386 targets will call _mcount. gcc
for i386 GNU/Linux targets was changed to call mcount instead of
_mcount with this patch:
Thu Mar 30 06:20:36 1995 H.J. Lu
Andrew Haley [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Trivia time: what is the longest delay between a bug being committed
to gcc before someone notices and a fix being committed? This one is
eleven years and eight months. I wonder if we have a record.
As it happens, I can beat that. I've found a bug in
On Wed, 3 Jan 2007, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
I told you was to use the gcc-help mailing list, which was correct.
So this seems to be a bug in gcc: it should be calling _mcount.
It just that it is my impression that gcc list is more
appropriate for gcc bugs than gcc-help.
I also did my
On Sun, 2006-12-31 at 12:04 -0500, Robert Dewar wrote:
Duncan Sands wrote:
The C front-end performs this transformation too. I'm not claiming that the
back-end optimizers would actually do something sensible if the front-end
didn't transform this code (in fact they don't seem too), but
Laurent GUERBY wrote:
On Sun, 2006-12-31 at 12:04 -0500, Robert Dewar wrote:
Duncan Sands wrote:
The C front-end performs this transformation too. I'm not claiming that the
back-end optimizers would actually do something sensible if the front-end
didn't transform this code (in fact they
On 03 January 2007 19:08, Adam Sulmicki wrote:
On Wed, 3 Jan 2007, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
I told you was to use the gcc-help mailing list, which was correct.
So this seems to be a bug in gcc: it should be calling _mcount.
It just that it is my impression that gcc list is more
On Wed, Jan 03, 2007 at 08:24:35PM -, Dave Korn wrote:
On 03 January 2007 19:08, Adam Sulmicki wrote:
On Wed, 3 Jan 2007, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
I told you was to use the gcc-help mailing list, which was correct.
So this seems to be a bug in gcc: it should be calling _mcount.
On Wed, 3 Jan 2007, Dave Korn wrote:
Is that your idea of an apology? Regardless of topicality there's no
reasonable reading of Ian's words as a flame, they were entirely polite
and well-measured, and you should withdraw your baseless accusation and
say sorry rather than trying to
We're planning to merge the 'gcj-eclipse' branch back to the trunk
this week. This branch holds a major overhaul of gcj, and in
particular changes gcj to use the Eclipse java compiler as a kind of
preprocessor. This change was approved by the GCC Steering Committee.
Most of the changes on the
We're planning to merge the 'gcj-eclipse' branch back to the trunk
this week. This branch holds a major overhaul of gcj, and in
particular changes gcj to use the Eclipse java compiler as a kind of
preprocessor. This change was approved by the GCC Steering Committee.
Can you wait 24 hours
On Tue, 2007-01-02 at 15:43 -0800, Adam Nemet wrote:
If it is not too late I'd prefer the latter. If I understand the
problem correctly the former would still fail if the test user is not
privileged enough to recreate the directory structure under /.
Yes, that is correct. OK, having given
On Sun, 2006-12-24 at 09:08 +0100, Zdenek Dvorak wrote:
As expected, more complications than I believed appeared. The changes
to bsi_remove and release_defs would be basically sufficient for ssa
names for real operands, however we are losing ssa names for virtual
operands everywhere, and
Hi
I have tried everything any page might say on this, still
stuck. Any help would be great
Hi all
I am trying to install 3.4 on my AMD turion 64 machine with fedora
core. But run into messages like this on gmake. Configure is fine
libbackend.a(builtins.o): In function
On Wed, Jan 03, 2007 at 08:11:35PM -0500, drizzle drizzle wrote:
Hi
I have tried everything any page might say on this, still
stuck. Any help would be great
Hi all
I am trying to install 3.4 on my AMD turion 64 machine with fedora
core.
You mean 4.3 (or rather a snapshot or svn
The only warning it reports is this immediately after detecting gmp and mpfr
*** This configuration is not supported in the following subdirectories:
target-libada gnattools target-libgfortran target-libffi
target-zlib target-libjava zlib target-libobjc target-boehm-gc
The other suggestions
You do mean gcc 4.3 right (either a snapshot, or from svn)?
Since you're running on x86_64, do you know that the libraries are
the correct bitness (running 'file' on the mpfr and gmp libraries
will tell). By default gcc on x86_64 will build 64-bit, but
libraries in /usr/local/lib should
Not 4.3 but 3.4 yes the older version. And I built and installed mpfr
and gmp. gmp4.1 and mpfr 2.2. I dont have a /usr/local/lib64 on my
system. Did my mpfr/gmp install incorrecly ?
dz
On 1/3/07, Matt Fago [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You do mean gcc 4.3 right (either a snapshot, or from svn)?
I've just committed the approved top level libgcc patches, which
create a top level libgcc directory.
Hopefully, this will not have any great impact on much of anyone.
The only change I know of is that if you run make all-gcc, you will
no longer have enough to test C. You need at least make
On Wed, 2007-01-03 at 23:28 -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
Right now the libgcc configuration is completely tied up with
gcc/Makefile. As parts of the configuration process move from
gcc/config/ to libgcc/config/ (or libgcc's configure.ac), we'll
be untangling them. Eventually, it should
Ben Elliston wrote:
So I take it that at this stage we've not commenced the process of
having libgcc's configury run autoconf tests on the target compiler?
(Rather than having to hardwire most target details into the t-* files?)
Any objections to starting down this path?
We should also be
We should also be very careful not to introduce differences between
native and cross compilers. So, we should have no run-time tests, no
tests that look at /proc, headers in /usr/include, etc.
Right--I was really only suggesting tests that can be done at
compile-time. Perhaps there isn't a
We should also be very careful not to introduce differences between
native and cross compilers. So, we should have no run-time tests, no
tests that look at /proc, headers in /usr/include, etc.
Right--I was really only suggesting tests that can be done at
compile-time. Perhaps there
Andrew Pinski wrote:
We should also be very careful not to introduce differences between
native and cross compilers. So, we should have no run-time tests, no
tests that look at /proc, headers in /usr/include, etc.
Right--I was really only suggesting tests that can be done at
compile-time.
--- Comment #6 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-03 08:00 ---
Subject: Bug 29054
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Jan 3 08:00:30 2007
New Revision: 120384
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=120384
Log:
PR c++/29054
* g++.dg/template/friend49.C: New
--- Comment #9 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-03 08:03 ---
Subject: Bug 29535
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Jan 3 08:03:26 2007
New Revision: 120385
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=120385
Log:
PR c++/29535
* g++.dg/template/crash66.C: New
--- Comment #3 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-03 08:04 ---
Subject: Bug 30286
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Jan 3 08:04:11 2007
New Revision: 120387
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=120387
Log:
PR middle-end/30286
* gcc.dg/pr30286.c: New test.
--- Comment #7 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-03 08:06 ---
Subject: Bug 29054
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Jan 3 08:05:53 2007
New Revision: 120388
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=120388
Log:
PR c++/29054
* g++.dg/template/friend49.C: New
--- Comment #10 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-03 08:06 ---
Subject: Bug 29535
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Jan 3 08:06:42 2007
New Revision: 120389
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=120389
Log:
PR c++/29535
* g++.dg/template/crash66.C: New
--- Comment #4 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-03 08:07 ---
Subject: Bug 30286
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Jan 3 08:07:33 2007
New Revision: 120390
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=120390
Log:
PR middle-end/30286
* gcc.dg/pr30286.c: New test.
--- Comment #8 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-03 08:11 ---
Subject: Bug 29054
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Jan 3 08:11:02 2007
New Revision: 120391
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=120391
Log:
PR c++/29054
* decl.c (revert_static_member_fn):
--- Comment #6 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-03 08:14 ---
Subject: Bug 28261
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Jan 3 08:13:50 2007
New Revision: 120392
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=120392
Log:
PR c++/29535
Backported from mainline
--- Comment #11 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-03 08:14 ---
Subject: Bug 29535
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Jan 3 08:13:50 2007
New Revision: 120392
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=120392
Log:
PR c++/29535
Backported from mainline
--- Comment #5 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-03 08:15 ---
Subject: Bug 30286
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Jan 3 08:15:24 2007
New Revision: 120393
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=120393
Log:
PR middle-end/30286
* fold-const.c (negate_expr):
--- Comment #9 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-03 08:16 ---
Fixed on gcc-4_1-branch.
--
jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #12 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-03 08:17 ---
Fixed.
--
jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
--- Comment #7 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-03 08:18 ---
Backported to 4.1.
--
jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #6 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-03 08:19 ---
Fixed.
--
jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #3 from maxim dot yegorushkin at gmail dot com 2007-01-03
12:31 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
I'm having a similar problem on Linux Fedora Core 5. Is there any quick way to
fix it? I am new to autoconf and would appreciate any hints.
Here is the output:
The same
I would appreciate adding the enumeration typecast warnings. I mean:
When I cast one enum to another and the first enum is not a subset of the
second warning will be shown.
Example:
enum EParent
{
EP_VAL0 = 0,
EP_VAL1 = 1,
EP_VAL2 = 2
};
enum EChild
{
EC_VAL0 = 0,
EC_VAL1 = 1
};
int
--- Comment #9 from aph at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-03 14:24 ---
Subject: Bug 28754
Author: aph
Date: Wed Jan 3 14:23:48 2007
New Revision: 120396
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=120396
Log:
2007-01-03 Andrew Haley [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR java/28754
--
aoliva at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |aoliva at gcc dot gnu dot
|dot org
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-03 16:46 ---
Related to PR 12242.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30357
--- Comment #12 from patchapp at dberlin dot org 2007-01-03 16:50 ---
Subject: Bug number PR27698
A patch for this bug has been added to the patch tracker.
The mailing list url for the patch is
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-01/msg00137.html
--
--- Comment #2 from patchapp at dberlin dot org 2007-01-03 17:05 ---
Subject: Bug number PR debug/30189
A patch for this bug has been added to the patch tracker.
The mailing list url for the patch is
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-01/msg00140.html
--
These tests passed yesterday early morning, but give me ICEs today:
Running /u01/var/tmp/gcc_trunk_svn/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/ipa/ipa.exp ...
FAIL: gcc.dg/ipa/ipa-1.c (internal compiler error)
FAIL: gcc.dg/ipa/ipa-1.c (test for excess errors)
FAIL: gcc.dg/ipa/ipa-1.c scan-ipa-dump-times
--- Comment #5 from patchapp at dberlin dot org 2007-01-03 18:05 ---
Subject: Bug number PR20896
A patch for this bug has been added to the patch tracker.
The mailing list url for the patch is
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-01/msg00145.html
--
--- Comment #13 from tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-03 19:17 ---
I'm not sure whether the updated patch can be committed without
another review. I'll try to find out.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13676
/* { dg-options -O0 -std=gnu99 } */
int
main (void)
{
_Complex double d;
__real__ d = 1.0;
__imag__ d = 1.0;
d = d / 0.0;
if (!__builtin_isinf (__real__ d) || !__builtin_isinf (__imag__ d))
__builtin_abort ();
return 0;
}
fails when compiled with -O0 -std=c99 but succeeds when
--- Comment #8 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-03 21:27 ---
Subject: Bug 30084
Author: pault
Date: Wed Jan 3 21:27:17 2007
New Revision: 120399
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=120399
Log:
2007-01-03 Paul Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Backport from
--- Comment #22 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-03 21:27 ---
Subject: Bug 25818
Author: pault
Date: Wed Jan 3 21:27:17 2007
New Revision: 120399
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=120399
Log:
2007-01-03 Paul Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Backport from
--- Comment #23 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-03 21:29 ---
Fixed on trunk and 4.2
Paul
--
pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #9 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-03 21:30 ---
Fixed on trunk and 4.2
Paul
--
pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2007-01-03 21:31 ---
Subject: Re: New: Complex divide bug
On Wed, 3 Jan 2007, jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
fails when compiled with -O0 -std=c99 but succeeds when compiled with -O2
-std=c99. ISO C99 says it should be (inf,
The documentation for the visibility attribute shown by the info gcc 'c
extension' function command is misleading. It says:
`visibility (VISIBILITY_TYPE)'
The `visibility' attribute on ELF targets causes the declaration
to be emitted with default, hidden, protected or internal
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-03 21:43 ---
Note that the attribute is attached to the return type of the function f,
not
the function declaration itself. I think this means that the hidden visibility
is applied to the type, not the function, which is
--- Comment #2 from rich at phekda dot gotadsl dot co dot uk 2007-01-03
21:45 ---
Created an attachment (id=12853)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=12853action=view)
A test case
When I compile the attached test case, I get:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] test-cases]$ make
g++ -W
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-03 21:45 ---
Read:
http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-4.1.1/gcc/Attribute-Syntax.html
Which describes the syntax.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30361
--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-03 21:46 ---
gcc (GCC) 4.1.1 20061011 (Red Hat 4.1.1-30)
This should also tell you, that you are using a modified version of the
compiler and the bug report should have been filed up with redhat first.
--
Folks,
Not sure what if youc an help. By way of background, I'm running FreeBSD
6.1-RELEASE #0: Sun May 7 04:42:56 UTC 2006. Very nice indeed. AFter some
littel experience usign Linus (RH9, FC4 FC5), I have ventured into less
chartered waters. What better way to learn to plunge int the deep
--- Comment #5 from rich at phekda dot gotadsl dot co dot uk 2007-01-03
21:55 ---
Thanks for the quick response and the reference to the attribute documentation.
I agree my comment about the documentation being incorrect is wrong. But it
doesn't look to me like the visibility is
--- Comment #9 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-03 23:00 ---
Subject: Bug 20353
Author: pinskia
Date: Wed Jan 3 23:00:40 2007
New Revision: 120404
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=120404
Log:
2007-01-03 Andrew Pinski [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-03 23:00 ---
Subject: Bug 30353
Author: pinskia
Date: Wed Jan 3 23:00:40 2007
New Revision: 120404
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=120404
Log:
2007-01-03 Andrew Pinski [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR
--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-03 23:00 ---
Fixed.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #17 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-03 23:53 ---
Subject: Bug 28217
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Jan 3 23:53:18 2007
New Revision: 120410
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=120410
Log:
PR c++/28217
* g++.dg/pch/template-1.C: New test.
--- Comment #18 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-03 23:54 ---
Subject: Bug 28217
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Jan 3 23:54:24 2007
New Revision: 120411
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=120411
Log:
PR c++/28217
* g++.dg/pch/template-1.C: New test.
--- Comment #19 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-03 23:56 ---
Subject: Bug 28217
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Jan 3 23:56:44 2007
New Revision: 120412
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=120412
Log:
Backported from mainline
2006-07-12 Jason
--- Comment #20 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-04 00:01 ---
Fixed in 4.1 as well.
--
jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to
--- Comment #6 from pbrook at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-04 00:09 ---
Subject: Bug 16634
Author: pbrook
Date: Thu Jan 4 00:09:48 2007
New Revision: 120413
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=120413
Log:
2007-01-03 Paul Brook [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR
--- Comment #3 from jconner at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-04 01:37 ---
Subject: Bug 29683
Author: jconner
Date: Thu Jan 4 01:37:15 2007
New Revision: 120425
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=120425
Log:
2007-03-01 Josh Conner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR
Given the following test case:
#define f(x, y) x y
extern void abort (void);
int main ()
{
const char *str1 = f(a, \a\);
const char *str2 = f( \t, \t);
if (strcmp (str1, \a\ a))
abort ();
if (strcmp (str2, \t \ \\t\))
abort ();
return 0;
Given the following test case:
#define f(x, y) x y
extern void abort (void);
int main ()
{
const char *str1 = f(a, \a\);
const char *str2 = f( \t, \t);
if (strcmp (str1, \a\ a))
abort ();
if (strcmp (str2, \t \ \\t\))
abort ();
return 0;
}
83 matches
Mail list logo
