comments below,
On Thu, 2009-02-26 at 14:05 -0800, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
I've put a project proposal for split stacks on the wiki at
http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/SplitStacks . The idea is to permit the stack
of a single thread to be split into discontiguous segments, thus
permitting many more
2009/2/27 Joern Rennecke amyl...@spamcop.net:
Quoting daniel tian daniel.xnt...@gmail.com:
2009/2/26 Joern Rennecke amyl...@spamcop.net:
the address label common_reg used many times. I think it will
load one time. But after optimized with '-Os' or '-O2', it still loads
the label common_reg
Please go ahead. I do not have much time for gcc lately but I will be
more than happy to clean up whatever spam I find in the wiki or ban
spammers.
Cheers,
Manuel.
2009/2/26 Daniel Berlin dber...@dberlin.org:
If you want to help admin the wiki, I am more than happy to make you a
super user.
Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
Joel Sherrill joel.sherr...@oarcorp.com writes:
Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
I've put a project proposal for split stacks on the wiki at
http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/SplitStacks . The idea is to permit the stack
of a single thread to be split into discontiguous segments, thus
- If I patch in this code, actually I get the same results I did
before where the constants are propagated. It seems that in 4.3.2,
every part of the compiler is trying to do that.
There are at least two forward propagation passes, one before and
another after GCSE. I haven't tried to tackle
daniel tian wrote:
That seems to solving a address mode problem. My problem is that while
loading a large immediate data or SYMBOL_REF, the destination is a
specified general register (register 0:R0). So I don't how to let the
define_expand movsi pattern to generate destination register in
Mathieu Lacage wrote:
It would be totally awesome to do this if you could provide an option to
delegate to a user-provided function the allocation and deallocation of
the stack blobs needed by threads.
Ideally, I would even be able to use heap memory for that stack space if
I wanted to.
Richard Guenther wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2009, Zdenek Dvorak wrote:
introducing new codes seems like a bad idea to me. There are many
places that do not care about the distinction between PLUS_EXPR and
PLUSV_EXPR, and handling both cases will complicate the code (see eg.
the problems caused
On Fri, 27 Feb 2009, Dave Korn wrote:
Richard Guenther wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2009, Zdenek Dvorak wrote:
introducing new codes seems like a bad idea to me. There are many
places that do not care about the distinction between PLUS_EXPR and
PLUSV_EXPR, and handling both cases will
Hello all, and ADA hackers in particular :-)
I've been having a hard time bootstrapping GNAT 4.3.2 lately, and now I
think I've found the problem. Or /a/ problem, but I'm not sure exactly why
it's a problem in the first place. Let me explain:
As mentioned in an earlier thread, you
On Thu, 26 Feb 2009 15:54:14 +
Andrew Haley a...@redhat.com wrote:
Paul Brook wrote:
Well, but wouldn't it still be nice if
__builtin_return_address(N) was implemented for N0 by libcalling
into the unwinder for you? Obviously this would still have to
return NULL at runtime when
Richard Guenther wrote:
It's definitely safer. Still we have to carefully modify existing
code to deal with the new tree codes as most of it carelessly
transitiones old codes to new trees. For example re-associating
(a +/nv b) + c to a +/nv (b + c) is wrong.
Yes, of course we have to
On Fri, 27 Feb 2009, Dave Korn wrote:
Richard Guenther wrote:
It's definitely safer. Still we have to carefully modify existing
code to deal with the new tree codes as most of it carelessly
transitiones old codes to new trees. For example re-associating
(a +/nv b) + c to a +/nv (b +
2009/2/27 Dave Korn dave.korn.cyg...@googlemail.com:
daniel tian wrote:
That seems to solving a address mode problem. My problem is that while
loading a large immediate data or SYMBOL_REF, the destination is a
specified general register (register 0:R0). So I don't how to let the
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 09:10:10AM +0100, Mathieu Lacage wrote:
- if you want to use the stack protector and split stacks, it should
be fairly trivial to extend the data structure which contains the stack
protector with a new field, no ?
The stack protector is just a word, not a pointer.
On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 13:32:11 +
Julian Brown jul...@codesourcery.com wrote:
GLIBC already knows how to do backtracing if the ARM-specific unwind
tables are present (.ARM.exidx, etc.), using _Unwind_Backtrace.
I'm told this probably isn't true for upstream GLIBC -- but we
definitely have a
Julian Brown wrote:
On Thu, 26 Feb 2009 15:54:14 +
Andrew Haley a...@redhat.com wrote:
Paul Brook wrote:
Well, but wouldn't it still be nice if
__builtin_return_address(N) was implemented for N0 by libcalling
into the unwinder for you? Obviously this would still have to
return NULL
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 04:08:03PM -0500, Daniel Berlin wrote:
If you want to help admin the wiki, I am more than happy to make you a
super user.
That goes for Steven, etc.
Wait. Are we talking about giving people root access on sourceware
just to clean up a wiki? Hopefully this is not the
Hello all, and ADA hackers in particular :-)
Ada, not ADA, that's not an acronym but a name, see http://www.adaic.org
However the main issues I've been having trouble with show up when I try
and run the testsuite.
The first problem I ran into was total failure to throw and catch
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 05:57, Grigori Fursin grigori.fur...@inria.fr wrote:
I am fine to mentor a few of them (particularly from 1-3) but would like to
see if someone
is interested to help with that ?.. I added these topics to the GCC GSOC page:
http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/SummerOfCode
and
Dear Vladimir,
Not really. There is no requirement for the units
part of the alternatives of a reservation must belong to the
same automaton. Querying should also work in this
case because function cpu_unit_reservation_p checks all
automata for an unit reservation.
Indeed it checks
Julian Brown wrote:
Unfortunately backtraces don't currently terminate cleanly if code
without unwind data is reached: CodeSourcery are currently working on
fixing the linker so that non-unwindable regions are marked properly,
which we consider essential to making this feature usable.
I
Dave Korn wrote:
Julian Brown wrote:
Unfortunately backtraces don't currently terminate cleanly if code
without unwind data is reached: CodeSourcery are currently working on
fixing the linker so that non-unwindable regions are marked properly,
which we consider essential to making this
On Friday 27 February 2009, Dave Korn wrote:
Julian Brown wrote:
Unfortunately backtraces don't currently terminate cleanly if code
without unwind data is reached: CodeSourcery are currently working on
fixing the linker so that non-unwindable regions are marked properly,
which we consider
Sure, Diego!
By the way, we just finished preparing the small patch for the high-level
plugin API
(that includes pass manipulation and parameter tuning) synchronized with the
current
plugin branch (on top of Le-Chun's patch) and should be able to send it tonight
...
Cheers,
Grigori
Sure, I moved my project suggestions to other projects section
and added contact info ...
Cheers,
Grigori
-Original Message-
From: Manuel López-Ibáñez [mailto:lopeziba...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2009 8:41 PM
To: Grigori Fursin
Cc: Sebastian Pop; gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Eric Botcazou wrote:
Hello all, and ADA hackers in particular :-)
Ada, not ADA, that's not an acronym but a name, see http://www.adaic.org
g Yes, of course, I knew that really. My most humble apologies to the
late Ms. Lovelace :-)
The first problem I ran into was total failure to
Paul Brook wrote:
ARM unwind tables are series of open ranges (only the start address is
specified for each region). i.e. your assumption that the search will fail is
incorrect. It will actually find the entry for the preceding function.
The new linker bits automatically add cantunwind
Andi Kleen a...@firstfloor.org writes:
Ian Lance Taylor i...@google.com writes:
I've put a project proposal for split stacks on the wiki at
http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/SplitStacks . The idea is to permit the stack
of a single thread to be split into discontiguous segments, thus
permitting many
Mathieu Lacage mathieu.lac...@sophia.inria.fr writes:
On Thu, 2009-02-26 at 14:05 -0800, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
I've put a project proposal for split stacks on the wiki at
http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/SplitStacks . The idea is to permit the stack
of a single thread to be split into discontiguous
Ah, thanks, I'll have to research this change, I don't know about it yet.
Hidden in http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2007-12/msg00267.html
I'm not sure if I'll find time to investigate reverting it on the branch:
my priorities are focussed around maintaining the Cygwin distro compiler
and
Hi,
introducing new codes seems like a bad idea to me. There are many
places that do not care about the distinction between PLUS_EXPR and
PLUSV_EXPR, and handling both cases will complicate the code (see eg.
the problems caused by introducing POINTER_PLUS_EXPR vs PLUS_EXPR
Hi,
I obviously thought about this. The issue with using a flag is
that there is no convenient place to stick it and that it makes
the distinction between the two variants less visible. Consider
the folding routines that take split trees for a start.
IMHO using new tree-codes is
On Fri, 2009-02-27 at 08:54 -0800, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
It would be totally awesome to do this if you could provide an option to
delegate to a user-provided function the allocation and deallocation of
the stack blobs needed by threads.
Yes, this would be a goal.
The main reason I
On Fri, 27 Feb 2009, Zdenek Dvorak wrote:
Hi,
introducing new codes seems like a bad idea to me. There are many
places that do not care about the distinction between PLUS_EXPR and
PLUSV_EXPR, and handling both cases will complicate the code (see eg.
the problems caused by
Please do not forward this to anyone else. This offer is valid for the
recipient only.
You have been selected to try our new games.
Get £20 and walk away with your returns.
Click here to play! www.temptative.com/go
Kind regards,
Tempative Offers
www.temptative.com/go
Mathieu Lacage mathieu.lac...@sophia.inria.fr writes:
On Fri, 2009-02-27 at 08:54 -0800, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
It would be totally awesome to do this if you could provide an option to
delegate to a user-provided function the allocation and deallocation of
the stack blobs needed by
This effort is relevant:
http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/people/jcondit/capriccio-sosp-2003.pdf
John Regehr
John Regehr reg...@cs.utah.edu writes:
This effort is relevant:
http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/people/jcondit/capriccio-sosp-2003.pdf
Yes. Unfortunately, their analysis which lets them avoid testing at the
entry to each function requires a complete call graph, which is not
something
Eric Botcazou wrote:
Ah, thanks, I'll have to research this change, I don't know about it yet.
Hidden in http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2007-12/msg00267.html
The compiler was working before the change so just reverting it should make
it
work again. The change was totally accidental.
No, there is a list of wiki users considered superusers (IE able to
become other people on the wiki, remove spam, etc).
It requires no underlying permissions or accounts on sourceware itself.
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 10:08 AM, Christopher Faylor
cgf-use-the-mailinglist-ple...@gnu.org wrote:
On
Do we have time (and release-managerial leeway)? I probably couldn't
start sending patches until the other side of the weekend.
I think we can take the (small) risk for 4.4.0; it's only the Ada compiler and
only on Windows.
Well... I think that whatever kind of harm it could possibly do
Rahul Kharche ra...@icerasemi.com writes:
GCSE won't help with your trimmed down example
int main(void)
{
long a = 0xcafecafe;
printf(Final: %lx %lx %lx\n, a, a+5, a+15);
return EXIT_SUCCESS;
}
I believe Paolo's canon_reg solution together with tweaking
rtx_cost of
To support languages that have undefined semantics on overflowing
operations the middle-end gets new unary and binary operators
that implicitly encode value-range information about their operands
noting that the operation does not overflow. These does-not-overflow
operators transform the
Do we have time (and release-managerial leeway)? I probably couldn't
start sending patches until the other side of the weekend.
I think we can take the (small) risk for 4.4.0; it's only the Ada compiler and
only on Windows.
It's too late for that in my mind, this feature should first
Right, that's why the change should be reverted on the 4.3 branch. On the
other hand, if you can get the ZCX support to work on the mainline before
4.4.0 is released, we could try there.
FYI, I have just succeeded in building gcc-4.3.3 including Ada for MinGW
by setting
ZCX_By_Default
It's too late for that in my mind, this feature should first be developed
on trunk in stage 1, get proper testing, and then potentially back ported
if it makes sense.
IMO you cannot backport such an incompatible change to a release branch. If
the Windows maintainers are confident enough with
Hi folks.
While optimizing some of my code I replaced powf (x, 1.5f) with x *
sqrt(x). Out of couriosity I checked if GCC does this optimization and
found it in the code. It's in expand_builtin_pow in the file builtin.c
(gcc 4.3.1 source).
However, GCC does not apply this optimization for a
FYI, I have just succeeded in building gcc-4.3.3 including Ada for MinGW
by setting
ZCX_By_Default: constant Boolean := True;
in system-mingw.ads as suggested by Danny Smith. The ACATS tests show
quite some failures, though. I don't know if they are due to the EH or
if
Hi,
I just added support for printf and scanf of fixed point types to avr
libc. I wanted to handle:
Currently accum and fract work, but not short accum or short fract
This is not a problem for integers currently since they get type
promoted when passed with stdarg.
There is nothing in the
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 12:51 PM, Nils Pipenbrinck
n.pipenbri...@cubic.org wrote:
Hi folks.
While optimizing some of my code I replaced powf (x, 1.5f) with x * sqrt(x).
Out of couriosity I checked if GCC does this optimization and found it in
the code. It's in expand_builtin_pow in the file
On Fri, 27 Feb 2009, Sean D'Epagnier wrote:
Hi,
I just added support for printf and scanf of fixed point types to avr
libc. I wanted to handle:
Currently accum and fract work, but not short accum or short fract
This is not a problem for integers currently since they get type
On Fri, 2009-02-27 at 21:04 +0100, Rolf Ebert wrote:
Right, that's why the change should be reverted on the 4.3 branch. On the
other hand, if you can get the ZCX support to work on the mainline before
4.4.0 is released, we could try there.
FYI, I have just succeeded in building
On Fri, 27 Feb 2009, Jay Foad wrote:
To support languages that have undefined semantics on overflowing
operations the middle-end gets new unary and binary operators
that implicitly encode value-range information about their operands
noting that the operation does not overflow. These
Hello everybody,
the idea I presented last year [1], and which I said in January that I thought
how to
realize [2], has come true.
I'd like to show you a tool that removes a bit of redundancy off your binaries,
without
needing to change the sources, by identifying repeated code blocks, and
Snapshot gcc-4.4-20090227 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.4-20090227/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.4 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/trunk
Jay Foad jay.f...@gmail.com writes:
From an optimisation pass's point of view, what's the difference between:
1. a PLUS expression that gives an undefined result on overflow, and
2. a PLUS expression with a guarantee that the result won't overflow.
I can't see how they will be handled any
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 06:05, Richard Guenther rguent...@suse.de wrote:
There shall be no construct in the GIMPLE IL that invokes
undefined behavior.
Excellent! Thanks for starting this branch.
Thus, from now on integer overflow is defined and will wrap with
the usual twos-complement
On Fri, 27 Feb 2009, Diego Novillo wrote:
We will be reading IL containing both overflow and non-overflow
operations. We should define the combination rules for them.
The rules are simple:
* No transformation (of arithmetic operations, which is what we are
discussing here) may change
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16300
This bug was originally reported against 3.4.0. It is still present in
4.3.3. Giovanni Bajo came up with a patch to fixincludes to take care of
it. Bruce Korb was supposed to apply it, but he seems to have gone AWOL.
To whoever is currently
--- Comment #6 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-02-27 09:01 ---
On x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu I *do* get the ICE when I compile with -ffast-math
-mfpmath=387. Cf. http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2008-11/msg00250.html.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39314
--- Comment #7 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-02-27 09:13 ---
Note that the problem also appears for log, while it does not for acosh and
atanh:
real :: x = -5.0
! FPE is not thrown
print *, log(x)
print *, log10(x)
print *, acos(x)
print *, asin(x)
! FPE is thrown
!print *,
--- Comment #2 from oliver dot kellogg at eads dot com 2009-02-27 09:28
---
FWIW, pressing Ctrl-C in gdb when the program blocks shows following trace:
Program received signal SIGINT, Interrupt.
0x0805bbd1 in system.soft_links.task_lock_nt () at s-soflin.adb:295
295procedure
--- Comment #10 from schwab at suse dot de 2009-02-27 09:57 ---
Fixed.
--
schwab at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
--- Comment #21 from pluto at agmk dot net 2009-02-27 10:29 ---
(In reply to comment #20)
Same issue. Only possible fix is to not apply TBAA pruning to escaped
symbols, which will - well - basically disable TBAA. Testcase:
waht about this testcase?
the bug is marked as fixed but
--- Comment #22 from rguenther at suse dot de 2009-02-27 10:33 ---
Subject: Re: [4.4 regression] warnings from -isystem
headers strikes back.
On Fri, 27 Feb 2009, pluto at agmk dot net wrote:
--- Comment #21 from pluto at agmk dot net 2009-02-27 10:29 ---
(In reply to
--- Comment #5 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-02-27 10:47 ---
FIXED on the trunk.
--
burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #8 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-02-27 10:49 ---
Note that the problem also appears for log, while it does not for acosh and
atanh:
If it works with some but not all libm routines, it sounds more like a GLIBC
than like a GCC problem.
--
--- Comment #23 from pluto at agmk dot net 2009-02-27 11:04 ---
(In reply to comment #22)
The original reported problem is gone. The testcase below is unfixable.
so what users can do now?
the -isystem feature doesn't work as expected with this unfixable diagnostics.
--
--- Comment #24 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-02-27 11:07
---
The user can use -Wno-strict-aliasing.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38503
--- Comment #25 from pluto at agmk dot net 2009-02-27 11:22 ---
(In reply to comment #24)
The user can use -Wno-strict-aliasing.
naturally, but -O2 turns on -fstrict-aliasing, so using strict-aliasing
without warnings about aliasing violations is a bit horrible :)
--
--- Comment #26 from rguenther at suse dot de 2009-02-27 12:04 ---
Subject: Re: [4.4 regression] warnings from -isystem
headers strikes back.
On Fri, 27 Feb 2009, pluto at agmk dot net wrote:
--- Comment #25 from pluto at agmk dot net 2009-02-27 11:22 ---
(In reply to
--- Comment #9 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-02-27 13:15 ---
(In reply to comment #8)
If it works with some but not all libm routines, it sounds more like a GLIBC
than like a GCC problem.
Can someone reproduce this with C code?
--
--- Comment #11 from joel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-02-27 16:24 ---
Laurent.. what Makefile magic is needed to select this file on sh Ada targets
and not on others?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36939
--- Comment #12 from aesok at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-02-27 16:25 ---
2007-04-05 Anatoly Sokolov ae...@post.ru
PR target/25448
* config/avr/avr.c (avr_handle_fndecl_attribute): Use the
DECL_ASSEMBLER_NAME, not the DECL_NAME.
--
--- Comment #2 from joel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-02-27 16:26 ---
Ping.. still broken
gcc (GCC) 4.4.0 20090226 (experimental) [trunk revision 144455]
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38349
--- Comment #3 from joel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-02-27 16:28 ---
Laurent.. would it make sense to have a low memory alternate version of the
file in question and swap it in on some targets like the sh2e issue?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38349
--- Comment #14 from spop at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-02-27 16:42 ---
Subject: Bug 39308
Author: spop
Date: Fri Feb 27 16:42:38 2009
New Revision: 144470
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=144470
Log:
2009-02-27 Sebastian Pop sebastian@amd.com
PR
--- Comment #15 from spop at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-02-27 16:43 ---
Fixed.
--
spop at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING
--- Comment #4 from laurent at guerby dot net 2009-02-27 17:42 ---
First you need to find out which stack_size works on your target.
An obvious patch would be something like that:
Default_Env_Stack_Size : constant Size_Type := Size_Type'Min (8_192_000,
Size_Type'Last / 1024 );
--- Comment #12 from laurent at guerby dot net 2009-02-27 17:50 ---
There is no need for Makefile magic here, this is a bug in s-scaval.adb logic.
As I said this file is used for only one ACATS test and one specific and not
widely used feature, so for the purpose of testing RTEMS you
The attached code produce an ICE (below) with cuurent trunk when the compiler
option includes all of '-fno-second-underscore -fexceptions -O3'. The code
compiles fine with gfortran-4.3.2.
..
[d...@logos gemclim33]$ gfc -c -m64 -fPIC -fcray-pointer -fconvert=big-endian
-fopenmp
--- Comment #1 from deji_aking at yahoo dot ca 2009-02-27 18:03 ---
Created an attachment (id=17371)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=17371action=view)
Fortran file that produce the ICE
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39318
--- Comment #2 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2009-02-27 18:24 ---
Confirmed oni686-apple-darwin9 with
gfc -c -fcray-pointer -fexceptions -O2 -ftree-vectorize adw_trajsp.f
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39318
The sample program fails to run on Linux x86_64.
I'm using ...
gcc (GCC) 3.4.6 20060404 (Red Hat 3.4.6-8)
... and compiling with command line ...
g++ -Os catch.cpp -o catch.exe
=== Program Output ===
./catch.exe
file = catch.cpp
Segmentation fault
=== SAMPLE Program ===
#include stdexcept
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-02-27 18:31 ---
3.4.6 is old and 3.4.x to 4.1.x are no longer maintained.This is most
likely a duplicate of bug 26530.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39319
--- Comment #3 from oliver dot kellogg at eads dot com 2009-02-27 18:42
---
Expanding on comment #2, there seems to be an endless loop around
s-fileio.adb:377ff.
376 Fptr1 := Open_Files;
377 while Fptr1 /= null loop
378 Fptr2 := Fptr1.Next;
379 Close
--- Comment #3 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2009-02-27 19:03 ---
Forgot to say that it is a [4.4 Regression].
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39318
This occurred during the build. I would expect it to happen on m32c-elf also.
$ /home/joel/test-gcc/b-gcc1-m32c/./gcc/xgcc
-B/home/joel/test-gcc/b-gcc1-m32c/./gcc/ --version
xgcc (GCC) 4.4.0 20090226 (experimental) [trunk revision 144455]
/home/joel/test-gcc/install/m32c-rtems4.10/include
--- Comment #1 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-02-27 19:49 ---
Subject: Bug 39267
Author: hubicka
Date: Fri Feb 27 19:49:42 2009
New Revision: 144474
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=144474
Log:
PR debug/39267
* tree.h (TREE_PROTECTED): Fix
--- Comment #4 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2009-02-27 19:59 ---
Reduced test:
subroutine adw_trajsp ( F_lon, F_lat, F_x, F_y, F_z,
%F_u, F_v, F_dt,i0,in,j0,jn)
implicit none
real
The following program should compile, but current g++ from trunk compiles it.
Please read the comments in the code:
~=~
templatetypename T
struct do_typedef
{
typedef T type;
};
templatetypename T struct is_function;
// Let's name this template partial specialization #1
templatetypename T
--- Comment #1 from dodji at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-02-27 20:06 ---
Created an attachment (id=17372)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=17372action=view)
Don't remove cv quals from typedefs during type substitution
--
--- Comment #2 from dodji at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-02-27 20:08 ---
I have filed bug http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39321 that
describes the gcc bug. It also has a patch that should fix it.
--
dodji at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #3 from lanurmi at iki dot fi 2009-02-27 20:15 ---
Well yes, the meaning of basic block is not self-explanatory either. But at
least it is a much better search term than just 'BB'. And if someone comes up
with something even better, I'm certainly not against it.
--
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-02-27 20:25 ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 39182 ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-02-27 20:25 ---
*** Bug 39320 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39182
--- Comment #3 from vegard dot nossum at gmail dot com 2009-02-27 20:27
---
I'm hitting this as well :-(
[veg...@damson ~/programming 0]
$ cat flexible-array-empty-struct.c
struct x {
union {
int x;
};
int array[];
};
[veg...@damson
--- Comment #4 from vegard dot nossum at gmail dot com 2009-02-27 20:32
---
Workaround:
Install an empty dummy member between the union and the array, like this:
struct x {
union {
int x;
};
int _dummy[0]; // workaround
int array[];
--- Comment #5 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2009-02-27 20:58 ---
Subject: Re: struct with only anonymous unions plus flexible
array member
Anonymous unions are outside the scope of C99, so this issue is purely
about what is most useful for GNU C right now.
However, there
1 - 100 of 120 matches
Mail list logo
