Hello,
you can also use a cross compiler and run the tests on a simulator or remote
target.
--
Sebastian Huber, embedded brains GmbH
Address : Dornierstr. 4, D-82178 Puchheim, Germany
Phone : +49 89 189 47 41-16
Fax : +49 89 189 47 41-09
E-Mail : sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de
PGP
hi,
i am writing a dynamic plugin,
however, sometimes it run succesfully and sometimes it give following
error:
/home/avantika/Downloads/gcc/gccpackage/install/bin/g++ -o result -flto
-fplugin=./plugin.so test1.o -O3 -fdump-ipa-all
In function ‘main’:
lto1: internal compiler error: in
On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 03:55:38PM +0400, Michael V. Zolotukhin wrote:
What I meant was just that if you call GOMP_target with
num_descs N, then the structure will look like:
struct .omp_target_data
{
sometype0 *var0;
sometype1 *var1;
...
sometypeNminus1 *varNminus1;
};
On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 5:47 PM, Mike Stump mikest...@comcast.net wrote:
On Aug 27, 2013, at 3:23 AM, Richard Biener richard.guent...@gmail.com
wrote:
+++ b/gcc/fold-const.c
@@ -3702,12 +3702,23 @@ all_ones_mask_p (const_tree mask, int size)
This should instead use
return
On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 10:05 AM, avantikagupta
avantikagu...@cse.iitb.ac.in wrote:
hi,
i am writing a dynamic plugin,
however, sometimes it run succesfully and sometimes it give following error:
/home/avantika/Downloads/gcc/gccpackage/install/bin/g++ -o result -flto
On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 01:35:45PM +0530, avantikagupta wrote:
i am writing a dynamic plugin,
First start with compiling the plugin with warnings, I bet the compiler
would tell you:
static unsigned int
On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 1:59 PM, Michael V. Zolotukhin
michael.v.zolotuk...@gmail.com wrote:
No need for the device and handler IMHO, each vector would correspond to
one function call (GOMP_target, GOMP_target_data or GOMP_target_update)
and all those calls would be called with device id.
On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 12:39:00PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
So, here is the original code:
#pragma omp declare target
int v = 6;
int tgt ()
{
#pragma omp atomic update
v++;
return 0;
}
#pragma omp end declare target
float
bar (int x,
On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 1:06 PM, Jakub Jelinek ja...@redhat.com wrote:
On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 12:39:00PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
So, here is the original code:
#pragma omp declare target
int v = 6;
int tgt ()
{
#pragma omp atomic update
v++;
return 0;
On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 01:21:53PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
My thought was that we need to have control over scheduling and thus have
a single runtime to be able to execute the following in parallel on the
accelerator and the CPU:
#pragma omp parallel
{
#pragma omp target
for (;;)
On Wed, 2013-08-28 at 13:06 +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 12:39:00PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
From the accelerator BOF video I gather we agreed on using the GOMP
representation as unified middle-end. What I didn't get is whether we
agreed on libgomp being the
On Wed, 2013-08-28 at 13:21 +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 1:06 PM, Jakub Jelinek ja...@redhat.com wrote:
On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 12:39:00PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
From the accelerator BOF video I gather we agreed on using the GOMP
representation as unified
thanks, adding return statement solves the problem.
On 2013-08-28 15:32, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 01:35:45PM +0530, avantikagupta wrote:
i am writing a dynamic plugin,
First start with compiling the plugin with warnings, I bet the
compiler
would tell you:
static
Hi Jan,
Looks like you for now have been trying to find out a solution
suitable for you to automatically build GCC from source combined with
certain continuous systems like Jenkins. As a matter of fact, Jenkins
is exactly a good choice to do such thing just mentioned, due to
itself with so many
On Wed, 2013-08-28 23:26:29 +0800, Samuel Mi samuel.mi...@gmail.com wrote:
Looks like you for now have been trying to find out a solution
suitable for you to automatically build GCC from source combined with
certain continuous systems like Jenkins. As a matter of fact, Jenkins
is exactly a
On Aug 28, 2013, at 2:40 AM, Richard Biener richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
Digging shows I at one point removed all this code - but people objected and I
had to revert it :/
[ oh,, sorry to hear ] I got rid of it as well, and then the test suite beat
on me til I relented.
I suppose this
I'm not too sure if Jenkins is actually a good choice, just because I
question that there's a working Java especially for old Unix-alike
systems that GCC still (in theory) supports. What about eg. older IRIX
or Ultrix systems?
I have no such experience on running jenkins under java runtime on
On Thu, 2013-08-29 02:43:54 +0800, Samuel Mi samuel.mi...@gmail.com wrote:
...or can you, instead of using the Java-based
client part of Jenkins, issue all commands over a SSH (or maybe even
Telnet...) session? Is there a module for this available?
If making jenkins running on target
Hi,
I am wondering if the following piece of code is supposed to be valid.
void* reg_v13() {
register void* r __asm__ (r13);
return r;
}
I did test with gcc on powerpc64, and confirmed that the function
really returns r13 (thread pointer) value.
However, LLVM issues a warning complaining
The purpose of local register variables is to tell gcc which register to
use in an inline asm, when multiple registers could be used. Other uses
are not supported and usually don't work the way you expect, especially
when optimizing.
If all you want is a function which returns the value in a
On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 2:54 AM, Jan-Benedict Glaw jbg...@lug-owl.de wrote:
On Thu, 2013-08-29 02:43:54 +0800, Samuel Mi samuel.mi...@gmail.com wrote:
...or can you, instead of using the Java-based
client part of Jenkins, issue all commands over a SSH (or maybe even
Telnet...) session? Is
On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 5:52 PM, Samuel Mi samuel.mi...@gmail.com wrote:
This looks like a SSH connector for the Jenkins server side, no?
No. Actually, Jenkins implements a built-in SSH server within itself.
Doesn't really help platforms that can boot linux but that don't have
a sufficient
On Aug 28, 2013, at 8:52 PM, Samuel Mi samuel.mi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 2:54 AM, Jan-Benedict Glaw jbg...@lug-owl.de wrote:
On Thu, 2013-08-29 02:43:54 +0800, Samuel Mi samuel.mi...@gmail.com wrote:
...or can you, instead of using the Java-based
client part of Jenkins,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41209
--- Comment #9 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
For ALIGN, we should consider following Intel's compiler by also using it for
ALLOCATE and not only for static arrays; cf.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56811
--- Comment #7 from Misty De Meo misty at brew dot sh ---
Checking the GCC database, I noticed a similar issue regarding GCC 4.4.3:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47609
Checking the symbol list in libgcc_s and libstdc++, I can see
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57748
--- Comment #19 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Barking up wrong trees. Hacky fix looks like:
Index: gcc/expr.c
===
--- gcc/expr.c (revision 202043)
+++
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31279
Bug 31279 depends on bug 31094, which changed state.
Bug 31094 Summary: Support annotating function parameters as read-only and/or
non-escaping
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31094
What|Removed
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31893
Bug 31893 depends on bug 31094, which changed state.
Bug 31094 Summary: Support annotating function parameters as read-only and/or
non-escaping
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31094
What|Removed
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31094
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31593
Bug 31593 depends on bug 31094, which changed state.
Bug 31094 Summary: Support annotating function parameters as read-only and/or
non-escaping
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31094
What|Removed
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56977
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50955
--- Comment #16 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Fri, 16 Aug 2013, pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50955
--- Comment #15 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57287
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57927
Uroš Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58106
--- Comment #3 from Martin Jambor jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 30708
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30708action=edit
Patch
The problem is that the rdesc chain creation mechanism cannot handle
the case
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57748
--- Comment #20 from Bernd Edlinger bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot de ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #19)
volatile bitfield case to be audited as well:
/* If the bitfield is volatile, we want to access it in the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58201
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.9.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58182
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.9.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58148
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.9.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57422
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.9.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58024
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.9.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58121
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.9.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57945
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.9.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58242
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.9.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58026
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.9.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58221
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.9.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58239
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.9.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58094
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.9.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57732
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.8.2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57955
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.7.4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58134
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.8.2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58207
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.8.2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57967
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.7.4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58250
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Markus Trippelsdorf from comment #0)
Just noticed this issue during a PGO/LTO Firefox build.
During the -fprofile-use phase I always get the following warning:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58250
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58257
Bug ID: 58257
Summary: [4.8/4.9 Regression] Bogus warning with OpenMP
collapsed loops
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: openmp
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58257
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58257
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58257
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58255
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58255
--- Comment #2 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com ---
I'm finishing testing this:
Index: init.c
===
--- init.c(revision 202020)
+++ init.c(working copy)
@@
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58258
Bug ID: 58258
Summary: cp_tree_equal and unknown symbol take up 70% of
(astronomical) build time
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
bne- 0,.L3
stwcx. 8,0,3
bne- 0,.L2
.L3:
isync
srw 10,10,9
li 9,0
stb 10,0(9)
mfcr 3
rlwinm 3,3,3,1
blr
.size test_and_set, .-test_and_set
.ident GCC: (GNU) 4.9.0 20130828 (experimental) [master
, .-test_and_set
.ident GCC: (GNU) 4.9.0 20130828 (experimental) [master revision
022fc2d:bffd767:fd457cef14f3bc6673e90a2de80005feea743ab7]
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58260
Bug ID: 58260
Summary: configure: error: cannot compute suffix of object
files: cannot compile See `config.log' for more
details. gmake[1]: *** [configure-target-libgcc] Error
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58260
--- Comment #1 from Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se ---
(In reply to anand.karanam from comment #0)
checking for suffix of object files... configure: error: in
`/home/ekarana/ekarana_2013/GCC463_OSE5.6/Solaris_to_Linux/INSTALL/build-gcc/
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57685
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Hmm, it's register_edge_assert_for_1 not limiting its recursion and not
avoiding duplicate visits. Which in this case leads to exponential
compile-time behavior.
We can mitigate
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58245
Rose Garcia rose.garcia-eggl2fk at yopmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58260
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58260
anand.karanam at tcs dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anand.karanam at tcs dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58260
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The relevant part of the file is:
configure:3055:
/home/ekarana/ekarana_2013/GCC463_OSE5.6/Solaris_to_Linux/INSTALL/build-gcc/sparc-sun-solaris2.10-i686-pc-linux-gnu/./gcc/xgcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58260
--- Comment #4 from Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se ---
You got several 'conftest.c:16:1: internal compiler error: Bus Error' from the
newly built compiler.
You should try one of those compilation attempts manually, in gdb, to see where
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58260
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Mikael Pettersson from comment #4)
(I always build gmp/mpfr/mpc with --disable-shared exactly to avoid such
issues.)
Why not just build them in tree and avoid all
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58100
Thomas Koenig tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48885
Paulo J. Matos pa...@matos-sorge.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57511
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||spop at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58261
Bug ID: 58261
Summary: Test bug 1
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: spam
Assignee: unassigned at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58262
Bug ID: 58262
Summary: Test bug 2
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: spam
Assignee: unassigned at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58262
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Aug 28 14:41:27 2013
New Revision: 202051
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=202051root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR spam/58261
PR spam/58262
Fix up
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58261
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Aug 28 14:41:27 2013
New Revision: 202051
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=202051root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR spam/58261
PR spam/58262
Fix up
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58263
Bug ID: 58263
Summary: [feature request] friend class $UndefinedClass
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: trivial
Priority: P3
Component:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58263
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|trivial |enhancement
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58106
Martin Jambor jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58261
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58262
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58262
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Hoorah! Thanks, Jakub
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58259
Sebastian Huber sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56933
--- Comment #7 from Bernd Edlinger bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot de ---
Created attachment 30712
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30712action=edit
fixed test case
Looking deeper into the matter it seems like this an example
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58260
--- Comment #7 from Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #6)
(In reply to Mikael Pettersson from comment #4)
(I always build gmp/mpfr/mpc with --disable-shared exactly to avoid such
issues.)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58264
Bug ID: 58264
Summary: Incorrect 'First when assigning function-call.all (of
access String;) to an indefinite String object
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.3
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58263
--- Comment #2 from vova7890 vova7890 at mail dot ru ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #1)
Do we warn in A.cc that B is not defined? It is defined in another header,
but that isn't included by A.cc because it isn't needed.
We warn
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58067
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Aug 28 16:31:41 2013
New Revision: 202055
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=202055root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR target/58067
* config/i386/i386.md
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57287
--- Comment #16 from davidxl xinliangli at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #15)
Confirmed. David, can you have a look here? I had a hard time following
what
exactly to do with the dataflow in the uninit pass for
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58263
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
But that will warn about valid code, where you didn't spell the name wrong.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57393
--- Comment #27 from Easwaran Raman eraman at google dot com ---
These two test cases pass for me (compiles with -O3) with the attached patch
(http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30690).
gcc --version returns:
gcc (GCC) 4.9.0 20130821
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58263
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org ---
How about looking into the MyClass1 to see if there is a friend class and have
a quick heuristic about the spelling mistake when doing the error message?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57393
--- Comment #28 from Joost VandeVondele Joost.VandeVondele at mat dot ethz.ch
---
(In reply to Easwaran Raman from comment #27)
These two test cases pass for me (compiles with -O3) with the attached patch
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58263
--- Comment #5 from vova7890 vova7890 at mail dot ru ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #3)
But that will warn about valid code, where you didn't spell the name wrong.
Yes, but it can be not in one file, as in example. If it in one
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58263
--- Comment #6 from vova7890 vova7890 at mail dot ru ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #4)
How about looking into the MyClass1 to see if there is a friend class and
have a quick heuristic about the spelling mistake when doing the error
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56997
Ramana Radhakrishnan ramana at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
1 - 100 of 223 matches
Mail list logo
