On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 8:19 PM, Steve Ellcey sell...@mips.com wrote:
I have a question about the partial pre (-ftree-partial-pre) optimization
that was added in GCC 4.8. I have noticed that this optimization is slowing
down the bitmnp01 benchmark in the EEMBC1.1 suite on MIPS. I see this
Hi,
we are currently working on the use of the arm ehabi for Ada exceptions,
and we aren't sure about which encoding has to be used for ttype.
The patch http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-09/msg00765.html
explains that on `Older ARM EABI toolchains set this value
[ttype_encoding]
On Fri, 2013-12-13 at 11:26 +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 8:19 PM, Steve Ellcey sell...@mips.com wrote:
I have a question about the partial pre (-ftree-partial-pre) optimization
that was added in GCC 4.8. I have noticed that this optimization is slowing
down the
It is also available as hjl/linux/release/2.24.51.0.2 tag at
https://sourceware.org/git/?p=binutils-gdb.git;a=summary
H.J.
---
This is the beta release of binutils 2.24.51.0.2 for Linux, which is
based on binutils 2013 1213 master branch on sourceware.org plus
various changes. It is purely for
On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 08:33:03PM +0530, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
I was wondering if it was a good idea to replace do-while macros with
static inline functions returning void, where appropriate ?
By where appropriate I mean:
a) call to macro contains no side-effects
b) macro does not
Bah. Forgot to remove html.
On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 2:47 PM, Diego Novillo dnovi...@google.com wrote:
On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 10:03 AM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
bilbotheelffri...@gmail.com wrote:
I was wondering if it was a good idea to replace do-while macros with
static inline functions
On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 02:42:23PM -0500, Trevor Saunders wrote:
On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 08:33:03PM +0530, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
I was wondering if it was a good idea to replace do-while macros with
static inline functions returning void, where appropriate ?
By where appropriate I
On Sat, Dec 14, 2013 at 1:17 AM, Diego Novillo dnovi...@google.com wrote:
On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 10:03 AM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
bilbotheelffri...@gmail.com wrote:
I was wondering if it was a good idea to replace do-while macros with
static inline functions returning void, where appropriate
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8270
--- Comment #51 from GoWhoopee at yahoo dot com ---
http://web.cs.dal.ca/~vlado/pl/C_Standard_2011-n1570.pdf
That's the principle, but not what happens with gcc...
Phase 2 says, Each instance of a backslash character (\) immediately followed
by a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59450
--- Comment #5 from b...@miller-mohr.de ---
(In reply to janus from comment #4)
(In reply to janus from comment #2)
Draft patch which fixes the error (not regtested):
Does regtest cleanly.
Hi,
just wanted to say thanks. Your speed is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57897
--- Comment #10 from Rainer Emrich rai...@emrich-ebersheim.de ---
Am 12.12.2013 23:08, schrieb ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57897
--- Comment #9 from Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org --- By
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59350
Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59350
Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34723
Uroš Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57897
--- Comment #11 from Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ktietz
Date: Fri Dec 13 09:24:16 2013
New Revision: 205957
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=205957root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR c++/57897
* config/i386/i386.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57897
Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59487
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|unknown |4.9.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59487
Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||58721
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59436
Uroš Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59491
Bug ID: 59491
Summary: compiler can't detect if xpression is always fixed
value
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59419
--- Comment #4 from Janne Blomqvist jb at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Indeed I suspect we have many cases in the IO library where stuff fails, leaks
memory, or leaves stuff in an inconsistent state when IOSTAT= is present.
I think that we should modify
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39838
bin.cheng amker.cheng at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amker.cheng at
/gcc-snapshot-20131213/build/./gcc/xgcc
-shared-libgcc -B/scratch/packages/gcc/snap/gcc-snapshot-20131213/build/./gcc
-nostdinc++
-L/scratch/packages/gcc/snap/gcc-snapshot-20131213/build/x86_64-linux-gnu/x32/libstdc++-v3/src
-L/scratch/packages/gcc/snap/gcc-snapshot-20131213/build/x86_64-linux-gnu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8270
--- Comment #52 from GoWhoopee at yahoo dot com ---
Whitespace is required by Translation Phase 3, consequently Translation Phase 1
should not be changing whitespace at all, only mapping multibyte characters and
trigraphs.
Comment #39: Indicates
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59471
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59473
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59469
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||lto
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59477
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vmakarov at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59479
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39838
--- Comment #16 from bin.cheng amker.cheng at gmail dot com ---
For optimization level O2, the dump before IVOPT is like:
bb 2:
_21 = p_6(D)-count;
if (_21 0)
goto bb 3;
else
goto bb 11;
bb 3:
bb 4:
# i_26 = PHI i_20(10),
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54742
--- Comment #33 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Igor Zamyatin from comment #31)
The problem is that there is a performance regression on i686 for Coremark
test
If you can reproduce a testcase please file a new
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59490
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=59491
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59492
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=59479
--- Comment #2 from bin.cheng amker.cheng at gmail dot com ---
I will investigate it later. Just clarifying, the function is called three
times by the caller, it would increase code size usually.
BTW, could you explain a little about 2nd-order
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59493
Bug ID: 59493
Summary: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault on
Class(*) pointer association with GCC 4.8.1
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59484
--- Comment #3 from Reinhold Straub demarchie at web dot de ---
(In reply to Steve Kargl from comment #2)
There is obviously no bug :-)
Sorry for the noise.
And thanks for your very helpful comments!
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59492
H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59492
Matthias Klose doko at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41488
--- Comment #8 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: amker
Date: Fri Dec 13 11:36:22 2013
New Revision: 205959
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=205959root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/58296
PR tree-optimization/41488
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58296
--- Comment #1 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: amker
Date: Fri Dec 13 11:36:22 2013
New Revision: 205959
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=205959root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/58296
PR tree-optimization/41488
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58849
--- Comment #2 from otmar.struwe at web dot de ---
After updating some parts of the mingw environment (mpfr/gmp/mpc) I am not able
to reproduce the described behavior.
Now I get:
c:\temp\ccWxAggU.o:complex.c:(.text+0xef): undefined reference to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59492
--- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com ---
GCC generates
.cfi_personality 0x9c,DW.ref.__gxx_personality_v0
.cfi_lsda 0x1c,.LLSDA3386
instead of
.cfi_personality 0x9b,DW.ref.__gxx_personality_v0
.cfi_lsda
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59488
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59487
--- Comment #3 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr ---
r202826 was fixed later by the fix for PR58656 (rnflow regression),
so your bisection converged on a bogus revision.
OK! I was too focused on the -fwhole-program option.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59493
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59493
--- Comment #2 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to janus from comment #1)
Confirmed with 4.9 and trunk.
Sorry, that was supposed to be 4.8 and trunk, obviously ;)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59492
H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tmsriram at google
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59493
--- Comment #3 from Hossein Talebi talebi.hossein at gmail dot com ---
Will it be fixed in gfortran 4.8 or 4.9?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59492
--- Comment #5 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com ---
[hjl@gnu-6 gcc]$ cat /tmp/x.cc
void
__throw_runtime_error(const char*) __attribute__((__noreturn__));
unsigned int
__attribute__ ((target(rdrnd)))
__x86_rdrand(void)
{
unsigned int
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59494
Bug ID: 59494
Summary: [4.9 Regression] FAIL:
gfortran.dg/vect/fast-math-mgrid-resid.f
scan-tree-dump-times optimized vect_[^\\n]*\\+ 13
Product: gcc
Version:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59493
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59495
Bug ID: 59495
Summary: -ftrack-macro-expansion=2 ignores warnings originated
from /usr/include headers
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59477
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59487
--- Comment #4 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de ---
dominiq at lps dot ens.fr gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59487
--- Comment #3 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59487
--- Comment #5 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr ---
Still the regression must appear with a different revision.
The one you cited has nothing to do with -fwhole-program.
I see the slowdown with -fwhole-program for all the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59495
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59492
H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ubizjak at gmail dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59494
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59484
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59492
--- Comment #7 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com ---
A patch is posted at
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-12/msg01253.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59496
Bug ID: 59496
Summary: [4.9 Regression] Bootstrap fails on
powerpc-apple-darwin9 after r205685
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59496
Iain Sandoe iains at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58944
Markus Trippelsdorf octoploid at yandex dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43751
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42632
Bug 42632 depends on bug 45685, which changed state.
Bug 45685 Summary: [4.7/4.8/4.9 Regression] missed conditional move opportunity
in loop
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45685
What|Removed
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46542
Bug 46542 depends on bug 45685, which changed state.
Bug 45685 Summary: [4.7/4.8/4.9 Regression] missed conditional move opportunity
in loop
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45685
What|Removed
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45685
Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45685
--- Comment #27 from Jeffrey A. Law law at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: law
Date: Fri Dec 13 16:34:39 2013
New Revision: 205963
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=205963root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/45685
* tree-ssa-phiopt.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55252
Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||doront at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59495
Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59492
H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59451
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59149
--- Comment #3 from Aldy Hernandez aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: aldyh
Date: Fri Dec 13 17:50:18 2013
New Revision: 205967
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=205967root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/59149
* calls.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59149
Aldy Hernandez aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59498
Bug ID: 59498
Summary: Pack expansion error in template alias
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59499
Bug ID: 59499
Summary: Probably optimization error
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59477
--- Comment #2 from Vladimir Makarov vmakarov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Reload pass gives
b.i: In function ‘void test1(_Bit_iterator)’:
b.i:90:1: error: unable to find a register to spill in class ‘CREG’
}
^
b.i:90:1: error: this is the insn:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59500
Bug ID: 59500
Summary: Bogus maybe-unintialized warning due to optimizations
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58113
Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58015
--- Comment #6 from Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Why not just adapt the existing implementation of nextafterf to long double?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59313
Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59501
Bug ID: 59501
Summary: Vector Gather with GCC 4.9 2013-12-08 Snapshot
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
/lto-wrapper
Target: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
Configured with: ../gcc-trunk/configure --prefix=/opt/gcc-trunk
--enable-languages=c,c++,fortran --disable-multilib
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.9.0 20131213 (experimental) (GCC)
$ gfortran test.F90 -o test.o -c
f951: internal compiler error
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59503
Bug ID: 59503
Summary: Bogus integer-overflow error with long long with -m32
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59503
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59504
Bug ID: 59504
Summary: Internal compiler error: segmentation fault in GCC
4.8.1 with -fprofile-use
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59504
Collin Baker chbaker0 at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||chbaker0 at gmail
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59505
Bug ID: 59505
Summary: gcc-4.9.0-20131208 can't link glsl_compiler with
-flto=4 in -m32 where gcc-4.8.2 works fine
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59505
--- Comment #2 from David Kredba nheghathivhistha at gmail dot com ---
Created attachment 31433
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=31433action=edit
gcc-4.8.2-64bit-build.log gzipped
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59505
--- Comment #3 from David Kredba nheghathivhistha at gmail dot com ---
Created attachment 31434
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=31434action=edit
gcc-4.8.2-32bit-build.log gzipped
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59505
--- Comment #1 from David Kredba nheghathivhistha at gmail dot com ---
Created attachment 31432
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=31432action=edit
gcc-4.8.2-32bit-config.log gzipped
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59505
--- Comment #5 from David Kredba nheghathivhistha at gmail dot com ---
Created attachment 31436
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=31436action=edit
32bit-config.log gzipped
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59505
--- Comment #4 from David Kredba nheghathivhistha at gmail dot com ---
Created attachment 31435
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=31435action=edit
Build.log gzipped
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57709
--- Comment #11 from Jan Kratochvil jan.kratochvil at redhat dot com ---
Similar inappropriate warning is generated for typedef-vs-variable as reported
now by Adam Jackson. Again a mistaken use cannot harm as it causes other
errors. And clang
Hi Eric,
OK, I think that this compiler is misconfigured, could you try this
Index: gcc-interface/Makefile.in
===
--- gcc-interface/Makefile.in (revision 205918)
+++ gcc-interface/Makefile.in (working copy)
@@ -1903,7
Does this catch C99 VLAs? I vaguely recall we have a different internal
representation of those?!? And don't those have the same problem?
No, VLAs have explicit variable size so they are not problematic here.
--
Eric Botcazou
OK, now it works.
Thanks for confirming, I've installed the patch.
I wonder if you could add some really good comments in the system.ads
what's the problem and how to fix it if the No_Implicit_Dynamic_Code
makes problems like these?
I think that we need to catch the problem earlier, that is
Jakub Jelinek ja...@redhat.com wrote:
On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 07:30:12AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
Jakub Jelinek ja...@redhat.com wrote:
lhs of a call for calls or somewhere in output arguments of inline
asm.
Can you please simply use walk_stmt_load_store_ops to get at the stmt
outputs?
On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 9:25 PM, Jeff Law l...@redhat.com wrote:
On 12/11/13 02:51, Richard Biener wrote:
That looks wrong - you want to look at HONOR_NANS on the mode
of one of the comparison operands, not of the actual value you want
to negate (it's integer and thus never has NaNs).
The
1 - 100 of 172 matches
Mail list logo
