On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 10:12 PM, Torvald Riegel trie...@redhat.com wrote:
On Tue, 2013-05-07 at 10:27 +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 5:16 PM, Jeff Law l...@redhat.com wrote:
On 05/06/2013 07:41 AM, Tobias Burnus wrote:
Evgeny Gavrin wrote:
What do you think about
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 10:25 PM, Torvald Riegel trie...@redhat.com wrote:
On Tue, 2013-05-07 at 12:46 +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 12:42 PM, Richard Biener
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 11:02 AM, Tobias Burnus bur...@net-b.de wrote:
Richard
Hello,
Can someone please clarify the difference between the precision of a mode and
its bytesize?
Also, if you create a CCMODE and ADJUST it's bytesize to 1, then it's currently
impossible to change its precision to 8.
You end up with a bytesize of 1 and a precision of 4*BITS_PER_UNITS which
On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 11:00:29AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
Which
means changing the GOMP runtime in a way to be able to pass a descriptor
which eventually has accelerator code (and a fallback regular function so
you can disable accelerator usage at runtime).
It probably should be
Jakub Jelinek wrote:
[Fallback generation of CPU code]
If one uses the OpenMP 4.0 accelerator pragmas, then that is the required
behavior, if the code is for whatever reason not possible to run on the
accelerator, it should be executed on host [...]
(I haven't checked, but is this a compile
Greetings,
On the _/contribute/.html_//page (http://gcc.gnu.org/contribute.html),
the link to the script that should help check conformance with GNU
coding style is broken (the root trunk is unknown, etc.)
Note also that the section Legal Prerequisites comes before Coding
Standards. Likely
Greetings,
At the very bottom of the above page
(http://gcc.gnu.org/contribute.html), there is no indication of GCC only
accepting *plain text* messages. As most mail clients nowadays default
to a combined text/html format, this leaves users with the unpleasant
experience of having their
On 10 May 2013 12:29, Zvi Gilboa wrote:
Greetings,
At the very bottom of the above page (http://gcc.gnu.org/contribute.html),
there is no indication of GCC only accepting *plain text* messages.
That would belong on http://gcc.gnu.org/lists.html but it could be
improved, as it only says Please
On http://gcc.gnu.org, the 4.8 status is still pointing to the original release
note from 4.8.0.
Shouldn't it be updated to the status report on 2013-05-07 ?
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2013-05/msg00074.html
-Kenny
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57230
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55036
Segher Boessenkool segher at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57230
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Seems like there's some wrongdoing in handle_char_store; we have
else if (si != NULL)
{
si = unshare_strinfo (si);
si-length = build_int_cst
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57214
--- Comment #6 from Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #4)
Seems that only skipping coalescing if we aren't coalescing SSA_NAMEs works.
... but it doesn't pass the testsuite.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42014
Shakthi Kannan skannan at redhat dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||skannan at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57230
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57232
Bug ID: 57232
Summary: wcstol.c:213:1: internal compiler error
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: blocker
Priority: P3
Component: c++
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57232
--- Comment #1 from daniel.calcoen at cern dot ch ---
Created attachment 30082
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30082action=edit
zip with the different configure.out and make.out
zip with the different configure.out and make.out
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57232
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57232
--- Comment #3 from daniel.calcoen at cern dot ch ---
Created attachment 30083
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30083action=edit
my touched configure.host for newlib
I added some switches I need to configure.host for newlib
this
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57232
--- Comment #4 from daniel.calcoen at cern dot ch ---
Hi,
Any file in particular?.
I did a git pull on Wednesday on the 4.8 branch. (and binutils and newlib)
I attached the sh I use to build my cross compiler and the only file I
touched.
Daniel
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57232
--- Comment #5 from Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to daniel.calcoen from comment #4)
Hi,
Any file in particular?.
The one where the ICE occurs, i.e. preprocessed wcstol.c in this case.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57232
--- Comment #6 from daniel.calcoen at cern dot ch ---
The sources I use
wcstol.c
http://sourceware.org/git/?p=newlib.git;a=blob;f=newlib/libc/stdlib/wcstol.c;h=e23254dc217854801d1c8be76cfc6501c505cc61;hb=053c8948b774d92ab009b30e70a9e65c11bbd5c3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57232
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The file /home/dcalcoen/gitMirror/newlib/newlib/libc/stdlib/wcstol.c
preprocessed
by appending -save-temps to the command-line that crashes the compiler. The
preprocessed source
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57233
Bug ID: 57233
Summary: Vector lowering of LROTATE_EXPR pessimizes code
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57203
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57216
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57214
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57233
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=57195
--- Comment #2 from Uros Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com ---
Created attachment 30084
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30084action=edit
Proposed x86 patch that triggers the problem
Attached x86 patch triggers the problem,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57232
--- Comment #8 from daniel.calcoen at cern dot ch ---
Created attachment 30085
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30085action=edit
wcstol.i
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57230
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 30086
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30086action=edit
gcc49-pr57230.patch
And untested improvement for 4.9+ only.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57218
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=39080
Shakthi Kannan skannan at redhat dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||skannan at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57234
Bug ID: 57234
Summary: gcov 4.7.3 segfaults when reading Clang's .gc* files.
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57234
--- Comment #1 from Magnus Reftel magnus.reftel at gmail dot com ---
For reference: the Clang bug got ID 15954.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57218
--- Comment #2 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Yep, it is just heuristic here. We may get more cureful at -Os (i.e. not so
optimistic about the optimization oppurtunities), but last time I played with
this it actually resulted in
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57234
Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57231
Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57214
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57231
Chung-Ju Wu jasonwucj at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jasonwucj at
version 4.9.0 20130510 (experimental) [trunk revision 198772] (GCC)
$ ./xgcc -B. -O2 ~/ice.ii
/home/ryan/ice.ii: In member function 'bool
google::protobuf::DescriptorBuilder::OptionInterpreter::SetAggregateOption(const
google::protobuf::FieldDescriptor*, google::protobuf::UnknownFieldSet*)':
/home
: posix
gcc version 4.9.0 20130510 (experimental) (GCC)
Regards, Peter
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57236
--- Comment #1 from petschy at gmail dot com ---
Created attachment 30089
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30089action=edit
preprocessed source
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57236
--- Comment #2 from petschy at gmail dot com ---
Created attachment 30090
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30090action=edit
original source
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57236
--- Comment #3 from petschy at gmail dot com ---
Created attachment 30091
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30091action=edit
4.8.1 generated code of write2()
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57236
--- Comment #4 from petschy at gmail dot com ---
Created attachment 30092
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30092action=edit
clang 3.4 generated code of write2()
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57235
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57230
--- Comment #5 from Zack Weinberg zackw at panix dot com ---
It might be good to include stores to nonzero offsets in the test case, and
stores to bytes that used to be internal NULs, something like
int main(void)
{
char s[] =
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57084
Martin Jambor jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57230
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
We have just one strlen pass instance, and even if we optimize the first strlen
there, having strlen pass duplicate constant propagation functionality just to
handle this weird
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57237
Bug ID: 57237
Summary: Upstreaming the rtems multilib gcc patch
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Component: c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57237
Joel Sherrill joel at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||v850*-*-rtems*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57230
--- Comment #7 from Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I've thought more like:
int
main ()
{
char p[] = foobar;
int len = strlen (p);
p[1] = 'O';
p[6] = 'R';
int len2 = strlen (p);
foo (len, len2);
}
thus, there shouldn't be
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57237
--- Comment #1 from Joel Sherrill joel at gcc dot gnu.org ---
This patch cannot be merged as is. It includes at least 4 separate issues.
+ v850 multilibs
+ sparc64-rtems definining SVR4
+ WCHAR issues
+ stddef.h issue
Patches can only be single
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57237
--- Comment #2 from Joel Sherrill joel at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Testing with this patch for just the v850:
2013-03-26 Ralf Corsépius ralf.corsep...@rtems.org
* config/v850/t-rtems: Use multilibs from gcc 4.8.0.
diff -Naur
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57230
--- Comment #8 from Zack Weinberg zackw at panix dot com ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #6)
We have just one strlen pass instance, and even if we optimize the first
strlen
there, having strlen pass duplicate constant propagation
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55149
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57196
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57230
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
That case is for the
if (idx 0)
{
si = get_strinfo (idx);
...
}
block in there, and si != NULL si-length != NULL_TREE TREE_CODE
(si-length) == INTEGER_CST is what
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57047
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57231
--- Comment #3 from Joshua Conner josh.m.conner at gmail dot com ---
Exactly - there's no need to truncate every iteration, we should be able to
safely do it when the loop is complete.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54320
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55149
--- Comment #8 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com ---
Thanks!
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57237
Joel Sherrill joel at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57238
Bug ID: 57238
Summary: GCC passes --gdwarf2 to assembler despite -gdwarf-4 on
command line
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57238
Paul Pluzhnikov ppluzhnikov at google dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ccoutant
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54577
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57237
Ralf Corsepius corsepiu at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||corsepiu at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57239
Bug ID: 57239
Summary: GCC cannot handle inner/nested class templates with
non-type parameter packs that were declared in the
outer/containing class
Product: gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57239
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|major |normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57230
--- Comment #10 from Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #9)
That case is for the
if (idx 0)
{
si = get_strinfo (idx);
...
}
block in there, and si != NULL si-length !=
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57238
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I don't see how this is wrong. Mixing dwarf4 and dwarf2 should be ok.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57240
Bug ID: 57240
Summary: decltype() on a template non-type parameter causes
internal compiler error
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57240
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57092
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57237
--- Comment #5 from cynt6007 at vandals dot uidaho.edu ---
(In reply to Ralf Corsepius from comment #4)
(In reply to Joel Sherrill from comment #3)
Patch committed to 4.7, 4.8, and head.
It would have been nice if you'd give the author of a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57241
Bug ID: 57241
Summary: GCC still issues -Wmultichar warnings despite a
#pragma diagnostic ignored -Wmultichar directive
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57238
--- Comment #3 from Paul Pluzhnikov ppluzhnikov at google dot com ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
I don't see how this is wrong.
It's wrong to emit dwarf2 because I asked for dwarf4 explicitly.
Mixing dwarf4 and dwarf2 should
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57241
--- Comment #1 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com ---
In general, it's safe to say that #pragma diagnostic ignored is very buggy (in
C++ at least), we have got many long standing PRs.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57242
Bug ID: 57242
Summary: gcc ignores precompiled headers unless the .gch and
TU's are compiled with certain combinations of -g flag
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.1
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57231
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I think there are other bugs about promoting things and then truncating only
when needed. I also think Kai is working on a pass that does that.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57242
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org ---
This is by design as -g changes the information produced by the front-end and
maybe even predefines too.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57242
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to etherice from comment #0)
I put a #warning in the my_pch.hpp file to be sure of when PCH were being
ignored (though, the long delay also made it quite obvious).
You
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57217
--- Comment #2 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
See draft patch at http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2013-05/msg00035.html (see
patch review for what is missing).
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57241
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Paolo Carlini from comment #1)
In general, it's safe to say that #pragma diagnostic ignored is very buggy
(in C++ at least), we have got many long standing PRs.
Well
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57242
--- Comment #3 from etherice scottbaldwin at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
This is by design as -g changes the information produced by the front-end
and maybe even predefines too.
I think you may have read the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57241
--- Comment #3 from etherice scottbaldwin at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
(In reply to Paolo Carlini from comment #1)
In general, it's safe to say that #pragma diagnostic ignored is very buggy
(in C++ at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57243
Bug ID: 57243
Summary: Using auto in range based for with templated container
in templated function requires extraneous template
qualifier
Product: gcc
Version:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57240
--- Comment #2 from etherice scottbaldwin at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Paolo Carlini from comment #1)
Already fixed.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 57092 ***
Yep that's it, fixed 3 days after my April 27 version of
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57242
--- Comment #4 from etherice scottbaldwin at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
This is by design as -g changes the information produced by the front-end
and maybe even predefines too.
I created a simpler test to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57238
Cary Coutant ccoutant at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ccoutant at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57238
Paul Pluzhnikov ppluzhnikov at google dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54095
Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57244
Bug ID: 57244
Summary: Missed optimization: dead register move before
noreturn fn call unnecessary store/load or reg
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57244
--- Comment #1 from petschy at gmail dot com ---
Created attachment 30093
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30093action=edit
preprocessed source
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57244
--- Comment #2 from petschy at gmail dot com ---
Created attachment 30094
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30094action=edit
original source
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57244
--- Comment #3 from petschy at gmail dot com ---
Created attachment 30095
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30095action=edit
disassembly dump
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54320
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54320
--- Comment #12 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to vincenzo Innocente from comment #3)
int foo2(int N) {
int v[N];
for ( auto a : v)
if (a) return a;
return 0;
}
works, though was similar to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54320
--- Comment #13 from Daniel Krügler daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com ---
(In reply to Paolo Carlini from comment #10)
FWIW, I fully agree with Jason: VLAs are very restricted and don't even allow
for forming references to them, so that the
1 - 100 of 196 matches
Mail list logo
