--- Additional Comments From aj at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-17 08:01
---
It really seems to be a dup. Sorry for the noise.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 18910 ***
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From aj at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-17 08:01
---
*** Bug 19029 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
What|Removed |Added
System in question is a 2GHz opteron running Fedora Core 2
Reading specs from /usr/local/lib/gcc/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/4.0.0/specs
Configured with: ../gcc-4.0-20041212/configure --disable-nls --with-system-zlib
--with-libiconv-prefix=/usr/local --program-suffix=40 --disable-shared --disable
gcc ICE when I did:
===
$ m6811-elf-g++ -Os -mshort -msoft-reg-count=32 -m68hc12 -c n.cpp
The ICE message is:
===
n.cpp: In function 'void getNewTableEntry()':
n.cpp:49: error: unable to find a register to spill in class 'D_REGS'
n.cpp:49: error: this is the insn:
--- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-17
08:44 ---
This would be a good time for new timings.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15678
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-17
08:54 ---
Subject: Bug 17603
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2004-12-17 08:54:02
Modified files:
gcc: ChangeLog
gcc/config/i386:
On Thu, Dec 16, 2004 at 06:52:35PM -0800, Hugh Daniel wrote:
char ccc[ sizeof( union{ struct aaa; struct bbb; })];
In ISO Standard C, this doesn't do what you think it does.
What you are attempting to use is an ill-conceived Microsoft
extension. You can enable *some* amount of support for this
--
What|Removed |Added
Version|unknown |4.0.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19052
--- Additional Comments From Thomas dot Koenig at online dot de 2004-12-17
09:30 ---
With 20041121, there was a problem with
xeigtstc hanging with -O1 on IA-64.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18977
arta:~/c/proba$ cat nrvo-virtual-operator.cc
struct s {
virtual void operator *();
};
s f()
{
s result;
*result;
return result;
}
arta:~/c/proba$ g++-1212 nrvo-virtual-operator.cc
nrvo-virtual-operator.cc: In function 's f()':
nrvo-virtual-operator.cc:8: internal compiler error:
--- Additional Comments From aj at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-17 10:30
---
Further testing showed that this is a fallout from unit-at-a-time:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/tmp /opt/gcc/4.0-devel/bin/gcc -c test.c
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/tmp nm test.o
r bar
V
--- Additional Comments From joseph at codesourcery dot com 2004-12-17
10:37 ---
Subject: Re: [4.0 Regression] #pragma weak handling changes in
4.0.0
On Fri, 17 Dec 2004, aj at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
The question still remains, what are the symantics? Do we have to declare
--- Additional Comments From namsh at kldp dot org 2004-12-17 11:04 ---
I used m6811-elf-gccbug to report this bug. And I noticed
the gcc version is disappeared.
m6811-elf-gcc shows:
Release: 4.0.0 20041216 (experimental)
Why it changed to 0.0? Because of extra version string
like
--- Additional Comments From ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-17
11:05 ---
Fixing.
--
What|Removed |Added
CC|ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot|
--- Additional Comments From SWElef at post dot sk 2004-12-17 11:12 ---
AFAICT the code in comment #5 is well-formed.
std:12.4/5: An implicitly-declared destructor is implicitly defined
when it is used to destroy an object of its class type...
Thus, the declaration+definition of class
--- Additional Comments From ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-17
11:22 ---
On Solaris 7, 8 and 9 with 3.4.4pre, we are down to:
32-bit:
=== libjava tests ===
Running target unix
FAIL: Array_3 execution - gij test
FAIL: Array_3 execution - gij test
--- Additional Comments From nathan at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-17
11:41 ---
I think I might have a fix for this
--
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|mark at
--- Additional Comments From nathan at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-17
11:41 ---
I think I might have a fix for this
--
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|nathan at
--- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2004-12-17
12:07 ---
Kriang, can you comment on my patch? Does it look correct to you?
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-17
12:23 ---
Fixed.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-17
12:32 ---
This is a dup of bug 18984, I posted a patch already.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 18984 ***
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-17
12:32 ---
*** Bug 19053 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-17
12:38 ---
I could reproduce it with 20041208 but with 20041214 it is fixed, can you test
a newer GCC?
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-17
12:40 ---
Confirmed.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
--
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19051
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-17
12:55 ---
/usr/include/sigc++-2.0/sigc++/adaptors/adaptor_trait.h: In member function
'typename sigc::
adaptor_functorT_functor::result_type
sigc::adaptor_functorT_functor::operator()() const [with
T_functor =
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-17
12:59 ---
Confirmed:
+===GNAT BUG
DETECTED==+
| 4.0.0 20041208 (experimental) (powerpc-apple-darwin7.6.0) Assert_Failure
sinfo.adb:2474|
| Error detected at
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-17
13:00 ---
Confirmed.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed||1
Last reconfirmed|-00-00 00:00:00
--- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2004-12-17
13:19 ---
Wolfgang, I suggest you to bring this up in comp.std.c++, to get some official
answer about this.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18975
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed||1
Last reconfirmed|-00-00 00:00:00
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-17
13:38 ---
Patch here: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2004-12/msg01260.html.
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From nathan at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-17
13:44 ---
I now think the code is ok, and both compilers are incorrect to reject any of
the versions.
The versions that do not contain user defined
XYZ (const XYZ src)
XYZ operator= (const XYZ src)
functions are
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
My GCC sizeof a union of structs bug seems to be pilot error after
all...
So Hugh Redelmeier found the actual bug when we were looking at the
various details of memory allocation: we were not declaring any struct
identifiers to take the size
// Just compile the following source
struct A {
template int n int get_n() { return n; }
};
template int n
struct B {
template int m int get_nm() { return n + m; }
};
struct C {
template int n
int get_n() { A a; return a.get_nn(); }
template int n
struct D {
int get_n()
{
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-17
13:54 ---
The first parse error is a dup of bug 795, which was fixed for 3.4 as you
pointed out and has a work
around which is just the same as fixing the next parse error which is a true
parse error.
The second
The following two functions should produce the same assembly
int f(int a)
{
a|=1;
a^=1;
return a;
}
int f1(int a)
{
return a~1;
}
--
Summary: Minor bit optimization with or and xor
Product: gcc
Version: 4.0.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
--
What|Removed |Added
CC||segher at kernel dot
||crashing dot org
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-17
14:25 ---
Another example where we don't get the optimization and f1 is still one
instruction (on 32bit PPC):
int f(int a,int b)
{
a|=b;
a^=b;
return a;
}
int f1(int a,int b)
{
return a=~b;
}
--
--- Additional Comments From Thomas dot Koenig at online dot de 2004-12-17
14:27 ---
I've adjusted the subject.
I've had a look at the real modulo and mod case,
but didn't quite understand it - it appeared to
be overly complicated, compared to the straightforward
formula a -
--- Additional Comments From jbeulich at novell dot com 2004-12-17 14:28
---
Now that I have an Itanium2 system to test with, I can confirm that the problem
still exists in 3.4.3, and looking at the delta to 4.0.0's ia64.md there is no
reason to believe the problem would have been fixed
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-17
15:09 ---
Subject: Bug 18931
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2004-12-17 15:09:12
Modified files:
gcc/java : ChangeLog convert.h expr.c typeck.c
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-17
15:13 ---
Subject: Bug 15001
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2004-12-17 15:13:44
Modified files:
libjava: ChangeLog
A minimized test case:
int main() {
int y = 1;
int *x = y;
volatile int sum = 0;
while(1) {
sum += *x;
x++;
}
return 0;
}
Clearly, this should crash; under 3.4.1 it does. Under my checkout of a few
hours ago, however, it does not: instead, it enters an
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-17
15:18 ---
The code is undefined, once you get into that, anything can happen so closing
as invalid.
We just optimize away the add and the load since the load is no longer needed.
--
What|Removed
CC [M] fs/ncpfs/inode.o
fs/ncpfs/inode.c: In function `ncp_notify_change':
fs/ncpfs/inode.c:202: error: insn does not satisfy its constraints:
(insn 1089 333 335 19 include/asm/string.h:410 (parallel [
(set (reg:CCNO 17 flags)
(compare:CCNO (and:QI (reg:QI 5
--- Additional Comments From bero at arklinux dot org 2004-12-17 15:31
---
Created an attachment (id=7769)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=7769action=view)
Preprocessed source
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19057
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-17
15:32 ---
This is a dup of bug 18932, which got fixed on the 12th.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 18932 ***
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 18932 ***
--
What|Removed
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-17
15:32 ---
*** Bug 19057 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-17
15:34 ---
Here's a reduced testcase:
===
PR19030.cc:10: error: 'A' has not been declared
PR19030.cc:11: error: 'A' has not been declared
--- Additional Comments From reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-17
15:35 ---
Oooops. That was the error message. ;-)
Here's the testcase:
===
struct A;
namespace N
{
struct A;
}
using namespace N;
int
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-17
15:58 ---
Subject: Bug 17821
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2004-12-17 15:58:05
Modified files:
gcc/cp : ChangeLog class.c cp-tree.h error.c
--- Additional Comments From nathan at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-17
16:00 ---
2004-12-17 Nathan Sidwell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR c++/18721
* class.c (add_method): Do not push conversion operators into a
binding level.
--
In the code that follows, gcc-3.4.1 says:
gcc -W -Wall -Wno-unused-parameter qux.c -O2
qux.c:13: warning: variable 'x' might be clobbered by `longjmp' or `vfork'
gcc-4.0 with those same options gives no warning.
Note that neither version warns about 'sum' being clobbered.
#include signal.h
--- Additional Comments From nathan at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-17
16:10 ---
Fix for 3.4 branch
2004-12-17 Nathan Sidwell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR c++/18975
* method.c (do_build_copy_constructor): Refactor. Don't const
qualify a mutable field.
--- Additional Comments From nathan at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-17
16:17 ---
fixed
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-17
16:18 ---
This is because sum is not used outside of the loop with optimization turned
on. We always use 0.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19058
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-17
16:19 ---
Subject: Bug 18975
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Branch: gcc-3_4-branch
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2004-12-17 16:19:24
Modified files:
gcc/cp :
--- Additional Comments From bangerth at dealii dot org 2004-12-17 16:34
---
Nathan, if this isn't a regression but a patch has been applied to the
3.4 branch, then you should also apply it to mainline. Otherwise you have
just created a regression (3.4.4 will work as expected, but
--- Additional Comments From lerdsuwa at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-17
16:44 ---
The patch looks correct although the code is messy. With the patch,
when is_friend is true and processing_specialization is false, we
no longer count the number of template header to see if there are
too
--
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |nathan at gcc dot gnu dot
|dot org |org
Status|NEW
--- Additional Comments From ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-17
17:11 ---
Present on x86 and x86-64 too as of today on 3.4 branch.
--
What|Removed |Added
GCC
--- Additional Comments From reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-17
17:12 ---
Hi Nathan, the following patch fixes the ICE for me:
Index: gcc/gcc/cp/name-lookup.c
===
RCS file:
--- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-17
17:21 ---
Nathan, this is stage3, you *are* allowed to apply non-regression fixes.
By not applying it there you've just created a new 4.0 regression...
--
What|Removed |Added
--
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Target Milestone|--- |4.0.0
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-17
17:24 ---
Fixed on the mainline.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
AtTiny13 and AtTiny2313 are considered as avr4 architecture. But they do not
support all the instructions of avr4.
For example the mul instruction does not exist. See bellow a test case for
mul.
avr-gcc -mmcu=attiny2313 test_mul.c
int main(void) {
uint8_t a, b;
uint16_t res;
4.0.0 20041217 compiled by gcc 3.4.4 20041217
*B -- gcc 4.0.0 20041217 compiled by itself.
All errors are within 0.05 .. 0.5 %
--
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2004-11-16 21:59
--- Additional Comments From pmcnary at cameron dot net 2004-12-17 18:07
---
I have same problems building on OSR5 with UP3 and MP3.
math.h unmatch #ENDIF
same error as above for eh_alloc.cc
Exact problem building 3.4.2
Building 3.3.x problem with math.h and unmatched #ENDIF
and build
--- Additional Comments From ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-17
18:14 ---
Patch at http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2004-12/msg00177.html
--
What|Removed |Added
Program:
---8X---
#includefstream
int main() {
std::ofstream file(test.txt);
std::streampos startpos = file.tellp();
file 10;
std::streampos endpos = file.tellp();
assert(endpos != startpos);
return 0;
}
---X8---
compile at g++ 3.4.3
--- Additional Comments From wanderer at rsu dot ru 2004-12-17 18:31
---
Created an attachment (id=7772)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=7772action=view)
.ii file
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19060
--- Additional Comments From wanderer at rsu dot ru 2004-12-17 18:31
---
Created an attachment (id=7773)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=7773action=view)
.s file
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19060
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-17
18:33 ---
Hmm, it works for me on ppc-darwin with the mainline (20041215 and 20041214 and
20041213).
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19060
--- Additional Comments From wanderer at rsu dot ru 2004-12-17 18:44
---
First time i see this problem in september-october.
Now i only fill PR.
Program work for me only if it used gcc 3.4.x shared libraries.
~/pkg/gcc/bin/g++ test.cc
setenv LD_LIBRARY_PATH $HOME/pkg/gcc_34/lib
The included program coredumps during execution when compiled with -O2 but not
when compiled with -O0. The problem appears to be with combine and the use of
the ptr_extend_plus_2 instruction. GCC is losing track of what is and isn't a
pointer. I am not entirely sure if the program is legal
--- Additional Comments From reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-17
19:02 ---
Please ignore my previous comment.
The fix is not that easy. :-(
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19030
--- Additional Comments From Thomas dot Koenig at online dot de 2004-12-17
19:32 ---
The assertion failure happens for me on
an i686-pc-linux-gnu, as well. Looks like
different bugs on different architectures for
the same test case. (The assertion failure
is a bug, too!)
--
--- Additional Comments From nathan at codesourcery dot com 2004-12-17
19:38 ---
Subject: Re: [4.0 Regression] ice on tree check
reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
--- Additional Comments From reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-17
19:02 ---
Please ignore my
--- Additional Comments From fjahanian at apple dot com 2004-12-17 19:40
---
Why hasn't been there be a resolution of this PR? It seems that all issues,
including elimination of
loop numbers, etc. have been taken care of. Thanks.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18792
--- Additional Comments From reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-17
19:44 ---
Indeed, this can be demonstrated with the following testcase:
===
struct A;
namespace N
{
struct A;
}
using namespace N;
int A::i;
int A::i;
namespace N
{
struct C;
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-17
20:15 ---
Confirming as and removing regression marker as suggested by David.
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From phython at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-17
20:42 ---
I haven't tested this yet, but perhaps something as simple as
Index: trans-common.c
===
RCS file:
--- Additional Comments From reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-17
20:59 ---
Nathan, this was caused by your patch
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2003-06/msg00871.html
Apparently we have a tcc_exceptional in the last switch
statement of cp_tree_equal so that we hit gcc_unreachable.
--- Additional Comments From dberlin at dberlin dot org 2004-12-17 21:12
---
Subject: Re: ICE with -O1 -ftree-loop-linear
on small test case
Because the submitted patch has not yet been approved and applied.
On Fri, 17 Dec 2004, fjahanian at apple dot com wrote:
---
--
What|Removed |Added
GCC host triplet||ia64-hp-hpux11.23
Summary|ia64-hp-hpux11.23 |IA64 GCC pointer confusion
With the fix for PR 18501 we are now emitting false positives on
gcc.dg/uninit-5.c and gcc.dg/uninit-9.c.
Analysis of problem:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2004-12/msg00681.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2004-12/msg01309.html
--
Summary: -Wuninitialized tricked by conditional
--- Additional Comments From dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-17
22:21 ---
Fix: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2004-12/msg01314.html
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-17
22:41 ---
Isn't this just a dup of the long standing bug 5035?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19062
--- Additional Comments From dnovillo at redhat dot com 2004-12-17 22:54
---
Subject: Re: -Wuninitialized tricked by conditional
assignments
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-17
22:41 ---
Isn't this
--
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot
|dot org |org
Status|SUSPENDED
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-17
23:12 ---
So closing as a dup then.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 5035 ***
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-17
23:13 ---
*** Bug 19062 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
What|Removed |Added
The following testcase causes an ICE since gcc 3.4.0:
===
templateoperator struct A {};
===
PR13268B.cc:5: error: expected identifier before 'operator'
PR13268B.cc:5: error: declaration of 'operator' as non-function
PR13268B.cc:5:
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-17
23:20 ---
: Search converges between 2002-12-14-trunk (#159) and 2002-12-29-trunk (#160).
Confirmed.
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-17
23:25 ---
: Search converges between 2004-11-25-014001-trunk (#656) and
2004-11-25-161001-trunk
(#657).
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19030
--- Additional Comments From belyshev at lubercy dot com 2004-12-17 23:28
---
We expanding this:
___r2.303 = MAX_EXPR ___r3.316, *((int *) ___r2.303 + 1B);
into this:
(insn 12778 12777 12779 1127 (set (reg/v:SI 1280 [ ___r2.303 ])
(reg/v:SI 1273 [ ___r3.316 ])) -1 (nil)
--- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2004-12-17
23:35 ---
Some discussion about how this warning interacts with the tree-ssa framework
can be found here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2004-12/msg00681.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2004-12/msg01309.html
--
--- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2004-12-17
23:48 ---
Yes, that's the problem. The whole point is that the parser does not have
enough context information to fully check for the number of template headers:
there is an off-by-one possible error it has to
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-17
23:50 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
We expanding this:
Yes it is, here is an small example of where we produce wrong code, I have to
think of a full working
testcase which we can run:
int *fff;
int f(int a, int b)
1 - 100 of 140 matches
Mail list logo
