Compile the attached source code with options -march=armv7-a -mthumb -Os, gcc
generates:
foo2:
push{r4, r5, r6, r7, lr}
sub sp, sp, #20
mov r7, r2
str r0, [sp, #8]
movsr0, #64
bl malloc
str r0, [sp, #4]
--- Comment #1 from carrot at google dot com 2010-03-01 08:11 ---
Created an attachment (id=19994)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=19994action=view)
test case
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43216
--- Comment #15 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-03-01 08:45 ---
See also: http://j3-fortran.org/pipermail/j3/2010-February/003401.html
where Van and Malcolm agreed that changes should be done.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43062
--- Comment #5 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-03-01 09:24 ---
Subject: Bug 43199
Author: burnus
Date: Mon Mar 1 09:23:35 2010
New Revision: 157133
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=157133
Log:
2010-03-01 Tobias Burnus bur...@net-b.de
PR
--- Comment #6 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-03-01 09:24 ---
FIXED on the trunk (4.5). Thanks for the bugreport!
--
burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from ubizjak at gmail dot com 2010-03-01 09:56 ---
Indeed.
Following patch fixes the problem:
Index: i386.md
===
--- i386.md (revision 157132)
+++ i386.md (working copy)
@@ -3245,7 +3245,7 @@
--- Comment #13 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-03-01 10:05
---
Closing
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
I do not know whether the following program is valid Fortran 77 (with deleted
parts). The issue is that gfortran creates:
static character(kind=1) C.1534[1:9] = HELLO YOU;
which is then passed to an default-kind integer. HELLO YOU consists of 9
characters, but a default-kind integer can
--- Comment #23 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2010-03-01 10:20 ---
*** Bug 40459 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #14 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2010-03-01 10:20 ---
This is a dup of c++/42748, which has now been fixed.
So marking this pr as duplicate.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 42748 ***
--
dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr changed:
What
#1
lto1: internal compiler error: in cgraph_estimate_size_after_inlining, at
ipa-inline.c:206
Please submit a full bug report,
with preprocessed source if appropriate.
See http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs.html for instructions.
lto-wrapper: /usr/local/bin/i686-pc-linux-gnu-gcc-4.5.0 returned 1 exit status
--- Comment #3 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-03-01 10:29 ---
Huh. Confirmed.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2010-03-01 10:29 ---
I wonder what happens with g77.
[ibook-dhum] f90/bug% g77 pr43217.f
[ibook-dhum] f90/bug% a.out
HELLO YOU
:HELLO YOU :
4C4C4548 4F59204F 955
--
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 1, 2010, at 2:29 AM, rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org
wrote:
--- Comment #3 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-03-01
10:29 ---
Huh. Confirmed.
Not that interesting because the aliasing sets are different and we
--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gmail dot com 2010-03-01 10:38 ---
Subject: Re: [4.5 Regression] Worse code generated with -O2
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 1, 2010, at 2:29 AM, rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org
wrote:
--- Comment #3 from rguenth at gcc
--- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-03-01 10:43 ---
Confirmed. We do have sort-of a fixup pass to deal with this, but it doesn't
work very well.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-03-01 10:48 ---
Confirmed. We leak bogus function types to the middle-end:
(gdb) call debug_tree (inner_type)
function_type 0x75ade738
type void_type 0x77ee4e70 void VOID
align 8 symtab 0 alias set -1
--- Comment #5 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-03-01 10:48 ---
I have a patch.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Priority|P3 |P1
--- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-03-01 10:54 ---
Confirmed. struct X are not compatible by the notion of C99.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-03-01 10:59 ---
Confirmed. The testcase is invalid (apart from the missing semi-colon):
t.ii(9): error: class Imagefloat has no member PixelType
templatetypename TInputImage, typename TOutputImage=Image CovariantVector
typename
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.3.5
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43081
--- Comment #6 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-03-01 11:48 ---
Confirmed with a cross to hppa-linux.
I believe this is again related to DECL_VALUE_EXPR. SRA does:
@@ -122,8 +60,9 @@
bb 2:
x.0 = x;
+ SR.3_7 = x.a;
y.1_6 = y_1(D);
- D.1959_2 = x.0.a;
+ D.1959_2 =
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43081
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43116
--- Comment #6 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-03-01 11:50 ---
Fixed.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43141
--- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-03-01 11:51 ---
spu-elf is neither a primary nor a secondary platform. But, confirmed, as
I originally reported this.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43164
--- Comment #6 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-03-01 11:54 ---
Not a regression (we track regressions only against releases). I see both
temporaries also on the 4.4 branch.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43191
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43206
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43211
--- Comment #7 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-03-01 12:11 ---
I have a patch.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from ro at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-03-01 12:25 ---
Subject: Bug 42900
Author: ro
Date: Mon Mar 1 12:25:34 2010
New Revision: 157135
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=157135
Log:
PR fortran/42900
* gfortran.dg/stat_1.f90: Accept
--- Comment #12 from ro at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-03-01 12:32 ---
Subject: Bug 38251
Author: ro
Date: Mon Mar 1 12:32:02 2010
New Revision: 157137
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=157137
Log:
PR libgcj/38251
* tools/Makefile.am (dist-hook): Prune
--- Comment #1 from d dot g dot gorbachev at gmail dot com 2010-03-01
12:43 ---
Created an attachment (id=19995)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=19995action=view)
Three testcases
Compile with `-flto -O2'
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43218
--- Comment #36 from ro at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-03-01 12:44 ---
Subject: Bug 14940
Author: ro
Date: Mon Mar 1 12:44:33 2010
New Revision: 157141
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=157141
Log:
gcc:
PR pch/14940
* config/host-solaris.c
--- Comment #6 from d dot g dot gorbachev at gmail dot com 2010-03-01
12:47 ---
Created an attachment (id=19996)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=19996action=view)
Another testcase
Compile with `gcc -flto 1.c 2.c'
--
--- Comment #9 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-03-01 12:47 ---
Even with the patch from comment #7, another thing goes wrong with BLOCK
statements:
pure subroutine swap
implicit none
real :: r1
block
real :: r2
r1 = 42.
r2 = 43.
end block
--- Comment #6 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-03-01 12:56 ---
Fixed.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #5 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-03-01 12:57 ---
Mine.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #7 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-03-01 12:57 ---
Subject: Bug 43213
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Mar 1 12:56:44 2010
New Revision: 157142
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=157142
Log:
2010-03-01 Richard Guenther rguent...@suse.de
PR
LC_ALL=C gcc -v
Using built-in specs.
Target: x86_64-linux-gnu
Configured with: ../src/configure -v --with-pkgversion='Debian 4.3.2-1.1'
--with-bugurl=file:///usr/share/doc/gcc-4.3/README.Bugs
--enable-languages=c,c++,fortran,objc,obj-c++ --prefix=/usr --enable-shared
--with-system-zlib
--- Comment #1 from vierhaus at physik dot hu-berlin dot de 2010-03-01
13:01 ---
Created an attachment (id=19997)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=19997action=view)
prog.i after compilation with -Os
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43219
--- Comment #2 from vierhaus at physik dot hu-berlin dot de 2010-03-01
13:01 ---
Created an attachment (id=19998)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=19998action=view)
Source code
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43219
--- Comment #8 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-03-01 13:14 ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 41250 ***
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #6 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-03-01 13:14 ---
*** Bug 42805 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2010-03-01 13:31 ---
This is done on purpose to provide backward compatibility
since vmovq isn't in original x86-64 spec and older assemblers
don't support it. From i386-opc.tbl in binutils:
// These really shouldn't allow for Reg64
--- Comment #46 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2010-03-01 13:34 ---
Anything else I can do for this pr?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42220
--- Comment #13 from ro at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-03-01 13:59 ---
Subject: Bug 32499
Author: ro
Date: Mon Mar 1 13:58:48 2010
New Revision: 157144
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=157144
Log:
libstdc++-v3:
PR libstdc++/32499
*
I encountered a segmentation fault when executing an unrolled version of
20040811-1.c (tested with -O2)
void *volatile p;
int
main (void)
{
int n = 0;
lab:;
{
int x[n % 1000 + 1];
x[0] = 1;
x[n % 1000] = 2;
p = x;
n++;
}
{
int x[n % 1000 + 1];
x[0] = 1;
x[n % 1000] =
--- Comment #37 from ro at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-03-01 14:07 ---
Subject: Bug 14940
Author: ro
Date: Mon Mar 1 14:07:12 2010
New Revision: 157145
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=157145
Log:
PR pch/14940
* gcc.dg/pch/pch.exp: Don't XFAIL
--- Comment #7 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-03-01 14:27
---
OK, I will make some adjustments.
--
jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-03-01 14:31
---
You folks think of the crazy stuff :) I will check into this.
--
jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-03-01 14:55 ---
I fail to see why binutils accepting both version should be a reason to
not fix gcc.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-03-01 14:59 ---
Confirmed.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #5 from jwakely dot gcc at gmail dot com 2010-03-01 15:05
---
OK, I'm back and have had time to look at this. I vaguely remember noticing
that the assignment and the deleter invocation happened in the wrong order in
our implementation, but I must have forgotten about it as
--- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-03-01 15:16 ---
The code doesn't do what it says it does. I have a patch.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-03-01 15:22 ---
It works for me. With all versions of 4.3.x.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43219
--- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-03-01 15:27 ---
Confirmed.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-03-01 15:37 ---
I now check the standard.
a) Hollerith constants (not H... in FORMAT) are deleted in Fortran 77, but they
were allowed in Fortran 66. F77 A.2 Conflicts with ANSI X3.9-1966 has:
Hollerith constants and Hollerith data
--- Comment #4 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2010-03-01 15:42 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
I fail to see why binutils accepting both version should be a reason to
not fix gcc.
What is the minimum binutils required by gcc? Does it support movq?
--
--- Comment #7 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-03-01 15:43 ---
Fixed.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #8 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-03-01 15:44 ---
Subject: Bug 41250
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Mar 1 15:43:32 2010
New Revision: 157148
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=157148
Log:
2010-03-01 Richard Guenther rguent...@suse.de
Martin
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gmail dot com 2010-03-01 15:45 ---
Subject: Re: [4.5 Regression] SPU-elf ICEs on simple programs
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 1, 2010, at 3:51 AM, rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org
wrote:
--- Comment #1 from rguenth at
In file included from :0:0:
1.c: In function 'f':
1.c:13:6: internal compiler error: in get_alias_set, at alias.c:710
Please submit a full bug report,
with preprocessed source if appropriate.
See http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs.html for instructions.
lto-wrapper: /usr/local/bin/i686-pc-linux-gnu-gcc-4.5.0
--- Comment #1 from d dot g dot gorbachev at gmail dot com 2010-03-01
15:54 ---
Created an attachment (id=1)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=1action=view)
Testcase
Compile with `gcc -O2 -flto 1.c 2.c'
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43221
--- Comment #6 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-03-01 16:08
---
Indeed, thanks Jon. Shall we implement this for 4.5.0, or we had better wait
for nullptr / nullptr_t, what do you think?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43183
--- Comment #7 from jwakely dot gcc at gmail dot com 2010-03-01 16:23
---
I think it should be fixed for 4.5 and then updated when nullptr is available.
I assume that LWG 834 will be accepted in some form, so we will need an update
at some point anyway, to use nullptr in release and
--- Comment #2 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-03-01 16:25 ---
Created an attachment (id=2)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=2action=view)
gcc45-pr43177.patch
Untested patch I'm playing with.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43177
--- Comment #8 from jwakely dot gcc at gmail dot com 2010-03-01 16:35
---
Actually, we could just use pointer() everywhere, which would work today and
would be equivalent to using nullptr, assuming the current proposed resolution
of 834 or something similar. I would be very surprised
--- Comment #3 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-03-01 16:57 ---
Fixed for 4.5 sofar.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to
--- Comment #4 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-03-01 16:57 ---
Subject: Bug 43220
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Mar 1 16:57:02 2010
New Revision: 157149
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=157149
Log:
2010-03-01 Richard Guenther rguent...@suse.de
PR
--- Comment #9 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-03-01 17:06
---
Agreed. In two days or so I can take care of committing these changes.
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from amonakov at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-03-01 17:43
---
Created an attachment (id=20001)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=20001action=view)
Simplify increments in IVopts using final values of inner loop IVs
A quick dirty attempt to implement
--- Comment #5 from changpeng dot fang at amd dot com 2010-03-01 18:02
---
I have a fix for this problem. We should not decrease the cost if the cost is
infinite.
diff --git a/gcc/tree-ssa-loop-ivopts.c b/gcc/tree-ssa-loop-ivopts.c
index 74dadf7..9accda9 100644
---
--- Comment #6 from sebpop at gmail dot com 2010-03-01 18:10 ---
Subject: Re: [4.5 Regression] ICE in
try_improve_iv_set, at tree-ssa-loop-ivopts.c:5238
On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 12:02, changpeng dot fang at amd dot com
I have a fix for this problem. We should not decrease the
--- Comment #4 from ro at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-03-01 18:13 ---
Mine.
--
ro at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc
--- Comment #5 from ro at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-03-01 18:14 ---
Fixed for 4.5.0:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-01/msg00594.html
--
ro at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
ro at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|aph at gcc dot gnu dot org |ro at gcc dot gnu dot org
Status|UNCONFIRMED
--- Comment #13 from ro at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-03-01 18:15 ---
Fixed for 4.5.0:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/java-patches/2010-q1/msg00021.html
--
ro at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #14 from ro at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-03-01 18:16 ---
Mine.
--
ro at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|bonzini at gnu dot
--- Comment #15 from ro at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-03-01 18:16 ---
Fixed for 4.5.0:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-02/msg00139.html
--
ro at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #38 from ro at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-03-01 18:17 ---
Fixed for Solaris 2 for 4.5.0:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-02/msg00979.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14940
--- Comment #4 from ro at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-03-01 18:19 ---
Mine.
--
ro at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc
--- Comment #5 from ro at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-03-01 18:19 ---
Fixed for 4.5.0:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-02/msg00992.html
--
ro at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #7 from sebpop at gmail dot com 2010-03-01 18:21 ---
Subject: Re: [4.5 Regression] ICE in
try_improve_iv_set, at tree-ssa-loop-ivopts.c:5238
You should fuse this condition into the previous condition expression
to avoid the inner if.
Like this:
diff --git
--- Comment #4 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-03-01 19:27 ---
This now causes an ICE:
i...@linux-fd1f:/tmp cat haha.c
#define ONE while (b())
#define TEN ONE ONE ONE ONE ONE ONE ONE ONE ONE ONE
#define HUN TEN TEN TEN TEN TEN TEN TEN TEN TEN TEN
#define THOU
--- Comment #5 from ubizjak at gmail dot com 2010-03-01 20:30 ---
(In reply to comment #4)
What is the minimum binutils required by gcc? Does it support movq?
install.texi says that i?86-linux-gnu requires 2.13.1.
Since you are listed as x86 binutils maintainer, I would expect that
--- Comment #6 from ubizjak at gmail dot com 2010-03-01 20:36 ---
(In reply to comment #5)
install.texi says that i?86-linux-gnu requires 2.13.1.
binutils-2.13.1.tar.bz2 07-Nov-2002 23:45 9.5M
binutils-2.13.1.tar.gz07-Nov-2002 23:45 12M
IMNSHO, I really
--
redi at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |redi at gcc dot gnu dot org
|dot org
--- Comment #10 from tjgolubi at netins dot net 2010-03-01 22:22 ---
Subject: Re: std::unique_ptr::reset() does not conform to N3035.
I see your point.
I think it should still check for resetting to the same value to avoid
duplicate deletes later.
terry
void
--- Comment #11 from redi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-03-01 22:30 ---
(In reply to comment #10)
I think it should still check for resetting to the same value to avoid
duplicate deletes later.
I disagree, double delete can only happen in the case of a programming error.
Look at my
--- Comment #12 from redi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-03-01 22:38 ---
Bear in mind that a custom deleter with custom pointer type might have very
different semantics for comparing pointer values and for invoking the deleter.
Consider a custom D::pointer which keeps a generation count,
--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-03-01 22:53 ---
Reduced testcase:
int gif_read_lzw(int input_code_size)
{
int i, incode;
static short fresh = 0, code_size, set_code_size, clear_code,
table[2][4096], *sp;
set_code_size = input_code_size;
clear_code = 1
--- Comment #26 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-03-01 22:53
---
I think pack and unpack are OK now.
Closing.
--
tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
I Noticed this while looking into the testcase of 42897, sometimes we generate
a second DEBUG i = 0 when doing a loop copy header. The second debug
statement does not even have a line number associated with it either (but that
might be because it was from the phi).
Simple testcase:
int
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-03-01 23:05 ---
And there are actually two duplicated debug statements. One for the i = 0 and
then one for i = i_11
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43222
The following function fails to compile with C++0x:
int main()
{
int i = 3;
int x = i;
}
$ g++ -std=gnu++0x test.cpp -o test
test.cpp:4:15: error: invalid initialization of reference of type 'int' from
expression of type 'int'
--
Summary: c++0x: Cannot init a R-value
1 - 100 of 124 matches
Mail list logo
