http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50282
Bug #: 50282
Summary: pointer-to-member cast works incorrectly
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.1.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: critical
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50282
zhuli imzhuli at vip dot qq.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|critical|major
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49987
rsand...@gcc.gnu.org rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50278
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.7.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50279
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|ice-on-invalid-code
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50281
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50282
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-03
08:55:38 UTC ---
uint32_t isn't big enough to hold a pointer-to-member value, and that
conversion isn't valid anyway
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50282
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|major |normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50237
Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[4.7 regression] comparison |[4.7
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50251
Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50282
--- Comment #2 from zhuli imzhuli at vip dot qq.com 2011-09-03 11:31:57 UTC
---
I've never used any unint32_t tu hold any pointer-to-member,
I just tested and find out the sizeof (pointer-to-member-function) is 16,
then i used a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50282
--- Comment #3 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-03
12:00:49 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
I've never used any unint32_t tu hold any pointer-to-member,
I just tested and find out the sizeof
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50282
--- Comment #4 from zhuli imzhuli at vip dot qq.com 2011-09-03 12:17:35 UTC
---
yes, you are right.
As an addition, compiling with -O2 might yield an warning, as you metioned.
but i checked my env(32-bit) and used default compiler option, so i
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50256
Georg-Johann Lay gjl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|atmel avr |avr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50251
--- Comment #18 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-03 12:40:12 UTC ---
Does this force stack realignment, or only the use of the DRAP if we already
do stack realignment?
only the use of the DRAP if we already do stack realignment.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2316
Marc Glisse marc.glisse at normalesup dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #25140|0 |1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50266
Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50091
--- Comment #7 from Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-03
13:28:43 UTC ---
Created attachment 25182
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25182
Tentative fix
Untested as of this writing.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50091
--- Comment #8 from Iain Sandoe iains at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-03 14:17:12
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
Created attachment 25182 [details]
Tentative fix
Untested as of this writing.
Thanks, starting bootstrap in a minute .. .
...
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48660
--- Comment #5 from Matthias Klose doko at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-03
14:18:30 UTC ---
works with 4.4.6, not with 4.5/4.6/trunk 20110824
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50266
--- Comment #5 from Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-03
14:32:01 UTC ---
and we have a CTOR and not individual initializations because of Erics
const-pool changes I believe.
No, we have the constructor with GCC 4.5 as well,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50091
--- Comment #9 from Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-03
14:45:01 UTC ---
Thanks, starting bootstrap in a minute .. .
... your patch + this (and some unrelated fixes for powerpc ADA bootstrap):
Index:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50091
Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #25182|0 |1
is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49149
--- Comment #14 from Zaak zbeekman at gmail dot com 2011-09-03 14:46:57 UTC
---
cricket
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50052
--- Comment #2 from John David Anglin danglin at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-03
15:29:32 UTC ---
Created attachment 25184
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25184
tree dump
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50052
--- Comment #3 from John David Anglin danglin at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-03
15:31:12 UTC ---
Created attachment 25185
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25185
tree dump
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50052
--- Comment #4 from John David Anglin danglin at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-03
15:33:37 UTC ---
Created attachment 25186
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25186
tree dump
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50232
--- Comment #6 from John David Anglin danglin at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-03
16:21:38 UTC ---
Author: danglin
Date: Sat Sep 3 16:21:27 2011
New Revision: 178500
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=178500
Log:
PR Bug
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50232
--- Comment #7 from John David Anglin danglin at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-03
16:30:42 UTC ---
Author: danglin
Date: Sat Sep 3 16:30:32 2011
New Revision: 178501
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=178501
Log:
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50091
--- Comment #11 from Iain Sandoe iains at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-03 16:48:18
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #10)
Created attachment 25183 [details]
Tentative fix (2)
Still untested.
bootstrapped with your amended change to rs6000.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50237
H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50091
--- Comment #12 from Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-03
17:28:32 UTC ---
bootstrapped with your amended change to rs6000.c
./gcc/xgcc -Bgcc ../tests/hello.c -o hc -fstack-check -save-temps
-fverbose-asm
-fdump-rtl-all
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50283
Bug #: 50283
Summary: [4.7 Regression] FAIL: g++.dg/eh/simd-1.C execution
test
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50283
--- Comment #1 from John David Anglin danglin at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-03
18:20:58 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #0)
Thought at first that this might be caused by stack allocation instruction
being placed in call delay slot, but fail also
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50283
--- Comment #2 from John David Anglin danglin at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-03
18:21:24 UTC ---
Created attachment 25187
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25187
.s file
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50284
Bug #: 50284
Summary: possible miscompilation with -fstrict-aliasing
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50284
--- Comment #1 from Rafael Avila de Espindola rafael.espindola at gmail dot
com 2011-09-03 18:53:58 UTC ---
Created attachment 25188
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25188
testcase
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50284
--- Comment #2 from Rafael Avila de Espindola rafael.espindola at gmail dot
com 2011-09-03 19:07:54 UTC ---
Forgot to mention, this only reproduces with -fPIC. So to reproduce this you
need
* a linux 32 bit build older than 160947
* run cc1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49847
Thorsten Glaser tg at mirbsd dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |critical
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49886
Martin Jambor jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50285
Bug #: 50285
Summary: no known conversion for argument 1: 'X' to 'X'
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50284
--- Comment #3 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-03
20:52:49 UTC ---
struct Value {
struct jsval data;
};
...
struct jsval y = t3.array[i];
struct Value *z = (struct Value*)y;
if (z-data.tag == 0xFF85) {
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50283
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.7.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50284
--- Comment #4 from Rafael Avila de Espindola rafael.espindola at gmail dot
com 2011-09-03 22:54:10 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
struct Value {
struct jsval data;
};
...
struct jsval y = t3.array[i];
struct Value *z = (struct
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50286
Bug #: 50286
Summary: Missed optimization, fails to propagate bool
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50287
Bug #: 50287
Summary: FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/builtins/vsnprintf-chk.c
compilation, -O2 -flto
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50284
Rafael Avila de Espindola rafael.espindola at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #25188|0
47 matches
Mail list logo
