--- Comment #3 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-15 08:16 ---
Subject: Bug 29389
Author: pault
Date: Mon Jan 15 08:16:17 2007
New Revision: 120790
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=120790
Log:
2007-01-15 Paul Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR
--- Comment #4 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-15 08:16 ---
Subject: Bug 29712
Author: pault
Date: Mon Jan 15 08:16:17 2007
New Revision: 120790
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=120790
Log:
2007-01-15 Paul Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR
--- Comment #3 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-15 08:16 ---
Subject: Bug 28172
Author: pault
Date: Mon Jan 15 08:16:17 2007
New Revision: 120790
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=120790
Log:
2007-01-15 Paul Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR
--- Comment #2 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-15 08:16 ---
Subject: Bug 30283
Author: pault
Date: Mon Jan 15 08:16:17 2007
New Revision: 120790
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=120790
Log:
2007-01-15 Paul Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR
--- Comment #4 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-15 08:19 ---
Author: pault
Date: Mon Jan 15 08:16:17 2007
New Revision: 120790
As pointed out by FX on the list, this patch does not quite do it yet:
The F95 standard says (12.6): A pure procedure is [...] or (4) A statement
--- Comment #6 from ubizjak at gmail dot com 2007-01-15 08:46 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
The fact that the index variable is chosen to start with 1 instead of zero is
more interesting. It does not really matter that much, since both
possibilities have exactly the same cost. But
--- Comment #3 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-15 08:55 ---
Thanks for your patch but if you want it to be reviewed, it is better to send
it to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
--
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Compiling a program with -O3 and -mno-80387 fails when processing strtold in
stdlib.h even though it's not actually invoked.
--
Summary: Compiling C++ programs with -mno-80387 and -O3 failes
Product: gcc
Version: 4.1.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
--- Comment #1 from bugzilla at bennee dot com 2007-01-15 09:14 ---
Created an attachment (id=12905)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=12905action=view)
Testcase C++ source
Source code of failing example
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30470
--- Comment #3 from aldot at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-15 09:15 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
The variable is set but not read from.
There is another bug about this for the C/C++ front-ends and a new option for
this case instead of just using -Wunused.
I would considered t in
--- Comment #2 from bugzilla at bennee dot com 2007-01-15 09:15 ---
Created an attachment (id=12906)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=12906action=view)
--save-temps output
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30470
--- Comment #3 from bugzilla at bennee dot com 2007-01-15 09:17 ---
Output of failed compile:
09:09 [EMAIL PROTECTED] [no387] g++-4.1 --save-temps -O3 -mno-80387 no387.cc
/usr/include/stdlib.h: In function long double strtold(const char*, char**):
/usr/include/stdlib.h:355: error:
--- Comment #8 from irar at il dot ibm dot com 2007-01-15 10:04 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
I think this whole type issue is a mess and needs some improvement.
Maybe next week I can get to that.
Andrew, are you still planning to solve this, or should I prepare a fix for
--- Comment #1 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-15 10:14 ---
I posted a prototype fix for this a few months ago:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2006-10/msg00173.html and subsequent thread.
It will not take much to complete and correct it but I do not have overmuch
time right
--- Comment #6 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-15 10:27 ---
This is the one that I said that I would take on for the next few months. I
will try to implement the manifesto in #5 and have the F2003 specification for
sub-modules with me.
Paul
--
pault at gcc dot gnu dot
I'm trying to use Fortran OpenMP on AMD64 with static linking:
simple.f90:
program launch
!$OMP PARALLEL
write (*,*) foo
!$OMP END PARALLEL
end program launch
$ gfortran-4.2 simple.f90 -fopenmp -static -lgomp
$ ./a.out
zsh: segmentation fault (core dumped) ./a.out
¤ gfortran-4.2 simple.f90
--- Comment #1 from samuel dot thibault at ens-lyon dot org 2007-01-15
13:23 ---
Ah, though gdb fails when directly running a.out, it works via the
core file:
(gdb) bt
#0 0x in ?? ()
#1 0x00405dd6 in get_external_unit ()
#2 0x00404abd in
--- Comment #2 from samuel dot thibault at ens-lyon dot org 2007-01-15
13:28 ---
Note: line 16 of the program is program launch, and line 19 of the program is
the write call
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30471
--- Comment #3 from samuel dot thibault at ens-lyon dot org 2007-01-15
13:32 ---
Note: line 16 of the program is program launch, and line 19 of the program is
the write call
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30471
--- Comment #9 from schwab at suse dot de 2007-01-15 13:38 ---
Any news on this one? AFAICS Richard Sandiford was ok with the patch.
--
schwab at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
./cc1plus -quiet -O2 -fPIC -gstabs /tmp/t.ii
t.cpp: In constructor 'CsoundGlobalSettings::CsoundGlobalSettings()':
t.cpp:43: internal compiler error: output_operand: invalid expression as
operand
Please submit a full bug report,
with preprocessed source if appropriate.
See
--- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-15 14:33 ---
#include string
class CsoundGlobalSettings {
public:
std::string textEditorProgram;
std::string soundEditorProgram;
std::string helpBrowserProgram;
std::string performanceSettings1_Name;
--- Comment #4 from ubizjak at gmail dot com 2007-01-15 15:24 ---
Testcase compiles OK with gcc version 4.3.0 20070115 (experimental).
--
ubizjak at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #58 from zaks at il dot ibm dot com 2007-01-15 15:30 ---
(In reply to comment #57)
Subject: Re: [4.1 regression] A file that can not be
compiled in reasonable time/space
Thanks! Very useful comments. I'm continuing to work on cleaning the
patch (especially on
--- Comment #5 from as7cf at yahoo dot com 2007-01-15 16:10 ---
I can confirm this problem on recent snapshots as well (20070105 and 20070112).
I'm also on x86_64. Bootstrap fails with that same message.
Configuring GCC with:
--prefix=/usr
--- Comment #7 from gdr at cs dot tamu dot edu 2007-01-15 16:14 ---
Subject: Re: [regression] -Wconversion triggers warnings for
deque::push_back()
pcarlini at suse dot de [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| (In reply to comment #5)
| Sorry I read your reply later.
|
| So, that is it,
--- Comment #5 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-15 17:03 ---
and this is a bug why?
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #6 from bugzilla at bennee dot com 2007-01-15 17:34 ---
(In reply to comment #5)
and this is a bug why?
Well for starters why should the act of #include'ing stdlib.h cause any
instructions to be emitted if strtold isn't even invoked?
I don't understand exactly what the
--- Comment #7 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-15 17:44 ---
Well for starters why should the act of #include'ing stdlib.h cause any
instructions to be emitted if strtold isn't even invoked?
Not really.
However if the -mno-80387 option is meant to disable x87 instructions
/* crash_builtin_sprintf.c */
#include stdio.h
int main(void){
char buffer[10];
sprintf(buffer, %s);
return 0;
}
$ gcc-4.1 -v -da -Q crash_builtin_sprintf.c
Using built-in specs.
Target: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
Configured with: /home/avega/morfeo/gcc_4_1_1_release/configure
--- Comment #2 from tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-15 17:55 ---
How did you configure? Did you use make -j?
--
tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
score_print_operand has
'U'print hi part of a CONST_INT rtx
else if (c == 'U')
{
gcc_assert (code == CONST_INT);
fprintf (file, HOST_WIDE_INT_PRINT_HEX,
(unsigned HOST_WIDE_INT) INTVAL (op) 16);
}
On 64bit host, for (const_int -2147483648
--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-15 19:20 ---
What glibc version are you using?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30471
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-15 19:26 ---
Confirmed, a regression from 3.4.0.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-15 19:29 ---
I don't know why anyone would want to use stabs debugging info on a 64bit
target.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
The small test program at http://ptrace.fefe.de/int.c illustrated the problem.
The assert is there to prevent integer overflow, which would not happen in my
test program, but you get the idea.
There appears to be something wrong with integer promotion here. The same code
with int changed to
--- Comment #1 from felix-gcc at fefe dot de 2007-01-15 19:46 ---
Mhh, if I change int+100 to (int)(int+100), the assert still gets optimized
away.
So it's not an integer promotion issue. Both sides are definitely int.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30475
--- Comment #6 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-15 19:47 ---
Created an attachment (id=12907)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=12907action=view)
handle insn_b == NULL_RTX case
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30467
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-15 19:47 ---
signed type overflow is undefined by the C standard, use unsigned int for the
addition or use -fwrapv.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from felix-gcc at fefe dot de 2007-01-15 19:50 ---
even stranger, if I assert ((int)(a+100) 0) then it STILL gets optimized
away.
WTF!?
--
felix-gcc at fefe dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from aldot at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-15 19:52 ---
Does not seem to ICE for me on i386 with each of
$ gcc-2.95 --version
2.95.4
$ gcc-3.4 --version
gcc-3.4 (GCC) 3.4.6 (Debian 3.4.6-4)
$ gcc-4.1 --version
gcc-4.1 (GCC) 4.1.2 20061028 (prerelease) (Debian 4.1.1-19)
$
--- Comment #3 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2007-01-15
19:54 ---
Subject: Re: [4.3 Regression]
classpath/gnu/javax/crypto/jce/GnuCrypto.java:431: error: cannot find file for
class gnu.jav
How did you configure? Did you use make -j?
../gcc/configure --with-gnu-as
--- Comment #4 from felix-gcc at fefe dot de 2007-01-15 19:57 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
signed type overflow is undefined by the C standard, use unsigned int for the
addition or use -fwrapv.
You have GOT to be kidding?
All kinds of security issues are caused by integer wraps, and
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-15 19:58 ---
$ gcc-4.2.orig-HEAD -c -o /dev/null bug.c
bug.c:1: error: declaration of 'foo' as array of voids
bug.c:1: confused by earlier errors, bailing out
That is an ICE, just hidden by release checking.
--
--- Comment #5 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-15 20:04 ---
THIS IS NOT A JOKE. FIX THIS! NOW!
I am not joking, the C standard explictly says signed integer overflow is
undefined behavior.
See PR 27257 and others.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 27257
--- Comment #5 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-15 20:04 ---
*** Bug 30475 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #5 from samuel dot thibault at ens-lyon dot org 2007-01-15
20:12 ---
glibc 2.3.6
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30471
--- Comment #15 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-15 20:15
---
Even though we now do a DCE before FRE, we still don't get this correct as we
don't have we don't have aliasing (during the first DCE) so we assume all loads
as violatile.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #12 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-15 20:20
---
On the trunk I get:
movsbl b+1(%edx),%eax
movsbl a+1(%edx),%edx
so this has been fixed there.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #8 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-15 20:27 ---
Fixed on trunk, will backport to 4.2 in a week or so.
--
tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #6 from samuel dot thibault at ens-lyon dot org 2007-01-15
20:28 ---
I tried to upgrade to glibc 2.5 and gcc svn snapshot of 20070105, with same
result.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30471
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-15 21:05 ---
I have a patch which also does -fvisibility=hidden.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30462
(Based on Andrea Ferretti, http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2007-01/msg00368.html)
The following valid program is rejected with the following message:
USE global_module
1
Error: Name 'hello' at (1) is an ambiguous reference to 'hello' from module
'interfaces'
CALL hello(10)
--- Comment #8 from dalej at apple dot com 2007-01-15 23:41 ---
You are right, thanks. Test case fixed thus in mainline (to be 4.3).
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-01/msg01266.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25443
Bug originally reported against gcc 4.1.1 by Felix von Leitner,
found at http://blog.fefe.de/?ts=bb5517a4 (filed as PR #30475).
This is sort of a follow-up bug report, but with a
different _focus_ and a different _aim_, namely the
gcc developers, especially Andrew Pinski, to provide
a patch
--
echristo at apple dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |dalej at apple dot com
|dot org |
--- Comment #9 from dalej at apple dot com 2007-01-15 23:48 ---
as per previous comment
--
dalej at apple dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Last
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-15 23:56 ---
Fixed in 4.0.0, 3.4.x is no longer being maintained by the FSF and has not for
a while now.
If you want to figure out how which patch fixed it in 4.0.0, you can do that by
doing a binary regression search on the
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-15 23:57 ---
Also why should we support older GCC when we can barrely support the current
ones?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30477
20070115 (prerelease) (hppa2.0w-hp-hpux11.11)
compiled by GNU C version 4.1.2 20070115 (prerelease).
GGC heuristics: --param ggc-min-expand=100 --param ggc-min-heapsize=131072
In file /mnt/gnu/gcc/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/enum_2.f90:8
integer :: x ! { dg-error Unexpected data
--- Comment #1 from kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-16 00:54 ---
\ 0x003e75d8 in __gmpz_add_ui ()
(gdb) bt
#0 0x003e75d8 in __gmpz_add_ui ()
#1 0x0003402c in gfc_enum_initializer (last_initializer=0x400817a8, where=
{nextc = 0x0, lb = 0x0}) at
--- Comment #21 from patchapp at dberlin dot org 2007-01-16 00:56 ---
Subject: Bug number PR7651
A patch for this bug has been added to the patch tracker.
The mailing list url for the patch is
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-01/msg01120.html
--
--- Comment #4 from patchapp at dberlin dot org 2007-01-16 00:57 ---
Subject: Bug number PR c++/27492
A patch for this bug has been added to the patch tracker.
The mailing list url for the patch is
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-01/msg01124.html
--
--- Comment #3 from patchapp at dberlin dot org 2007-01-16 00:57 ---
Subject: Bug number PR 21438
A patch for this bug has been added to the patch tracker.
The mailing list url for the patch is
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-01/msg01166.html
--
--- Comment #4 from patchapp at dberlin dot org 2007-01-16 00:58 ---
Subject: Bug number PR28172
A patch for this bug has been added to the patch tracker.
The mailing list url for the patch is
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-01/msg01196.html
--
--- Comment #6 from patchapp at dberlin dot org 2007-01-16 01:00 ---
Subject: Bug number PR 30437
A patch for this bug has been added to the patch tracker.
The mailing list url for the patch is
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-01/msg01267.html
--
--- Comment #4 from janis at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-16 01:30 ---
I was wrong in comment #3, config/dfp-bit.[ch] correctly use GPL plus
exception.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28002
--- Comment #2 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2007-01-16
01:47 ---
Subject: Re: FAIL: gfortran.dg/enum_2.f90 -O (internal compiler error)
--- Comment #1 from kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-16 00:54 ---
\ 0x003e75d8 in __gmpz_add_ui ()
(gdb) bt
#0
--- Comment #3 from tg at mirbsd dot org 2007-01-16 02:33 ---
Subject: Re: Integer Overflow detection code optimised away,
-fwrapv broken
Andrew Pinski (pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org) dixit:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30477
Fixed in 4.0.0, 3.4.x is no longer being
--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gmail dot com 2007-01-16 03:04 ---
Subject: Re: Integer Overflow detection code optimised away,
-fwrapv broken
On Tue, 2007-01-16 at 02:33 +, tg at mirbsd dot org wrote:
The real shame is an
attitude of we won't fix it, either use -O0, or
--- Comment #3 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-16 03:10 ---
Subject: Bug 12325
Author: ghazi
Date: Tue Jan 16 03:10:37 2007
New Revision: 120818
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=120818
Log:
PR testsuite/12325
*
--- Comment #5 from tg at mirbsd dot de 2007-01-16 03:39 ---
Subject: Re: Integer Overflow detection code optimised away,
-fwrapv broken
pinskia at gmail dot com dixit:
If you consider 4.0.x
I didn't say anything about 4.0, just gcc4 instead of gcc3.
And many people (e.g. most
Subject: Re: Integer Overflow detection code optimised away,
-fwrapv broken
Especially you as the author of code in question
I did not write this code, I just know of it.
You did: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27257#c2
Actually there are two different code, one I wrote
--- Comment #6 from pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu 2007-01-16 03:48
---
Subject: Re: Integer Overflow detection code optimised away, -fwrapv broken
Subject: Re: Integer Overflow detection code optimised away,
-fwrapv broken
Especially you as the author of code in question
I
--- Comment #4 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-16 04:01 ---
Subject: Bug 12325
Author: ghazi
Date: Tue Jan 16 04:01:32 2007
New Revision: 120819
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=120819
Log:
PR testsuite/12325
*
--- Comment #7 from tg at mirbsd dot org 2007-01-16 04:08 ---
Subject: Re: Integer Overflow detection code optimised away,
-fwrapv broken
pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu dixit:
Especially you as the author of code in question
I did not write this code, I just know of it.
You
--- Comment #5 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-16 04:13 ---
Subject: Bug 12325
Author: ghazi
Date: Tue Jan 16 04:13:43 2007
New Revision: 120820
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=120820
Log:
PR testsuite/12325
*
--- Comment #6 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-16 04:22 ---
Subject: Bug 12325
Author: ghazi
Date: Tue Jan 16 04:22:44 2007
New Revision: 120821
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=120821
Log:
PR testsuite/12325
*
Consider the following files, test.h and test.m:
test.h:
---
/* Contributed by Nicola Pero - Tue Jan 16 04:09:06 GMT 2007 */
#include objc/objc.h
#include objc/Object.h
@interface TestClass : Object
+ (int) test;
@end
test.m:
---
#include test.h
@implementation TestClass
+ (int) test
--- Comment #1 from n dot pero at mi dot flashnet dot it 2007-01-16 04:36
---
Created an attachment (id=12908)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=12908action=view)
test case (header)
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30479
--- Comment #2 from n dot pero at mi dot flashnet dot it 2007-01-16 04:37
---
Created an attachment (id=12909)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=12909action=view)
test case (ObjC file)
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30479
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-16 04:40 ---
Confirmed, a regression from 4.0.4 where this worked.
I will look into this more soon.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #7 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-16 04:44 ---
Patch installed on all active branches.
--
ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #6 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-16 04:47 ---
I forgot to mention GCC already has an option to trap on every signed overflow,
-ftrapv, which might be faster than doing it by hand.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30475
--- Comment #12 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-16 04:52 ---
Same results one year later on sparc/sparc64 solaris2.10 with 4.0.x branch
using --enable-checking=yes,rtl,fold:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2007-01/msg00592.html
From
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2007-01/msg00556.html:
TARGET_ASM_EXTERNAL_LIBCALL is a subset of ASM_OUTPUT_EXTERNAL
which is called by assemble_external_real. Why do we need
TARGET_ASM_EXTERNAL_LIBCALL when there is ASM_OUTPUT_EXTERNAL?
---
@defmac ASM_OUTPUT_EXTERNAL (@var{stream},
--- Comment #4 from nicola dot pero at meta-innovation dot com 2007-01-16
04:55 ---
Once fixed, it might be worthwhile adding testcases for this then ? :-)
Thanks
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30479
--- Comment #5 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-16 04:58 ---
(In reply to comment #4)
Once fixed, it might be worthwhile adding testcases for this then ? :-)
Yes and I am going to try to do that also.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30479
--- Comment #6 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-16 06:25 ---
Well this was caused by the objective-C++ merge. This is also a classic
example of why hashing on pointer values is not a good idea.
Working on a fix, should also simplify the code :).
--
pinskia at gcc dot
--- Comment #7 from pluto at agmk dot net 2007-01-16 07:00 ---
(In reply to comment #6)
I forgot to mention GCC already has an option to trap on every signed
overflow,
-ftrapv, which might be faster than doing it by hand.
and it doesn't work - PR19020
--
--- Comment #8 from gcc at mailinator dot com 2007-01-16 07:24 ---
The original poster might want to read http://c-faq.com/misc/intovf.html and
http://c-faq.com/misc/sd26.html to see how he might prevent people from
getting hacked correctly.
--
--- Comment #7 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-16 07:43 ---
I have a full fix and a semi working testsuite (semi working mean it will work
for non remote testing).
This is just a good example of when you should not use pointer hashing,
especially when there is already a
93 matches
Mail list logo
