--- Comment #2 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-11-15 22:30 ---
I think this is essentially invalid. Note that now we also have the various
__GCC_HAVE_SYNC_COMPARE_AND_SWAP_* macros:
http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/cpp/Common-Predefined-Macros.html
--
Hi
I've just built the 4.2-20071107 snapshot and got the folowing warning that I
think you will want to know about.
../../../libjava/classpath/gnu/java/security/util/Base64.java: In class
'gnu.java.security.util.Base64':
../../../libjava/classpath/gnu/java/security/util/Base64.java: In method
--- Comment #1 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-15 23:31 ---
We may be able to propagate somehow that rnd_to_2 is always even. I doubt it
is worth the trouble, to be honest... Zdenek may have some thought on this.
--
steven at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
--- Comment #2 from mueller at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-15 23:17 ---
reduced testcase:
class QChar
{
};
struct QString
{
QString(QChar);
};
struct QPainter
{
void drawText (int x, int y, const QString );
};
class KHEChar:public QChar
{
public:KHEChar (QChar C);
};
void
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-15 22:19 ---
Because the default arch for i686-linux-gnu is i386.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34115
--- Comment #3 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2007-11-15 23:53 ---
Subject: Re: atomic builtins not supported on i686?
On Thu, 15 Nov 2007, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
Because the default arch for i686-linux-gnu is i386.
Which is a stupid inconsistency and arguably a
--- Comment #5 from scovich at gmail dot com 2007-11-16 01:00 ---
Subject: Re: atomic builtins not supported on i686?
On 15 Nov 2007 23:53:06 -, joseph at codesourcery dot com
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Because the default arch for i686-linux-gnu is i386.
Which is a stupid
--- Comment #2 from lloyd at randombit dot net 2007-11-16 00:50 ---
Is there be any way to modify the code such that GCC would have an easier time
seeing this? I tried using 'assert(rnd_to_2 % 2 == 0)' (since glibc's
__assert_fail is marked with noreturn I thought it might help), but
--- Comment #4 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-11-16 00:07 ---
Yeah, the wind is changing!
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34115
--- Comment #6 from scovich at gmail dot com 2007-11-16 01:04 ---
(In reply to comment #5)
Subject: Re: atomic builtins not supported on i686?
On 15 Nov 2007 23:53:06 -, joseph at codesourcery dot com
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Because the default arch for i686-linux-gnu is
--- Comment #6 from j at uriah dot heep dot sax dot de 2007-11-15 21:21
---
I'm not sure whether this is related or not... but from the description, it
looks so.
avr-libc contains a macro that helps the users declaring a flash-ROM string,
lacking any real support in GCC for different
--- Comment #9 from schlie at comcast dot net 2007-11-16 02:35 ---
Subject: Re: Small targets without 64 bit long long
support are can't bootstrap GCC.
submitted, a long while ago; but honestly haven't been tracking things
lately.
From: manu at gcc dot gnu dot org [EMAIL
--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-16 01:52 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
Here's another example, which I think may represent a different case (and
which
I found much more surprising than the first):
no_loop_opt2.c:5: warning: cannot optimize possibly
--- Comment #5 from lloyd at randombit dot net 2007-11-16 02:00 ---
Argh, you are correct. The original code has
unsigned int n = an_input / 160;
so this could never occur there, but GCC's inability to tell that this
assignment means that n cannot be UINT_MAX (in that code) is
--- Comment #3 from lloyd at randombit dot net 2007-11-16 01:49 ---
Here's another example, which I think may represent a different case (and which
I found much more surprising than the first):
$ cat no_loop_opt2.c
void g(unsigned int n)
{
unsigned int k;
for(k = 0; k = n;
--- Comment #6 from rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-16 02:38 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
Is there be any way to modify the code such that GCC would have an easier time
seeing this? I tried using 'assert(rnd_to_2 % 2 == 0)' (since glibc's
__assert_fail is marked with noreturn
--- Comment #7 from schlie at comcast dot net 2007-11-16 02:35 ---
Subject: Re: Initializing string literal data
improperly marked frame-relative?, should be readonly static const.
I believe so.
From: manu at gcc dot gnu dot org [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- Comment #5 from hjl at lucon dot org 2007-11-16 04:52 ---
The correct patch is at
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-11/msg00885.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34001
--- Comment #8 from kuba at et dot pl 2007-11-16 01:19 ---
i've tried to understand it but i can't. Can anyone explain me..
Why does coalesce_partitions (tree-ssa-coalesce.c) fail after unsuccessful
attempt_coalesce? what is the difference if it is abnormal edge, or not?
--
Please see the following thread in IBM's CELL BE Forum for more details:
http://www-128.ibm.com/developerworks/forums/thread.jspa?threadID=182669
--
Summary: GCC for CELL processor does NOT relocate properly with
Optimization Turned on.,
Product: gcc
--- Comment #4 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-16 06:23
---
program test
implicit none
call sub(1)
call sub()
contains
subroutine sub(dimmy)
integer, optional :: dimmy
logical :: lotto(4)
lotto = .false.
lotto =
--- Comment #12 from eres at il dot ibm dot com 2007-11-16 06:48 ---
Created an attachment (id=14562)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=14562action=view)
gcda file
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34085
--- Comment #2 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-16 07:06 ---
Subject: Bug 34100
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Nov 16 07:06:25 2007
New Revision: 130220
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=130220
Log:
PR c++/34100
* pt.c
--- Comment #9 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-16 07:03 ---
Subject: Bug 30460
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Nov 16 07:02:49 2007
New Revision: 130219
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=130219
Log:
PR driver/30460
* gcc.c (init_spec): Don't
--- Comment #10 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-16 07:10 ---
Fixed on the trunk.
--
jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-16 07:11 ---
Fixed.
--
jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
101 - 126 of 126 matches
Mail list logo
