gcc: cannot specify -o with -c or -S and multiple compilations
make: *** [clicmds.def] Error 1
--
Summary: i was getting the error as below when i am making
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
--- Comment #4 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2008-07-18 06:46 ---
This is due to revision 137859:
2008-07-15 Daniel Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* tree-ssa-sccvn.c (expressions_equal_p): Check type equality.
* tree-ssa-pre.c (pre_expr_eq): Ditto
--- Comment #4 from djh at emss dot co dot za 2008-07-18 07:13 ---
using your t.h file, the following command
g++ -v -save-temps -x c++-header -c t.h -o .obj/test.gch/c++
gives the following output
code
Using built-in specs.
Target: i686-pc-linux-gnu
Configured with: ./configure
--- Comment #2 from aldot at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-07-18 08:14 ---
is this PR36450 ?
--
aldot at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
--- Comment #1 from aldot at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-07-18 08:32 ---
Please read http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs.html and fill in the missing information
accordingly.
Note that this sounds more like a bug in the buildsystem of your application
rather than a bug in gcc.
--
--- Comment #3 from mattias at virtutech dot se 2008-07-18 09:43 ---
Thank you. Should the option be enabled by default on i686-pc-mingw32? Perhaps
not, but it does make good on a previously broken ABI promise.
The test case in that patch only covers the callee, not the caller. The
--- Comment #19 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2008-07-18 11:45 ---
bootstrapped/regtested on 4.3 branch, committed there too
--
bonzini at gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #20 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2008-07-18 11:45 ---
Subject: Bug 35281
Author: bonzini
Date: Fri Jul 18 11:44:57 2008
New Revision: 137942
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=137942
Log:
gcc:
2008-07-18 Paolo Bonzini [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR
--- Comment #3 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2008-07-18 12:30 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
is this PR36450 ?
No. PR36450 will be fixed by stack branch merge.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36858
--- Comment #5 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-07-18 13:18 ---
Subject: Bug 36824
Author: burnus
Date: Fri Jul 18 13:17:49 2008
New Revision: 137949
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=137949
Log:
The new file gfortran.dg/array_4.f90 was missing from the commit
--- Comment #3 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-07-18 13:28 ---
Note: The test case parameter_array_init_4.f90 (Rev. 137950) now avoids the
conversion by using kind-4 literals. However, the bug itself is still present.
See example in comment #0.
--
--- Comment #4 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2008-07-18 13:41 ---
auto-inc-dec should be taught about transforming
a - b + c
...
*(b + c)
into
a - b
...
*(a += c) pre
--
bonzini at gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #5 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2008-07-18 14:13 ---
Hmm, even that wouldn't restore the optimization. The problem here is that
there is another access via b, like
a - b + c
*b
*(b + c)
The bad placement of the first assignment (bad because doing it the other way
--- Comment #4 from hjl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-07-18 15:43 ---
Subject: Bug 36858
Author: hjl
Date: Fri Jul 18 15:42:59 2008
New Revision: 137954
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=137954
Log:
gcc/
2008-07-18 H.J. Lu [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR
--- Comment #2 from hjl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-07-18 15:48 ---
Subject: Bug 36859
Author: hjl
Date: Fri Jul 18 15:48:04 2008
New Revision: 137955
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=137955
Log:
gcc/
2008-07-18 H.J. Lu [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR
--- Comment #4 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-07-18 16:46 ---
SCCVN/PRE issue.
--
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=36864
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35642
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Priority|P3 |P1
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36342
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36403
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36554
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36574
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36630
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Known to work||4.3.1
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|pch |preprocessor
Priority|P3 |P2
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36668
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Priority|P3 |P1
--- Comment #3 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-07-18 16:57 ---
Is this fixed?
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-07-18 16:58 ---
What's the status on this?
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #6 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-07-18 16:59 ---
Fixed I guess.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36758
--- Comment #5 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-07-18 17:00 ---
Is this fixed now?
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-07-18 17:00 ---
I believe this is the same issue as for Darwin that was fixed shortly after
GCCsummit. I am going to build cross to double check.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36574
--- Comment #4 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-07-18 17:00 ---
Appearantly waiting for feedback.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36792
--- Comment #12 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-07-18 17:02
---
What's the status here?
--
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=36822
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
GCC target triplet||hppa2.0w-hp-hpux11.11
Priority|P3
--- Comment #2 from jhuddleston at hughes dot net 2008-07-18 17:16 ---
When the -O2 was removed the latest (subversion 137930) compiled it OK.
Any optimization flags caused the compile to fail
--
jhuddleston at hughes dot net changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #1 from tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-07-18 17:32 ---
Just FYI -- this is known fallout from the patch to remove
no-unit-at-a-time. Andrew Haley is looking into it.
--
tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-07-18 18:19 ---
Please attach preprocessed source which you get when appending -save-temps to
the compilation command. The file will be named Structure.ii.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What
The -ftrapv doesn't seem to want to generate code that will trap on overflow
with optimization. I've tried with and without -fwrapv to try and get it to
work.
$ cat t.c
#include stdio.h
int foo( int a) {
if (a + 100 a) {
printf(Integer overflow detected!\n);
} else {
--- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-07-18 18:22 ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 19020 ***
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #13 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-07-18 18:22
---
*** Bug 36868 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #13 from andreast at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-07-18 18:52
---
still hanging on x86_64-apple-darwin, rev 137959.
Did I miss a patch to test ?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36806
Hello all,
I guess there is something wrong with gcc 4.3.1 + openmp. Here how it went
with me
Well on this page :
http://www.kallipolis.com/openmp/1.html
I tried taylor.c and taylor_mp.c
compiler options as follows:
gcc -O3 taylor.c -o taylor_gcc
icc -O3 taylor.c -o taylor_icc
gcc -O3
--- Comment #4 from jhuddleston at hughes dot net 2008-07-18 19:27 ---
Created an attachment (id=15928)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=15928action=view)
Output from the g++ compile of Structure.cc -v -save-temps subversion 137930
[EMAIL PROTECTED] requested that
--- Comment #4 from hp at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-07-18 19:41 ---
Right, it was promptly fixed, details forgotten.
--
hp at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
The programs below detect an ODR violation in the libstdc++ implementation
of std::has_nothrow_default_constructor and the __has_nothrow_constructor
built-in compiler trait (hence I'm filing this as a bug in the c++ front
end rather than libstdc++).
$cat u.cpp \
g++ -c -std=gnu++0x -o 1.o
--- Comment #4 from sam dot hendley at plymouthsystems dot com 2008-07-18
20:00 ---
Created an attachment (id=15929)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=15929action=view)
Preprocessed file created by seg fault
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35696
--- Comment #14 from andreast at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-07-18 20:13
---
As long as 36864 is open we can not test this one on i686-apple-darwin.
--
andreast at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #5 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-07-18 20:16 ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 36511 ***
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-07-18 20:16 ---
*** Bug 36865 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #7 from dodji at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-07-18 20:16 ---
Subject: Bug 36407
Author: dodji
Date: Fri Jul 18 20:15:22 2008
New Revision: 137964
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=137964
Log:
2008-07-18 Dodji Seketeli [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR
--- Comment #3 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-07-18 20:17 ---
This is fixed on the tuples branch.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36511
--- Comment #4 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2008-07-18 20:22 ---
Is this fixed?
As far as I can tell, yes.
--
dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #15 from rguenther at suse dot de 2008-07-18 20:23 ---
Subject: Re: [4.4 Regression] I/Os hang at rev. 137631 on
darwin9
On Fri, 18 Jul 2008, andreast at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
--- Comment #13 from andreast at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-07-18 18:52
---
--- Comment #8 from dodji at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-07-18 20:41 ---
Subject: Bug 36407
Author: dodji
Date: Fri Jul 18 20:40:42 2008
New Revision: 137966
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=137966
Log:
2008-07-18 Dodji Seketeli [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR
--- Comment #3 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2008-07-18 20:47 ---
I think it has been fixed on July 14th or soon after, but I cannot find any
pointer.
Marked as fixed, please reopen if not.
--
dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-07-18 20:58 ---
I think this is by designed.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36870
--- Comment #5 from uros at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-07-18 21:02 ---
Subject: Bug 36786
Author: uros
Date: Fri Jul 18 21:01:59 2008
New Revision: 137967
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=137967
Log:
PR target/36786
* config/i386/i386.md
--- Comment #6 from ubizjak at gmail dot com 2008-07-18 21:04 ---
Fixed.
--
ubizjak at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL|
--- Comment #5 from andreast at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-07-18 21:05
---
Also happens on hppa2.0w-hp-hpux11.11
--
andreast at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2008-07-18 21:10
---
I'm not sure ;) But I can say that probably when I was playing with testcases I
noticed something going on about this issue and didn't find it meaningless...
Have to think a bit more about this.
Maybe Mark
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-07-18 21:17 ---
(In reply to comment #1)
I think this is by designed.
See http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26099 in fact I knew we tested
this too ...
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36870
--- Comment #4 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2008-07-18 21:31
---
gosh, my memory vanishes. Yes, Andrew is right, we have already discussed this.
In my reading of the specifications (I don't think there are important news
here) the compiler may or may not be able to figure
--- Comment #5 from sebor at roguewave dot com 2008-07-18 21:47 ---
(In reply to comment #4)
The ODR is important from an ABI standpoint -- imagine a function template
that uses SFINAE and std::has_nothrow_default_constructorT::type. Simply
rearranging code or even compiling multiple
--- Comment #6 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2008-07-18 21:56
---
In any case I remain unconvinced that known not to throw any exceptions is
the proper way to enforce the requirement.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36870
--- Comment #9 from dodji at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-07-18 22:05 ---
Fixed, applied to trunk and in gcc-4_3-branch.
--
dodji at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #7 from sebor at roguewave dot com 2008-07-18 22:11 ---
FYI: I discussed the wording briefly with Daveed (eccp returns true if and
only if the class has a trivial ctor or the ctor has a throw() spec on it,
for just this reason). We agree that the wording is unclear and
--- Comment #8 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2008-07-18 22:13
---
I think we can easily fix the issue by checking
TYPE_RAISES_EXCEPTIONS (TREE_TYPE (t))
instead of TREE_NOTHROW (t)
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #9 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2008-07-18 22:17
---
Thanks Martin. In fact, I think Mark agrees with Daveed on this, I clearly
remember he was unimpressed by the current wording.
If Mark confirms that my Comment #8 is by and large correct I can implement a
--- Comment #1 from wvangulik at xs4all dot nl 2008-07-18 22:31 ---
This is because binutils 2.18 does not support architecture 35. Please update
to 2.18.5 (dev snapshot) ftp://sourceware.org/pub/binutils/snapshots. Search
the avr-gcc list for more info.
--
--- Comment #10 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2008-07-18 22:31
---
More exactly, the idea is replacing:
TREE_NOTHROW (t)
with
TYPE_NOTHROW_P (TREE_TYPE (t))
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36870
--- Comment #11 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-07-18 22:52
---
Paolo --
I agree; that seems the right fix. I don't think this should depend on what
the compiler happens to be able to prove about the body of the function; it's
way too unstable in the face of optimization,
--- Comment #7 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2008-07-19 00:26
---
Benjamin, the problem is that _Safe_association doesn't inherit from
_Safe_sequence: everything in _Safe_association having to do with safe iterator
construction (eg., simply in begin()) breaks because the
--- Comment #12 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2008-07-19 00:29
---
Thanks Mark, will do and submit.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36870
The program below is expected to run with no assertions (template ctor
is not a copy ctor). Instead, when compiled with gcc 4.3.0, it aborts.
$ cat u.cpp g++ u.cpp -std=c++0x ./a.out
#include cassert
#include type_traits
struct A { template class T A (T) throw (int); };
struct B { B (B) throw
--- Comment #1 from sebor at roguewave dot com 2008-07-19 00:44 ---
This also fails. Seems that the combination of a copy ctor and template ctor
(even non-throwing) trips the compiler up.
$ cat u.cpp g++ u.cpp -std=c++0x ./a.out
#include cassert
#include type_traits
struct F {
--- Comment #2 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2008-07-19 00:48
---
Yes, ok...
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Similarly to (but not exactly the same as) the template ctor in bug 36871,
gcc 4.3.0 trips up on class with a throwing vararg ctor (regardless of the
number of arguments):
$ cat u.cpp g++ u.cpp -std=c++0x ./a.out
#include cassert
#include type_traits
struct S {
S (const S) throw ();
S
--- Comment #1 from sebor at roguewave dot com 2008-07-19 00:53 ---
Or any other throwing ctor, for that matter:
$ cat u.cpp g++ u.cpp -std=c++0x ./a.out
#include cassert
struct S {
S (const S) throw ();
S (int) throw (int);
};
int main ()
{
assert (__has_nothrow_copy
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |paolo dot carlini at oracle
|dot org
--- Comment #2 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2008-07-19 00:57
---
Martin, Ok. I know where the problem is for __has_nothrow_copy and assign.
Thanks.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36872
85 matches
Mail list logo
