--- Comment #3 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2006-08-20 23:07 ---
Subject: Re: [4.0/4.1/4.2 Regression] Preprocessor doesn't
parse tokens correctly?
This bug is closely related to bug 14634 - not diagnosing these cases
with -E looks like another case of the same ill-advised
--- Comment #4 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2006-09-01 19:47 ---
Subject: Re: New: [4.2.0] regression
On Fri, 1 Sep 2006, edmar at freescale dot com wrote:
During the build of glibc (2.3.6) there is a file (csu/initfini.c) that has
several asm statements. After compiling
--- Comment #6 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2006-09-01 20:27 ---
Subject: Re: [4.2.0] regression
On Fri, 1 Sep 2006, edmar at freescale dot com wrote:
It does change the inlining of call_gmon_start, but nothing else. I think the
critical point is the positioning of /[EMAIL
--- Comment #11 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2006-09-07 01:23
---
Subject: Re: What should be value of complexdouble(1.0,0.0)
*= -1?
On Thu, 7 Sep 2006, pcarlini at suse dot de wrote:
I'm re-reading the various floating-point standards and Annexes and I think
this issue
--- Comment #14 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2006-09-07 01:52
---
Subject: Re: What should be value of complexdouble(1.0,0.0)
*= -1?
On Thu, 7 Sep 2006, pcarlini at suse dot de wrote:
F.8 is *illustrative* of transformations that are *not* permitted. It
doesn't permit
--- Comment #15 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2006-09-07 01:57
---
Subject: Re: What should be value of complexdouble(1.0,0.0)
*= -1?
On Thu, 7 Sep 2006, pcarlini at suse dot de wrote:
And, by the way, it's also generally untrue that F8 is only illustrative
--- Comment #1 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2006-09-07 14:46 ---
Subject: Re: New: FAIL: gcc.dg/nrv3.c scan-tree-dump-times
return slot optimization 2
On Thu, 7 Sep 2006, danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
Executing on host: /home/dave/gnu/gcc-4.2/objdir/gcc/xgcc
-B
--- Comment #18 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2006-09-13 00:56
---
Subject: Re: New: possible problem: building gcc = 4.2
on i686 GNU/Linux|SMP (non-64bit) platform fails
On Tue, 12 Sep 2006, WISD00M at GMX dot NET wrote:
./xgcc -B./ -B/usr/local/i686-pc-linux-gnu/bin
--- Comment #2 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2006-09-19 11:10 ---
Subject: Re: New: Strictly conforming code rejected
On Mon, 18 Sep 2006, neil at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
Compile the following with -std=c99 -pedantic-errors
void f(unsigned int [*]);
foo.c:1: error
--- Comment #6 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2006-09-23 21:52 ---
Subject: Re: optimzation breaks floating point exception flag
reading
On Sat, 23 Sep 2006, kreckel at ginac dot de wrote:
According to C99, 7.6.1, you are technically right. But still: an
implementation
--- Comment #8 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2006-09-23 22:19 ---
Subject: Re: optimzation breaks floating point exception flag
reading
On Sat, 23 Sep 2006, kreckel at ginac dot de wrote:
--- Comment #7 from kreckel at ginac dot de 2006-09-23 22:11 ---
(In reply
--- Comment #10 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2006-09-23 23:02
---
Subject: Re: optimzation breaks floating point exception flag
reading
On Sat, 23 Sep 2006, kreckel at ginac dot de wrote:
I am still not entirely sure whether we are really talking about the same
problem
--- Comment #8 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2006-09-26 11:37 ---
Subject: Re: Non-functional -funsigned-char: signed/unsigned
mismatch is reported
On Mon, 25 Sep 2006, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
C++ in a way is clearer here that char, signed char, and unsigned
--- Comment #2 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2006-09-26 21:01 ---
Subject: Re: -fno-strict-aliasing disables restrict
On Tue, 26 Sep 2006, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
And this is not a bug, restrict can be ignored by a compiler in terms of
optimization which is what
--- Comment #3 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2006-09-28 15:04 ---
Subject: Re: -- does not end option parsing
On Thu, 28 Sep 2006, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
Hmm, one problem is that we need to know when we should pass -- on to cc1,
etc.
also. For an example
--- Comment #12 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2006-10-01 11:25
---
Subject: Re: want way to #include but still able to
finish compiling
On Sun, 1 Oct 2006, acahalan at gmail dot com wrote:
But after the proposal has been written formally.
I have been assuming you have
--- Comment #2 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2006-10-05 17:10 ---
Subject: Re: Warning issued two times with snprintf
On Thu, 5 Oct 2006, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
uint32_t is unsigned int on those targets and this is not a bug.
Did you read the bug report
--- Comment #2 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2006-10-22 13:20 ---
Subject: Re: Enable IBM long double format in PowerPC
Linux soft float
On Sat, 21 Oct 2006, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
There was talking about this on the mailing list but I cannot find it right
now
--- Additional Comments From joseph at codesourcery dot com 2005-02-15
01:37 ---
Subject: Re: [4.0 Regression] built-in folding causes
excess diagnostics
On Tue, 15 Feb 2005, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
Caused by:
2004-09-15 Jakub Jelinek [EMAIL PROTECTED
--- Additional Comments From joseph at codesourcery dot com 2005-02-16
06:51 ---
Subject: Re: missing warning for noreturn function returning
non-void
On Wed, 16 Feb 2005, zack at codesourcery dot com wrote:
... because the attribute used to get translated to a volatile qualifier
--- Additional Comments From joseph at codesourcery dot com 2005-02-16
13:35 ---
Subject: Re: warn on parameter name mismatch
On Wed, 16 Feb 2005, cyeoh at samba dot org wrote:
I think it would be fairly unusual that you would want the prototype parameter
names to not match
--- Additional Comments From joseph at codesourcery dot com 2005-02-21
17:34 ---
Subject: Re: paradoxical subreg problem
On Mon, 21 Feb 2005, law at redhat dot com wrote:
Jeff Law had a patch at http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2002-01/msg01872.html.
The discussion doesn't indicate
--- Additional Comments From joseph at codesourcery dot com 2005-02-21
19:47 ---
Subject: Re: UCNs not recognized in identifiers
(c++/c99)
On Mon, 21 Feb 2005, geoffk at geoffk dot org wrote:
* These rules apply to identifiers as preprocessing tokens at any
time, including
--- Additional Comments From joseph at codesourcery dot com 2005-02-22
02:22 ---
Subject: Re: UCNs not recognized in identifiers
(c++/c99)
On Mon, 21 Feb 2005, neil at daikokuya dot co dot uk wrote:
jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:-
* The greedy algorithm applies for lexing
--- Additional Comments From joseph at codesourcery dot com 2005-02-22
02:28 ---
Subject: Re: UCNs not recognized in identifiers
(c++/c99)
On Mon, 21 Feb 2005, geoffk at geoffk dot org wrote:
My suggestion is that this can be simplified as follows:
- a CPP token is in the input
--- Additional Comments From joseph at codesourcery dot com 2005-02-27
13:05 ---
Subject: Re: New: GCC generates non-compliant warnings for
qualifier promotion
On Sun, 27 Feb 2005, kmk at ssl dot org wrote:
For any qualifier q, a pointer to a non-q-qualified type may be converted
--- Additional Comments From joseph at codesourcery dot com 2005-02-27
14:59 ---
Subject: Re: -Wcast-qual option is easily evaded
On Sun, 27 Feb 2005, schwab at suse dot de wrote:
Casting to an integer does not remove the qualifier from the target type, it
removes the target type
--- Additional Comments From joseph at codesourcery dot com 2005-02-27
22:30 ---
Subject: Re: GCC generates non-compliant warnings for qualifier
promotion
On Sun, 27 Feb 2005, kmk at ssl dot org wrote:
1. A pointer is a derived type.
2. A derived type is not qualified
--- Additional Comments From joseph at codesourcery dot com 2005-03-01
16:56 ---
Subject: Re: error generated for storage class specified for
function parameter
On Tue, 1 Mar 2005, schlie at comcast dot net wrote:
- unless I misunderstand the question, the only way a pointer itself
--- Additional Comments From joseph at codesourcery dot com 2005-03-01
22:30 ---
Subject: Re: error generated for storage class specified for
function parameter
On Tue, 1 Mar 2005, schlie at comcast dot net wrote:
not supported by the present standard; it may be worthy
--- Additional Comments From joseph at codesourcery dot com 2005-03-01
22:59 ---
Subject: Re: error generated for storage class specified for
function parameter
On Tue, 1 Mar 2005, schlie at comcast dot net wrote:
Understood. Are you aware of any existing efforts to extend GCC
--- Additional Comments From joseph at codesourcery dot com 2005-03-02
02:56 ---
Subject: Re: Gcc give error for wrong line of C code.
On Wed, 2 Mar 2005, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
Fixed.
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From joseph at codesourcery dot com 2005-03-03
22:58 ---
Subject: Re: Can't push more than 16 nested visibility
On Thu, 3 Mar 2005, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
This is a documented behavior.
Arbitrary limits are still generally undesirable, even
--- Additional Comments From joseph at codesourcery dot com 2005-03-04
17:58 ---
Subject: Re: New: Solaris 10 and HUGE_VAL
On Fri, 4 Mar 2005, martin at v dot loewis dot de wrote:
I'll attach the preprocessor output if I can; in short,
HUGE_VAL expands to __builtin_huge_val, which
--- Additional Comments From joseph at codesourcery dot com 2005-03-04
20:42 ---
Subject: Re: -fkeep-static-consts with -O asserted doesn't keep
consts
On Fri, 4 Mar 2005, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
Don't belive the comments in the source. Also the --help is way out
--- Additional Comments From joseph at codesourcery dot com 2005-03-05
12:15 ---
Subject: Re: [4.0/4.1 regression] ICE in create_tmp_var with
C99 style struct initializer
On Sat, 5 Mar 2005, giovannibajo at libero dot it wrote:
It would probably also help to know why compound
--- Additional Comments From joseph at codesourcery dot com 2005-03-08
18:59 ---
Subject: Re: New: Lame error message for undefined type
On Tue, 8 Mar 2005, falk at debian dot org wrote:
% cat test.c
unknowntype f() { return 0; }
% gcc -c test.c
test.c:1: error: expected
--- Additional Comments From joseph at codesourcery dot com 2005-03-10
15:59 ---
Subject: Re: New: Rejects valid C99 for the C++ front-end
On Thu, 10 Mar 2005, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
The following code is rejects (even though it is valid C99 and Mark said we
should
--- Additional Comments From joseph at codesourcery dot com 2005-03-11
20:01 ---
Subject: Re: Mismatch in pointer indirection level should give
specialized warning
On Fri, 11 Mar 2005, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
Really in my mind, we should be rejecting this invalid code
--- Additional Comments From joseph at codesourcery dot com 2005-03-17
16:25 ---
Subject: Re: [4.0/4.1 regression] completed type not selected
properly with typeof
On Thu, 17 Mar 2005, rth at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
Array dimension data gets stripped here:
c
--- Additional Comments From joseph at codesourcery dot com 2005-03-18
12:27 ---
Subject: Re: [4.0/4.1 regression] cris-axis-elf
testsuite failures: gcc.c-torture/compile/2009-1.c and -2
2009-2.c seems to be failing on all HP-UX targets and
i686-pc-linux-gnu, mainline
--- Additional Comments From joseph at codesourcery dot com 2005-03-19
12:02 ---
Subject: Re: New: Silencing the warning: comparison is always
true due to limited range of data type
On Sat, 19 Mar 2005, qrczak at knm dot org dot pl wrote:
It would be nice if the warning comparison
--- Additional Comments From joseph at codesourcery dot com 2005-03-24
20:34 ---
Subject: Re: [4.0/4.1 Regression] ICE jumping into statement
expression
On Thu, 24 Mar 2005, mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
Joseph, do you think it is tractable and reasonable to diagnose jumps
--- Additional Comments From joseph at codesourcery dot com 2005-04-01
20:19 ---
Subject: Re: Attempt to use undefined structure tag triggers
no diagnostic
On Fri, 1 Apr 2005, jozef dot behran at krs dot sk wrote:
Note that the code is valid, but unusual. If you see a structure tag
--- Additional Comments From joseph at codesourcery dot com 2005-04-02
17:22 ---
Subject: Re: contrib/gcc_update hard code -r gcc-3_4-branch
On Sat, 2 Apr 2005, hjl at lucon dot org wrote:
It affects all branches based on 3.4 branch, including gcc 3.4 rhl branch. I
can't just do
--- Additional Comments From joseph at codesourcery dot com 2005-04-04
13:41 ---
Subject: Re: [Committed] PR c++/19199: Preserve COND_EXPR lvalueness in fold
On Mon, 4 Apr 2005, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
Err... Why did you choose to drop the portion of the patch below,
that would have
--- Additional Comments From joseph at codesourcery dot com 2005-04-04
18:20 ---
Subject: Re: [4.0/4.1 Regression] internal compiler
error: in subreg_regno_offset, at rtlanal.c:3042
On Sun, 3 Apr 2005, danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
On hppa64-hp-hpux*, I think we still have
--- Additional Comments From joseph at codesourcery dot com 2005-04-07
00:20 ---
Subject: Re: New: [4.0] mmix-knuth-mmixware testsuite
failure: gcc.dg/builtin-apply4.c execution
On Thu, 7 Apr 2005, hp at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
With LAST_UPDATED: Wed Apr 6 16:16:18 UTC 2005 I
--- Additional Comments From joseph at codesourcery dot com 2005-04-07
00:41 ---
Subject: Re: [4.0] mmix-knuth-mmixware testsuite failure:
gcc.dg/builtin-apply4.c execution
On Thu, 7 Apr 2005, hp at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
In response to comment #1:
PR 20076 is about a specific
--- Additional Comments From joseph at codesourcery dot com 2005-04-13
20:42 ---
Subject: Re: bogus error passing va_list to va_list*
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005, sebor at roguewave dot com wrote:
Yes, I read that comment but I still don't see anything in the standard the
footnote
--- Additional Comments From joseph at codesourcery dot com 2005-04-13
21:01 ---
Subject: Re: [3.3/3.4/4.0 Regression] Inlined memcmp makes
one argument null on entry
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005, jakub at redhat dot com wrote:
+/* dg-do run */
+/* dg-options -O2 */
Not valid gcc.dg
--- Additional Comments From joseph at codesourcery dot com 2005-04-14
00:32 ---
Subject: Re: New gcc.dg/vect tests fail
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005, dpatel at apple dot com wrote:
But all of them require
/* { dg-require-effective-target vect_condition } */
So, why they fail on other
--- Additional Comments From joseph at codesourcery dot com 2005-04-17
11:04 ---
Subject: Re: [4.0/4.1 Regression] Miscompilation with
__attribute ((aligned))
On Sun, 17 Apr 2005, mark at codesourcery dot com wrote:
The obvious options include:
* Make a new type of larger
--- Additional Comments From joseph at codesourcery dot com 2005-04-22
15:51 ---
Subject: Re: how to force a variable into the stack?
On Fri, 22 Apr 2005, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
No you have not taken the address, as it will not escape or otherwise.
volatile
--- Additional Comments From joseph at codesourcery dot com 2005-04-26
11:30 ---
Subject: Re: gcc-4.0.0 bootstrap failed unless bootstrap
compiler is gcc.
On Tue, 26 Apr 2005, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
If this is really a bug, then the following change caused it:
2005
--- Additional Comments From joseph at codesourcery dot com 2005-04-26
21:13 ---
Subject: Re: [4.1 regression] bogus may be used
uninitialized warning
On Tue, 26 Apr 2005, reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
This was introduced with a merge from tree-cleanup-branch:
http
--- Additional Comments From joseph at codesourcery dot com 2005-05-01
14:24 ---
Subject: Re: Problem with define of HUGE_VAL in math_c99.
On Sun, 1 May 2005, ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
In principle all the macros can be defined along the lines of
the isnan
--- Additional Comments From joseph at codesourcery dot com 2005-05-03
10:54 ---
Subject: Re: Problem with define of HUGE_VAL in math_c99.
On Tue, 3 May 2005, ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
This works fine for big numbers, but are there similar tricks to distinguish
--- Additional Comments From joseph at codesourcery dot com 2005-05-03
12:59 ---
Subject: Re: Problem with define of HUGE_VAL in math_c99.
On Tue, 3 May 2005, ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
We have a functional __builtin_isnan, there is no need to fix that
particular
--- Additional Comments From joseph at codesourcery dot com 2005-05-03
16:21 ---
Subject: Re: Problem with define of HUGE_VAL in math_c99.
On Tue, 3 May 2005, ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
1. Can we work around bug 20558 by using the sizeof trick for isinf?
No, because
--- Additional Comments From joseph at codesourcery dot com 2005-05-10
14:59 ---
Subject: Re: [4.1 Regression] wrong code with
upcast in C++
On Tue, 10 May 2005, giovannibajo at libero dot it wrote:
So what about this, in C:
Seems valid to me. A pointer to a structure object
--- Additional Comments From joseph at codesourcery dot com 2005-05-13
12:45 ---
Subject: Re: New: [4.1 regression]
gcc.c-torture/execute/20031215-1.c ICEs
On Fri, 13 May 2005, rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
Summary: [4.1 regression] gcc.c-torture/execute/20031215
--- Additional Comments From joseph at codesourcery dot com 2005-05-13
13:17 ---
Subject: Re: New: gcc 4.0.0 assumes all i386-pc-solaris2.10
platforms have 64-bit processors
On Fri, 13 May 2005, Daniel dot Davies at xerox dot com wrote:
I've been trying to build GCC 4.0.0
--- Additional Comments From joseph at codesourcery dot com 2005-05-13
20:39 ---
Subject: Re: [4.0 Regression] ext/array_allocator/2.cc
execution test fails on hppa64-hpux
On Fri, 13 May 2005, pcarlini at suse dot de wrote:
Given our current basic_string implementation (which I'm
--- Additional Comments From joseph at codesourcery dot com 2005-05-15
17:19 ---
Subject: Re: New: FAIL: g++.old-deja/g++.eh/badalloc1.C
execution test
On Sun, 15 May 2005, danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
FAIL: g++.old-deja/g++.eh/badalloc1.C execution test
FWIW, the IA64
--- Additional Comments From joseph at codesourcery dot com 2005-05-15
17:20 ---
Subject: Re: New: FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/20031215-1.c
compilation, -O2
On Sun, 15 May 2005, danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
Executing on host: /home/dave/gcc-4.1/objdir/gcc/xgcc
-B/home
--- Additional Comments From joseph at codesourcery dot com 2005-05-15
17:21 ---
Subject: Re: New: FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ltrans-5.c
scan-tree-dump-times transformed loop 1
On Sun, 15 May 2005, danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
Executing on host: /home/dave/gcc-4.1/objdir/gcc
--- Additional Comments From joseph at codesourcery dot com 2005-05-15
17:55 ---
Subject: Re: FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/20031215-1.c
compilation, -O2
On Sun, 15 May 2005, dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca wrote:
Subject: Re: FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/20031215-1.c
--- Additional Comments From joseph at codesourcery dot com 2005-05-16
20:01 ---
Subject: Re: [4.0/4.1 Regression] ICE in
make_decl_rtl
On Mon, 16 May 2005, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
Hmm, shouldn't we unshare the tree when copy the value of p in? (oh that is
what your
--- Additional Comments From joseph at codesourcery dot com 2005-05-16
20:05 ---
Subject: Re: [4.1 Regression] gcc.dg/tree-ssa/loop-4.c
scan-tree-dump-times iter 0 fails
On Mon, 16 May 2005, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
Or it might be the testcase which is matching
--- Additional Comments From joseph at codesourcery dot com 2005-05-16
20:11 ---
Subject: Re: [4.1 Regression] vect-none.c ICE
On Mon, 16 May 2005, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
Again this is a latent target bug, Devang's patch just exposed the problem.
We don't make
--- Additional Comments From joseph at codesourcery dot com 2005-05-16
20:28 ---
Subject: Re: [4.0/4.1 Regression] ICE in
make_decl_rtl
On Mon, 16 May 2005, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-16
20:03
--- Additional Comments From joseph at codesourcery dot com 2005-05-18
20:51 ---
Subject: Re: no folding back to ARRAY_REF
On Wed, 18 May 2005, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
The test is still working correct and this was actually fixed really for
4.0.0, please open a new
--- Additional Comments From joseph at codesourcery dot com 2005-05-23
15:46 ---
Subject: Re: [4.1 Regression] gcc.dg/pch/inline-4.c fails
On Mon, 23 May 2005, hubicka at ucw dot cz wrote:
I finally reproduced it on IA-64 machine. I am testing the attached
fix. Can you please try
--- Additional Comments From joseph at codesourcery dot com 2005-05-28
02:08 ---
Subject: Re: New: GCC accepts invalid code
On Sat, 28 May 2005, neil at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
gcc -Wall -ansi -pedantic -fsyntax-only
erroneously accepts the following:
void bar(void
--- Additional Comments From joseph at codesourcery dot com 2005-05-29
19:37 ---
Subject: Re: New: [3.4/4.0/4.1 Regression]
Floating Optimization Bug
On Sun, 29 May 2005, themis_hv at yahoo dot co dot uk wrote:
This case (test-case.c) works with gcc -O0 without a problem
--- Additional Comments From joseph at codesourcery dot com 2005-05-30
17:03 ---
Subject: Re: fastjar/jartool.c's usage of MAXPATHLEN
On Mon, 30 May 2005, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
You should report this to the up stream as GCC just merges with fastjar see
the README
--- Additional Comments From joseph at codesourcery dot com 2005-05-31
11:48 ---
Subject: Re: New: C++/C99 standard violation in for loop
On Tue, 31 May 2005, ahelm at gmx dot net wrote:
for(int i=2;i4;i++)
{
int j = i;
int i;
i = 555;
printf(%d %d\n, i, j
--- Additional Comments From joseph at codesourcery dot com 2005-05-31
17:05 ---
Subject: Re: [4.1 Regression] 23_containers/bitset/operations/2.cc
execution test fails
On Tue, 31 May 2005, pcarlini at suse dot de wrote:
Notice that *nothing* changed in the relevant libstdc++-v3
--- Additional Comments From joseph at codesourcery dot com 2005-05-31
17:46 ---
Subject: Re: [4.1 Regression] 23_containers/bitset/operations/2.cc
execution test fails
On Tue, 31 May 2005, pcarlini at suse dot de wrote:
Ok, this is by itself absolutely useful, of course. Only
--- Additional Comments From joseph at codesourcery dot com 2005-05-31
18:15 ---
Subject: Re: x86 tests should run on both i?86 and
x86_64
There seem to be still a few instances of tests that are only for x86_64
and should also operate on i?86 -m64:
gcc.dg/torture/pr20314-2.c
--- Additional Comments From joseph at codesourcery dot com 2005-06-02
14:17 ---
Subject: Re: New: Memory management problem in new C parser
On Thu, 2 Jun 2005, ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
Parser obstack memory is wrongly freed in c_parser_translation_unit, but I
don't
--- Additional Comments From joseph at codesourcery dot com 2005-06-02
19:08 ---
Subject: Re: Memory management problem in new C parser
On Thu, 2 Jun 2005, ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
Do you mean that parser_obstack is effectively a per-toplevel-decl object
--- Additional Comments From joseph at codesourcery dot com 2005-06-03
16:03 ---
Subject: Re: [3.4 Regression] enum definition accepts values
to be overriden
On Fri, 3 Jun 2005, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
Confirmed, only a 3.4 regression.
Started to work on the mainline
--- Additional Comments From joseph at codesourcery dot com 2005-06-07
16:50 ---
Subject: Re: New: libmudflap C++ testsuite executed
even if c++ is not enabled
On Tue, 7 Jun 2005, giovannibajo at libero dot it wrote:
I don't think libmudflap.c++ should be run if C++ was not built
--- Additional Comments From joseph at codesourcery dot com 2005-06-07
17:10 ---
Subject: Re: [4.1 Regression] gcc.dg/vect/vect-97.c
fails
On Tue, 7 Jun 2005, dorit at il dot ibm dot com wrote:
--- Additional Comments From dorit at il dot ibm dot com 2005-06-07
07:42
--- Additional Comments From joseph at codesourcery dot com 2005-06-08
13:44 ---
Subject: Re: [4.0/4.1 regression] [translation] %J
in translation instead of %H causes ICE in de.po
On Wed, 8 Jun 2005, reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
Mark, I think this bug is a serious
--- Additional Comments From joseph at codesourcery dot com 2005-06-08
16:32 ---
Subject: Re: New: [bogus warning] format '%012llx' expects type
X, but argument has type X
On Wed, 8 Jun 2005, pluto at agmk dot net wrote:
extern void print(const char *my_format, ...)
__attribute__
--- Additional Comments From joseph at codesourcery dot com 2005-06-09
14:36 ---
Subject: Re: GCC should combine adjacent stdio
calls
Another problem case is if the first format has excess arguments (which is
permitted by ISO C) - those arguments must be evaluated but not included
--- Additional Comments From joseph at codesourcery dot com 2005-06-09
17:11 ---
Subject: Re: GCC should combine adjacent stdio
calls
On Thu, 9 Jun 2005, ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
--- Additional Comments From ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-09
16:55
--- Additional Comments From joseph at codesourcery dot com 2005-06-09
19:15 ---
Subject: Re: GCC should combine adjacent stdio
calls
On Thu, 9 Jun 2005, ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
We linked -Wformat into optimization before, then removed the link.
Although we could
--- Additional Comments From joseph at codesourcery dot com 2005-06-09
19:29 ---
Subject: Re: GCC should combine adjacent stdio
calls
On Thu, 9 Jun 2005, dnovillo at redhat dot com wrote:
Oh, absolutely. The algorithm I'm using will naturally do this.
This is a purely local
--- Additional Comments From joseph at codesourcery dot com 2005-06-09
19:52 ---
Subject: Re: GCC should combine adjacent stdio
calls
On Thu, 9 Jun 2005, dnovillo at redhat dot com wrote:
Although it may not be valid to manipulate the FILE * directly, it seems
quite possible
--- Additional Comments From joseph at codesourcery dot com 2005-06-09
20:13 ---
Subject: Re: GCC should combine adjacent stdio
calls
On Thu, 9 Jun 2005, dnovillo at redhat dot com wrote:
Gah, so we'll need to parse the format string then. Oh, well.
We'll need to parse the format
--- Additional Comments From joseph at codesourcery dot com 2005-06-10
02:00 ---
Subject: Re: GCC should combine adjacent stdio
calls
On Fri, 10 Jun 2005, ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
Case (b) involves fmemopen, and I assume you refer to a case where you open
memory
--- Additional Comments From joseph at codesourcery dot com 2005-06-10
12:16 ---
Subject: Re: New: [4.0 Regression] gcc.dg/format/ext-2.c
On Fri, 10 Jun 2005, themis_hv at yahoo dot co dot uk wrote:
When running the testsuite with 4.0-20050609
(http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc
--- Additional Comments From joseph at codesourcery dot com 2005-06-10
13:49 ---
Subject: Re: GCC should combine adjacent stdio
calls
On Fri, 10 Jun 2005, ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
With regards to %d followed by %.5s, I don't see any difference
regardless
--- Additional Comments From joseph at codesourcery dot com 2005-06-10
14:28 ---
Subject: Re: GCC should combine adjacent stdio
calls
On Fri, 10 Jun 2005, ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
I have the cpu time, but it seems premature. Your patch as it stands only
optimizes two
--- Additional Comments From joseph at codesourcery dot com 2005-06-10
19:07 ---
Subject: Re: GCC should combine adjacent stdio
calls
On Fri, 10 Jun 2005, ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
--- Additional Comments From ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-10
15:05
--- Additional Comments From joseph at codesourcery dot com 2005-06-14
01:19 ---
Subject: Re: [4.0/4.1 Regression] redefinition of inline function
succeeds
On Tue, 14 Jun 2005, echristo at redhat dot com wrote:
So, what you're saying is that we should accept this:
extern inline
1 - 100 of 2017 matches
Mail list logo
