--- Comment #4 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2005-11-30 00:35 ---
Subject: Re: New: FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/conversion.c
compilation
As explained in bug 24998, I can't test on PA at present but the fix is
probably similar to that for IA64.
--
http://gcc.gn
--- Comment #6 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2005-11-30 04:14 ---
Subject: Re: [4.2 Regression] FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/conversion.c
compilation
On Wed, 30 Nov 2005, dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca wrote:
> I'm testing a fix for the current reload problems o
--- Comment #3 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2005-12-03 00:51 ---
Subject: Re: FAIL: g++.dg/warn/huge-val1.C (test for excess
errors)
On Sat, 3 Dec 2005, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> Hmm, limits.h should have been fixincluded but for some reason it was not.
T
--- Comment #1 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2005-12-07 20:54 ---
Subject: Re: New: gcc.dg/noncompile/920923-1.c needs fixing
On Wed, 7 Dec 2005, reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> The comment on top of the testcase gcc.dg/noncompile/920923-1.c reads:
Not since:
2
--- Comment #2 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2005-12-09 16:58 ---
Subject: Re: [4.1 Regression] hppa64 EH failures
On Fri, 9 Dec 2005, danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> Is this with the current CVS version of GAS? A critical bug affecting
> data relocations was re
--- Comment #3 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2005-12-16 18:19 ---
Subject: Re: [4.2 Regression] "make all" with a native
build now does a bootstrap instead of a normal build
On Fri, 16 Dec 2005, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> "make all" with a
--- Comment #1 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2005-12-18 01:07 ---
Subject: Re: [4.2 Regression] fixincludes/ subdirectory
not cleaned by "make distclean"
On Sat, 17 Dec 2005, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> Summary|fixincludes/ subdire
--- Comment #1 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2005-12-20 02:27 ---
Subject: Re: New: regression: bogus 'defined but not used'
warning
On Tue, 20 Dec 2005, rusty at rustcorp dot com dot au wrote:
> static int foo(void) { return 7; }
> int main()
> {
>
--- Comment #1 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2005-12-20 23:53 ---
Subject: Re: New: can't voidify __attribute__((warn_unused_result))
On Tue, 20 Dec 2005, mueller at kde dot org wrote:
> casting to (void) doesn't avoid the unused_result warning. testcase:
Why
--- Comment #6 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2005-12-21 03:55 ---
Subject: Re: can't voidify __attribute__((warn_unused_result))
On Wed, 21 Dec 2005, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> The reason why it is a glibc bug is that it is very over the top of ad
--- Comment #12 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2005-12-21 13:04
---
Subject: Re: can't voidify __attribute__((warn_unused_result))
On Wed, 21 Dec 2005, mueller at kde dot org wrote:
> ok, lets assume that you meant with "can not be ignored" actually "must
--- Comment #18 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2005-12-21 17:39
---
Subject: Patch for arm-none-linux-gnueabi build failure
This patch fixes another piece of bug 24998, fallout from adding
__floatun*. Unlike the problems with missing functions, this is one
with duplicate
--- Comment #3 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2005-12-21 19:46 ---
Subject: Re: zero-initialized constants are place in
.bss
On Wed, 21 Dec 2005, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> Actually no, they are placed in the common section because of ANSI C rules.
There is
--- Comment #2 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2005-12-21 23:27 ---
Subject: Re: libstdc++ headers should go in multilib
directories
On Wed, 21 Dec 2005, gdr at integrable-solutions dot net wrote:
>
>
> --- Comment #1 from gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2005
--- Comment #13 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2006-01-01 22:18
---
Subject: Re: New: too agressive printf optimization
On Fri, 30 Dec 2005, drepper at redhat dot com wrote:
> There should at least be a mode in which gcc does not perform the
> transformation if it can
--- Comment #8 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2006-01-01 22:24 ---
Subject: Re: Request for gcc-cvs-patches list
On Wed, 28 Dec 2005, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> Do we need this any more after svn as svn automatically does patch sets and
> doing a diff for a
--- Comment #2 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2006-01-04 16:47 ---
Subject: Re: Wrong long double to float conversion
On Wed, 4 Jan 2006, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> Hmm, actually there is no rounding from TF to DF except for the fact that
> upper
> potion
--- Comment #6 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2006-01-06 13:27 ---
Subject: Re: libstdc++ headers should go in multilib
directories
On Fri, 6 Jan 2006, pcarlini at suse dot de wrote:
> > Working on a fix.
>
> Many thanks. I was wondering whether you are aware of a
--- Comment #8 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2006-01-15 23:52 ---
Subject: Re: [4.0/4.1/4.2 Regression] Internal compiler error
(segfault) instead of error message
On Sun, 8 Jan 2006, steven at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> My hack-around is to deal with label_context_stack
--- 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-ad
--- 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 com
--- 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 /
--- Comment #11 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2006-09-07 01:23
---
Subject: Re: What should be value of complex(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
> thi
--- Comment #14 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2006-09-07 01:52
---
Subject: Re: What should be value of complex(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
> > do
--- Comment #15 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2006-09-07 01:57
---
Subject: Re: What should be value of complex(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 of
> not
--- 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
&
--- 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-g
--- 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 [*]);
>
--- 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
> implementatio
--- 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
--- 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
> p
--- 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 unsig
--- 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 wh
--- 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.
--- 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
--- 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 #5 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2007-01-30 21:01 ---
Subject: Re: DejaGNU does not distinguish between errors
and warnings
On Tue, 30 Jan 2007, manu at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> I have the following patch. Framework tests work. However, this patch will
>
--- Comment #7 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2007-01-30 22:13 ---
Subject: Re: DejaGNU does not distinguish between errors
and warnings
On Tue, 30 Jan 2007, manu at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> There are around 6914 tests failing. And I am not even sure if the above patch
&
--- Comment #14 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2007-01-31 19:11
---
Subject: Re: DejaGNU does not distinguish between errors
and warnings
On Wed, 31 Jan 2007, manu at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> However, I don't see how we can avoid to have our own directives
--- Comment #25 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2007-02-03 15:13
---
Subject: Re: Illegal use of typedef to "void"
On Sat, 3 Feb 2007, tbm at cyrius dot com wrote:
> Is the following supposed to fail given that Joseph said that it's valid C
> code
> (b
--- Comment #6 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2007-02-03 16:22 ---
Subject: Re: [4.0/4.1/4.2/4.3 Regression] invalid parameter
forward declarations not diagnosed
On Sat, 3 Feb 2007, gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> won't fix in GCC-4.0.x. Adjusting m
--- Comment #6 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2007-02-03 16:24 ---
Subject: Re: [4.0/4.1 regression] mips: unable to find a
register to spill in class 'FP_REGS'
On Sat, 3 Feb 2007, gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> Fixed in GCC-4.2.0
>
--- Comment #18 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2007-02-03 16:28
---
Subject: Re: [4.0/4.1 Regression] ICE in
ix86_secondary_memory_needed, at config/i386/i386.c:16446
On Sat, 3 Feb 2007, gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> Fixed in GCC-4.2.0.
>What|R
--- Comment #1 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2007-02-08 18:42 ---
Subject: Re: New: C99 initializer can't see anon struct/union
members
Looks like bug 10676 to me.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30737
--- Comment #4 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2007-02-19 00:01 ---
Subject: Re: [4.3 Regression] ice for legal
code with -O2
On Sun, 18 Feb 2007, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> We generate two "complex double" types.
build_common_tree_nodes_2 probably
--- Comment #3 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2007-02-19 22:20 ---
Subject: Re: [4.1/4.2/4.3 Regression] Internal
compiler error when using "x##,##__VA_ARGS__" in macro
The order of evaluation of ## operators is unspecified.
If the left ## is evaluated first, i
--- Comment #2 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2007-03-02 02:05 ---
Subject: Re: cannot write in
I believe that the way the real-* rules are used, they don't actually need
to copy include after all, just include-fixed, so the code for copying
include can be removed from
--- Comment #3 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2007-03-07 18:04 ---
Subject: Re: -std=c89 doesn't warn about gcc's "?:" extension
On Wed, 7 Mar 2007, manu at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> The documentation says that you should use -pedantic to warn about GC
--- Comment #5 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2007-03-07 21:06 ---
Subject: Re: -std=c89 doesn't warn about gcc's "?:" extension
On Wed, 7 Mar 2007, manu at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> Sorry, I still don't understand what is the difference betwe
--- Comment #2 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2007-03-09 12:06 ---
Subject: Re: New: a*C == b*C where C is a constant
is not optimized to a == b
On Fri, 9 Mar 2007, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> The following two functions should be equzlivant when overflow
--- Comment #1 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2007-03-16 22:50 ---
Subject: Re: New: Bootstrap comparison failure with
-gstabs
On Fri, 16 Mar 2007, feri1024 at t-email dot hu wrote:
> Configured and built with:
>
> ../gcc-4.2-20070221/configure --enable-languages=c
--- Comment #11 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2007-03-23 13:41
---
Subject: Re: [4.2 Regression] FRE ignores
bit-field truncation (C and C++ front-end don't produce bit-field truncation
On Fri, 23 Mar 2007, pinskia at gmail dot com wrote:
> No, STRIP_SIGN_NOPS is
--- Comment #2 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2007-08-17 10:37 ---
Subject: Re: [4.1/4.2/4.3 Regression] spurious exceptions
with -ffloat-store
On Fri, 17 Aug 2007, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> For one, I don't think " __real__ X = R; __imag__ X = C; &qu
--- Comment #3 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2007-08-22 01:13 ---
Subject: Re: preprocess should ignore trigraphs in
/* */ comments
On Wed, 22 Aug 2007, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> Now in multiple line comments, they should not be warned about.
Unless of cou
--- Comment #8 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2007-08-22 13:12 ---
Subject: Re: C front-end produces mis-match types in MODIFY_EXPR
On Wed, 22 Aug 2007, rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> Is the following valid?
>
> typedef int IA[];
> typedef int A5[5];
>
--- Comment #10 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2007-08-22 14:52
---
Subject: Re: C front-end produces mis-match types in MODIFY_EXPR
On Wed, 22 Aug 2007, rguenther at suse dot de wrote:
> As far as I see we still need to re-instantiate transitiveness
&
--- Comment #1 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2007-09-06 10:40 ---
Subject: Re: New: gcc manpage contains
"@option<-Wstrict-overflow=1>"
On Thu, 6 Sep 2007, burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> invoke.texi contains:
>
> @table @option
> @item -W
--- Comment #5 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2007-09-19 19:54 ---
Subject: Re: Warning when passing a pointer to a const array
to a function that expects a pointer to a non-cast one
On Wed, 19 Sep 2007, jbeulich at novell dot com wrote:
> Isn't this the same as 16602
--- Comment #8 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2007-09-26 12:38 ---
Subject: Re: Warning when passing a pointer to a const array
to a function that expects a pointer to a non-cast one
On Wed, 26 Sep 2007, jozef dot behran at krs dot sk wrote:
> Could you give me reference in
--- Comment #9 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2007-09-26 12:42 ---
Subject: Re: Warning when passing a pointer to a const array
to a function that expects a pointer to a non-cast one
On Wed, 26 Sep 2007, jozef dot behran at krs dot sk wrote:
> And another point: Whether
--- 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 qualif
--- 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 mat
--- 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
--- 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
> > tim
--- Additional Comments From joseph at codesourcery dot com 2005-02-22
02:13 ---
Subject: Re: UCNs not recognized in identifiers
(c++/c99)
On Mon, 21 Feb 2005, zack at codesourcery dot com wrote:
> Standing policy is that all cases which provoke undefined behavior
> insi
--- 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
--- 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
--- 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 c
--- 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
--- 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 qualifi
--- 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 poin
--- 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
--- 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 undesirab
--- 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 __built
--- 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
--- 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 compo
--- 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:
--- 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
--- 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 inva
--- 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:
>
--- 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 and
--- 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 warn
--- 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 diagn
--- 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 struct
--- 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
--- 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
--- 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 h
--- 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
--- 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 a
--- 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
>
--- 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" */
--- 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 the
--- 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:
> >
> > *
--- Comment #2 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2008-08-07 12:04 ---
Subject: Re: -Wc++-compat refinements
On Thu, 7 Aug 2008, manu at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> To clarify how to implement this, I have some questions:
>
> (In reply to comment #0)
> > -Wc++-comp
--- Comment #1 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2008-08-11 22:19 ---
Subject: Re: New: Cross-compilers built with GCC 3.4
do not work
On Mon, 11 Aug 2008, drow at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> Joseph suggests this came in at the time of the tuples merge. If possible, it
>
--- Comment #5 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2008-08-12 14:00 ---
Subject: Re: Cross-compilers built with GCC 3.4 do not
work
On Tue, 12 Aug 2008, rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> As this is a bug in GCC 3.4 let's close this as invalid (can't we do a
--- Comment #4 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2008-08-14 12:18 ---
Subject: Re: [4.2/4.3/4.4 regression] ICE with "-frounding-math
-g"
On Thu, 14 Aug 2008, jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> I think the primary question is, do we expect -frounding-math to force
--- Comment #8 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2008-08-21 12:05 ---
Subject: Re: [4.3 Regression] internal compiler error:
in compare_values_warnv
On Thu, 21 Aug 2008, cnstar9988 at gmail dot com wrote:
> ping.
> I can reproduce with gcc 4.3.2 RC1.
> It work we
101 - 200 of 2027 matches
Mail list logo
