--- Comment #9 from dino at concisoft dot com 2008-05-07 06:15 ---
Understood. Just haven't been able to reproduce on a small piece of code :-(
It seems GNU C++ compiler doesn't give strict-aliasing warnings.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36149
(I assume this goes into the category 'web', I couldn't find one for
'documentation')...
The documentation for the 'nonnull' attribute (section 5.27) currently says:
The compiler may also choose to make optimizations based on the knowledge that
certain function arguments will not be null.
This
--- Comment #11 from pva at gentoo dot org 2008-05-07 06:54 ---
(In reply to comment #9)
The other issue here is that people want different colors for each of their
warnings so why hardcode it.
It should be easy to make this configurable...
Well I've googled a bit and did not found
--- Comment #5 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-07 07:28 ---
Subject: Bug 36106
Author: jakub
Date: Wed May 7 07:28:14 2008
New Revision: 135027
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=135027
Log:
PR middle-end/36106
* omp-low.c
--- Comment #4 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-07 07:41 ---
Subject: Bug 36137
Author: jakub
Date: Wed May 7 07:40:01 2008
New Revision: 135028
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=135028
Log:
PR middle-end/36137
* fold-const.c (fold_binary):
--- Comment #8 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-07 07:46 ---
Subject: Bug 36013
Author: jakub
Date: Wed May 7 07:45:17 2008
New Revision: 135029
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=135029
Log:
PR middle-end/36013
* gimplify.c
--
jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.4.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36129
--- Comment #6 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-07 07:56 ---
Subject: Bug 36106
Author: jakub
Date: Wed May 7 07:55:21 2008
New Revision: 135030
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=135030
Log:
PR middle-end/36106
* omp-low.c
--- Comment #5 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-07 07:59 ---
Subject: Bug 36137
Author: jakub
Date: Wed May 7 07:58:33 2008
New Revision: 135031
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=135031
Log:
PR middle-end/36137
* fold-const.c (fold_binary):
--- Comment #9 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-07 08:01 ---
Subject: Bug 36013
Author: jakub
Date: Wed May 7 08:00:36 2008
New Revision: 135032
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=135032
Log:
PR middle-end/36013
* gimplify.c
--- Comment #7 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-07 08:05 ---
Fixed.
--
jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #6 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-07 08:06 ---
Fixed in 4.3 and on the trunk.
--
jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #10 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-07 08:07 ---
Committed.
--
jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
--- Comment #11 from rguenther at suse dot de 2008-05-07 08:21 ---
Subject: Re: [4.1/4.3/4.4 Regression] Wrong code
involving restricted pointers to non-restricted pointers
On Tue, 6 May 2008, jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
--- Comment #6 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #1 from jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk 2008-05-07 08:45 ---
here things appear to work ? What are the numbers you have for '--param
ggc-min-expand=30 --param ggc-min-heapsize=4096' ?
gfortran -c -O2 -g -fmem-report all.f90
Memory still allocated at the end of the compilation
[EMAIL PROTECTED] temp]# gfortran -c -O0 gfortran-error-1.f90
!gfortran-error-1.f90: In function \u2018write_out_particles\u2019:
!gfortran-error-1.f90:21: internal compiler error: in
gfc_conv_descriptor_dimension, at fortran/trans-array.c:242
!Please submit a full bug report,
!with preprocessed
--- Comment #1 from fmuldoo at me dot lsu dot edu 2008-05-07 09:32 ---
Created an attachment (id=15589)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=15589action=view)
Very small code example
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36167
--- Comment #1 from martin at mpa-garching dot mpg dot de 2008-05-07 09:35
---
Created an attachment (id=15590)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=15590action=view)
a (not really reduced) test case
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36168
--- Comment #6 from martin at mpa-garching dot mpg dot de 2008-05-07 09:57
---
OK. Thanks for the clarification!
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36168
--- Comment #5 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-07 09:54 ---
(In reply to comment #4)
Is this also expected behavior?
Most likely because SRA choses not to scalarize the aggregate. Aka the
optimizators are choosing different choses based on the code. Nothing new.
--
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-07 09:43 ---
This is a normal issue with the unitialized warnings. See PR 5035. Basically
to get this warning correct for this case, you need conditional PHIs which we
don't have currently. And I don't know of any compiler
--- Comment #4 from martin at mpa-garching dot mpg dot de 2008-05-07 09:51
---
It would be completely fine by me, if g++ simply emitted bogus warnings in a
consistent way. But the syntax is still confusing, and what seems quite
disconcerting to me is the fact that _both_ warnings
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-07 09:51 ---
Also you may as well manually unswitch the loops as they don't do anything
except some multiplication if that bool is true. That is better to write the
code as:
if (a_eq_e)
return;
=/usr/include
--with-mpfr-lib=/usr/lib --with-gmp-include=/usr/include
--with-gmp-lib=/usr/lib --enable-languages=c++,fortran
--enable-checking=release
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.4.0 20080507 (experimental) [trunk revision 135032] (GCC)
COLLECT_GCC_OPTIONS='-v' '-O' '-Wuninitialized' '-shared
--- Comment #7 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-07 10:06 ---
(In reply to comment #6)
Colorization of a message is part of the message. It should obviously be done
whereever the message is constructed. (IDE has nothing to do with this.) With
your argument, the compiler should
--- Comment #7 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-07 10:12 ---
This would be more consistent if uninitialized warnings would work in VOPs.
Anyway, I think we should keep this open as an interesting testcase.
--
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #2 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-07 10:17
---
OK, well, it was 100% reproducible two weeks ago, but I can't see it happening
anymore on trunk. Closing.
--
fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from john dot spelis at 3dlabs dot com 2008-05-07 11:14
---
Subject: Re: Arm EABI C++ optimiser handles bit fields
incorrectly
Thanks pinskia. I ported the 4.3.0 compilers and that's a
confirmed fix to the issue.
Best Regards
On 5 May 2008, pinskia at gcc dot gnu
--- Comment #6 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2008-05-07 11:25 ---
Subject: Re: C++ compiler should issue a warning with missing
new operator
On Wed, 7 May 2008, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
aligned memory. PPC LV2 returns 16byte aligned memory. PPC Linux should be
--- Comment #8 from esigra at gmail dot com 2008-05-07 13:08 ---
(In reply to comment #7)
Adding color output (ala ls --color) or the proposal in this bug (gcc as a
lecturer in programming) show a critical misunderstanding: Assuming that GCC
developers are bored and have nothing to
--- Comment #4 from uros at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-07 13:12 ---
Subject: Bug 35714
Author: uros
Date: Wed May 7 13:12:02 2008
New Revision: 135041
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=135041
Log:
PR target/35714
* config/i386/mmx.md (mmx_subv2sf3):
--- Comment #5 from ubizjak at gmail dot com 2008-05-07 13:33 ---
The problem with memory operands has been fixed by the patch, so we generate
optimal one insn sequence for both functions in:
--cut here--
#include emmintrin.h
extern __m128i a;
__m128i madd (__m128i b)
{
return
--
sam at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |sam at gcc dot gnu dot org
|dot org
--
burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #2 from sam at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-07 14:07 ---
This appears to be fixed in GCC 4.3.2 and in SVN trunk.
--
sam at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Gcc revision 135041 failed to bootstrap at:
...
/opt/gcc/i686-darwin/./prev-gcc/xgcc -B/opt/gcc/i686-darwin/./prev-gcc/
-B/opt/gcc/gcc4.4w/i686-apple-darwin9/bin/ -c -g -O2 -fomit-frame-pointer
-DIN_GCC -W -Wall -Wwrite-strings -Wstrict-prototypes -Wmissing-prototypes
-Wold-style-definition
A new Relative_Deadline pragma has been introduced in commit 134010 and is
lacking documentation.
Assigning to the committer.
--
Summary: Missing documentation for Relative_Deadline pragma
Product: gcc
Version: 4.4.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
--- Comment #2 from sam at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-07 15:10 ---
Oh, right, I've never used it before and missed it in the RM :)
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36171
--- Comment #1 from charlet at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-07 15:07 ---
Sorry, but this is a standard Ada 2005 pragma, documented in the Ada RM.
Arno
--
charlet at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
The following program shows a case where
the 4.3.0 C++ compiler omits a check on an ENUM
variable when compiled with -O2 but keeps it when
-O is used ?
Targets where this occurs; at least x86, arm-*-linux-*
optEnum = (Options::Id::Type) getopt_long( ... ) ;
if( optEnum == -1 )/* This
--- Comment #1 from ubizjak at gmail dot com 2008-05-07 16:39 ---
Hm... strange, because my patch changed x86 target specific MMX and SSE vector
builtins only. I don't see any __builtin_X usage in gfc_simplify_set_exponent
that would trigger codepaths that were changed.
Can you do a
--- Comment #11 from hp at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-07 16:55 ---
This is not resolved. I still see
FAIL: g++.dg/tree-ssa/pr19637.C scan-tree-dump-times dom1 return 1; 3
for cris-elf and it's been a few days.
I'm reopening this PR to properly track progress.
--
hp at gcc dot gnu
--- Comment #12 from hp at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-07 17:02 ---
(In reply to comment #11)
This is not resolved. I still see
FAIL: g++.dg/tree-ssa/pr19637.C scan-tree-dump-times dom1 return 1; 3
Oops, different PR, sorry for the noise.
--
hp at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
--- Comment #2 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2008-05-07 17:06 ---
Can you do a backtrace of the failure?
I tried, but my knowledge of gdb is too limited. I get the error, but backtrace
gives no stack.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36169
--- Comment #7 from hp at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-07 17:08 ---
Also seen on cris-elf with the revision as mentioned and still there as late as
r135041. Pinskia, are you going to revert it, fix it or should we xfail the
test?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36143
I just tried to compile the Suse Linux package
fontconfig-2.4.2-83 with the GNU C compiler
version 4.4 snapshot 20080502
The compiler said
fccharset.c:1174: internal compiler error: in compare_values_warnv, at
tree-vrp.c:892
Please submit a full bug report,
with preprocessed source if
--- Comment #1 from dcb314 at hotmail dot com 2008-05-07 17:10 ---
Created an attachment (id=15591)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=15591action=view)
C source code
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36172
--- Comment #8 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-07 17:21 ---
Fix it:
[andrew-pinskis-computer:local/gcc/gcc] apinski% svn diff
Index: tree-ssa-forwprop.c
===
--- tree-ssa-forwprop.c (revision 135021)
+++
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-07 17:23 ---
And C++ standard says if the value is out of range of the enum, the behavior is
undefined so this is not a bug.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from astrange at ithinksw dot com 2008-05-07 17:36 ---
Created an attachment (id=15592)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=15592action=view)
minimal source
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36127
--- Comment #20 from gnu_andrew at member dot fsf dot org 2008-05-07 17:54
---
Created an attachment (id=15593)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=15593action=view)
Move towards a CPStringBuilder-using code base
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21869
--- Comment #21 from gnu_andrew at member dot fsf dot org 2008-05-07 17:55
---
Created an attachment (id=15594)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=15594action=view)
Move towards a CPStringBuilder-using code base
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21869
--- Comment #22 from gnu_andrew at member dot fsf dot org 2008-05-07 17:56
---
Created an attachment (id=15595)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=15595action=view)
Move towards a CPStringBuilder-using code base
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21869
--- Comment #23 from gnu_andrew at member dot fsf dot org 2008-05-07 17:56
---
Created an attachment (id=15596)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=15596action=view)
Move towards a CPStringBuilder-using code base
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21869
--- Comment #24 from gnu_andrew at member dot fsf dot org 2008-05-07 17:57
---
Created an attachment (id=15597)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=15597action=view)
Move towards a CPStringBuilder-using code base
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21869
--- Comment #25 from gnu_andrew at member dot fsf dot org 2008-05-07 17:57
---
Created an attachment (id=15598)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=15598action=view)
Move towards a CPStringBuilder-using code base
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21869
--- Comment #26 from gnu_andrew at member dot fsf dot org 2008-05-07 17:58
---
Created an attachment (id=15599)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=15599action=view)
Move towards a CPStringBuilder-using code base
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21869
--- Comment #27 from gnu_andrew at member dot fsf dot org 2008-05-07 17:58
---
Created an attachment (id=15600)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=15600action=view)
Move towards a CPStringBuilder-using code base
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21869
--- Comment #28 from ddaney at avtrex dot com 2008-05-07 17:59 ---
Subject: Re: We should to use StringBuilder instead
of StringBuffer where appropriate.
gnu_andrew at member dot fsf dot org wrote:
--- Comment #25 from gnu_andrew at member dot fsf dot org 2008-05-07
17:57
--- Comment #29 from gnu_andrew at member dot fsf dot org 2008-05-07 18:01
---
Created an attachment (id=15601)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=15601action=view)
Move towards a CPStringBuilder-using code base
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21869
--- Comment #30 from gnu_andrew at member dot fsf dot org 2008-05-07 18:02
---
Created an attachment (id=15602)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=15602action=view)
Move towards a CPStringBuilder-using code base
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21869
--- Comment #31 from gnu_andrew at member dot fsf dot org 2008-05-07 18:02
---
Created an attachment (id=15603)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=15603action=view)
Move towards a CPStringBuilder-using code base
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21869
--- Comment #32 from gnu_andrew at member dot fsf dot org 2008-05-07 18:03
---
Created an attachment (id=15604)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=15604action=view)
Move towards a CPStringBuilder-using code base
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21869
--- Comment #6 from joel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-07 18:03 ---
Tested against this GCC using gcc-ada-hwint-20080421.diff and patch in
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2008-04/msg01581.html
sparc-rtems4.9-gcc (GCC) 4.4.0 20080502 (experimental) [trunk revision 134885]
--
--- Comment #33 from gnu_andrew at member dot fsf dot org 2008-05-07 18:04
---
Created an attachment (id=15605)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=15605action=view)
Move towards a CPStringBuilder-using code base
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21869
--- Comment #34 from gnu_andrew at member dot fsf dot org 2008-05-07 18:04
---
Created an attachment (id=15606)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=15606action=view)
Move towards a CPStringBuilder-using code base
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21869
--- Comment #35 from gnu_andrew at member dot fsf dot org 2008-05-07 18:07
---
Created an attachment (id=15607)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=15607action=view)
Move towards a CPStringBuilder-using code base
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21869
--- Comment #36 from gnu_andrew at member dot fsf dot org 2008-05-07 18:07
---
Created an attachment (id=15608)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=15608action=view)
Move towards a CPStringBuilder-using code base
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21869
--- Comment #37 from gnu_andrew at member dot fsf dot org 2008-05-07 18:08
---
Created an attachment (id=15609)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=15609action=view)
Move towards a CPStringBuilder-using code base
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21869
--- Comment #3 from ubizjak at gmail dot com 2008-05-07 18:08 ---
Created an attachment (id=15610)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=15610action=view)
P
Can you try attached patch that fixes some patterns only at expand time?
--
--- Comment #38 from gnu_andrew at member dot fsf dot org 2008-05-07 18:08
---
Created an attachment (id=15611)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=15611action=view)
Change tools to use StringBuilder
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21869
--- Comment #7 from joel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-07 18:08 ---
Created an attachment (id=15612)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=15612action=view)
hwint patch for gcc 4.3 branch
This has been tested against sparc-rtems4.9 for interrupt functionality. ACATS
--- Comment #39 from gnu_andrew at member dot fsf dot org 2008-05-07 18:10
---
All appropriate changes made. Closing this bug.
--
gnu_andrew at member dot fsf dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
A few routines seem to have disappeared from 4.0.0 to 4.2.1:
_ZN9__gnu_cxx13stdio_filebufIcSt11char_traitsIcEE2fdEv;
_ZN9__gnu_cxx13stdio_filebufIcSt11char_traitsIcEE4fileEv;
_ZN9__gnu_cxx13stdio_filebufIcSt11char_traitsIcEEC1EP7__sFILESt13_Ios_Openmodem;
--- Comment #4 from ubizjak at gmail dot com 2008-05-07 18:32 ---
I see the problem:
define_insn_and_split *fixuns_truncmode_1 is a post-reload splitter that
calls ix86_split_convert_uns_si_sse after reload. There we have:
gen_sse2_loadlpd (value, CONST0_RTX (V2DFmode), input)
and
--- Comment #2 from john dot spelis at 3dlabs dot com 2008-05-07 18:38
---
Subject: Re: enum variable operation behaviour and -O2
Thanks for ending that issue.
Best Regards
On 7 May 2008, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu
Gcc 4.4 revision 135043 failed to bootstrap on Linux/ia32 when
configured with
-enable-clocale=gnu --with-system-zlib --enable-checking=assert
--with-demangler-in-ld --enable-shared --enable-threads=posix --enable-haifa
--prefix=/usr/gcc-4.4 --with-local-prefix=/usr/local
I got
libtool: compile:
--- Comment #1 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2008-05-07 19:01 ---
I have verified that revision 135041 is the cause. x86 backend
calls gen_reg_rtx to generate pseudo register after reload is
completed.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36174
--- Comment #5 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2008-05-07 19:04 ---
This may be related to PR 36174.
--
hjl dot tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from andreast at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-07 19:09
---
I see a similar ICE on x86_64-darwin: jni.cc:812 ICE in gen_reg_rtx, at
emit-rtl.c:868
--
andreast at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2008-05-07 19:11 ---
I am testing the patch on PR 36169 now.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36174
--- Comment #6 from ubizjak at gmail dot com 2008-05-07 19:11 ---
Should be fixed now.
Sorry for the breakage, I didn't notice one postreload usage of loadlpd.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36169
--- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-07 19:24 ---
Please confirm this on the top of the 4.2 branch.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #5 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-07 19:27 ---
Please confirm with current 4.2 branch head.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #10 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-07 19:29
---
Note that gcc 4.1 is known to have some wrong-code bugs regarding aliasing.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36149
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||4.2.3
Known to work||4.3.1
--- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-07 19:32 ---
It would have been nice to check at least gcc 4.3 (or better current trunk).
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-07 19:33 ---
It would have been nice to check at least gcc 4.3 (or better current trunk).
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-07 19:33 ---
It would have been nice to check at least gcc 4.3 (or better current trunk).
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-07 19:33 ---
It would have been nice to check at least gcc 4.3 (or better current trunk).
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-07 19:35 ---
Mine.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #9 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-07 19:42 ---
decrementing a NULL pointer invokes undefined behavior, incrementing not.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-07 19:43 ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 33887 ***
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #44 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-07 19:43
---
*** Bug 36122 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-07 19:45 ---
Right. I believe there was even some ELF reasoning here... Micha?
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #7 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2008-05-07 19:54 ---
Should be fixed now.
I am now at stage 3, so it seems fixed.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36169
--- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-07 19:56 ---
Reducing.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-07 19:58 ---
This worked with 20080325.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36172
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|ice for legal code with -O3 |[4.4 Regression] ice for
|
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-07 20:00 ---
gcc_assert (POINTER_TYPE_P (TREE_TYPE (val1))
== POINTER_TYPE_P (TREE_TYPE (val2)));
:)
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36172
1 - 100 of 125 matches
Mail list logo
