http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57628
Bug ID: 57628
Summary: spurious error: division by zero in if statement
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57628
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57628
--- Comment #2 from Ryo Furue furue at hawaii dot edu ---
Thank you for the prompt response!
But, it is evaluated at compile time, and so, you'll
get the error.
I understand that.
You are getting the correct diagnosis!
Of course. I agree
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57628
--- Comment #3 from Ryo Furue furue at hawaii dot edu ---
(In reply to kargl from comment #1)
Thank you for the prompt response!
[This is a re-post. I missed the reply feature and made a typo. I would
delete the other post, if possible.]
But,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57628
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Since my code includes an expression that can be evaluated at compile time and
it's a division by zero,
parameter are special in fortran. The expression is evaluated at compile
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57628
--- Comment #5 from Ryo Furue furue at hawaii dot edu ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #4)
parameter are special in fortran. The expression is evaluated at compile
time because of the parameter. a has to be replaced with 0 according
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57628
--- Comment #6 from Ryo Furue furue at hawaii dot edu ---
(In reply to Ryo Furue from comment #5)
I'm correcting two typos. Sorry.
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #4)
parameter are special in fortran. The expression is evaluated at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22149
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mouchtaris
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50586
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57172
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||glisse at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57172
--- Comment #5 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Not soon, sorry (I am in Brazil). Feel free to take it up (or use a different
approach).
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56493
--- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 30312
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30312action=edit
gcc49-pr56493.patch
Untested patch that in the FE restores the performance on the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52473
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45689
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57629
Bug ID: 57629
Summary: -Wmaybe-uninitialized does not catch some conditional
initialization
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57172
--- Comment #6 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com ---
Oh well, it can certainly wait a bit, just let's not forget about it (patches
only attached to bug reports make me slightly nervous) ... or you can and it
over to Alex (Oliva)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48776
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57569
Jorn Wolfgang Rennecke amylaar at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55907
--- Comment #8 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr ---
The patch in comment 5 regtests cleanly!
Confirmed. Any reason why it has not been committed?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50221
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57628
--- Comment #7 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr ---
AFAICT the option -fno-range-check is what you are looking for.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48298
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41370
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19541
--- Comment #23 from Rodolfo Schulz de Lima rodolfo at rodsoft dot org ---
How difficult is it to add a parameter to add paths to precompiled header
search list *only*?
We have a big code base with #include pch.h in some source files.
If source
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57628
--- Comment #8 from Steve Kargl sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu ---
On Sun, Jun 16, 2013 at 07:57:23AM +, furue at hawaii dot edu wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57628
--- Comment #2 from Ryo Furue furue at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18501
Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nszabolcs at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57629
Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13452
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu.org|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26143
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13452
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mark at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57614
Daniel Krügler daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57626
Daniel Krügler daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48787
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48906
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57263
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42934
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42934
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55117
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41827
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45288
--- Comment #1 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr ---
*** Bug 49586 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--- Comment #2 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr ---
*** Bug 49586 has been marked as a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45288
--- Comment #1 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr ---
*** Bug 49586 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--- Comment #2 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr ---
*** Bug 49586 has been marked as a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49586
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49586
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45288
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57614
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57630
Bug ID: 57630
Summary: Error should include -std=c11 and friends
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Priority: P3
Component: c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47674
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40756
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41724
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57621
Hans-Peter Nilsson hp at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hp at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56977
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||naruse at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57621
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|FIXED |DUPLICATE
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41599
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52333
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52651
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57631
Bug ID: 57631
Summary: spurious warning for avr interrupts with asm labels
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53296
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42067
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57631
--- Comment #1 from pebbles at riseup dot net ---
Here is a more complete test:
// test.c ...
__attribute__((signal,used))
void __vector_1() { asm(); } // should not trigger warning, should be placed
in __vectors
__attribute__((signal,used))
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57628
--- Comment #9 from Ryo Furue furue at hawaii dot edu ---
(In reply to Steve Kargl from comment #8)
So, the compiler should just arbitrarily chose to evaluate
some expression and ignore others?
No, I don't mean that. I'm not saying which
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57628
--- Comment #10 from Ryo Furue furue at hawaii dot edu ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #7)
AFAICT the option -fno-range-check is what you are looking for.
Thanks! That's exactly it.
But, I'm curious. The following code
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57631
--- Comment #2 from pebbles at riseup dot net ---
Created attachment 30314
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30314action=edit
avr.c: avr_set_current_function: 'name' uses assembler name if set
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55190
Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|target |rtl-optimization
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44672
Sean Santos quantheory at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||quantheory at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45440
Sean Santos quantheory at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||quantheory at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57628
--- Comment #11 from Steve Kargl sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu ---
On Sun, Jun 16, 2013 at 11:28:36PM +, furue at hawaii dot edu wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57628
--- Comment #9 from Ryo Furue furue at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57628
--- Comment #12 from Steve Kargl sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu ---
On Sun, Jun 16, 2013 at 11:33:49PM +, furue at hawaii dot edu wrote:
Is this an inconsistency in the implementation of -no-range-check ?
No.
I would be nice
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57632
Bug ID: 57632
Summary: Operator new overloads with stdc++11 enabled looses
exception specifier (MacOsX)
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
68 matches
Mail list logo