Which part of:
__builtin_isunordered(nan,nan) = 1
__builtin_isnan(nan) = 0
is consistent?
Did you read what the options do because it seems like you did not and you keep
on agruing that
it is inconsistent except for the fact this is way these options are done as it
just says allows for
On Wed, 2006-08-23 at 13:40 +, hosking at cs dot purdue dot edu
wrote:
--- Comment #4 from hosking at cs dot purdue dot edu 2006-08-23 13:40
---
Here is a stack trace showing call to resize_phi_node from execute_pre.
Do you have a testcase or is this with a modified compiler?
--- Comment #8 from hosking at cs dot purdue dot edu 2006-08-23 23:43
---
I can send whatever traces you might need for diagnosis.
Can you provide the dump generated by -fdump-tree-pre-details?
-- Pinski
could
not get even the reduced testcase ICEing on i686-linux-gnu.
Thanks,
Andrew Pinski
On Fri, 2006-09-01 at 22:30 +, mark at codesourcery dot com wrote:
So, that's what should be fixed.
Except that means introducing a language hook which
is only to be useful in one place.
The other way of fixing this is not to call fold if
we have a MINUS_EXPR with the 2nd operand as 1, we
On Sun, 2006-09-03 at 19:35 +, lindevel at gmx dot net wrote:
assert_testcase.cpp: In function #8216;int main()#8217;:
assert_testcase.cpp:16: error: #8216;debug(((const char*)Some
string))#8217; has type #8216;void#8217; and is not a
throw-expression
That says to me that the expression
On Sun, 2006-09-03 at 20:08 +, lindevel at gmx dot net wrote:
--- Comment #4 from lindevel at gmx dot net 2006-09-03 20:08 ---
You proved ##c++ wrong! They bet that I would be ignored. ;)
The thing is that a void itself is not invalid. Using (expr ? void : void)
works as you
On Wed, 2006-09-06 at 14:19 +, bunk at stusta dot de wrote:
--- Comment #4 from bunk at stusta dot de 2006-09-06 14:19 ---
Note:
checking host system type... powerpc64-unknown-linux-gnu is obviously wrong
No it is not.
-- Pinski
::x or this-x to make the access of x as dependent.
Please also read http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-3.4/changes.html which talks about this
and many
other changes that might affect your code.
And maybe http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.0/changes.html
and http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.1/changes.html
Thanks,
Andrew
. */
+ if (!optimize)
+return 0;
Perhaps
if (!flag_tree_ter)
return 0;
would be more accurate?
Well -f{no-,}tree-ter can be still passed and you will get it wrong,
what about:
if (!optimize || !flag_tree_ter)
return 0;
Thanks,
Andrew Pinski
be filed separately.
Thanks,
Andrew Pinski
--- Comment #6 from howarth at nitro dot med dot uc dot edu 2006-09-20
23:49 ---
Does anyone know why we don't run this test at lp64 on powerpc? I find that on
powerpc-apple-darwin8 the following changes allow...
make check-gcc RUNTESTFLAGS=--target_board=unix'{-m32,-m64}'
On Fri, 2006-09-22 at 17:05 +, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
--- Comment #14 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-22 17:05
---
(In reply to comment #13)
Yet another test case from Anton we don't catch. Will they never end?!?! ;)
I bet a beer or a shot of
On Tue, 2006-09-26 at 04:44 +, acahalan at gmail dot com wrote:
Although it wouldn't work for the example code, extending the aliasing
behavior
of (char*) to (void*) would fix the problem for LOTS of code out in the wild.
People normally use a (void*) when they want a generic pointer
--- Comment #5 from sebor at roguewave dot com 2006-09-26 18:56 ---
You mean something like: if (is_pointer (p)) delete p;
I suppose that could happen but why should it be any different than other
non-sensical but lexically valid constructs with undefined behavior that
--- Comment #8 from geoffk at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-27 23:51
---
Isn't this handled by -ftrapv?
No because sizeof is unsigned and -ftrapv only deals with signed types.
-- Pinski
--- Comment #6 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-29 22:04 ---
Is:
extern void abort (void);
struct S { struct S *s; } s;
struct T { struct T *t; } t;
static inline void
foo (void *s)
{
struct T *p = s;
__builtin_memcpy (p-t, t.t, sizeof (t.t));
I think the
On Sun, 2006-10-01 at 05:32 +, acahalan at gmail dot com wrote:
--- Comment #9 from acahalan at gmail dot com 2006-10-01 05:32 ---
(In reply to comment #4)
This is definitely firmly in the class of extension to the language that
requires a thorough proposal to be presented to
On Thu, 2006-10-05 at 05:00 +, seongbae dot park at gmail dot com
wrote:
With 4.1.0 i686-unknown-linux-gnu target:
# gcc -O2 m.c -S
try -O2 -msse2, you get:
_Z8todoubledd:
subl$12, %esp
fldl24(%esp)
faddl 16(%esp)
fstpl (%esp)
movsd
the amount of processes in the process table. Maybe Linux needs this
problem if it still exists. I know Linux threads had this problem but I
forget if NTPL does.
Thanks,
Andrew Pinski
On Fri, 2006-10-06 at 03:04 +, kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
It is unclear to me where you intend to put this function.
If it is in the gfortran frontend, I will outright reject
the patch and lobby to have it removed if anyone applies.
It should be in darwin.c in the back-end. C
On Sat, 2006-10-14 at 17:52 +, h dot b dot furuseth at usit dot uio
dot no wrote:
Also you forgot one thing '%' does not have to match up with the ANSI
character set so it could be negative in signed char which means char
(which could default to signed char) would be different.
No.
On Sat, 2006-10-14 at 18:25 +, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
--- Comment #5 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-14 18:25
---
DR 224 says this is invalid code
Sorry valid code.
-- Pinski
On Sun, 2006-10-15 at 03:24 +, gcc-bugzilla at kayari dot org wrote:
--- Comment #13 from gcc-bugzilla at kayari dot org 2006-10-15 03:24
---
If this ever gets fixed (which I hope it does) then maybe it should depend on
-std=c++98 so this continues to work by default, or it
Additionally, link times are much longer than with 3.4.6
Link times are usually a binutils issue unless you are comparing
with the same version of binutils.
-- Pinski
are not inlined, GCC does not look through other functions to
check for the warning.
Thanks,
Andrew Pinski
- Support for coredumps (compile time? Environment variable? The latter
overwriting the former?)
[Advantage compile-time option: The core is there, if one needs it. Advantage
run-time option: One can quickly turn it on, if needed.]
- Traceback support more or less as outlined above (comment
On Tue, 2006-11-14 at 09:29 +, jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
--- Comment #24 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-14 09:29
---
This change breaks bootstrap on x86_64-linux and i386-linux:
This is now PR 29825 and it is an x86 back-end issue about not accepting
the
On Feb 15, 2005, at 10:45 AM, Giorgenes Gelatti wrote:
general info
gcc --version:
gcc (GCC) 3.3.4
uname -a:
Linux trinita 2.4.26 #6 Mon Jun 14 19:07:27 PDT 2004 i686 unknown
unknown GNU/Linux
compiled with:
gcc bug.c -O1 -save-temps -o bug
mpixel = (double)((unsigned int)h
This is PR 13993 which only effects if you configure with a relative
patch and
only 3.4.x, it is fixed on the mainline already.
-- Pinski
On Feb 17, 2005, at 2:35 PM, gary at intrepid dot com wrote:
The MAX_FIXED_REC_SIZE defintion is a relatively recent addition to
config/rs6000.h (and from a quick review of the cvs log, it seems that
this
change hasn't yet been incorporated into a release.) Just fyi.
Yes so, just a note the patch
On Feb 18, 2005, at 11:50 AM, Kenneth Zadeck wrote:
The build gets partially thru the stage2 and then crashes when trying
to compile most of the back end in one step with the following
message:
gcc: cannot specify -o with -c or -S and multiple compilations
This same step works fine on my
On Mar 6, 2005, at 8:31 PM, dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca
wrote:
--- Additional Comments From dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot
ca 2005-03-07 01:31 ---
Subject: Re: FAIL: 26_numerics/complex/pow.cc execution test
We have log(x) == -inf for x == 0+. The exp call is
On Mar 7, 2005, at 10:16 PM, Diego Novillo wrote:
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
Why isn't the tree level loop IV-OPTs doing this?
Because variable i is static.
I think you commenting on the wrong bug.
-- Pinski
On Mar 11, 2005, at 4:59 PM, Thomas dot Koenig at online dot de wrote:
--- Additional Comments From Thomas dot Koenig at online dot de
2005-03-11 21:59 ---
There are two strange things here:
- Why the + 0. ?
- Why the casts to double?
Because that is required by the C standard.
--
On Mar 15, 2005, at 1:46 PM, dopheide at fmf dot nl wrote:
It stills /looks/ inconsistent though.
That is because there is an optimization going on here which is allowed
by the standard.
-- Pinski
On Mar 19, 2005, at 5:27 PM, Demo Account wrote:
Hi, my gcc isn't working.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/mnt/lfs/sources$ gcc -v
Using built-in specs.
Target: i686-pc-linux-gnu
Configured with: ../gcc-4.1-20050313/configure --prefix=/tools
--libexecdir=/tools/lib --with-local-prefix=/tools
I had meant -mlongcall.
-- Pinski
On Mar 25, 2005, at 7:59 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
Could someone help me understand what's causing the following
warning so that I can silence it? Gcc 3.4.3 emits it for an
implicitly inline one-line definition of the function (ctor,
actually, see below), so I'm not sure what the function body
not
On Mar 27, 2005, at 8:06 PM, zouq wrote:
- ~{T4SJ~~} -
~{VwLb~}: [bug fmodulo-sched/gcc]
~{7~HK~}: zouq [EMAIL PROTECTED]
~{HUFZ~}: Mon, ~{H}TB~} 28, 2005 8:09 am
~{JU~HK~}: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mar 29, 2005, at 2:13 AM, fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
-*ioparm.exist = (u != NULL);
+*ioparm.exist = (u != NULL ? 1 : 0);
This change does nothing.
-- Pinski
On Mar 30, 2005, at 3:22 PM, lothar wrote:
Hello,
Michael Meissner redirected me to this list, I contacted him because
his emailaddress was in rs6000/linux.h. I don't know who currently
maintains this file
I ran into trouble when trying to build a cross compiler for the
RS6000
code generation.
I still haven't looked hard.
Could anyone with access to a darwin machine test this patch for
me?
I will test this soon.
Thanks,
Andrew Pinski
.
Could anyone with access to a darwin machine test this patch for
me?
This fixes the bootstrap problem for me on powerpc-darwin.
Thanks,
Andrew Pinski
On Apr 10, 2005, at 9:47 PM, Diego Novillo wrote:
On Sun, Apr 10, 2005 at 05:38:31PM -0400, Andrew Pinski wrote:
This fixes the bootstrap problem for me on powerpc-darwin.
Thanks. I will commit as soon as I get a clean bootstrap.
Could you try the patch in PR 20934 and see if it fixed
exposed symbols.
and
2005-04-11 Diego Novillo [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR tree-optimization/20933
* tree-ssa-alias.c (compute_flow_insensitive_aliasing): Move
Then try with another compiler as 4.1.0 was broken during those two
dates really.
This was PR 20933 by the way.
Thanks,
Andrew Pinski
On Apr 12, 2005, at 12:14 PM, amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
--- Additional Comments From amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-04-12 16:14 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
Huh? no optimization should take register pressure into account.
What we
should have is a reroller in
the
On Apr 14, 2005, at 8:45 PM, ltg at zes dot uni-bremen dot de wrote:
I tried to build gcc-4.0.0-20050410 (RC1) and got the following error:
BOOT_CFLAGS=-O9 -maix64 CFLAGS=-O9 -maix64 CXXFLAGS=-O9 -maix64
LIBCFLAGS=-g -O9 -maix64 LIBCXXFLAGS=-g -O9 -maix64
-fno-implicit-templates
nohup
On Apr 14, 2005, at 10:32 PM, Jay Summet wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
I ran into an interesting bug when attempting to add imlib2 to a
program that
uses GLUT. The program would compile/link fine, but segfault when the
imlib_load_image() call was made. (initial call to imlib)
The
On Apr 24, 2005, at 2:06 PM, Diego Novillo wrote:
What is the type of 'i'? If it's unsigned, then we would be
wasting our time.
It is signed, otherwise i 0 will always be true and the conditional
would have gotten rid of already.
-- Pinski
On Apr 25, 2005, at 11:59 AM, Karl Berry wrote:
With gcc-4.0.0 on GNU/Linux (specifically, Red Hat WS 4), GNU make
3.80,
I get an error when trying to build with srcdir = objdir. Since the
documentation says this should work, even though it recommends
compiling with srcdir != objdir, I'm
On Apr 25, 2005, at 11:59 AM, Karl Berry wrote:
Greetings,
In gcc-4.0.0 (and all previous releases), the C++ shared libraries (for
example) are not found without adding specific link flags. For
example,
compiling a C++ hello,world (source below, not that it matters):
$ which g++
g++ is
On Apr 26, 2005, at 1:37 PM, Ryszard Kabatek wrote:
Hello,
I succesfully compiled gcc-4.0.0 on RedHat, but the bootstrap fails on
Mandrake.
Yes this is a bug in your kernel headers.
-- Pinski
On Apr 26, 2005, at 2:29 PM, Bojan Antonovic wrote:
1) Similar to http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2004-11/msg00286.html I
configured GCC to be build with
ld: .libs/libstdc++.lax/libsupc++convenience.a/tinfo2.o malformed
object, illegal reference for -dynamic code (reference to a coalesced
section
Hello.
I dont know if I am to write here, but I think I found a bug that I know
is not related to my hardware or my system. Problem is that I don't know
how to report it or if it allready been reported(Kind of hard to search
for a bug when you dont know how to describe it.).
On Apr 28, 2005, at 2:41 PM, Dutta, Kalyan wrote:
I am submitting a bug report for GNU's Fortran95 compiler, gfortran.
I realize the compiler is experimental. Any help you might be able
to provide will be appreciated.
I am Emailing this report because I couldn't successfully attach the
requested
On Apr 29, 2005, at 8:52 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
I was surprised to see macro definitions in the output of gcc
-E -g3 (see below). Is that behavior by design or is it a bug?
(I haven't seen anything about it in the manual, other than what
-g/leve/ mentions about debugger support for macro
On May 1, 2005, at 11:33 PM, belyshev at depni dot sinp dot msu dot ru
wrote:
(though profile says most of time spent in SSA verifier):
Did you forget to configure with --disable-checking :).
-- Pinski
On May 2, 2005, at 2:06 PM, Steffen Seeger wrote:
Hello everybody,
I have successfully built gcc-4.0.0 out of the release
tar-file (complete distribution) on an athlon system
targeting i386-scientific-linux.
The C and C++ parts work like a charm so far, compiling
substantial amounts of C/C++ code
On May 5, 2005, at 1:19 PM, schlie at comcast dot net wrote:
--- Additional Comments From schlie at comcast dot net 2005-05-05
17:19 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
unsigned char * and char * are in two different aliasing sets
while char
and unsigned char are in the same one, well char is
On May 5, 2005, at 4:03 PM, tsv at solvo dot ru wrote:
I am trying to find out where unaligned pointer is came from. Going
couple
functions back I found that it is the address if unsigned char
variable
allocated on stack. Should I look at this issue or it might be
possible in
theory and I
On May 6, 2005, at 8:09 PM, Julian Cummings wrote:
People are reporting trouble compiling blitz with gcc-4.0.0, and the
compiler errors are resulting from the use of unnamed enums. A simple
code
illustrates the problem:
struct nullType {};
template typename T inline T operator+(const T a,
On May 7, 2005, at 2:04 PM, Harald Dunkel wrote:
Hi folks,
The testcase has been created by grabbing some code
fragments from libX11, XFree86 4.3 on Debian, amd64.
-Wall complains about dereferencing type-punned pointer.
Stop right there, you said it warns, well this is a case where
you are
On May 7, 2005, at 3:25 PM, Harald Dunkel wrote:
Andrew Pinski wrote:
Stop right there, you said it warns, well this is a case where
you are violating C89/C99/C++ aliasing rules so it is a bug in your
code and not in GCC.
This is not my code. It is XFree86 4.3. I am just trying to
help
On May 7, 2005, at 6:40 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
Julian Cummings [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| Hmmm... I just read through the bug reports you cited. Sounds to me
like
| this is still somewhat of an open issue, as to whether the compiler
should
| issue an error in these cases or simply
On May 8, 2005, at 2:21 AM, Harald Dunkel wrote:
Andrew Pinski wrote:
Wrong, try again. Violating aliasing rules cause undefined behavior
so seg faulting is an okay thing to do.
But producing a warning message and bad code is not OK. Either
using a type-punned pointer should be treated as a fatal
On May 8, 2005, at 4:17 PM, Harald Dunkel wrote:
Falk Hueffner wrote:
It doesn't know that. The warning is for the *creation* of the
type-punned pointer, which is still perfectly fine. Gcc is too stupid
to notice whether you actually dereference it.
Yup. There are billions of this constructs in
On May 14, 2005, at 3:00 AM, corsepiu at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
* f95 disqualifies ifselves from several embedded targets, if it can
not be
built/used on targets not supporting REAL8. IIRC, there even exist
variants of
major _targets_ (IIRC, powerpc, m68k) which do not support REAL8.
IMO,
On May 14, 2005, at 3:00 AM, corsepiu at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
* f95 disqualifies ifselves from several embedded targets, if it can
not be
built/used on targets not supporting REAL8. IIRC, there even exist
variants of
major _targets_ (IIRC, powerpc, m68k) which do not support REAL8.
IMO,
On May 16, 2005, at 4:28 PM, joseph at codesourcery dot com wrote:
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-05-16 20:03 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
If you get rid of decl_constant_value_for_broken_optimization then I
suspect you'll lose some optimizations because
this to Apple.
This was PR 18191.
Thanks,
Andrew Pinski
Just in case you did not get this before, the mail server which I was
using
broke for a second.
Begin forwarded message:
From: Andrew Pinski [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: May 17, 2005 12:50:33 PM EDT
To: Marcel van Kervinck [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: (fwd) Bug in gcc4
are violating C++ aliasing rules.
You are accessing a long variable as an int.
Thanks,
Andrew Pinski
not trying to be difficult)
unsigned and signed types are already in the same aliasing set.
Just their pointers are in different aliasing set as allowed by the
standard and this is where the problem is in the code in this bug.
Thanks,
Andrew Pinski
()
{
int i;
scanf(%d,i);
int a[i];
a[i-1]=128;
printf(%d,a[i-1]);
}
is this a bug or just for compatability with c++...
Not this is for C99 compatibility. In fact you are using VLAs which
are part of C99
and not part of C++ at all.
Thanks,
Andrew Pinski
it as 1 is because you can do the following:
void *a;
a++;
If you want to error out on GNU extensions, use -pedantic-errors.
Thanks,
Andrew Pinski
On Jun 17, 2005, at 5:27 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jun 17, 2005, at 17:05:37, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
void *z = y; // - z = 0xBAD0DAD5
z++; // adding +0? adding +1? adding +4? abort this error?
Since this is a GNU extension, GCC defines as adding 1. See the
documentation
/msg01272.html
Thanks,
Andrew Pinski
*__iptr;
} HH __attribute__ ((__transparent_union__));
extern void h (HH) __attribute__ ((__nothrow__));
void g (int *status)
{
h (status);
}
Thanks,
Andrew Pinski
On Jun 21, 2005, at 4:43 PM, bangerth at ices dot utexas dot edu wrote:
--- Additional Comments From bangerth at ices dot utexas dot edu
2005-06-21 20:43 ---
Subject: Re: [4.0/4.1 regression] Spurious ambiguity with pointers to
members
I think this was exposed by the patch for
On Jun 22, 2005, at 2:59 PM, bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
--- Additional Comments From bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-06-22 18:59 ---
Ah, the old can't find the tunnel at the end of the bridge at the end
of this
hole problem. Bummer. I hate it when that happens.
Is
); is always outputted so in fact
it does not do what David wanted it to do.
Thanks,
Andrew Pinski
On Jun 27, 2005, at 12:25 PM, gdr at integrable-solutions dot net wrote:
| Actually it is modulo for all operations.
But then do read the comment as far as the loop optimizer is
concerned. It does not seem like it understands that it is modulo
arithmetic.
But that is because overflow is
find it right now).
Thanks,
Andrew Pinski
the correct behavior of destructors.
Now you can ask why --enable-__cxa_atexit is not enabled by default
on GNU/Linux machine, I don't have that answer to that question but
someone else will.
Thanks,
Andrew Pinski
--- Comment #5 from James dot Juran at baesystems dot com 2006-02-13
19:06 ---
Yes, that does seem to be the case based on the ChangeLog I quoted. And of
course the easy workaround for a developer is just to use __builtin_va_start
instead. But is the deprecation of
On Mar 1, 2006, at 7:48 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
Is there a recommended version of GNU binutils for 4.1? I have been
using 2.13 but the latest compiler doesn't seem to be happy with it.
I tried the latest, 2.16.1, but I get the same error with it as well.
I don't see anything about this in
On Mar 5, 2006, at 1:00 PM, hjl at lucon dot org wrote:
--- Comment #2 from hjl at lucon dot org 2006-03-05 18:00 ---
std::ios_base::_S_local_word_size is in libstdc++.so. But it is marked
as
local via linker version script. It is true for x86, x86-64 and ia64.
There is a bug in
--- Comment #1 from aldyh at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-08 19:05 ---
I can reproduce the runtime error, but not the compile error.
pantani:/tmp/2$ type gcc
gcc is /tmp/2/bin/gcc
pantani:/tmp/2$ gcc a.c -fopenmp
pantani:/tmp/2$ ./a.out
./a.out: error while loading shared
On Mar 14, 2006, at 1:55 PM, Graham Stott wrote:
All,
If the warning isn't bogus then we probably need to do the shift in
two steps
(i.e. hwi = (hwi (shift - 1)) 1) as done elsewhere to avoid the
potential warning.
The only reason why it is bogus is because well it is dead code :).
--
On Mar 15, 2006, at 6:28 PM, hjl at lucon dot org wrote:
--- Comment #10 from hjl at lucon dot org 2006-03-15 23:28 ---
(In reply to comment #9)
(In reply to comment #8)
Is that the exact output?
Yes, of course!
I assum you tried to compile f95files/intvec.F90. I have no
On Mar 16, 2006, at 6:37 PM, schwab at suse dot de wrote:
--- Comment #12 from schwab at suse dot de 2006-03-16 23:37
---
(In reply to comment #9)
Why is ia64-linux-gnu setting STRICT_ALIGNMENT to true even though it
works by
default?
prctl --unaligned=signal will make it
On Mar 16, 2006, at 7:37 PM, schwab at suse dot de wrote:
--- Comment #15 from schwab at suse dot de 2006-03-17 00:37
---
Both alpha and sparc can emulate unaligned accesses, and both set
STRICT_ALIGNMENT.
And PPC can emulate unalgined access (and does by default) and it
sets
On Mar 16, 2006, at 8:06 PM, schwab at suse dot de wrote:
--- Comment #17 from schwab at suse dot de 2006-03-17 01:06
---
PPC does not trap on unaligned integer load and store.
That is not true, it traps on some. It all depends on the hardware.
Please don't say it does not trap on
On Mar 17, 2006, at 10:33 AM, Michael Tomuschat wrote:
vectorclass aCls T ::iterator aIter; // tut nicht
You forgot the typename keyword.
It should be:
typename vectorclass aCls T ::iterator aIter;
-- Pinski
On Mar 17, 2006, at 4:16 PM, mkuvyrkov at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
Unfortunately, I don't have access to HP-UX and the bug doesn't appear
on
ia64-linux, so can you please provide some more information for the
failure
like backtrace.
A cross compile will most likely reproduce it.
--
On Mar 23, 2006, at 3:06 AM, paul dot richard dot thomas at cea dot
fr wrote:
I thought to take a look at the patch tonight; does it look OK to you?
I forgot to mention, this was about the patch I was going to create
anyways.
-- Pinski
--- Comment #3 from dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-28 19:17
---
Well, some of the structural analysis for which emit errors is done even later
than that, so it would be naive to pretend that we can catch everything during
parsing.
I don't understand why it is hard.
--- Comment #5 from dann at godzilla dot ics dot uci dot edu 2006-05-03
18:54 ---
IMO Comment #4 does not look close enough at what is actually happening.
IMO tree-ch is the root cause here.
Given the above CFG, critical edge splitting transforms this into:
Given the above
--- Comment #5 from gary at intrepid dot com 2006-05-05 16:37 ---
(In reply to comment #4)
Then the real question is why do you think this is a bug?
1. it is a bug to create temporaries and assert 'volatile' on them
Why do you say that?
2. there is code in
1 - 100 of 457 matches
Mail list logo
