Paolo Carlini wrote:
[...]
Let's wait a bit more for other opinions, say one day or two, then I
will start the actual work. As far as I can see, other compilers do not
warn in such cases, and adding casts (*) isn't the cleanest practice in
the world, thus my caution...
FYI: HP aCC warns for
On 02/02/2015 01:15 AM, Mr.reCoder wrote:
Dear gcc developer,
I have a code like this:
#include stdio.h
void foo(int x)
{
int y;
x++;
y = 4;
}
int main(void)
{
foo(2);
return 0;
}
and compiled with gcc -o outexec srcfile.c command.
when disassemble the file we see that sending
On 03/11/2015 07:27 AM, Robbert Krebbers wrote:
Dear Joseph,
On 03/10/2015 11:01 PM, Joseph Myers wrote:
and did u.b.b2 = f (u.a); instead of u.b.b2 = u.a;, that would not be
undefined (see 6.8.6.4 and GCC PR 43784).
Thanks for the references, those are useful!
But what about long long on 32
On 03/09/2015 01:26 PM, Robbert Krebbers wrote:
I was wondering whether GCC uses 6.5.16.1p3 of the C11 standard as a
license to perform certain optimizations. If so, could anyone provide me
an example program.
In particular, I am interested about the then the overlap shall be
exact part of
On 03/12/2015 03:10 AM, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
On 2015-03-12 00:19:55 +0100, Robbert Krebbers wrote:
On 03/11/2015 05:31 PM, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
I disagree that it is an extension. The standard does not say
that one union member can be active at any time.
The interpretation under which
On 03/24/2015 03:26 PM, Alexey Neyman wrote:
Hi,
I am seeing a strange behavior when a compound initializer is used in a
structure initialization. A test case:
[[[
struct s {
int y;
unsigned long *x;
};
struct s foo = {
.y = 25,
.x = (unsigned long [SZ]){},
};
]]]
If SZ
Regarding undefined behavior: this object has static storage, so I think
6.7.9-10 from C11 should apply:
Strictly speaking, once the behavior of a program is undefined,
even well-defined constructs can have unexpected effects. But
I do agree that dropping initialization for members with a valid
On 02/20/2015 10:01 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
On 02/20/15 05:10, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 12:06:28PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
On 02/19/2015 09:56 PM, Sandra Loosemore wrote:
H, Passing the additional option in user code would be one thing,
but what about library code?
On 05/12/2015 07:40 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 6:36 PM, Fei Ding fding...@gmail.com wrote:
I think Thiago and Eric just want to know which code-gen is better and why...
You need to understand for a complex process (CISC ISAs) like x86,
there is no one right answer
On 04/26/2015 11:47 AM, Shoham Peller wrote:
You are completely right Jonathan. My Apologies.
WPP is a tool I use in my work field on an every-day basis, so I
thought it was known.
Here is the Wikipedia page on WPP:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_software_trace_preprocessor
In short, WPP
On 05/18/2015 02:01 PM, mark maule wrote:
I have a loop which hangs when compiled with -O2, but runs fine when
compiled with -O1. Not sure what information is required to get an
answer, so starting with the full src code. I have not attempted to
reduce to a simpler test case yet.
Typically a
Started with the latter. By the way, what is the policy concerning
getting write access to the wiki?
You are expected to ask one of the existing editors who's
willing to vouch for you to add you to the EditorGroup:
http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/EditorGroup
Martin
I'm not very familiar with the optimizations that are done in O2 vs O1,
or even what happens in these optimizations.
So, I'm wondering if this is a bug, or a subtle valid optimization that
I don't understand. Any help would be appreciated.
Another approach to debugging a suspected
On 08/03/2015 12:35 PM, Joel Sherrill wrote:
Hi
Just noticed this building the head for arm-rtems4.11. Should
the first comparison be eliminated and, maybe, a comment added?
ctype_members.cc:216:14: warning: comparison of unsigned expression = 0
is always true [-Wtype-limits]
if (__wc =
On 10/22/2015 10:53 AM, Joseph Myers wrote:
On Wed, 21 Oct 2015, Martin Sebor wrote:
That would go against the usual (i.e., POSIX) expected effect
of the environment variable. Specifically for GCC (or the c99
utility), POSIX requires LC_CTYPE to determine the locale used
to parse the input
Again, LC_CTYPE does *not* affect source file interpretation.
I understand what you're saying. What I am saying is that if this
is how c99 behaves it's in conflict with POSIX because LC_CTYPE
is exactly how source file interpretation is specified to be
controlled:
LC_CTYPE
Determine
On 10/21/2015 03:23 PM, D. Hugh Redelmeier wrote:
Several of us don't want UTF-8 quotation marks in diagnostics in our
environment (Jove subshells). We'd like a way to turn them off. We don't
think that they are a bad idea but they are bad in our environment.
On 10/07/2015 07:57 AM, Sabrina Souto wrote:
I was seeing these files but I could not put the puzzle pieces
together in my mind, and after you explained, all pieces make sense
now. Thanks for the explanation, Jonathan.
The testing process is clear now, but I still not understanding what
can
On 09/09/2015 12:36 PM, Toon Moene wrote:
See:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2015-09/msg00699.html
Full error message:
/home/toon/compilers/trunk/gcc/cp/search.c: In function 'int
accessible_p(tree, tree, bool)':
/home/toon/compilers/trunk/gcc/cp/search.c:1011:41: error: 'otype' may
On 09/19/2015 03:32 PM, Sören Brinkmann wrote:
Hi Andrew,
On Sat, 2015-09-19 at 11:34AM -0700, pins...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sep 19, 2015, at 11:00 AM, Sören Brinkmann
wrote:
Hi,
I recently came across some bug in my program that I could narrow down
to the
On 09/20/2015 12:38 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On September 20, 2015 1:40:12 AM GMT+02:00, Martin Sebor <mse...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 09/19/2015 03:32 PM, Sören Brinkmann wrote:
Hi Andrew,
On Sat, 2015-09-19 at 11:34AM -0700, pins...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sep 19, 2015, at 11:00 AM,
On 12/04/2015 10:32 AM, Tom Tromey wrote:
"Martin" == Martin Sebor <mse...@gmail.com> writes:
Martin> To get around these, I end up using info macro to print the
Martin> macro definition and using whatever it expands to instead. I
Martin> wonder if someone ha
On 12/02/2015 06:48 PM, Peter Bergner wrote:
On Wed, 2015-12-02 at 20:05 -0500, Ryan Burn wrote:
Is there any way to easily build a stage1 gcc with macro support for debugging?
I tried setting CFLAGS, and CXXFLAGS to specify "-O0 -g3" via the
command line before running configure, but that
Jason,
I just want to make sure we still want the -Wplacement-new option
I added some time ago enabled by default.
I think I had initially intended it to be on because the original
implementation was more permissive and didn't diagnose cases where
(for example) the buffer spanned multiple
On 12/23/2015 05:02 AM, Yuri D'Elia wrote:
I couldn't find anything on the matter, but what happens if -march is
repeated more than once? I would assume the usual behavior that the
last flag "wins".
This is correct for all -march= arguments except for native.
Some -march= option processing
On 12/20/2015 11:39 PM, Cole wrote:
Hi,
I am busy trying to generate a package for gcc that is consistent
between two successive builds, and I am now down to the final few
files.
I am stuck with the file: cilk-abi-cilk-for.o, which is obviously
built with -O2, but between two successive
what others have done, and potentially anything else
I may have missed.
No we didn't. Unfortunately, most of the work we did back then
was in a proprietary GCC fork.
Martin
Thanks
/Cole
On 21 December 2015 at 21:08, Martin Sebor <mse...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 12/20/2015 11:39 PM, Cole
On 11/24/2015 02:55 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
On 23/11/15 23:01, Jason Merrill wrote:
There's a proposal working through the C++ committee to define the order
of evaluation of subexpressions that previously had unspecified ordering:
On 11/25/2015 11:49 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
On 11/25/2015 06:25 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
The motivating example in the paper suggests that many C++
programmers expect a left to right order of evaluation here
due to the commonality of constructs like chains of calls.
Sure, I often see
On 11/23/2015 04:01 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
There's a proposal working through the C++ committee to define the order
of evaluation of subexpressions that previously had unspecified ordering:
http://www.open-std.org/Jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2015/p0145r0.pdf
I agree with much of this, but was
There has been quite a bit of discussion among the committee on
this subject lately (the last part is the subject of DR #451,
though it's discussed in the context of uninitialized objects
with indeterminate values).
Are there notes from these discussions or something?
Notes from discussions
On 06/08/2016 12:36 AM, Alexander Cherepanov wrote:
Hi!
If a variable of type _Bool contains something different from 0 and 1
its use amounts to UB in gcc and clang. There is a couple of examples in
[1] ([2] is also interesting).
[1] https://github.com/TrustInSoft/tis-interpreter/issues/39
[2]
On 06/17/2016 02:19 PM, Alexander Cherepanov wrote:
On 2016-06-15 17:15, Martin Sebor wrote:
There has been quite a bit of discussion among the committee on
this subject lately (the last part is the subject of DR #451,
though it's discussed in the context of uninitialized objects
On 02/21/2016 06:44 PM, Wink Saville wrote:
I've tried you hack, but it doesn't work with "long bit fields". Also,
I've run into another problem. Instead of using unsigned char for
the bit field I changed it to a long unsigned int:33 and now I can't
print it without a warning.
That's
$ cat z.c && /home/msebor/build/gcc-trunk-svn/gcc/xgcc
-B/home/msebor/build/gcc-trunk-svn/gcc -Wall -Wextra -Wpedantic -xc z.c
struct S { unsigned i: 31; } s;
int i = _Generic (s.i, unsigned: 1);
z.c:2:19: error: ‘_Generic’ selector of type ‘unsigned int:31’ is not
compatible with any association
On 02/19/2016 11:25 AM, Wink Saville wrote:
I'm using gcc 5.3.0:
$ gcc --version
gcc (GCC) 5.3.0
Copyright (C) 2015 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This is free software; see the source for copying conditions. There is NO
warranty; not even for MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR
On 03/28/2016 01:56 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
In Bugzilla PR # 70275, Manuel López-Ibáñez reports that even though
he provides the "-Werror=return-type" option, the compiler doesn't
flag the warning/error about a control reaching the end of a non-void
function, due to the presence of the "-w"
On 03/31/2016 10:30 AM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 04:32:50PM -0600, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 03/28/2016 01:56 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
In Bugzilla PR # 70275, Manuel López-Ibáñez reports that even though
he provides the "-Werror=return-type" option, the compil
On 04/21/2016 07:20 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 21 April 2016 at 13:33, Szabolcs Nagy wrote:
On 21/04/16 12:52, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 21 April 2016 at 12:11, Szabolcs Nagy wrote:
the root cause is c++: c++ headers include random libc headers with
_GNU_SOURCE ftm so all sorts of
Many GCC tests for constexpr rely on static_assert to verify things
work correctly. While testing some changes of my own, I was surprised
to find the static_asserts pass even though my changes did not (see
below). It took me a while to realize that, and it took printing
the computed constant
On 04/28/2016 03:54 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 2:49 PM, Martin Sebor <mse...@gmail.com> wrote:
Many GCC tests for constexpr rely on static_assert to verify things
work correctly. While testing some changes of my own, I was surprised
to find the static_asserts pas
On 04/28/2016 01:35 AM, David Wohlferd wrote:
As part of the work I've done on inline asm, I've been looking thru the
bugs for it. There appear to be a number that have been fixed or
overtaken by events over the years, but the bug is still open.
Is closing some of these old bugs of any value?
In my builds lately I've been noticing many Ada tests failing
that didn't use to fail before. I don't think I'm doing
anything different than before. The failures all seem to be
due to the error below. Has something changed about how to
run the Ada test suite or how to configure GCC to enable
On 05/03/2016 03:47 PM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
In my builds lately I've been noticing many Ada tests failing
that didn't use to fail before. I don't think I'm doing
anything different than before. The failures all seem to be
due to the error below. Has something changed about how to
run the Ada
On 05/03/2016 04:44 PM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
There is no /build/gcc-trunk/gcc/gcc but presumably you meant
/build/gcc-trunk/gcc/ada (which does exist). But there is no
rts directory anywhere under the build tree.
Then the build failed at some point and this should be in the log.
Actually, I
Hi Jan,
I just noticed the compilation errors in the attached file with
the latest trunk. It seems as though your recent patch below may
be incomplete:
commit 46e5dccc6f188bd0fd5af4e9778f547ab63c9cae
Author: hubicka
Date: Mon May 2 16:55:56
On 07/13/2016 07:26 AM, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
Hi!
I had recently noticed that given:
#ifndef __cplusplus /* C */
_Static_assert(0, "foo");
#else /* C++ */
static_assert(0, "foo");
#endif
..., for C we diagnose:
[...]:2:1: error: static assertion failed: "foo"
On 07/20/2016 02:28 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 02:19:15PM -0600, Martin Sebor wrote:
Is there a way to express a requirement that a single line cause
two or more diagnostic messages (in any order) each matching one
of the regex strings?
Sure, and it is used many times
When multiple diagnostics for a given line in a test are expected,
I have been using the vertical bar ('|') in regular expression
arguments to DejaGnu directives like dg-error and dg-warning on
the assumption that all are matched.
This use appears to be sanctioned by the GCC TestCaseWriting Wiki
From a diagnostics point-of-view, neither version is quoted:
c/c-parser.c: error_at (assert_loc, "static assertion failed: %E", string);
cp/semantics.c: error ("static assertion failed: %s",
To be "quoted", it would need to use either %q or %<%>. Note that %qs
would produce `foo' not "foo".
On 02/23/2017 06:51 AM, Stephan Bergmann wrote:
At least with a recent GCC 7 trunk build ("gcc (GCC) 7.0.1 20170221
(experimental)"), I noticed that -Wformat-truncation warnings happen to
not be emitted if and only if -Og is given:
That's unfortunately a bug. The warning runs at different
On 01/17/2017 08:30 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
On 01/16/2017 05:37 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
I've run into this failure during make check in the past with
a very large make -j value (such as -j128), but today I've had
two consecutive make check runs fail with -j12 and -j8 on my 8
core laptop
I've run into this failure during make check in the past with
a very large make -j value (such as -j128), but today I've had
two consecutive make check runs fail with -j12 and -j8 on my 8
core laptop with no much else going on. The last thing running
was the go test suite. Has something changed
On 08/31/2016 04:56 AM, Jens Bauer wrote:
Hi Martin (and everyone else on the gcc list).
I appreciate your input and kind reply to my proposal. :)
On Tue, 30 Aug 2016 20:44:35 -0600, Martin Sebor wrote:
This sounds reasonable and useful to me but to be fully integrated
into the language
On 08/30/2016 06:22 AM, Jens Bauer wrote:
Hi all.
I know it's possible to declare a variable 'read-only' by using 'const'.
When working with microcontrollers (small ICs, which often requires you to
write your code at driver-level), you need to be able to declare a structure
member
On 09/09/2016 06:28 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
For compile-time fortify checks (such as the wrappers for type-safe
open/openat), we need to add tests in glibc which examine the compiler
output for warnings and errors.
I do not want to add Dejagnu as a dependency to the glibc test suite,
but I
This would have been easier if C++ had allowed the same default value to
be given in both the declaration and the definition:
void foo(int x, int y, bool bar_p = false);
void foo(int x, int y, bool bar_p = false)
{
}
It seems strange that this is not allowed. The standard says "A default
On 10/07/2016 11:15 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On October 7, 2016 6:49:39 PM GMT+02:00, Martin Sebor <mse...@gmail.com> wrote:
While processing the (p += i) expression below to validate the bounds
of the pointer in I call get_range_info for i (in tree-object-size.c).
The function r
While processing the (p += i) expression below to validate the bounds
of the pointer in I call get_range_info for i (in tree-object-size.c).
The function returns the following VR_RANGE: [2147483648, -2147483649]
rather than the expected [0, 1]. Is such a range to be expected or
is it a bug?
In
On 10/04/2016 04:41 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 4 October 2016 at 10:21, David Brown wrote:
On 04/10/16 01:48, Martin Sebor wrote:
In a recent review Jason and I discussed the style convention
commonly followed in the C++ front end to annotate arguments
in calls to functions taking bool
I'm seeing a number of failures in different tests in the tree-prof
directory when I run make check in parallel none of which are
reproducible with -j1. I don't see anything about in Bugzilla or
in recent test results. Has anyone noticed this or am I missing
something?
This is on a 56-core
On 09/21/2016 07:39 AM, Marek Polacek wrote:
On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 05:29:03PM -0600, Martin Sebor wrote:
I'm seeing a number of failures in different tests in the tree-prof
directory when I run make check in parallel none of which are
reproducible with -j1. I don't see anything about
In a recent review Jason and I discussed the style convention
commonly followed in the C++ front end to annotate arguments
in calls to functions taking bool parameters with a comment
along the lines of
foo (1, 2, /*bar_p=*/true);
I pointed out to Jason that in another code review, Jeff asked
I noticed that variables of signed integer types that are constrained
to a specific subrange of values of the type like so:
[-TYPE_MAX + N, N]
are reported by get_range_info as the anti-range
[-TYPE_MAX, TYPE_MIN - 1]
for all positive N of the type regardless of the variable's
On 11/11/2016 12:12 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 10:51 AM, Martin Sebor <mse...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 11/11/2016 10:53 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On November 11, 2016 6:34:37 PM GMT+01:00, Martin Sebor <mse...@gmail.com>
wrote:
I noticed that variables of si
On 11/11/2016 10:53 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On November 11, 2016 6:34:37 PM GMT+01:00, Martin Sebor <mse...@gmail.com>
wrote:
I noticed that variables of signed integer types that are constrained
to a specific subrange of values of the type like so:
[-TYPE_MAX + N, N]
are re
GCC is built with -fno-exceptions. I assume that's mainly to avoid
having to catch and handle exceptions in what was originally C code.
I also assume that also means that there's a policy or convention in
place against throwing exceptions in GCC or making use of constructs
that might throw (such
On 11/16/2016 07:36 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 01:48:41PM -0700, Martin Sebor wrote:
I'm also curious if there really is a policy/convention for dealing
with exceptions in GCC, what it actually is/says.
https://gcc.gnu.org/codingconventions.html#Exceptions
Thanks
On 11/11/2016 12:30 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 11/11/2016 12:12 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 10:51 AM, Martin Sebor <mse...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 11/11/2016 10:53 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On November 11, 2016 6:34:37 PM GMT+01:00, Martin Sebor
<mse...@gmail.c
it there but nowhere else?
Thanks
Martin
On 10/03/2016 05:48 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
In a recent review Jason and I discussed the style convention
commonly followed in the C++ front end to annotate arguments
in calls to functions taking bool parameters with a comment
along the lines of
foo (
On 10/13/2016 11:42 AM, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
Hi,
I am getting the following error when bootstrapping trunk (tried with r241108)
on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu during stage-1:
../../../../gcc/libstdc++-v3/src/c++11/compatibility-thread-c++0x.cc:121:12:
error: ISO C++ forbids declaration of
On 11/29/2016 09:32 AM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 11/29/2016 08:38 AM, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
This took me a bit to get to the bottom of, but I know believe
that we need to work both on the documentation and implementation
of -Wformat-length, in particular when it comes to floats.
#include
On 12/10/2016 06:52 AM, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
On 9 December 2016 at 05:17, Martin Sebor <mse...@gmail.com> wrote:
I'm seeing failures in a few C tests that I'm not sure what to make
out of. The tests fail due to undefined symbols while linking even
though they're not meant to link.
On 12/10/2016 11:03 AM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 12/10/2016 06:52 AM, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
On 9 December 2016 at 05:17, Martin Sebor <mse...@gmail.com> wrote:
I'm seeing failures in a few C tests that I'm not sure what to make
out of. The tests fail due to undefined symbols while l
I'm seeing failures in a few C tests that I'm not sure what to make
out of. The tests fail due to undefined symbols while linking even
though they're not meant to link. Among these are a number (but not
all) of the gcc.dg/divmod-[1-6]{-simode}.c tests.
FAIL: gcc.dg/divmod-1.c (test for
On 12/08/2016 05:32 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
On 12/08/2016 04:47 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
I'm seeing failures in a few C tests that I'm not sure what to make
out of. The tests fail due to undefined symbols while linking even
though they're not meant to link. Among these are a number (but not
all
On 01/11/2017 09:16 AM, Robin Dapp wrote:
Hi,
When examining the performance of some test cases on s390 I realized
that we could do better for constructs like 2-byte memcpys or
2-byte/4-byte memsets. Due to some s390-specific architectural
properties, we could be faster by e.g. avoiding
On 11/29/2016 08:38 AM, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
This took me a bit to get to the bottom of, but I know believe
that we need to work both on the documentation and implementation
of -Wformat-length, in particular when it comes to floats.
#include
typedef struct M {
float a, b, c;
} M;
I'll see what I can do about documentation; any input on the above
related to that will be helpful.
This might be a good time to mention that I've thinking about writing
up more detailed documentation than what may be suitable for the GCC
manual and posting it either on the Wiki or someplace
On 03/15/2017 10:07 AM, Roland Illig wrote:
Am 15.03.2017 um 03:43 schrieb Martin Sebor:
Would using the existing internal_error{,no_backtrace}, and
sorry work for this? (I.e., not translating those.) If my
count is right there are nearly 500 calls to these three in
GCC sources so I'm not sure
On 03/12/2017 04:51 PM, Roland Illig wrote:
Hi,
the gcc.pot file currently contains more than 12000 messages to be
translated, which is a very high number. Many of these messages are
diagnostics, and they can be categorized as follows:
* errors in user programs, reported via error ()
*
On 03/14/2017 08:18 AM, David Malcolm wrote:
Looking at PR ipa/8, which notes that ipa-devirt.c has two trailing
spaces in:
if (warning_at (
DECL_SOURCE_LOCATION(TYPE_NAME (DECL_CONTEXT (vtable->decl))),
OPT_Wodr,
"virtual table of type %qD violates "
"one definition
On 07/29/2017 07:37 AM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 01:08:35PM -0600, Martin Sebor wrote:
...or more precisely, about MoinMoin hyperlink formatting.
I'd like to insert hyperlinks to anchors in the GCC HTML manual
on some Wiki pages. Specifically, I'd like to be able
Hi Honza,
While testing improvements to GCC attribute handling I came
across the warning below:
In file included from
/ssd/src/gcc/81544/libstdc++-v3/src/c++98/mt_allocator.cc:31:0:
/ssd/build/gcc-81544/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/libstdc++-v3/include/ext/mt_allocator.h:359:43:
warning: ‘const’
On 08/02/2017 11:37 AM, Joseph Myers wrote:
On Wed, 2 Aug 2017, Martin Sebor wrote:
If there is no way, would enhancing target-supports.exp to
include a header that defines the macro? (I assume that would
be gcc/target.h for FUNCTION_BOUNDARY).
target.h is for target hooks, not target macros
On 08/15/2017 10:27 AM, Joseph Myers wrote:
On Tue, 15 Aug 2017, Martin Sebor wrote:
It looks like the data loss extends beyond 8/14. Bug 81840
was created Sunday afternoon but is not in the database:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/2017-08/msg01303.html
(Strangely, 81841
On 08/15/2017 07:27 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 15 August 2017 at 04:10, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 08/14/2017 04:22 PM, Eric Gallager wrote:
I'm emailing this manually to the list because Bugzilla is down and I
can't file a bug on Bugzilla about Bugzilla being down. The error
message looks
Is there a setup for writing and running as part of the test
suite unit tests that exercise internal GCC functions like
error and warning? I ask because of a couple of bugs that
were recently reported for the %s directive in GCC's
diagnostics (81859 and 81586) that were only caught by running
On 08/16/2017 09:20 AM, David Malcolm wrote:
On Wed, 2017-08-16 at 16:51 +0200, Marek Polacek wrote:
On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 08:46:20AM -0600, Martin Sebor wrote:
Is there a setup for writing and running as part of the test
suite unit tests that exercise internal GCC functions like
error
On 08/14/2017 04:22 PM, Eric Gallager wrote:
I'm emailing this manually to the list because Bugzilla is down and I
can't file a bug on Bugzilla about Bugzilla being down. The error
message looks like this:
Bugzilla and the rest of gcc.gnu.org have been down much of
the afternoon/evening due to
On 07/17/2017 02:14 AM, Yuri Gribov wrote:
Hi Mikhail,
On Sun, Jul 2, 2017 at 6:39 PM, Mikhail Maltsev wrote:
Hi. Yes, bug maintenance is appreciated. See this message and replies
to it: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2016-04/msg00258.html .
Replies in your link suggest to
On 07/07/2017 06:26 AM, Ion Gaztañaga wrote:
On 05/07/2017 17:24, Martin Sebor wrote:
[*] While the example (copied below) is valid, accessing the object
after someFunction() has returned via a reference or pointer to it
is not.
void somefunction(const Object& object);
{
voi
I see large numbers of timeouts in Ada tests on trunk in parallel
run s (make -j96) on x86_64. Messages like the one below appear
in the logs, suggesting some sort of heap corruption. I'm having
trouble reproducing it outside the rest of the test suite (i.e.,
by just running the Ada tests by
On 07/11/2017 11:50 PM, sa...@hederstierna.com wrote:
Hi
Reading about macro pitfalls and eg duplication side-effects
https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/cpp/Macro-Pitfalls.html#Macro-Pitfalls
would it be possible to let the preprocessor generate warnings for any of these
pitfalls?
The
On 07/17/2017 02:25 PM, Yuri Gribov wrote:
On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 4:23 PM, Martin Sebor <mse...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 07/17/2017 02:14 AM, Yuri Gribov wrote:
Hi Mikhail,
On Sun, Jul 2, 2017 at 6:39 PM, Mikhail Maltsev <malts...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Hi. Yes, bug maintenance is appr
...or more precisely, about MoinMoin hyperlink formatting.
I'd like to insert hyperlinks to anchors in the GCC HTML manual
on some Wiki pages. Specifically, I'd like to be able to link
to the description of a command line option or an attribute,
and I'd also like to render the text of the link
On 07/04/2017 06:02 PM, Geza Herman wrote:
Hi,
I've included a small program at the end of my email.
Here's what happens: in callInitA(), an Object put onto the stack (which
has a const member variable, initialized to 0). Then somefunction called
(which is intentionally not defined). Then
On 04/25/2017 02:35 PM, Joe Perches wrote:
A possibly useful addition similar to:
__attribute__((warn_unused_result))
might be
__attribute__((warn_untested_result))
for things like allocation failures that
are not verified before use.
I agree that this would be a useful feature. In fact,
I'm writing a test to verify that multiple attribute aligned
specifiers on a function declaration are handled correctly
(bug 81566). In the test I need to know the default function
alignment for the target(*). I've the FUNCTION_BOUNDARY macro
used to set the default alignment for a function
On 08/04/2017 06:59 AM, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
Hi,
I was having a look at PR78809.
For the test-case:
int t1(const char *s) { return __builtin_strcmp (s, "a"); }
for aarch64, trunk with -O2 generates:
t1:
adrpx1, .LANCHOR0
add x1, x1, :lo12:.LANCHOR0
b
1 - 100 of 3995 matches
Mail list logo