Hi Robert,
----- Original Message -----
> From: "Robert Castelo" <robert.cast...@upf.edu>
> To: bioc-devel@r-project.org
> Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2014 5:45:28 AM
> Subject: [Bioc-devel] evaluation of C post-increments changed in GCC 4.8.2
>
> hi,
>
> this is just a warning to developers who may have C code in their
> packages.
>
> today i fixed a problem in the C code of the package VariantFiltering
> which can be reproduced with the following toy example.
>
> =======test.c========
> #include <stdio.h>
> #include <ctype.h>
>
> int main(void) {
> char msg[] = "Hello World!";
> char* p=msg;
>
> printf("%s\n", msg);
> while ((*p++=tolower(*p)));
> printf("%s\n", msg);
>
> return 0;
> }
> ====================
>
> after compiling this program stored as 'test.c' with the GCC
> compiler:
>
> $ gcc -o test ./test.c
>
> its execution shows the following output,
>
> $ ./test
> Hello World!
> hello world!
>
> when GCC has version 4.6.3 or lower. However, if you try to compile
> it
> with GCC version 4.8.2 (haven't tried any version > 4.6.3 and <
> 4.8.2)
> you get the following different output:
>
> Hello World!
> ello world!
>
> my interpretation of this change, and probably the C gurus in the
> list
> can clear up this point, is that the evaluation of post-increments
> (i.e., x++, i++, p++, etc.) in C has changed the way it was done in
> GCC
> 4.8.2 (and maybe even in earlier versions although not earlier than
> 4.6.3).
>
> if i change the line that contains the post-increment 'p++' to the
> following one:
>
> while ((*p=tolower(*p))) p++;
>
> then it works again as i expected with GCC 4.8.2.
>
> so, if you have C code in your package you might want to inspect all
> your post-increments. actually, if you compile the C code with
> -Wunsequenced the gcc compiler will warn you about this potential
> problem.
>
> see for instance (before the fix i sent gets through the build) the
> CHECK report of VariantFiltering for Mac OS X Snow Leopard and
> Mavericks
> which seem to use these two different flavors of GCC. While with Snow
> Leopard there is no apparent problem, in Maverics the installed
> version
> of GCC reports the following warnings:
>
Thanks for figuring this out and sharing it.
Note that on the build machines, the compiler used on Mavericks is not gcc but
clang.
More info here:
http://www.bioconductor.org/checkResults/2.14/bioc-LATEST/morelia-NodeInfo.html
http://www.bioconductor.org/checkResults/3.0/bioc-LATEST/oaxaca-NodeInfo.html
Dan
> Found the following significant warnings:
> methods-WeightMatrix.c:256:19: warning: unsequenced modification
> and
> access to 'q' [-Wunsequenced]
> methods-WeightMatrix.c:638:17: warning: unsequenced modification
> and
> access to 'q' [-Wunsequenced]
>
> those lines contain the kind of use of post-increment i showed above
> and
> are the ones i had to fix.
>
>
> greetings everyone,
>
> robert.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Bioc-devel@r-project.org mailing list
> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/bioc-devel
>
_______________________________________________
Bioc-devel@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/bioc-devel
