Hello list,
I have enountered some inconsistency in the RTL/VCG output
and I wonder if it is fixable (and how).
This problem arises when compiling a C file with a nested routine. In this case
the symbol of the nested routine is added a numeric suffix (like
static definitions
from within a functio
Hello,
While testing a patch for the SMS I got an ICE which seems
to be related to the fact we build def-use chains only
and not use-def chains. (removed in the following patch -
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-12/msg01682.html)
The problem arises when we delete an insn from the df that
Hi.
I'm having trouble with the dreaded:
cannot pass objects of non-POD type 'sometype' through '...'
message. Here's a brief example:
class String {
public:
void SetData(char *NewData) { m_Data = NewData; }
char *m_Data;
};
int Bar(char *s, va_list ArgList)
{
printf("String: %s\n", s);
On 10/24/07, John Gateley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The situation is this: I have a lot of code that uses a string class
> which takes advantage of the pun: the string class has only the
> one data member, which means you can do things like printf("%s", obj)
> and have the right thing happen (us
On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 12:03:38 -0700
"Andrew Pinski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 10/24/07, John Gateley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The situation is this: I have a lot of code that uses a string class
> > which takes advantage of the pun: the string class has only the
> > one data member, whi
On 10/24/07, John Gateley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't think it is undefined code. The class has no virtual functions,
> and the variable argument function doesn't need to know the full size
> of the struct, since it is not using it as a String object, it is using
> it as a char * pointer (
On Wed, Oct 24, 2007 at 12:15:03PM -0700, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> On 10/24/07, John Gateley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I don't think it is undefined code. The class has no virtual functions,
> > and the variable argument function doesn't need to know the full size
> > of the struct, since it is
On 10/24/07, Joe Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 24, 2007 at 12:15:03PM -0700, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> > On 10/24/07, John Gateley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > I don't think it is undefined code. The class has no virtual functions,
> > > and the variable argument function doesn't n
On 10/24/07, Joe Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So GCC could support this case and treat the warning as a pedwarn.
Well pedwarn is wrong as the code is just undefined at runtime (not at
compile time), pedwarn is for errors when the error is very pedantic.
Also he wants to do printf("%s", struc
On Wed, Oct 24, 2007 at 12:15:03PM -0700, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> > a "real" illegal instruction, caused by g++ doing something different
> > that I expected with the String object as an argument? Or is the illegal
> > instruction just a "place marker" that is generated because I passed
> > a non-P
On 10/24/07, Revital1 Eres <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> While testing a patch for the SMS I got an ICE which seems
> to be related to the fact we build def-use chains only
> and not use-def chains. (removed in the following patch -
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-12/msg01682.
On 10/24/07, Jack Lloyd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is there a reason it's not just an error, then? (As a user) I don't
> see the point of something being a warning when the compiled code is
> intentionally set up to crash.
Because the C++ standard (and the C standard) has mentioned that you
cann
> > The problem arises when we delete an insn from the df that contains a
> > use but do not update the def-use chain of it's def as we do not have
> > the use-def chain to reach it's def, This later causes a problem when
> > we try to dump the def-use chain of it's def.
>
> I'm sorry but I don't u
On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 12:37:50 -0700
"Andrew Pinski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What exactly does that mean? Do we pass it as a String or as a "b"?
> This is the reason why non-POD through variable arguments is
> undefined.
True, but this relies on "b" being a virtual class.
The case I had was v
On Wed, Oct 24, 2007 at 01:37:25PM -0700, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> On 10/24/07, Jack Lloyd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Is there a reason it's not just an error, then? (As a user) I don't
> > see the point of something being a warning when the compiled code is
> > intentionally set up to crash.
>
On Wed, Oct 24, 2007 at 04:50:58PM -0500, John Gateley wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 12:37:50 -0700
> "Andrew Pinski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > What exactly does that mean? Do we pass it as a String or as a "b"?
> > This is the reason why non-POD through variable arguments is
> > undefined.
Snapshot gcc-4.2-20071024 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.2-20071024/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.2 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches
On 10/24/07, Revital1 Eres <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > The problem arises when we delete an insn from the df that contains a
> > > use but do not update the def-use chain of it's def as we do not have
> > > the use-def chain to reach it's def, This later causes a problem when
> > > we try to d
I see that the source files compiled into libgcc are still licensed
under GPLv2+exception and that these have not yet been converted to
GPLv3 of any description.
What is the status of this? Is it okay to submit new source files (to
be compiled into libgcc), under the same terms as the existing li
Jose . wrote:
> I understand that the whole process of compiling a C file involves
> GENERIC->GIMPLE->SSA->GIMPLE->RTL
Yes.
> If I'm not wrong, GCC currently cannot go from SSA to RTL directly.
It can, but it doesn't.
> What I don't understand is what happens with all versions of the same
> va
J.C. Pizarro wrote:
> why is hard to optimize unrolling loop, inlining code, instructions
> scheduling, etc because of the SSA's presence?
None of these things are particluarly hard with SSA. I'm not sure I
understand what you are trying to get at.
> Don't forget, "Premature optimization is the
> Ben Elliston writes:
Ben> I see that the source files compiled into libgcc are still licensed
Ben> under GPLv2+exception and that these have not yet been converted to
Ben> GPLv3 of any description.
Ben> What is the status of this? Is it okay to submit new source files (to
Ben> be compiled
Richard Guenther wrote:
> 2007-10-18 Benjamin Kosnik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Removal of pre-ISO C++ items from include/backwards.
> * include/Makefile.am (backward_headers): Remove all but
> strstream,
> backward_warning.h.
> * include/Makefile.in: Regenerate.
>
On Wed, Oct 24, 2007 at 08:06:52PM -0400, David Edelsohn wrote:
> > Ben Elliston writes:
>
> Ben> I see that the source files compiled into libgcc are still licensed
> Ben> under GPLv2+exception and that these have not yet been converted to
> Ben> GPLv3 of any description.
>
> Ben> What is th
Joe Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On Wed, Oct 24, 2007 at 12:15:03PM -0700, Andrew Pinski wrote:
| > On 10/24/07, John Gateley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| > > I don't think it is undefined code. The class has no virtual functions,
| > > and the variable argument function doesn't need to know
On Wed, 2007-10-24 at 20:06 -0400, David Edelsohn wrote:
> Ben> What is the status of this? Is it okay to submit new source files (to
> Ben> be compiled into libgcc), under the same terms as the existing libgcc
> Ben> source files?
>
> This is as directed by the FSF until new exception lan
> Ben Elliston writes:
Ben> What should be done with the license of new source files in the
Ben> meantime?
New source files that require exception language should use the
current license and exception language present in other files.
Thanks, David
On 10/24/07, Diego Novillo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We are also thinking about lowering GIMPLE a bit further and delay
> the transition into RTL.
Diego, can you be more specific about what parts you think have to be
lowered more from GIMPLE?
Together with Richard Guenther, we're planing to se
Sebastian Pop wrote:
> Diego, can you be more specific about what parts you think have to be
> lowered more from GIMPLE?
It's something we've discussed on and off for a couple of years. One
idea is to expose in GIMPLE target features like word size, pointer
arithmetic, etc. It's not something t
On 10/24/07, Sebastian Pop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 10/24/07, Diego Novillo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > We are also thinking about lowering GIMPLE a bit further and delay
> > the transition into RTL.
>
> Diego, can you be more specific about what parts you think have to be
> lowered more
On Wed, Oct 24, 2007 at 05:32:12PM -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> Richard Guenther wrote:
> > 2007-10-18 Benjamin Kosnik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > Removal of pre-ISO C++ items from include/backwards.
> > * include/Makefile.am (backward_headers): Remove all but
> > strstream,
>
31 matches
Mail list logo
