--- Comment #5 from paulthomas2 at wanadoo dot fr 2008-01-27 07:09 ---
Subject: Re: [4.3 Regression] Bogus error with USEing
modules
burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> --- Comment #4 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-27 00:14
> ---
>
>> If the ONLY's i test.f
--- Comment #11 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-27 05:19 ---
>From the -fpic/-fPIC logfile:
has_nothrow_assign.exe: [...]/has_nothrow_assign.C:139: int main(): Assertion
`(__has_nothrow_assign(E) && f() && My().f() && My2::trait &&
My3().f())' failed.
FAIL: g++.dg/ext/has_noth
--- Comment #10 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-27 05:07 ---
Hi Paolo, three of the tests you added for this enhancement have execute
failures on i686-unknown-linux-gnu and x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu on mainline
when compiled with -fpic/-fPIC. Is there some valid reason they sho
--- Comment #3 from sebpop at gmail dot com 2008-01-27 04:17 ---
Subject: Re: verify_ssa ICE with -ftree-loop-linear
Patch: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2008-01/msg01294.html
it does not fix really the problem, just works around the problem.
See also the comments here:
http://gcc.
--- Comment #5 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2008-01-27
00:24 ---
Subject: Re: libjava fails to build on hppa-linux-gnu (ICE in simplify_subreg)
> works for me with kyles patch for the kernel.
It's in 2.6.24.
Dave
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=328
--- Comment #10 from danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-27 00:19
---
Test case doesn't fail on 4.2.3 or head. Closing as fixed.
--
danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #4 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-27 00:14 ---
> If the ONLY's i test.f90 are removed, it builds fine
Actually, also removing a single dummy argument (e.g. "df") and it builds fine.
I think somewhere the tree might be walked wrongly. The question is only where.
L
--- Comment #4 from debian-gcc at lists dot debian dot org 2008-01-27
00:13 ---
closing as worksforme.
--
debian-gcc at lists dot debian dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #3 from debian-gcc at lists dot debian dot org 2008-01-27
00:13 ---
works for me with kyles patch for the kernel.
Matthias
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32857
--- Comment #1 from danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-26 23:49 ---
Not failing anymore.
--
danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
St
--
danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32857
--- Comment #5 from tbm at cyrius dot com 2008-01-26 23:16 ---
This is simply a host without enough RAM, not a gcc problem.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34882
--- Comment #3 from mkuvyrkov at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-26 23:09
---
Subject: Bug 34688
Author: mkuvyrkov
Date: Sat Jan 26 23:08:54 2008
New Revision: 131878
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=131878
Log:
PR middle-end/34688
* final.c (output_ad
--- Comment #11 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-26 23:05
---
4.0 is no longer maintained. Please open another PR if this is still an issue
with 4.3.x.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-26 23:02 ---
How is the situation with 4.1, 4.2 or 4.3?
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #8 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-26 23:00 ---
How is the situation with 4.2 or 4.3?
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-26 22:59 ---
Can someone provide numbers for 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3?
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #12 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-26 22:58
---
Can you check 4.2 and 4.3?
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #5 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-26 22:58 ---
*** Bug 34987 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-26 22:58 ---
Jerry confirmed with me his machine does not SSE2 on IRC so this is a dup.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 34878 ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #12 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-26 22:57
---
How is the situation with 4.2 or 4.3?
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #3 from hp at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-26 22:56 ---
I just checked with the gcc-4.2-20080123.tar.bz2 and the bug doesn't manifest
there with the vf.c testcase, so I'm marking this as a regression.
I also no longer think it's fwprop's error (at least not alone); the
into_cf
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-26 22:45 ---
I think this is a dup of bug 34878.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34987
--- Comment #3 from rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-26 22:45 ---
Subject: Bug 34711
Author: rakdver
Date: Sat Jan 26 22:44:19 2008
New Revision: 131877
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=131877
Log:
PR target/34711
* tree-ssa-loop-ivopts.c (com
--- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-26 22:43 ---
So this (was) in fact a regression.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--prefix=/home/jerry/Dev/usr --enable-languages=c,fortran --disable-libmudflap
--enable-libgomp --disable-bootstrap
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.3.0 20080126 (experimental) (GCC)
--
Summary: FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/fast-math-pr33299.f90 execution
test
--- Comment #58 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2008-01-26
22:23 ---
Subject: Re: wo_prof_two_strs.c:56: internal compiler error: in
find_new_var_of_type, at ipa-struct-reorg.c:605
> can you please check now? I committed patches from comment #11.
On hppa2.0w-hp-hpux11.11,
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.2.4 |4.2.3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33764
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-26 22:00 ---
This was fixed by:
http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?view=rev&revision=131867
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
Executing on host: /test/gnu/gcc/objdir/gcc/xgcc -B/test/gnu/gcc/objdir/gcc/
-
O0 -w -fno-show-column -c -o pr34966.o
/test/gnu/gcc/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-t
orture/compile/pr34966.c(timeout = 300)
/test/gnu/gcc/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/compile/pr34966.c: In function
'at
an':
/test/g
--- Comment #5 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-26 21:21 ---
How about the following patch instead (or additionally)?
Index: gcc/fortran/simplify.c
===
--- gcc/fortran/simplify.c (Revision 131876)
+++ gcc/for
--- Comment #11 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-26 20:47 ---
FIXED on the trunk (4.3.0).
Hooray - we managed to fix this before 4.3.0 was released :-)
Thanks for the bug report!
--
burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |A
--- Comment #10 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-26 20:45 ---
Subject: Bug 34848
Author: burnus
Date: Sat Jan 26 20:44:49 2008
New Revision: 131876
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=131876
Log:
2008-01-26 Tobias Burnus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR for
--- Comment #5 from hubicka at ucw dot cz 2008-01-26 20:19 ---
Subject: Re: [4.3 regression] calling a function with undefined parameters
causes segmentation fault at -O1 or higher
> and if it is just not available (i == NULL) might give inconsistent
> answers.
I will look into this.
--- Comment #13 from debian-gcc at lists dot debian dot org 2008-01-26
20:15 ---
we had successful builds for gcc-4.2 from the branch; no testresults / build
logs for gcc-4.3 yet.
Matthias
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26415
--- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-26 20:09 ---
Confirmed. Not a regression.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #9 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-26 20:06 ---
The following does no longer fix PR34868 but it seems to have no regressions.
"e" is the expression holding the actual argument; if it is NULL it means the
argument is absent. (This is handled before, including passin
--- Comment #4 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-26 19:43 ---
This one is tricky.
The problem occurs because of buffering. When tabbing to
8193 in Jerry's example, we come to the end of the
buffer and flush it.
When the record is longer than the buffer length, we'll
need to
--- Comment #4 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-26 19:36 ---
This is currently bootstrapping.
$ svn diff
Index: shape.m4
===
--- shape.m4(revision 131874)
+++ shape.m4(working copy)
@@ -49,6 +49,9 @@ shap
--- Comment #6 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-26 19:34 ---
Files still missing, from generated/*:
cshift1_*.c
eoshift1_*.c
eoshift3_*.c
matmul_*.c
reshape_*.c
shape_*.c
transpose_*.c
>From intrinsic/*.c:
cshift0.c
eoshift0.c
eoshift2.c
reshape_generic.c
transpose_generic.
Exact gcc version (Fedora 8): gcc (GCC) 4.1.2 20070925 (Red Hat 4.1.2-33)
Following small code snippet:
static void remove_one(void);
static void __attribute__((__used__)) remove_one(void)
{
}
build with:
gcc -c -Wall test.c
produces following warning:
test.c:4: warning: remove_one defined bu
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.3.0 |4.2.3
Version|4.3.0 |4.1.0
http://
--- Comment #4 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-26 19:23 ---
So we use the local info before it is available and thus the following will
ICE:
Index: config/i386/i386.c
===
--- config/i386/i386.c (revision 131861
--
hjl dot tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail|4.1.0 4.2.0 |4.1.0 4.2.0 4.3.0
Target Milestone|4.1.3 |4.3
Hello, vote for Your Country at http://thevotenation.com !
-
If you do not want to receive further mails: Write an email with the subject
\"unsubscribe\" to the address: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- Comment #19 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-26 19:13
---
Fixed, see PR 31610
--
jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #23 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-26 19:11
---
Fixed on trunk. Leaving open for further investigation. See TODO comment in
code
--
jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #3 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-26 19:09 ---
Janis, can you hunt this? Thanks.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-26 19:07 ---
The first time we ask, cgraph_local_info ()->local is zero, the second time it
is one.
Honza, Uros?
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #22 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-26 19:06
---
Subject: Bug 31610
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Sat Jan 26 19:05:15 2008
New Revision: 131874
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=131874
Log:
2008-01-26 Jerry DeLisle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Comment #18 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-26 19:04
---
Changing this back to the bug about the ICE.
>But now we accept the IMHO invalid version:
This is PR 23104.
Closing this bug as fixed as the original bug was fixed and the accepts invalid
has been around for a w
--- Comment #21 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-26 19:01
---
Subject: Bug 31610
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Sat Jan 26 19:01:07 2008
New Revision: 131873
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=131873
Log:
2008-01-26 Jerry DeLisle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Comment #17 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-26 18:59
---
That is PR 23104.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31529
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-26 18:57 ---
Oh and how much memory you have too?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34983
--- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-26 18:50 ---
We seem to use local calling conventions for emitting the body of something,
but
at the call site we pass arguments via the stack.
P1 until we know more about this.
Reduced testcase:
extern void abort (void);
sta
--- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-26 18:40 ---
We need a preprocessed testcase and information on how you invoked gcc. Also
try a newer version than 4.2.0.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #3 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-26 18:38 ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 27177 ***
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #26 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-26 18:38
---
*** Bug 34984 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #2 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2008-01-26 18:07 ---
Revision 131849 is OK and revision 131855 is bad. It looks like revision
131855:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2008-01/msg00616.html
may be the cause.
--
hjl dot tools at gmail dot com changed:
What
--- Comment #1 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2008-01-26 18:02 ---
Revision 131827 is OK.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34984
With revision 131864, on Linux/Intel64, I got
Executing on host:
/export/build/gnu/gcc/build-x86_64-linux/gcc/testsuite/g++/../../g++
-B/export/build/gnu/gcc/build-x86_64-linux/gcc/testsuite/g++/../../
/export/gnu/src/gcc/gcc/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/expr/cast7.C -nostdinc++
-I/export/build/gnu/gcc/b
That error was produced while building pixie 2.2.1-1ubuntu1 on the Ubuntu build
machine iridium (https://launchpad.net/+builds/iridium). Here you can find the
complete build log.
http://launchpadlibrarian.net/11439976/buildlog_ubuntu-hardy-i386.pixie_2.2.1-1ubuntu1_FAILEDTOBUILD.txt.gz
--
--
bergner at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.3.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34814
--- Comment #6 from bergner at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-26 17:31 ---
This is now fixed in mainline.
--
bergner at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from reid dot madsen at tektronix dot com 2008-01-26 17:29
---
Subject: RE: GCC 3.4.6 link fails with undefined reference to .hidden symbol
__floatdidf (libgcc.a)
I now understand what was going on...
The configure script for REXX was incorrectly linking the regina.so
The following (admittedly ugly) piece of code works on older gccs, and
segfaults on 4.3:
#include
#include
static void something();
int main(int argc, char **argv) {
something("test");
}
static void something(const char *whatever) {
assert(!strcmp(whatever, "test"));
}
Cha
--- Comment #5 from bergner at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-26 17:19 ---
Subject: Bug 34814
Author: bergner
Date: Sat Jan 26 17:18:35 2008
New Revision: 131869
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=131869
Log:
PR target/34814
* doc/tm.texi (TARGET_EXPAND_
--- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-26 17:15 ---
Also related to PR28879
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34962
--- Comment #2 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-26 17:07 ---
Fixed on the trunk.
--
jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|
--- Comment #1 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-26 17:05 ---
Subject: Bug 34965
Author: jakub
Date: Sat Jan 26 17:04:54 2008
New Revision: 131868
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=131868
Log:
PR c++/34965
* c-pretty-print.c (pp_c_exclusive_o
--- Comment #20 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-26 16:37
---
Reply to comment #18:
The shape of 1 is a zero size array.
The shape of [1] is [1]
Maybe in the simplifying of the expression for ([1] + 1) the shape of 1 is
being assigned to [1] or the final simplified exp
--- Comment #13 from dje at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-26 16:28 ---
Subject: Bug 34794
Author: dje
Date: Sat Jan 26 16:28:03 2008
New Revision: 131866
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=131866
Log:
PR target/34794
* config/os/aix/os_defines.h: Define
--- Comment #12 from dje at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-26 16:27 ---
Subject: Bug 34794
Author: dje
Date: Sat Jan 26 16:26:27 2008
New Revision: 131865
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=131865
Log:
PR target/34794
* config.gcc: Separate AIX 5.3 from
--- Comment #3 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-26 16:23
---
Confirming
--
jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|
--- Comment #2 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-26 16:22
---
The problem first occurs at the 8192 boundary at which point we do not write
"b"
program main
write (10,'(t8193,a,t1,a)') 'b', 'a'
end
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3497
--- Comment #9 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-26 15:24 ---
Fixed on trunk.
Closing.
--
tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #8 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-26 15:23 ---
Subject: Bug 34887
Author: tkoenig
Date: Sat Jan 26 15:22:59 2008
New Revision: 131864
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=131864
Log:
2008-01-26 Thomas Koenig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR li
--- Comment #19 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2008-01-26 14:41 ---
I confirm that the ICEs are gone, however the original test case and the one in
comment #3 ouput garbage: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]@^@@[EMAIL PROTECTED]@[EMAIL
PROTECTED]@[EMAIL PROTECTED]@[EMAIL PROTECTED]@' for the latte
--- Comment #16 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-26 14:37
---
Bah, you should have opened a new PR. Anyway, this is now this "new" one.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #15 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-26 14:35
---
Yep, a frontend problem.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #14 from reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-26 14:32
---
But now we accept the IMHO invalid version:
file1.c:
void foo() {}
file2.c:
void foo() {}
GCC 4.0.x used to produce an error:
file2.c:1: error: redefinition of 'foo'
file1.c:1: error: previous definition of
--- Comment #3 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-26 14:28 ---
>From the *.original dump:
atmp.2.dtype = 265;
atmp.2.dim[0].stride = 1;
atmp.2.dim[0].lbound = 0;
atmp.2.dim[0].ubound = -1;
atmp.2.data = 0B;
It is probably better to check for this
--- Comment #3 from reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-26 14:08
---
The 4.2 branch is now also back to accepts-invalid.
This is due to the fix for PR 33959.
--
reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #6 from reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-26 14:07
---
The 4.2 branch is now also back to accepts-invalid.
This is due to the fix for PR 33959.
--
reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--
reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot
|
--
reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.3.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30209
--- Comment #44 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-26 13:46
---
Fixed for 4.3. WONTFIX for the branches.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--
reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail|4.2.0 4.2.2 4.3.0 |4.2.0 4.2.2
Known to work||4.3.0
--- Comment #10 from fgccbz1 at greynode dot net 2008-01-26 13:29 ---
My thanks for the fix.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34235
--- Comment #3 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-26 13:25 ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> Created an attachment (id=15024)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=15024&action=view) [edit]
> Test files (tar.gz). Use "make"
Uggghhh!
If the ONLY's i test.f90 are remove
--- Comment #7 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-26 13:03 ---
Created an attachment (id=15026)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=15026&action=view)
testcase scalable with cpp
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28233
--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-26 12:51 ---
Can you add -save-temps and attach the resulting .ii file ?
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #5 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-26 12:37 ---
I think this benchmark is dubious, it likely depends on the library and
whatnot.
Also the benchmarks are out-of-date. Closing as invalid.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #7 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-26 12:35 ---
Not a regression, fixed for 4.2.0.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #6 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-26 12:33 ---
There is not a canonical interpretation of non-optimizing within gcc. If there
is interest in such, proposals are welcome.
Closing as WONTFIX until there is consensus what should be done at -O0 and what
not.
--
--- Comment #8 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-26 12:31 ---
We cannot help here. Please re-open if you have a testcase that we can use
to reproduce the problem and after trying the latest releases, 4.1.2 or 4.2.2.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
Wh
--- Comment #12 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-26 12:27
---
How is the status here?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26415
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
Status|WAITING |NEW
--- Comment #5 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-26 12:24 ---
Created an attachment (id=15025)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=15025&action=view)
unincluded, slightly reduced testcase
g++-4.3 -S t.1.cpp
t.1.cpp: In function int main():
t.1.cpp:648: error:
--- Comment #8 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-26 12:11 ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> But shouldn't -Wno-strict-aliasing suppress the warning?
Yes if you actually have -Wno-strict-aliasing after -Wall.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34973
1 - 100 of 131 matches
Mail list logo
