--- Comment #8 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-03-21 03:00 ---
Fixed.
--
jason at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #8 from dannysmith at users dot sourceforge dot net 2009-03-21
01:03 ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> The proposed patch works for plain C code, but also affects C++. Since
> libstdc++ contains code that returns aggregates or calls code that does,
An example, please. The pat
--- Comment #37 from danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-03-21 00:53
---
Looking at the ICE some more, I see that the backtrace shown in the original
report involves the code added by Honza in revision 144529. The loc value
in frame 1 appears a somewhat wierd.
--
http://gcc.gnu.or
--- Comment #2 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-03-21 00:54 ---
I'm considering implementing/experimenting with something along the lines of
this:
http://www.cs.ualberta.ca/~amaral/cascon/CDP05/slides/CDP05-horspool.pdf
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35305
--- Comment #4 from janis at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-03-21 00:22 ---
I didn't call it a bug or a regression, but even a deliberate change can
produce incompatibilities between objects compiled with different versions of
GCC. That's why it would be good to get a suppressible warning/not
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-03-21 00:02 ---
Also see the thread starting at
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-09/msg00994.html .
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39514
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-03-21 00:01 ---
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2008-02/msg00686.html
In fact I think the trunk is more correct at least that is the way I read the
sizes and offsets.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39514
--- Comment #1 from janis at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-03-20 23:41 ---
Created an attachment (id=17505)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=17505&action=view)
partial patch to compiler, good patch to testsuite
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39514
Tests t007 and t177 from the C++ struct-layout-1 compat tests fail when using
GCC 4.3.3 as ALT compilers when testing trunk. The failure for one, check 932
in test t007, is due to a change from
r132614 | ebotcazou | 2008-02-25 09:55:26 + (Mon, 25 Feb 2008) | 4 lines
* stor-layout.c
--
steven at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
Last reconfirmed|2006-09-17 19:41:31 |2009-03-20 22:56:2
--- Comment #13 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-03-20 22:44
---
It at least still happens with 4.3 and I have no belief that it is fixed with
4.4 if comment #3 applies. Code generated is also absymal (-O2):
_ZN1t18__U3c_clinit__U3e_EJvv:
.LFB2:
pushl %ebp
.LCFI0:
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-03-20 20:56 ---
This is hard to detect really because of inlining differences between
translational units.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Definition_Rule
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39513
--- Comment #2 from jengliang at gmail dot com 2009-03-20 20:52 ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> You are violating C++'s One definition rule (ODR). This code is undefined
> because the definition of A::A() (and others) are different between the two
> files.
Thanks for the quick response
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-03-20 20:44 ---
You are violating C++'s One definition rule (ODR). This code is undefined
because the definition of A::A() (and others) are different between the two
files.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
This happens when one class is defined in header file, the other defined in cpp
file, have the same name. The program behavior becomes gcc argument order
dependent. At any rate, class A defined in foo.cpp has file scope shouldn't be
seen in bar.cpp.
$ g++ main.cpp foo.cpp bar.cpp
$ ./a.out
foo.c
--- Comment #26 from mark at codesourcery dot com 2009-03-20 20:16 ---
Subject: Re: [4.2/4.3/4.4 regression] Trouble with static
const data members in template classes
jason at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> I don't think the testcase in comment #7 indicates a bug at all.
FWIW, I conc
--- Comment #9 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-03-20 19:38 ---
Fixed for real now.
--
jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|
--- Comment #10 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-03-20 19:36 ---
Taking.
--
jason at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|mark at cod
--- Comment #11 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-03-20 19:36 ---
Reconfirmed for test cases of comment #9 (same spill failures).
--
steven at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #4 from LAL at pro dot onet dot pl 2009-03-20 19:29 ---
Created an attachment (id=17504)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=17504&action=view)
Test case for spotting similar error
The host is Fedora 8.
[ar...@gizmo AVR]$ avr-gcc -v -save-temps -std=gnu99 -p
--- Comment #35 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2009-03-20
19:09 ---
Subject: Re: [4.4 Regression] Revision 144529
miscompiled libcpp/expr.c
> Please provide preprocessed libcpp/expr.c which is miscompiled as
> well as the command line used to miscompile it.
Attac
--- Comment #34 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2009-03-20
19:07 ---
Subject: Re: [4.4 Regression] Revision 144529
miscompiled libcpp/expr.c
> Did you really mean that inserting the #if 1 disables the ICE or did you mean
> to insert #if 0? Is the preprocessor outp
--
steven at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18190
--- Comment #12 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-03-20 18:30 ---
Tom, this hasn't been reconfirmed in a while. Does this bug still exist in
gcj?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18190
--- Comment #25 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-03-20 18:11 ---
I don't think the testcase in comment #7 indicates a bug at all. We don't
issue an error because we don't instantiate A<0>::i. 14.6 says:
If no valid specialization can be generated for a template definition, and t
--- Comment #33 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2009-03-20 18:04
---
Please provide preprocessed libcpp/expr.c which is miscompiled as
well as the command line used to miscompile it.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39355
--- Comment #32 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-03-20 17:29
---
Did you really mean that inserting the #if 1 disables the ICE or did you mean
to insert #if 0? Is the preprocessor output different for the ICEing testcase?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3935
--- Comment #31 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-03-20 17:22 ---
Changing component to tree-optimization.
--
jason at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #7 from mattias at virtutech dot se 2009-03-20 17:16 ---
The proposed patch works for plain C code, but also affects C++. Since
libstdc++ contains code that returns aggregates or calls code that does,
-mms-aggregate-return will make the generated code incompatible with the C+
--- Comment #8 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-03-20 16:16 ---
Subject: Bug 37890
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Mar 20 16:15:38 2009
New Revision: 144978
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=144978
Log:
PR debug/37890
* dwarf2out.c (gen_namespace_die):
Seems that 'reallocator' field is not set to NULL in lex.c:linemap_init.
Later on in the code this field can be initialized with xrealloc only if it was
NULL. Since it is a pointer to a function, using it it leads to unexpected
behaviour (e.g. SIGILL or SIGTRAP).
Doing a quick grep in the source
--- Comment #6 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2009-03-20 14:42 ---
Don't use -fsee on x86-64.
--
hjl dot tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #9 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-03-20 14:20 ---
"Fixed" on a-i branch. "Invalid" for trunk (not that this makes these
switches usable somehow ...)
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #8 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-03-20 14:19 ---
Subject: Bug 39506
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri Mar 20 14:19:08 2009
New Revision: 144976
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=144976
Log:
2009-03-20 Richard Guenther
PR tree-optimization/
--- Comment #1 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2009-03-20 14:11 ---
Can you try adding "-mpreferred-stack-boundary=2"?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39369
--- Comment #3 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2009-03-20 14:08 ---
Works for me as of revision 144963.
--
hjl dot tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #30 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2009-03-20
13:17 ---
Subject: Re: [4.4 Regression] Revision 144529 miscompiled libcpp/expr.c
> With todays, head, it seems the miscompilation is related to the inlining
> of check_promotion. Adding noinline attribute makes t
--- Comment #7 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-03-20 12:47 ---
Created an attachment (id=17502)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=17502&action=view)
gcc44-pr37890.patch
Testcase with more namespace aliases:
namespace A
{
int x = 1;
}
namespace B1 = A;
namesp
--- Comment #6 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-03-20 12:44 ---
You're right. About to test an additional patch.
--
jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #4 from mikpe at it dot uu dot se 2009-03-20 11:08 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> No feedback in over a year. Presumed fixed in 4.3.0.
I can confirm that this test case works when compiled with a vanilla gcc-4.3.3
built for armv5tel eabi.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla
--- Comment #7 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-03-20 10:31 ---
Hm? In the testcase the argument points to NULL. I do not see that
1) assigning sth else to the parameter is forbidden by the optimization switch
2) we prevent the compiler from coalescing an unrelated SSA_NAME
41 matches
Mail list logo
