[Bug c/33193] slopiness in __real/__imag

2022-02-01 Thread sabre at nondot dot org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33193 --- Comment #11 from Chris Lattner --- Cool, thanks for tidying this up Andrew!

[Bug c++/26426] Type layout bug

2017-11-18 Thread sabre at nondot dot org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26426 --- Comment #4 from Chris Lattner --- Works for me, I'm not following GCC bugs these days. Thanks, -Chris

[Bug c/33193] slopiness in __real/__imag

2010-11-18 Thread sabre at nondot dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33193 Chris Lattner changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED Resolution|FIXED

[Bug c/46509] New: -Wparentheses shouldn't warn about: A || Y && "foo"

2010-11-16 Thread sabre at nondot dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46509 Summary: -Wparentheses shouldn't warn about: A || Y && "foo" Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c AssignedTo:

[Bug middle-end/31878] Spurious warnings with -Wreturn-type due to not performing CCP/VRP in the front-end

2009-12-29 Thread sabre at nondot dot org
--- Comment #10 from sabre at nondot dot org 2009-12-30 01:46 --- Yes, clang warns: $ clang t.c t.c:7:1: warning: control may reach end of non-void function [-Wreturn-type] } ^ -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31878

[Bug middle-end/31878] Spurious warnings with -Wreturn-type due to not performing CCP/VRP in the front-end

2009-12-28 Thread sabre at nondot dot org
--- Comment #8 from sabre at nondot dot org 2009-12-29 06:07 --- Clang does not produce diagnostics from the optimizer. We intentionally do not want to do this, because of the fragility of the diagnostics as the optimizer evolves. IMO it is much better to produce a consistent and

[Bug other/42333] complex division failure on darwin10 with -lm

2009-12-10 Thread sabre at nondot dot org
--- Comment #30 from sabre at nondot dot org 2009-12-10 23:44 --- FWIW, the darwin10 version of ___divdc3 comes from http://compiler-rt.llvm.org/ sounds like a bug there. -- sabre at nondot dot org changed: What|Removed |Added

[Bug target/40171] GCC does not pass -mtune and -march options to assembler!

2009-05-24 Thread sabre at nondot dot org
--- Comment #2 from sabre at nondot dot org 2009-05-25 00:46 --- This is very odd? What is the assembler doing that the compiler isn't? -- sabre at nondot dot org changed: What|Removed |

[Bug preprocessor/35010] preprocessor loses leading whitespace

2009-04-26 Thread sabre at nondot dot org
--- Comment #5 from sabre at nondot dot org 2009-04-27 01:31 --- Sorry I can't give a more detailed analysis of what is going on, I have no idea how the placemarker system works in gcc. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35010

[Bug preprocessor/35010] preprocessor loses leading whitespace

2009-04-26 Thread sabre at nondot dot org
--- Comment #4 from sabre at nondot dot org 2009-04-27 01:31 --- If the definition is: #define debug(format, ...) format,## __VA_ARGS__) Then we should still get: Z, ); W, ); If the definition is: #define debug(format,...) format,##__VA_ARGS__) Then we should get: Z,); W,); (and gcc

[Bug c++/38377] __builtin_constant_p(t) ? t : 1 is not considered a constant integer expression

2008-12-12 Thread sabre at nondot dot org
--- Comment #7 from sabre at nondot dot org 2008-12-12 18:04 --- oh, that also has 'int expr;' at global scope earlier. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38377

[Bug c++/38377] __builtin_constant_p(t) ? t : 1 is not considered a constant integer expression

2008-12-12 Thread sabre at nondot dot org
--- Comment #6 from sabre at nondot dot org 2008-12-12 18:02 --- Here are the testcases I checked in with the clang implementation of this if you're interested: // __builtin_constant_p as the condition of ?: allows arbitrary foldable // constants to be transmogrified into i-c-e&#x

[Bug c++/38377] __builtin_constant_p(t) ? t : 1 is not considered a constant integer expression

2008-12-11 Thread sabre at nondot dot org
--- Comment #5 from sabre at nondot dot org 2008-12-12 06:42 --- That is a lot more clear. Thank you for the explanation Joseph! I agree with you that if you want this to be acceptable that the folded version of the operand is really what is interesting. That seems much trickier to

[Bug c++/11211] trivial static initializers of const objects should be done at compile time

2008-12-06 Thread sabre at nondot dot org
--- Comment #6 from sabre at nondot dot org 2008-12-06 22:44 --- FWIW, llvm-g++ gets this right. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11211

[Bug c++/38377] __builtin_constant_p(t) ? t : 1 is not considered a constant integer expression

2008-12-06 Thread sabre at nondot dot org
--- Comment #3 from sabre at nondot dot org 2008-12-06 21:31 --- Ok, so this is a special case when __builtin_constant_p is immediately the operand of "?:"? Do you allow things like __builtin_constant_p(...)+0 as the operand? -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38377

[Bug c++/38377] __builtin_constant_p(t) ? t : 1 is not considered a constant integer expression

2008-12-06 Thread sabre at nondot dot org
--- Comment #1 from sabre at nondot dot org 2008-12-06 18:42 --- This is a bug in the C front-end. They need to use __builtin_choose_expr. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38377

[Bug c/37874] gcc sometimes accepts attribute in identifier list

2008-10-19 Thread sabre at nondot dot org
--- Comment #3 from sabre at nondot dot org 2008-10-20 02:10 --- as it turns out, f3 could also be considered valid in c89... because it makes x and y be implicit int's, not an identifier list. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37874

[Bug c/37874] gcc sometimes accepts attribute in identifier list

2008-10-19 Thread sabre at nondot dot org
--- Comment #1 from sabre at nondot dot org 2008-10-20 01:08 --- It also accepts this: void f4(__attribute__(())); -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37874

[Bug c/37874] New: gcc sometimes accepts attribute in identifier list

2008-10-19 Thread sabre at nondot dot org
Priority: P3 Component: c AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org ReportedBy: sabre at nondot dot org http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37874

[Bug tree-optimization/37868] code that breaks TBAA is misoptimized even with -fno-strict-aliasing

2008-10-18 Thread sabre at nondot dot org
--- Comment #1 from sabre at nondot dot org 2008-10-18 18:29 --- Here is the testcase. I should work with -fno-strict-aliasing: #include #include struct X { unsigned char pad : 4; uint64_t a : 64; uint64_t b : 60; } __attribute__((packed)); int main (void) { struct X x

[Bug tree-optimization/37867] inconsistent results on -O2 when reading bits from packed struct

2008-10-18 Thread sabre at nondot dot org
--- Comment #5 from sabre at nondot dot org 2008-10-18 18:11 --- Please clone/reopen this bug, it should work with -fno-strict-aliasing. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37867

[Bug tree-optimization/37867] inconsistent results on -O2 when reading bits from packed struct

2008-10-18 Thread sabre at nondot dot org
--- Comment #3 from sabre at nondot dot org 2008-10-18 18:06 --- Does it work with -fno-strict-aliasing? -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37867

[Bug c/35441] [4.2/4.3/4.4 regression] Completely broken diagnostics

2008-08-13 Thread sabre at nondot dot org
--- Comment #2 from sabre at nondot dot org 2008-08-14 04:23 --- FYI, clang produces: t.c:3:3: error: called object is not a function or function pointer (p - q)(); ^ t.c:8:3: error: called object is not a function or function pointer (p < q ? p

[Bug c/36941] gcc does not reject invalid cast

2008-07-25 Thread sabre at nondot dot org
--- Comment #5 from sabre at nondot dot org 2008-07-26 05:10 --- Ok, so is it right or wrong? :) -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36941

[Bug c/36941] gcc does not reject invalid cast

2008-07-25 Thread sabre at nondot dot org
--- Comment #3 from sabre at nondot dot org 2008-07-25 22:31 --- Though that does raise a question. Does GCC normally emit errors for undefined behavior? I thought the policy was to insert runtime traps? If so, doesn't the { x; } case qualify, or does it violate some other const

[Bug c/36941] gcc does not reject invalid cast

2008-07-25 Thread sabre at nondot dot org
--- Comment #2 from sabre at nondot dot org 2008-07-25 22:30 --- 'If the lvalue has an incomplete type and does not have array type, the behavior is undefined.' QoI -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36941

[Bug c/36941] New: gcc does not reject invalid cast

2008-07-25 Thread sabre at nondot dot org
Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org ReportedBy: sabre at nondot dot org http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36941

[Bug c++/23383] builtin array operator new is not marked with malloc attribute

2008-06-03 Thread sabre at nondot dot org
--- Comment #11 from sabre at nondot dot org 2008-06-04 05:34 --- Expecting people to modify their source is bad news. LLVM's LTO does nothing for operator new, it treats it as any other external function with undefined behavior. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.c

[Bug c++/23383] builtin array operator new is not marked with malloc attribute

2008-06-03 Thread sabre at nondot dot org
--- Comment #9 from sabre at nondot dot org 2008-06-04 04:48 --- This isn't possible. The user can override operator new at the very last minute: e.g. by interposing a shared object with LD_PRELOAD. There is no way that a compiler or even LTO optimizing linker can know about thi

[Bug c++/23383] builtin array operator new is not marked with malloc attribute

2008-06-03 Thread sabre at nondot dot org
--- Comment #7 from sabre at nondot dot org 2008-06-04 04:32 --- That said, it would be fine to add support for this under a non-standards-mode option of some sort of course. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23383

[Bug c++/23383] builtin array operator new is not marked with malloc attribute

2008-06-03 Thread sabre at nondot dot org
--- Comment #6 from sabre at nondot dot org 2008-06-04 04:32 --- This has been extensively discussed on the C++ reflector. They decided (informally, on the reflector) that people should be able to globally override operator new to do logging, etc, which can make malloc have arbitrary

[Bug c++/23383] builtin array operator new is not marked with malloc attribute

2008-06-03 Thread sabre at nondot dot org
--- Comment #4 from sabre at nondot dot org 2008-06-04 03:21 --- This would not be legal, there is no reason operator new can't return a pointer that already exists in the program. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23383

[Bug c/36399] New: FSF GCC ABI bug on darwin/x86-32

2008-05-31 Thread sabre at nondot dot org
-32 Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org ReportedBy: sabre at nondot dot org http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi

[Bug c/32511] GCC inlines weak function

2008-02-17 Thread sabre at nondot dot org
--- Comment #5 from sabre at nondot dot org 2008-02-18 07:35 --- That works for me. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32511

[Bug c/32511] GCC inlines weak function

2008-02-17 Thread sabre at nondot dot org
--- Comment #3 from sabre at nondot dot org 2008-02-17 19:48 --- I understand the desire to optimize with -fpic, but miscompiling the code seems unreasonable... -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32511

[Bug preprocessor/35010] New: preprocessor loses leading whitespace

2008-01-28 Thread sabre at nondot dot org
loses leading whitespace Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: preprocessor AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org ReportedBy: sabre at nondot dot org http

[Bug c/31128] __builtin_stack_restore/__builtin_stack_save should not be exposed to the user

2007-11-28 Thread sabre at nondot dot org
--- Comment #11 from sabre at nondot dot org 2007-11-28 20:57 --- Please don't disable these. There are a variety of compilers that optionally or only generate C code, particularly for the functional languages. This is useful functionality for these compilers. --

[Bug middle-end/25505] [4.0/4.1/4.2 Regression] gcc uses way too much stack space for this code

2007-11-22 Thread sabre at nondot dot org
--- Comment #27 from sabre at nondot dot org 2007-11-22 21:14 --- sounds fine to me, thanks -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25505

[Bug c/33193] slopiness in __real/__imag

2007-08-25 Thread sabre at nondot dot org
--- Comment #1 from sabre at nondot dot org 2007-08-26 05:28 --- Further, http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Complex.html#Complex does not document what arguments are accepted to __real and __imag at all. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33193

[Bug c/33193] New: slopiness in __real/__imag

2007-08-25 Thread sabre at nondot dot org
nedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org ReportedBy: sabre at nondot dot org http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33193

[Bug c/33192] New: __imag operator drops side effects in subexpr

2007-08-25 Thread sabre at nondot dot org
Priority: P3 Component: c AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org ReportedBy: sabre at nondot dot org http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33192

[Bug c/32511] New: GCC inlines weak function

2007-06-25 Thread sabre at nondot dot org
ReportedBy: sabre at nondot dot org http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32511

[Bug c/31128] __builtin_stack_restore/__builtin_stack_save should not be exposed to the user

2007-05-29 Thread sabre at nondot dot org
--- Comment #8 from sabre at nondot dot org 2007-05-29 15:14 --- Right, you could do that, but it is a) not guaranteed to work going forward, and b) expects properly structured (e.g. nested) control flow. If I had b, I could just make a vla :) -Chris -- http://gcc.gnu.org

[Bug c/31128] __builtin_stack_restore/__builtin_stack_save should not be exposed to the user

2007-05-28 Thread sabre at nondot dot org
--- Comment #6 from sabre at nondot dot org 2007-05-28 17:44 --- This is very useful for compilers generating C code (e.g. LLVM, and various other source -> C compilers). Why remove it? These compilers are generating partially structured code, that don't have syntactic blocks

[Bug c++/32121] [4.1/4.2/4.3 Regression] C++ front-end accepts invalid __label__ declarations

2007-05-28 Thread sabre at nondot dot org
--- Comment #1 from sabre at nondot dot org 2007-05-28 07:36 --- isn't this also likely a 3.4 regression? -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32121

[Bug c/32122] New: invalid indirect goto accepted

2007-05-28 Thread sabre at nondot dot org
igned at gcc dot gnu dot org ReportedBy: sabre at nondot dot org http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32122

[Bug target/31903] unwanted anonymous namespacing linkage

2007-05-11 Thread sabre at nondot dot org
--- Comment #6 from sabre at nondot dot org 2007-05-12 01:00 --- The real bug here is that they are not getting internal linkage. Just uniquing/randifying the names would allow them to link, but could be a perf issue (more symbols for the static/dynamic linker). -- http

[Bug c/31678] invalid C99 code accepted with warning

2007-04-23 Thread sabre at nondot dot org
--- Comment #2 from sabre at nondot dot org 2007-04-24 01:14 --- Doh, right, thanks! :) -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31678

[Bug c/31678] New: invalid C99 code accepted with warning

2007-04-23 Thread sabre at nondot dot org
with warning Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org ReportedBy: sabre at nondot dot org http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/sh

[Bug c/31513] Miscompilation of Function Passing Bit Field Value to Function

2007-04-09 Thread sabre at nondot dot org
--- Comment #1 from sabre at nondot dot org 2007-04-09 17:38 --- Among other things, this bug causes GCC 4.2 to miscompile LLVM. -- sabre at nondot dot org changed: What|Removed |Added

[Bug c/30057] error diagnosed with warning

2006-12-02 Thread sabre at nondot dot org
--- Comment #2 from sabre at nondot dot org 2006-12-03 07:47 --- Fair enough! -- sabre at nondot dot org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug c/30057] New: error diagnosed with warning

2006-12-02 Thread sabre at nondot dot org
ty: normal Priority: P3 Component: c AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org ReportedBy: sabre at nondot dot org http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30057

[Bug middle-end/28690] [4.2 Regression] Performace problem with indexed load/stores on powerpc

2006-09-22 Thread sabre at nondot dot org
--- Comment #16 from sabre at nondot dot org 2006-09-22 17:27 --- Out of curiosity, which powerpc processors are affected by this? -Chris -- sabre at nondot dot org changed: What|Removed |Added

[Bug libstdc++/28587] vector is extremely slow (900x slower than it should be)

2006-08-05 Thread sabre at nondot dot org
--- Comment #15 from sabre at nondot dot org 2006-08-05 23:30 --- Thanks a *lot* Paolo! It works great now. -Chris -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28587

[Bug libstdc++/28587] vector is extremely slow (900x slower than it should be)

2006-08-03 Thread sabre at nondot dot org
--- Comment #4 from sabre at nondot dot org 2006-08-03 19:21 --- >the people actively working in the C++ Standard Commitee strongly dislike >vector for many reasons, and probably it will be deprecated in C++03 and  > replacement added. That implies, in turn, that it's

[Bug libstdc++/28587] vector is extremely slow (900x slower than it should be)

2006-08-03 Thread sabre at nondot dot org
--- Comment #2 from sabre at nondot dot org 2006-08-03 18:31 --- Andrew, I'm well aware that vector stores things in compact form.  If you read my example, it's clear that I understand that. Even with the current algorithm used by vector, it should not use std::fill inte

[Bug libstdc++/28587] New: vector is extremely slow (900x slower than it should be)

2006-08-03 Thread sabre at nondot dot org
wer than it should be) Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: libstdc++ AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org ReportedBy: sabre at nondot

[Bug preprocessor/28521] -E output incorrectly concatenates tokens into trigraphs

2006-07-28 Thread sabre at nondot dot org
--- Comment #9 from sabre at nondot dot org 2006-07-29 05:03 --- ok -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28521

[Bug preprocessor/28520] preprocessed output does not lex to correct tokens

2006-07-28 Thread sabre at nondot dot org
--- Comment #18 from sabre at nondot dot org 2006-07-29 01:08 --- ok, fair enough. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28520

[Bug preprocessor/28520] preprocessed output does not lex to correct tokens

2006-07-28 Thread sabre at nondot dot org
--- Comment #16 from sabre at nondot dot org 2006-07-29 00:15 --- Do what ever you want, but it certainly is a bug with current GCC.  I filed this bug out of desire to help free software get better, not out of any great need to have the bug fixed. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla

[Bug preprocessor/28520] preprocessed output does not lex to correct tokens

2006-07-28 Thread sabre at nondot dot org
--- Comment #12 from sabre at nondot dot org 2006-07-29 00:13 --- ... which means it's a bug, so please stop closing it! -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28520

[Bug preprocessor/28520] preprocessed output does not lex to correct tokens

2006-07-28 Thread sabre at nondot dot org
--- Comment #9 from sabre at nondot dot org 2006-07-29 00:09 --- As I mention above, it is a GCC extension.  Isn't gcc great? :) -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28520

[Bug preprocessor/28521] -E output incorrectly concatenates tokens into trigraphs

2006-07-28 Thread sabre at nondot dot org
--- Comment #6 from sabre at nondot dot org 2006-07-29 00:08 --- Andrew, I'm well aware that a trigraph is not a token.  If you read the report, I say that "gcc -E" produces output that a subsequent GCC will not reparse into the same result. Again, this is the whole

[Bug preprocessor/28520] preprocessed output does not lex to correct tokens

2006-07-28 Thread sabre at nondot dot org
--- Comment #7 from sabre at nondot dot org 2006-07-29 00:06 --- more specifically http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28520

[Bug preprocessor/28520] preprocessed output does not lex to correct tokens

2006-07-28 Thread sabre at nondot dot org
--- Comment #6 from sabre at nondot dot org 2006-07-29 00:05 --- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28520

[Bug preprocessor/28521] -E output incorrectly concatenates tokens into trigraphs

2006-07-28 Thread sabre at nondot dot org
--- Comment #4 from sabre at nondot dot org 2006-07-28 23:59 --- I realize that tokenization is correct.  As per: http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/cppinternals/Token-Spacing.html#Token-Spacing GCC should be emitting the space so that the subsequent relex of the output won'

[Bug preprocessor/28520] preprocessed output does not lex to correct tokens

2006-07-28 Thread sabre at nondot dot org
--- Comment #4 from sabre at nondot dot org 2006-07-28 23:58 --- I realize that ?= is not a token.  However, http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28520

[Bug preprocessor/28521] -E output incorrectly concatenates tokens into trigraphs

2006-07-28 Thread sabre at nondot dot org
--- Comment #2 from sabre at nondot dot org 2006-07-28 16:26 --- It should print a space for the same reason that this does: #define x - -x -Chris -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28521

[Bug preprocessor/28520] preprocessed output does not lex to correct tokens

2006-07-28 Thread sabre at nondot dot org
--- Comment #2 from sabre at nondot dot org 2006-07-28 16:26 --- It should print a space for the same reason that this does: #define x - -x -Chris -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28520

[Bug preprocessor/28521] New: -E output incorrectly concatenates tokens into trigraphs

2006-07-27 Thread sabre at nondot dot org
ormal Priority: P3 Component: preprocessor AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org ReportedBy: sabre at nondot dot org http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28521

[Bug preprocessor/28520] New: preprocessed output does not lex to correct tokens

2006-07-27 Thread sabre at nondot dot org
This: #define x = http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28520

[Bug preprocessor/28388] stringify (#) operator broken

2006-07-14 Thread sabre at nondot dot org
--- Comment #5 from sabre at nondot dot org 2006-07-15 05:26 --- Okay, I don't care who does or doesn't do it. :) It doesn't get diagnosed in -E mode, though it's in clear violation of C99 6.10.3.2p2. -Chris -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28388

[Bug preprocessor/28388] stringify (#) operator broken

2006-07-14 Thread sabre at nondot dot org
--- Comment #3 from sabre at nondot dot org 2006-07-15 05:23 --- > Also without -E, we do warn about the second one: > t.c:2:7: warning: unknown escape sequence '\`' Right, but that is presumably the parser, not the preprocessor doing it... so it is a bug in the prepr

[Bug preprocessor/28388] New: stringify (#) operator broken

2006-07-14 Thread sabre at nondot dot org
3 Component: preprocessor AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org ReportedBy: sabre at nondot dot org http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28388

[Bug preprocessor/28227] New: valid #ifdef rejected

2006-07-02 Thread sabre at nondot dot org
Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: preprocessor AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org ReportedBy: sabre at nondot dot org http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28227

[Bug preprocessor/28223] _Pragma GCC poison broken

2006-07-02 Thread sabre at nondot dot org
--- Comment #1 from sabre at nondot dot org 2006-07-02 20:21 --- Sorry, this bug is invalid. The XYZW token is used (in the macro definition) before it is poisoned (in the instantiation), so it's ok. -Chris -- sabre at nondot dot org changed: What|Re

[Bug preprocessor/28223] New: _Pragma GCC poison broken

2006-07-02 Thread sabre at nondot dot org
n: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: preprocessor AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org ReportedBy: sabre at nondot dot org http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28223

[Bug preprocessor/28165] New: _Pragma GCC system_header broken

2006-06-25 Thread sabre at nondot dot org
gcc dot gnu dot org ReportedBy: sabre at nondot dot org http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28165

[Bug preprocessor/28079] New: #line range not verified

2006-06-18 Thread sabre at nondot dot org
ne range not verified Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: preprocessor AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org ReportedBy: sabre at nondot dot org http://gcc.gnu.org/bug

[Bug preprocessor/28022] New: Incorrect pedwarn for , expression in #if in c99 mode

2006-06-13 Thread sabre at nondot dot org
- Summary: Incorrect pedwarn for , expression in #if in c99 mode Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: preprocessor AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org

[Bug c++/26058] [4.0/4.1/4.2 Regression] C++ error recovery regression

2006-05-31 Thread sabre at nondot dot org
--- Comment #9 from sabre at nondot dot org 2006-05-31 23:00 --- Right, clearly issuing good diagnostics is a matter of balancing cases against each other. While I agree that this is valid: void f() { void g(); g(); } I don't see it used very often, particularly not

[Bug c++/26058] [4.0/4.1/4.2 Regression] C++ error recovery regression

2006-05-31 Thread sabre at nondot dot org
--- Comment #7 from sabre at nondot dot org 2006-05-31 22:17 --- Ok, makes sense. The strategy that made sense to me was "If I see a definition for something that obviously has to be at global scope, but is defined inside of a function, pop all the way out to global scope and con

[Bug c++/26058] [4.0/4.1/4.2 Regression] C++ error recovery regression

2006-05-31 Thread sabre at nondot dot org
--- Comment #5 from sabre at nondot dot org 2006-05-31 19:14 --- ... Adding mark so that he will hopefully see the previous comment. -- sabre at nondot dot org changed: What|Removed |Added

[Bug c++/26058] [4.0/4.1/4.2 Regression] C++ error recovery regression

2006-05-31 Thread sabre at nondot dot org
--- Comment #4 from sabre at nondot dot org 2006-05-31 19:13 --- I guess I don't follow your logic here. I agree that the EDG approach is inferior to the current GCC implementation, but the current GCC approach is inferior to the old GCC implementation (thus it's a regression

[Bug preprocessor/27783] New: Garbage at end of #include line ignored

2006-05-28 Thread sabre at nondot dot org
Priority: P3 Component: preprocessor AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org ReportedBy: sabre at nondot dot org http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27783

[Bug preprocessor/27777] New: Bad diagnostic emission when #error contains a trigraph

2006-05-27 Thread sabre at nondot dot org
en #error contains a trigraph Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: preprocessor AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org ReportedBy: sabre at nondot dot org

[Bug preprocessor/27750] bogus 'backslash-newline at end of file' warning

2006-05-23 Thread sabre at nondot dot org
--- Comment #6 from sabre at nondot dot org 2006-05-24 06:36 --- > It is not really an extension, just undefined at compile time which > isdiffferent than supporting. It's marked as a pedwarn. That's a pretty clear demonstration that this is a feature, and that it

[Bug preprocessor/27750] bogus 'backslash-newline at end of file' warning

2006-05-23 Thread sabre at nondot dot org
--- Comment #4 from sabre at nondot dot org 2006-05-24 06:26 --- > This might be why it is undefined at compile time if the file does not end in > a > new-line or not :). However, GCC *does* supports this as an extension, hence the expected pedwarn. > I don't thin

[Bug preprocessor/27750] bogus 'backslash-newline at end of file' warning

2006-05-23 Thread sabre at nondot dot org
--- Comment #1 from sabre at nondot dot org 2006-05-24 06:21 --- I guess I should have been more specific. Instead of "backslash-newline at end of file", I'd expect to get "no newline at end of file", which is also missing. -Chris -- http://gcc.gnu.org

[Bug preprocessor/27750] New: bogus 'backslash-newline at end of file' warning

2006-05-23 Thread sabre at nondot dot org
NCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: preprocessor AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org ReportedBy: sabre at nondot dot org http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27750

[Bug tree-optimization/27140] Compiling LLVM now takes nearly 5x as long with 4.1 as it did with 4.0

2006-04-13 Thread sabre at nondot dot org
--- Comment #3 from sabre at nondot dot org 2006-04-13 16:31 --- Note: "(albeit 2 million source lines)" isn't right, it's only 79K LOC. :) -Chris -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27140

[Bug c++/21581] (optimisation) Functions in anonymous namespaces should default to "hidden" visibility

2006-03-21 Thread sabre at nondot dot org
--- Comment #15 from sabre at nondot dot org 2006-03-21 18:06 --- Great, thanks! -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21581

[Bug c++/21581] (optimisation) Functions in anonymous namespaces should default to "hidden" visibility

2006-03-21 Thread sabre at nondot dot org
--- Comment #13 from sabre at nondot dot org 2006-03-21 18:03 --- Pardon the potentially silly question here, but why 'hidden'? Why not TREE_PUBLIC(decl) = 0? It seems that members of anonymous namespaces should be completely internal, and not depend on platform support

[Bug middle-end/16660] attribute((aligned)) doesn't work for variables on the stack for greater than required alignement

2006-03-18 Thread sabre at nondot dot org
--- Comment #4 from sabre at nondot dot org 2006-03-18 23:43 --- Huh? Why can't it? -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16660

[Bug c++/26426] New: Type layout bug

2006-02-22 Thread sabre at nondot dot org
gned at gcc dot gnu dot org ReportedBy: sabre at nondot dot org http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26426

[Bug target/26408] incorrect handling of x86 "H" registers in inline asm

2006-02-22 Thread sabre at nondot dot org
--- Comment #3 from sabre at nondot dot org 2006-02-22 16:11 --- Fair enough. Shouldn't this be diagnosed with an error though? -Chris -- sabre at nondot dot org changed: What|Removed |

[Bug inline-asm/26408] New: incorrect handling of x86 "H" registers in inline asm

2006-02-21 Thread sabre at nondot dot org
normal Priority: P3 Component: inline-asm AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org ReportedBy: sabre at nondot dot org http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26408

[Bug c++/26058] New: C++ error recovery regression

2006-01-31 Thread sabre at nondot dot org
Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c++ AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org ReportedBy: sabre at nondot dot org http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26058

[Bug c++/25915] use ODR rules to make C++ objects not be TREE_PUBLIC

2006-01-23 Thread sabre at nondot dot org
--- Comment #5 from sabre at nondot dot org 2006-01-23 22:00 --- Subject: Re: use ODR rules to make C++ objects not be TREE_PUBLIC Already done. The subject is now "use ODR rules to make C++ objects not be TREE_PUBLIC" Thanks, -Chris On Mon, 23 Jan 2006, gdr at cs do

[Bug c++/25915] use ODR rules to make C++ objects not be TREE_PUBLIC

2006-01-23 Thread sabre at nondot dot org
--- Comment #3 from sabre at nondot dot org 2006-01-23 21:23 --- Absolutely, it would be great to handle that as well. The risk of making a particular bugzilla PR more general is that it reduces the chance that it will ever get fixed though. -Chris -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla

  1   2   >