http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30477
Jackie Rosen changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jackie.rosen at hushmail dot
com
--- Comm
--- Comment #18 from tg at mirbsd dot org 2007-01-25 16:09 ---
Subject: Integer Overflow detection code optimised away, -fwrapv
broken
Dixi:
>Commit ID: 10045B8CAF141886704
>CVSROOT: /cvs
>Module name: gcc
>Changes by:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007/01/25 15:21:11 UTC
>
--- Comment #17 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-25 14:49
---
Backporting the fix for PR28651 should fix it I guess.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30477
--- Comment #16 from tg at mirbsd dot org 2007-01-25 14:28 ---
Interestingly enough, nbd of OpenWrt has found that the bug
doesn't appear (i.e. the assert is triggered) if the function
is inlined (at -O3, with -finline-functions, or the attribute).
I've used a simpler test programme whi
--- Comment #15 from tg at mirbsd dot de 2007-01-22 23:54 ---
Subject: Re: Integer Overflow detection code optimised away,
-fwrapv broken
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org dixit:
>fold-const.c changed a lot, etc.
>Actually there are two different code, one I wrote which is does
>foldin
--- Comment #14 from gdr at cs dot tamu dot edu 2007-01-16 18:01 ---
Subject: Re: Integer Overflow detection code optimised away, -fwrapv broken
"rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| We do weight between cost and result which is a reason we keep branches in
|
--- Comment #13 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-16 18:00
---
(In reply to comment #12)
> Reopening this bug because http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2006-12/msg00749.html
> states that:
> "For example, GCC itself assumes wrapv semantics internally,"
And those places are getting fi
--- Comment #12 from tg at mirbsd dot org 2007-01-16 17:49 ---
Reopening this bug because http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2006-12/msg00749.html
states that:
"For example, GCC itself assumes wrapv semantics internally,"
This implies that gcc2 and gcc3 cannot compile gcc correctly,
unless using
--- Comment #11 from tg at mirbsd dot org 2007-01-16 17:34 ---
Subject: Re: Integer Overflow detection code optimised away,
-fwrapv broken
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org dixit:
>But we need to focus on where the majority of our users are, which is
>gcc 4.1 nowadays.
I highly doubt t
--- Comment #10 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-16 17:18
---
We do weight between cost and result which is a reason we keep branches in
active maintainance for a long time. But we need to focus on where the
majority of our users are, which is gcc 4.1 nowadays. We don't hav
--- Comment #9 from tg at mirbsd dot org 2007-01-16 16:56 ---
Subject: Re: Integer Overflow detection code optimised away,
-fwrapv broken
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org dixit:
>If you rely on support and maintainance for gcc releases that have been
>discontinued by the FSF you need t
--- Comment #8 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-16 10:36 ---
If you rely on support and maintainance for gcc releases that have been
discontinued by the FSF you need to get to your system vendor providing the old
gcc or to an external contractor.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bug
--- Comment #7 from tg at mirbsd dot org 2007-01-16 04:08 ---
Subject: Re: Integer Overflow detection code optimised away,
-fwrapv broken
pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu dixit:
>> >> Especially you as the author of code in question
>> >I did not write this code, I just know of it.
--- Comment #6 from pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu 2007-01-16 03:48
---
Subject: Re: Integer Overflow detection code optimised away, -fwrapv broken
> Subject: Re: Integer Overflow detection code optimised away,
> -fwrapv broken
> >> Especially you as the author of code in questio
> Subject: Re: Integer Overflow detection code optimised away,
> -fwrapv broken
> >> Especially you as the author of code in question
> >I did not write this code, I just know of it.
>
> You did: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27257#c2
Actually there are two different code, one I w
--- Comment #5 from tg at mirbsd dot de 2007-01-16 03:39 ---
Subject: Re: Integer Overflow detection code optimised away,
-fwrapv broken
pinskia at gmail dot com dixit:
>If you consider 4.0.x
I didn't say anything about 4.0, just gcc4 instead of gcc3.
And many people (e.g. most embe
--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gmail dot com 2007-01-16 03:04 ---
Subject: Re: Integer Overflow detection code optimised away,
-fwrapv broken
On Tue, 2007-01-16 at 02:33 +, tg at mirbsd dot org wrote:
> The real shame is an
> attitude of "we won't fix it, either use -O0, or
--- Comment #3 from tg at mirbsd dot org 2007-01-16 02:33 ---
Subject: Re: Integer Overflow detection code optimised away,
-fwrapv broken
Andrew Pinski (pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org) dixit:
>http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30477
>Fixed in 4.0.0, 3.4.x is no longer bein
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-15 23:57 ---
Also why should we support older GCC when we can barrely support the current
ones?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30477
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-15 23:56 ---
Fixed in 4.0.0, 3.4.x is no longer being maintained by the FSF and has not for
a while now.
If you want to figure out how which patch fixed it in 4.0.0, you can do that by
doing a binary regression search on the sou
20 matches
Mail list logo
