https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47650
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47650
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47650
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.7.0 |---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47650
--- Comment #29 from joe at mcknight dot de 2011-04-06 17:55:30 UTC ---
FWIW, I can reproduce this now on Solaris without any magic compiler switches:
The program is just this here:
---
void
foo(char *buf, int bufsz);
void
foo(ch
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47650
joe at mcknight dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47650
--- Comment #27 from joe at mcknight dot de 2011-03-16 14:40:32 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #26)
> > Can we use anything else to terminate the loop? Is there any other debug
> > output
> > that would be helpful for you?
>
> Well, try to figure
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47650
--- Comment #26 from rguenther at suse dot de
2011-03-16 13:07:03 UTC ---
On Wed, 16 Mar 2011, joe at mcknight dot de wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47650
>
> --- Comment #25 from joe at mcknight dot de 2011-03-16 12:58:50
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47650
--- Comment #25 from joe at mcknight dot de 2011-03-16 12:58:50 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #24)
> Well, it confirmed that void_list_node is not used, but I can't
> reproduce this fact.
Then how should we go on with this? As said, I can also onl
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47650
--- Comment #24 from rguenther at suse dot de
2011-03-16 09:38:37 UTC ---
On Tue, 15 Mar 2011, joe at mcknight dot de wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47650
>
> --- Comment #23 from joe at mcknight dot de 2011-03-15 17:05:24
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47650
--- Comment #23 from joe at mcknight dot de 2011-03-15 17:05:24 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #22)
> > Compare it to:
> >
> > typedef int mytype;
> > int myfunc2(mytype var) {
> > return 1;
> > };
> >
> > which outputs
> >
> > static int my
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47650
--- Comment #22 from rguenther at suse dot de
2011-03-15 16:33:09 UTC ---
On Tue, 15 Mar 2011, joe at mcknight dot de wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47650
>
> --- Comment #21 from joe at mcknight dot de 2011-03-15 16:18:37
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47650
--- Comment #21 from joe at mcknight dot de 2011-03-15 16:18:37 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #19)
> All looks good to me with your C testcase:
>
> (gdb) call debug_generic_expr (fndecl->common.type)
> int (struct
> {
> double dvar;
> int iva
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47650
--- Comment #20 from joe at mcknight dot de 2011-03-15 16:03:23 UTC ---
Unfortunately I cannot confirm that this bug is fixed, so I need to reopen it.
For one thing this bug is not only about variadic functions, but
dump_function_declaration() ret
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47650
--- Comment #19 from Richard Guenther 2011-03-15
15:59:44 UTC ---
All looks good to me with your C testcase:
gcc> gdb --args ./cc1 -quiet t.i
(gdb) b gimplify_function_tree
Breakpoint 5 at 0x855ac4: file /space/rguenther/src/svn/trunk/gcc/gimpli
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47650
--- Comment #18 from Richard Guenther 2011-03-15
15:56:04 UTC ---
comment #13 would happen if the list of argument types is not terminated by
the shared tree node void_list_node but by a clone. We expect the
shared void_list_node to be used else
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47650
--- Comment #17 from joe at mcknight dot de 2011-03-15 15:53:23 UTC ---
Created attachment 23666
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=23666
debug output from a run of the modified function
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47650
--- Comment #16 from joe at mcknight dot de 2011-03-15 15:52:01 UTC ---
Created attachment 23665
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=23665
dump_function_declaration with debug
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47650
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47650
--- Comment #14 from Richard Guenther 2011-03-15
13:39:50 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Mar 15 13:39:28 2011
New Revision: 170995
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=170995
Log:
2011-03-15 Richard Guenther
PR middle
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47650
--- Comment #13 from joe at mcknight dot de 2011-02-10 22:50:51 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> See http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-01/msg00956.html for a patch
> (queued for 4.7, several tree-dump check testcases have to be adjusted).
O
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47650
--- Comment #12 from joe at mcknight dot de 2011-02-09 18:14:36 UTC ---
> > That could be related to the function pointer issue where
> > print_generic_decl()
> > also rather repeats the declaration instead of printing the new type.
>
> You shoul
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47650
--- Comment #11 from joe at mcknight dot de 2011-02-09 18:11:10 UTC ---
Created attachment 23286
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=23286
A C file that provokes wrong output of print_generic_decl()
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47650
--- Comment #10 from joe at mcknight dot de 2011-02-09 18:08:32 UTC ---
Created attachment 23285
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=23285
A small test plugin that calls print_generic_decl()
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47650
--- Comment #9 from rguenther at suse dot de
2011-02-09 16:33:30 UTC ---
On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, joe at mcknight dot de wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47650
>
> --- Comment #8 from joe at mcknight dot de 2011-02-09 16:23:44 UT
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47650
--- Comment #8 from joe at mcknight dot de 2011-02-09 16:23:44 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> See http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-01/msg00956.html for a patch
> (queued for 4.7, several tree-dump check testcases have to be adjusted).
Ri
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47650
--- Comment #7 from joe at mcknight dot de 2011-02-09 14:22:48 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> See http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-01/msg00956.html for a patch
> (queued for 4.7, several tree-dump check testcases have to be adjusted).
Co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47650
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47650
--- Comment #5 from joe at mcknight dot de 2011-02-08 20:16:28 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> Well I think you need to debug it to see why it is printing out static, it
> might because a bit on tree has not been set yet.
The static is a very m
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47650
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski 2011-02-08
20:10:43 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> I am reporting the bug that print_generic_decl() is behaving incorrectly for
> some kinds of declarations. This should either be fixed or a comment be placed
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47650
--- Comment #3 from joe at mcknight dot de 2011-02-08 20:08:51 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> print_generic_decl is designed for debugging reasons only. Any other use is a
> bit bogus. Also asking for help with plugins is not really a bug rep
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47650
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c |middle-end
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pin
31 matches
Mail list logo
