https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29693
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29693
--- Comment #9 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
Author: ramana
Date: Thu Jun 25 08:18:19 2015
New Revision: 224932
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=224932&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix PR target/29693
2015-06-25 Ramana Radhakrishnan
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29693
Mikael Pettersson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikpe at it dot uu.se
--- Comment #8
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29693
Konstantinos Margaritis changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||konstantinos.margaritis at
--- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-09-24 12:54 ---
You can't return va_list by value portably.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
Jul 12 23:32:02 EDT 2006 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64
GNU/Linux
Error :
-
toto.c:3: error: `test' declared as function returning an array
Source text :
---
#include
va_list test();
main ()
{
printf ("Hello world\n");
}
Many thanks.
--
Summary: Regression betwee
--- Comment #4 from ubizjak at gmail dot com 2009-09-17 09:26 ---
Not an executable testcase. Please use gcc-4.4.x, gcc-4.2 is not supported
anymore.
--
ubizjak at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #8 from abhinav dot dubey at hcl dot in 2009-04-10 05:29
---
I changed the compiler and its works.. thanks a lot for your advice
--
abhinav dot dubey at hcl dot in changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #6 from abhinav dot dubey at hcl dot in 2009-04-07 13:34
---
(In reply to comment #5)
> > There should not be any difference as i directed cc to gcc
> Your bug. The Makefile expects Sun CC since it uses Sun CC options. So you
> need to use Sun CC.
Thanks a lot , Is there
--- Comment #7 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-04-07 13:38
---
> Thanks a lot , Is there any workaround for this problem,Becouse SunCC compiler
> is paid.
You need to read the documentation of the software you're trying to build and
see whether GCC is supported; if so, follo
--- Comment #5 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-04-07 13:29
---
> There should not be any difference as i directed cc to gcc
Your bug. The Makefile expects Sun CC since it uses Sun CC options. So you
need to use Sun CC.
--
ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
Reading specs from /usr/sfw/lib/gcc/sparc-sun-solaris2.10/3.4.3/specs
Configured with:
/sfw10/builds/build/sfw10-patch/usr/src/cmd/gcc/gcc-3.4.3/configure
--prefix=/usr/sfw --with-as=/usr/ccs/bin/as --without-gnu-as
--with-ld=/usr/ccs/bin/ld --without-gnu-ld --enable-languages=c,c++
--enable-share
--- Comment #3 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-04-07 10:42
---
> Please help me in solving this issue also...
Your Makefile expects Sun CC and you're using GCC.
--
ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
irectory
> Reading specs from /usr/sfw/lib/gcc/sparc-sun-solaris2.10/3.4.3/specs
> cc: unrecognized option `-Xa'
> cc: unrecognized option `-K'
> Configured with:
> /sfw10/builds/build/sfw10-patch/usr/src/cmd/gcc/gcc-3.4.3/configure
> --prefix=/usr/sfw --with-as=/usr/cc
--- Comment #1 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-04-07 10:08
---
> also try to compile by gcc comman ... the famous hello word program..
> $ gcc -c -Wall -D_GNU_SOURCE abhi.c -o abhi.o
> $ gcc -c abhi.o abhi.c
> gcc: abhi.o: linker input file unused because linking not done
> .
sdb/rms/oracle/lib/src/saoranumadd.o`
cc: PIC: No such file or directory
Reading specs from /usr/sfw/lib/gcc/sparc-sun-solaris2.10/3.4.3/specs
cc: unrecognized option `-Xa'
cc: unrecognized option `-K'
Configured with:
/sfw10/builds/build/sfw10-patch/usr/src/cmd/gcc/gcc-3.4.3/configure
--prefi
--- Comment #6 from laurent at guerby dot net 2009-01-02 12:38 ---
gcc-4.3.2-1 debian gnueabi
pr29693.c: In function init_dwarf_reg_size_table:
pr29693.c:4: internal compiler error: in arm_dbx_register_number, at
config/arm/arm.c:18276
On trunk 142984
pr29693.c: In function 'init_dwa
--- Comment #8 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-12-26 11:46 ---
Closing, then.
Once again, the number of gcc bugs goes down by approximately 0.02% :-)
--
tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #7 from kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-12-26 00:01 ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> Is this still current?
>
This should probably be closed as WONTFIX. The report is
against FreeBSD 5.3, which is ancient. The FreeBSD Ports
Collection currently has port/lang/gcc34, which
--- Comment #6 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-12-25 21:49 ---
Is this still current?
--
tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #5 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-09-28 23:43 ---
*** Bug 34151 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-09-28 23:43 ---
Mark as a dup of bug 29693.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 29693 ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-09-28 23:43 ---
Reopening to ...
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status
--- Comment #3 from jeff at jeffunit dot com 2008-07-17 02:07 ---
Created an attachment (id=15920)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=15920&action=view)
Here is the subroutine, run throuh the preprocessor using gcc-3.4.3
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_
--- Comment #2 from jeff at jeffunit dot com 2008-07-17 01:59 ---
In order to run the entire program, you will need a fair amount of code.
All needed code can be found at the above URL, along with test data.
--
jeff at jeffunit dot com changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #1 from jeff at jeffunit dot com 2008-07-17 01:57 ---
Created an attachment (id=15919)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=15919&action=view)
this is the preprocessed subroutine that is poorly optimized
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36860
I have a subroutine that is heavily used by a program I frequently run called
UKKA_Dist_With_Max. I had benchmarked it using mandriva linux 2005LE. When I
ran it using mandriva 2008.1, it ran much slower. Using the compiler from
mandriva linux 2005LE (gcc-3.4.3) and mandriva 2008.1, I was able to
--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-26 07:15 ---
*** Bug 35703 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- 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 #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-25 23:36 ---
No activity for month.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-25 02:44 ---
3.4.x is no longer maintained, can you try using 4.1.3 or 4.2.2?
Also I don't think eabi was really supported in 3.4.3 anyways.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
The host is linux 2.6.19.
The target platform is Freescale imx31ads board.
The cross toolchain is arm-none-linux-gnueabi-.
While compiling the gcc-3.4.3, its giving the following error:
-c ../../gcc/unwind-dw2.c -o libgcc/./unwind-dw2.o
../../gcc/unwind-dw2.c: In function 'extract_cie
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-24 03:43 ---
Reduced Testcase:
unsigned char dwarf_reg_size_table[63 +1];
init_dwarf_reg_size_table (void)
{
__builtin_init_dwarf_reg_size_table (dwarf_reg_size_table);
}
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
--- Comment #2 from mriben at globallocate dot com 2006-11-03 02:09 ---
Created an attachment (id=12540)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=12540&action=view)
unwind-dw2.s
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29693
--- Comment #1 from mriben at globallocate dot com 2006-11-03 02:08 ---
Created an attachment (id=12539)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=12539&action=view)
unwind-dw2.i
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29693
This was the error I got from gcc-4.1.1 while attempting to compile gcc-3.4.3.
$ arm-none-linux-gnueabi-gcc -O2 -DIN_GCC-W -Wall -Wwrite-strings
-Wstrict-prototypes -Wmissing-prototypes -Wold-style-definition -isystem
./include -fomit-frame-pointer -fPIC -g0 -DHAVE_GTHR_DEFAULT
--- Comment #8 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-21 20:17 ---
*** Bug 29538 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 2006-08-22 15:17 ---
Look at PR 17810 again, this was fixed in 3.4.5.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 17810 ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
failed with gcc-|compile failed with gcc-
|3.4.3 |3.4.3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28805
HI,
I tryed to cross compile Xfree86-4.4 and 4.5 with my cross tool built with
gcc-3.4.3
But in both the cases it is giving error as
slicer.cc: In function `void triangulateRect(Arc*, Backend&, int, int, int)':
slicer.cc:382: internal compiler error: in verify_local_live_at_start, at
f
--- Comment #6 from gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-28 09:44 ---
won't fix for 3.4.6
--
gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|SUSP
--- Comment #7 from bagnara at cs dot unipr dot it 2005-12-20 07:49 ---
I can confirm both problems (incorrect reordering and performance regression)
are present in GCC version 4.0.2 and version 4.2.0 20051209 (experimental).
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21032
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-16 22:25 ---
This has been fixed in 4.1.0.
We no get:
.L4:
fldl(%edx,%eax,8)
faddl (%ebx,%eax,8)
fstpl (%edx,%eax,8)
incl%eax
cmpl%eax, %ecx
jne .L4
Likewise fo
--
gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|3.4.5 |3.4.6
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18418
--
What|Removed |Added
GCC target triplet|i686-pc-linux-gnu |i686-*-*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21550
--
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.0.2 |4.0.3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21550
--- Additional Comments From dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-14
02:49 ---
I have a patch for the alias portion of this
--
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unass
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-14
00:42 ---
Hmm, in 4.0.0, we have about 6,800 SSA_NAMEs.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23835
takes
|longer than gcc 3.4.3 |two times longer than gcc
||3.4.3 and 4.0.0
Target Milestone|--- |4.1.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23835
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-14
00:32 ---
[20:26] < pinskia> but 38% are in compute_may_aliases
[20:27] < pinskia> and 80% of that is in the loop which is going through all
SSA_NAMES
[20:27] < pinskia> this is in create_name_tags
[20:28] < pinskia>
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-13
23:29 ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> We have at least 5 SSA_NAMEs, that is just huge. We have only V_MAY_DEFs
> for .GLOBAL_VAR
> and a TMT.
Over half, 40,000 are scalars registers.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bu
4.1.0 -O3
|compile takes two times |compile takes two times
|longer than gcc 3.4.3, on |longer than gcc 3.4.3
|ia64|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23835
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-13
22:37 ---
The main function is huge, no wonder this takes more time.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23835
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-13
22:18 ---
tree alias analysis : 5.56 (17%) usr 0.07 ( 8%) sys 5.66 (17%) wall
13812 kB ( 3%) ggc
tree SSA incremental : 3.15 (10%) usr 0.01 ( 2%) sys 3.18 (10%) wall
8152 kB ( 2%) ggc
hmm, we
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-13
22:09 ---
Can you run with -ftime-report and attach the results?
--
What|Removed |Added
Keyw
--- Additional Comments From jaffe at broad dot mit dot edu 2005-09-13
22:03 ---
We recompiled gcc 4.1.0 with checking disabled. The results are now less
dramatic but still of concern: optimized 4.1.0 compiles take about twice as
long as 3.4.3 compiles on the test case:
Compile time
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23835
--- Additional Comments From jaffe at broad dot mit dot edu 2005-09-12
16:33 ---
Created an attachment (id=9711)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=9711&action=view)
preprocessed source code
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23835
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-12
16:32 ---
(In reply to comment #0)
> % gcc -v
> Using built-in specs.
> Target: ia64-unknown-linux-gnu
> Configured with: ../configure --prefix=/wga1/gcc
> Thread model: posix
> gcc version 4.1.0 20050730 (experimenta
We observe that on ia64,
gcc -On -c test.ii (n = 1,2,3)
is several times slower under gcc 4.1.0 than gcc 3.4.3:
Compile time in seconds
-O0 -O1-O2 -O3
3.4.3 5.659 9.515 13.811 14.779
4.1.0 8.417 44.652 56.176 60.204
This is typical of what we observe for
--- Additional Comments From rth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-05 20:39
---
Fixed.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-05
20:39 ---
Subject: Bug 21529
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Branch: gcc-4_0-branch
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-08-05 20:39:05
Modified files:
gcc: Change
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-05
02:42 ---
Subject: Bug 21529
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-08-05 02:42:07
Modified files:
gcc: ChangeLog params.def params.h tree-sr
--
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |rth at gcc dot gnu dot org
|dot org |
Status|NEW
The attached archive .tgz contains all necessary to repeat this compile
bug.
Error disappears if one exchange the order of two headers in
Request.cpp. See README file for details.
Note: earlier versions of gcc compile it always successfully.
Tested compilers generate the error: gcc 3.4.3
Seg fault of gcc on the following program:
void bar (void)
{
char *foo;
(long long)((int)foo+0) < 0 ;
}
command use: gcc -c file.c
--
Summary: gcc 3.4.3 segfault
Product: gcc
Version: 3.4.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: nor
--
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.0.1 |4.0.2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21529
--
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.0.1 |4.0.2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21550
Hi,
Has anyone seen this?
When a prototyped function of var-arg is called without any arguments
to the variable part, "crxor 6,6,6" is not generated. "-O0
-mno-prototype" does NOT resolve the problem either.
test.c
int test(const char *a, ...);
void test1(const char *a)
{ test
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-22
00:23 ---
Again no feedback in 3 months :(.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-15
17:26 ---
This is unrelated to 323. The problem is that GCC does not implement a
rounding modes correctly for
C99 and therefor defines it as aways "normal" rounding mode and implements this
transformation.
--
--- Additional Comments From vincent at vinc17 dot org 2005-06-15 17:08
---
Oops, forget my comment. There is a bug, but 5.1.2.3#13 / 6.3.1.5#2 / 6.3.1.8#2
is not related to it if gcc does reduce the precision (due to the "volatile",
that in fact prevents bug 323 from occurring here, rig
--- Additional Comments From vincent at vinc17 dot org 2005-06-15 16:49
---
I think that this is just bug 323 (which is a real bug, not invalid). Version
3.4 added other regressions related to this bug (e.g. when one has function
calls), and this is not specific to the negate operation.
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-05
07:42 ---
Mark as invalid.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESO
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-05
07:41 ---
Reopening to ...
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCO
--- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2005-05-20
15:50 ---
Notice that both testcases come from the same program (Gujin).
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21529
--- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2005-05-20
15:49 ---
*** Bug 21680 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21529
--
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|3.4.4 |3.4.5
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18418
] i686
|performance 33% slower than |floating point performance
|gcc 3.4.3 |33% slower than gcc 3.4.3
Target Milestone|--- |4.0.1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21550
gcc 4.0.0 generates slower code than gcc 3.4.3 for the BLAS "axpy" operation.
(This is no doubt specific to IA32, and perhaps also to the processor version.)
The program is below, here are the timing results:
gcc 3.4.3gcc 4.0.0
Method cpu secs
(+40%) |[4.0/4.1 Regression] code
|with -Os from GCC-3.4.3 to |size regression (+40%) with
|4.1 |-Os from GCC-3.4.3 to 4.1
Target Milestone|--- |4.0.1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21529
--- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2005-05-12
11:48 ---
Maybe SRA could be tuned differently for -Os. RTH, do you think it is feasable,
or is it only a register allocator problem and should not be handled at the
tree level at all?
--
What|Remove
--- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-12
10:39 ---
Yada yada yada, you know the drill. SRA, out-of-ssa, and register
allocation all working against each other:
:;
D.1605 = DI.IDE_found + (struct IDE_found_str *) ((long unsigned int) i *
8);
tmp$re
Compiling this code with -Os is more than 40 % bigger in size with GCC-4.1
compared to GCC-3.4.3.
See also thread: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-05/msg00532.html
>>>>
struct disk_interface_str {
unsignednb_IDE_found;
struct IDE_found_str {
unsigned sho
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-30
16:12 ---
No feedback in 3 months.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING
Bruzzone Mirko wrote:
ld: 0711-252 SEVERE ERROR: File auxiliary symbol entry 1 in object
/home/mirko/nfs/sp7/SpBLDAIX7-SV/obj/spts/sptsquit.o
:
Field x_offset contains 4. Valid values are between 4 and -1.
That looks like a problem with the IBM assembler/linker that we probably
can't do anything a
Hi everybody,
We are compiling our middleware product using the following gcc version:
gcc 3.4.3
binutils 2.15
We compile the code using the 64 bit option on AIX 5.1.
GCC as well as BINUTILS codes have been downloaded as binary from the gnu
site, we didn't compile them.
We have the foll
), which compiles
the code even worse than done by GCC 3.4.3 (for whatever optimization level and
-march option one gives).
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21032
--- Additional Comments From bagnara at cs dot unipr dot it 2005-04-15
07:01 ---
Subject: Re: GCC 3.4.3 wrongly reorders floating-point
operations
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> Note neg just flips a bit so it is correct anyways
> and there is no loss of precession
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-14
22:01 ---
Note neg just flips a bit so it is correct anyways and there is no loss of
precession.
This also happens on ppc darwin, I don't know what to make of this. A C person
has to comment to say
something abou
If you compile the function
void assign2(float* a, double b) {
volatile float v = -b;
*a = -v;
}
you will see that GCC 3.4.3, e.g., at -O2, produces
fldl12(%ebp)
fstps -20(%ebp)
movl8(%ebp), %eax
flds-20(%ebp)
fchs
fstps -4
--- Additional Comments From echristo at redhat dot com 2005-04-05 21:36
---
No response. Cleaning up old prs.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING
--- Additional Comments From whatdoineed2do at yahoo dot co dot uk
2005-03-22 18:28 ---
currently trying to pull out the bits of the glibc so we can build a standalone
to demostrate this issue; as you can appreciate, its kind of difficult.
would you be happy with instructions on how i
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20569
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-20
17:37 ---
We need a testcase.
The last time this was reported, there was no testcase, see PR 16466.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20569
--
What|Removed |Added
Component|c |target
Keywords||wrong-code
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id
Configured with: ./gcc-3.4.3/configure --prefix=/usr --enable-shared
--enable-threads --enable-languages=c,c++ --program-suffix=3.4.3
--enable-version-specific-runtime-libs
Thread model: posix
gcc version 3.4.3
binutils 2.15
linux 2.6.11 on pentium-m
---
when building glibc-2.3.4, with CFLAGS
--- Additional Comments From ltg at zes dot uni-bremen dot de 2005-03-17
21:37 ---
Subject: RE: gcc 3.4.3 optimizes volatile vars away (gcc 3.4.3 >= -O2)
On 17-Mar-2005 pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
>
> --- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-17
20:58 ---
You need to mark the variable as used.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
;-
(/usr/local/bin/gcc -O1 -v -save-temps -I. -c -o jidctint.o jidctint.c
Reading specs from /usr/local/lib/gcc/i686-pc-linux-gnu/3.4.3/specs
Configured with: /home/ltg/software/src/work/gcc-3.4.3/configure
--enable-threads=posix --enable-libgcj --enable-shared --enable-__cxa_ate
1 - 100 of 169 matches
Mail list logo
