--- Comment #3 from thomas at archlinux dot org 2010-05-04 23:06 ---
What is -fwrapv supposed to do? I don't see any changes in behaviour or
compiler output.
As I said, I don't know exactly what to put into a test case (I didn't write
any of the code that breaks), but I can try my best
--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-04 23:08 ---
>What is -fwrapv supposed to do? I
Changes the behavior of signed integer overflow to be defined as wrapping
rather than being undefined.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43987
--- Comment #8 from mikael at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-04 23:08 ---
Created an attachment (id=20558)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=20558&action=view)
draft patch
This uses the scalarizer to inline.
The gfc_loopinfo is modified twice, first after walking args fo
--- Comment #5 from thomas at archlinux dot org 2010-05-04 23:49 ---
I am still not able to produce a short test case, but maybe this will help:
http://git.busybox.net/busybox/tree/editors/sed.c?h=1_16_stable&id=1_16_1#n738
In the function add_input_file(), the 'file' argument is not a
--- Comment #6 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-04 23:53 ---
How is xrealloc_vector defined?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43987
--- Comment #2 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-05-05 00:37
---
Seems already fixed in mainline and 4_5-branch. Volker, can you double check?
Thanks.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40406
--- Comment #3 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-05-05 00:44
---
Jason, this one seems fixed both in mainline and 4_5-branch as part of the
mangling updates. Can you confirm?
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed
--
jason at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |jason at gcc dot gnu dot org
|dot org
Compile following code with options -march=armv7-a -mthumb -Os,
extern void foo(int*);
void bar3(int v)
{
foo(&v);
}
GCC generates:
bar3:
push{r0, r1, r2, lr}
add r3, sp, #8
str r0, [r3, #-4]!
mov r0, r3
bl foo
pop {r1,
--- Comment #7 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-05 01:59
---
This is not invalid and is a feature request. I do think that -w will silence
warnings. I do not see a need to treat this particular warning any differently
then all the rest of the legacy warnings we have. For e
--- Comment #16 from mrs at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-05 03:08 ---
Subject: Bug 35165
Author: mrs
Date: Wed May 5 03:08:26 2010
New Revision: 159055
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=159055
Log:
PR objc/35165
* encode-8.mm: Restore running of test
--- Comment #14 from rus at google dot com 2010-05-05 03:08 ---
Created an attachment (id=20559)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=20559&action=view)
use ext/concurrence __mutex instead of pthread_mutex_t
Could you please try this patch out on your system? It appears
--- Comment #9 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-05 05:07 ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> Created an attachment (id=20558)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=20558&action=view) [edit]
> draft patch
Mikael,
I am pretty much out of the loop for the next two weeks
g++ misses the debug information of local static variable but gcc doesn't.
gcc version: 4.1.2 20080704 (Red Hat 4.1.2-44)
g++ version: 4.1.2 20080704 (Red Hat 4.1.2-44)
OS version: Red Hat Enterprise Linux Client release 5.3 (Tikanga)
code stored in the file myTest.c:
void CStyleFunction()
{
s
--- Comment #19 from ubizjak at gmail dot com 2010-05-05 06:24 ---
Not a gcc bug.
--
ubizjak at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
--- Comment #8 from dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-05 06:51 ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> OTOH I can see where a program that has a lot of real do loops would be
> irritating.[...] So I suggest we mark as an enhancement and when some one has
> time, we could implement a consoli
101 - 116 of 116 matches
Mail list logo
