--- Comment #11 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2006-04-18 11:17
---
Subject: Re: function result is dereferenced error
On Tue, 18 Apr 2006, falk at debian dot org wrote:
> Uhm, this has nothing to do at all with evaluation order. Evaluation
> order of arguments is unspe
--- Comment #3 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2006-04-18 11:22 ---
Subject: Re: hex and oct constants are converted to
wrong type
On Tue, 18 Apr 2006, rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> 6.10.1/3
>
> The resulting tokens
> compose the controlling constant expr
--- Comment #13 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2006-04-18 12:57
---
Subject: Re: function result is dereferenced error
On Tue, 18 Apr 2006, falk at debian dot org wrote:
> > However, the evaluation of the
> > arguments to printf may overlap and the order is uns
--- Comment #7 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2006-04-19 17:15 ---
Subject: Re: The C frontend introduces undefined pointer overflow
On Wed, 19 Apr 2006, rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> Andrew, please do not mark PRs as invalid until the people involved in
--- Comment #4 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2006-04-23 22:22 ---
Subject: Re: Bit-field promotions
On Sun, 23 Apr 2006, mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> However, my patch was not intended to fix this bug, and only does so by
> accident. In particular, the last
--- Comment #4 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2006-05-03 00:12 ---
Subject: Re: [4.2 Regression] gcc.dg/20021014-1.c (test
for excess errors) fails
On Tue, 2 May 2006, sje at cup dot hp dot com wrote:
> I am not seeing this failure in my recent builds, should I go ahead
--- Comment #3 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2006-05-19 16:35 ---
Subject: Re: New: float to int conversion doesn't raise
invalid exception
On Fri, 19 May 2006, janis at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> GCC claims to follow C99 Annex F when converting a floating val
--- Comment #29 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2006-06-04 17:35
---
Subject: Re: [4.2 Regression] Build failure: undefined
symbol __floatunsitf
On Sun, 4 Jun 2006, mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> --- Comment #28 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-04
--- Comment #1 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2006-06-14 11:03 ---
Subject: Re: New: Incorrect pedwarn for , expression
in #if in c99 mode
On Wed, 14 Jun 2006, sabre at nondot dot org wrote:
> This testcase:
>
> #if 1 , 0
> #endif
>
> Should not warn with
--- Comment #2 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2006-06-21 15:14 ---
Subject: Re: New: gcc.dg/cpp/_Pragma3.c is sensitive
to timestamps
On Wed, 21 Jun 2006, amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> It would appear that this tests success requires that either _Pragma3.c
--- Comment #2 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2006-06-22 14:27 ---
Subject: Re: "make check" gets 10 FAIL reports with
gcc.dg/c99-typespec-1.c
On Thu, 22 Jun 2006, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> FAIL: gcc.dg/c99-typespec-1.c (test for excess errors)
>
--- Comment #2 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2008-11-28 17:26 ---
Subject: Re: -Wformat does not work for wide strings
In view of the removal of c4x support I don't now think any patch for this
needs to address the format of STRING_CSTs for non-8-bit target bytes.
B
--- Comment #14 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2008-11-30 15:37
---
Subject: Re: O2 causes invalid code
On Sun, 30 Nov 2008, rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> Note that the C standard forbids type-punning through a union.
> Basically it says that you may only rea
--- Comment #1 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2008-12-02 01:36 ---
Subject: Re: New: Use of Unicode quotes depends on LC_CTYPE
rather than LC_MESSAGES
On Tue, 2 Dec 2008, debian-gcc at lists dot debian dot org wrote:
> gcc uses Unicode quote marks with LC_CTYPE=en_US.UT
--- Comment #2 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2008-12-06 19:09 ---
Subject: Re: __builtin_constant_p(t) ? t : 1 is not considered
a constant integer expression
On Sat, 6 Dec 2008, sabre at nondot dot org wrote:
> This is a bug in the C front-end. They need to
--- Comment #4 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2008-12-06 22:53 ---
Subject: Re: __builtin_constant_p(t) ? t : 1 is not considered
a constant integer expression
On Sat, 6 Dec 2008, sabre at nondot dot org wrote:
> Ok, so this is a special case when __builtin_constant_p
--- Comment #2 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2008-12-07 00:28 ---
Subject: Re: New: Incorrect handling of line termination
character with trailing spaces
On Sat, 6 Dec 2008, eric dot niebler at gmail dot com wrote:
> In the attached file, there is a comment terminated wit
--- Comment #8 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2008-12-08 21:00 ---
Subject: Re: dead link on onlinedocs/gccint/Top-Level.html
On Mon, 8 Dec 2008, steven at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> Well, I can't even find this paragraph you want to reference.
The reference is to
--- Comment #10 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2008-12-09 13:40
---
Subject: Re: dead link on onlinedocs/gccint/Top-Level.html
On Tue, 9 Dec 2008, steven at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] ??? This manual is apparently not available online. Keep
> the
--- Comment #7 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2008-12-12 00:01 ---
Subject: Re: New: Gcc misaligns arrays when stack is
forced follow the x8632 ABI
On Thu, 11 Dec 2008, whaley at cs dot utsa dot edu wrote:
> I notice that gcc does not follow the 32-bit ABI for the x86, in t
--- Comment #10 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2008-12-12 01:25
---
Subject: Re: Gcc misaligns arrays when stack is forced
follow the x8632 ABI
On Fri, 12 Dec 2008, whaley at cs dot utsa dot edu wrote:
> >I suppose that by "32-bit ABI for the x86" you mean
--- Comment #12 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2008-12-15 00:21
---
Subject: Re: Gcc misaligns arrays when stack is forced
follow the x8632 ABI
On Fri, 12 Dec 2008, whaley at cs dot utsa dot edu wrote:
> >LSB may be a starting point for plausible hypotheses about the ABI
--- Comment #8 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2008-12-15 00:31 ---
Subject: Re: __builtin_constant_p(t) ? t : 1 is not considered
a constant integer expression
I also added more __builtin_constant_p tests (gcc.dg/bconstp-[34].c) to
c-4_5-branch, following this discussion, to
--- Comment #14 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2008-12-15 18:17
---
Subject: Re: Gcc misaligns arrays when stack is forced
follow the x8632 ABI
On Mon, 15 Dec 2008, whaley at cs dot utsa dot edu wrote:
> And also one without application here. I am aware of no other stand
--- Comment #20 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2008-12-16 00:09
---
Subject: Re: Gcc misaligns arrays when stack is forced
follow the x8632 ABI
On Mon, 15 Dec 2008, whaley at cs dot utsa dot edu wrote:
> If you thought the standard adopted by LSB was the wrong
> on
--- Comment #5 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2008-12-24 17:28 ---
Subject: Re: ICE passing fixed point to function
On Wed, 24 Dec 2008, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> x86_64 does not support fixed point modes at all. Someone needs to come up
> with an ABI for i
--- Comment #9 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2008-12-24 18:01 ---
Subject: Re: ICE passing fixed point to function
On Wed, 24 Dec 2008, hjl dot tools at gmail dot com wrote:
> I verified that there is
>
> auto-host.h:#define ENABLE_FIXED_POINT 0
>
> But I still
--- Comment #3 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2009-01-02 17:35 ---
Subject: Re: testsuite __gnu_mcount_nc link error when
profiling on arm
On Fri, 2 Jan 2009, laurent at guerby dot net wrote:
> I could not find a GLIBC 2.8 release in http://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/glibc/
> nor
--- Comment #3 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2009-01-05 05:05 ---
Subject: Re: [4.4 regression] ICE with goto
This being accepted for C is bug 32122.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38725
--- Comment #10 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2009-01-07 15:34
---
Subject: Re: bad text in -Wcast-qual warning (forgets volatile)
On Wed, 7 Jan 2009, ian at airs dot com wrote:
> How is it unsafe? All the const qualifier on a pointer means is that the
> memory will
--- Comment #5 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2009-01-13 12:52 ---
Subject: Re: [4.2/4.3/4.4 regression] ICE with nested
function
Does standard Ada allow something like this? If so, there's not much
point making it invalid GNU C.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bug
--- Comment #7 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2009-01-13 16:39 ---
Subject: Re: Incorrect memory access type used used in accessing
bitfields
On Tue, 13 Jan 2009, frikkie at zitera dot co dot za wrote:
> I've submitted patches to bug report 23623
> (http://gcc.gnu.o
--- Comment #7 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2009-01-14 13:49 ---
Subject: Re: [4.2/4.3/4.4 regression] ICE with nested
function
If there is language-independent code that's supposed to handle this
extension that doesn't handle anything in any other language, I'
--- Comment #9 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2009-01-14 15:06 ---
Subject: Re: [4.2/4.3/4.4 regression] ICE with nested
function
If all such calls ICE since 3.4.5 then I think we can just remove the
feature (giving an error if a nested function is declared to return a
--- Comment #5 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2009-01-21 23:27 ---
Subject: Re: Optimisation with inline function causes invalid
behaviour
On Wed, 21 Jan 2009, rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> You overflow x and y in main() which invokes undefined behavior.
Actually
--- Comment #15 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2009-01-27 13:33
---
Subject: Re: [4.3/4.4 Regression] ICE in set_value_range,
at tree-vrp.c:398
On Tue, 27 Jan 2009, jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> I wonder if the libcpp warning is correct in this case for
> -s
--- Comment #17 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2009-01-27 14:55
---
Subject: Re: [4.3/4.4 Regression] ICE in set_value_range,
at tree-vrp.c:398
On Tue, 27 Jan 2009, bonzini at gnu dot org wrote:
> > It's very clear to me by now that HOST_WIDE_INT should only de
--- Comment #2 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2009-01-29 20:02 ---
Subject: Re: New: Gcc accepts invalid code
On Thu, 29 Jan 2009, hjl dot tools at gmail dot com wrote:
> inline void foo ();
>
> int
> main ()
> {
> foo ();
> return 0;
> }
> [..
--- Comment #6 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2009-01-30 23:14 ---
Subject: Re: Decimal floating-point exception flags done wrong
On Fri, 30 Jan 2009, tydeman at tybor dot com wrote:
> I consider emulation of decimal FP to be part of the compiler's job. Part of
> tha
--- Comment #2 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2009-05-06 11:09 ---
Subject: Re: [4.5 Regression] ICE during gimplify_init_constructor
On Tue, 5 May 2009, rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> Reduced testcase, maybe due to the C const expression changes(?)
I see nothing
--- Comment #1 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2009-05-06 20:16 ---
Subject: Re: New: plugin tests don't work with multilib
On Wed, 6 May 2009, hjl dot tools at gmail dot com wrote:
> On Linux/Intel64, I got
>
> Executing on host: /export/build/gnu/gcc/build-x8
--- Comment #3 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2009-05-08 10:19 ---
Subject: Re: spurious format string warnings
On Fri, 8 May 2009, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> is happening here, it is assuming %qE does not take an argument). I don't see
> an issue really
--- Comment #3 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2009-05-13 16:50 ---
Subject: Re: rint from gcc.c-torture/execute miscompiled
with -march=i486
On Wed, 13 May 2009, ubizjak at gmail dot com wrote:
> Adding -ffloat-store also fixes these failures.
ieee.exp already uses -ffl
--- Comment #5 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2009-05-14 12:01 ---
Subject: Re: spurious format string warnings
On Thu, 14 May 2009, bje at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> Andrew wrote:
>
> "GCC can assume %qE means anything from just printing E in quotes"
&
--- Comment #2 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2009-05-19 16:15 ---
Subject: Re: No rule to make target `proto', needed by
`native'. Stop.
protoize and unprotoize were removed in 4.5 having been deprecated in 4.4
- either some reference did not get removed, or an
--- Comment #6 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2009-05-22 10:22 ---
Subject: Re: exception propagation support not enabled
in libstdc++ 4.4 on {armeabi,hppa}-linux
On Fri, 22 May 2009, mikpe at it dot uu dot se wrote:
> Created an attachment (id=17900)
--> (http://gcc.g
--- Comment #5 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2009-05-29 09:42 ---
Subject: Re: New: Request a single option to turn off
all instructions which can cause #TS
This sounds very much like the long-requested -fno-implicit-fp /
-mno-implicit-fp option. We have an implementation of
--- Comment #2 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2009-05-29 10:06 ---
Subject: Re: New: Using the -V option makes the compiler to
exit with 0 exit code on error
The pexecute interface returns a status value from waitpid from the driver
executed with -V, and gcc.c then passes this
--- Comment #10 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2009-06-06 22:22
---
Subject: Re: [4.5 regression] ICE with __complex__
double
On Sat, 6 Jun 2009, hjl dot tools at gmail dot com wrote:
> That is why we shouldn't close a bug report without checking
> in a testcase.
--- Comment #4 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2009-06-08 09:40 ---
Subject: Re: GCC defines UNICODE instead of _UNICODE
for -municode
On Mon, 8 Jun 2009, ktietz at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> to define UNICODE is absolutely correct. The define _UNICODE is fiction (bu
--- Comment #7 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2009-06-09 17:42 ---
Subject: Re: CLooG header files are not -Wc++-compat
ready
On Tue, 9 Jun 2009, spop at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> 2009-06-09 Sebastian Pop
>
> PR bootstrap/40103
> * graphi
--- Comment #1 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2009-06-09 18:34 ---
Subject: Re: New: possible integer wrong code bug
On Tue, 9 Jun 2009, regehr at cs dot utah dot edu wrote:
> reg...@john-home:~$ cat foo.c
> #include
>
> int foo(int y)
> {
> return (
--- Comment #2 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2009-06-10 00:58 ---
Subject: Re: New: cos gets replaced by sincos somehow, which
doesn't exist on system
On Tue, 9 Jun 2009, thekevinday at gmail dot com wrote:
> When I compiling lcms or ncurses I get: undefined refe
--- Comment #1 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2009-06-15 01:01 ---
Subject: Re: New: Option -I and POSIX conformance (c99 utility)
On Mon, 15 Jun 2009, vincent at vinc17 dot org wrote:
> As you can see, there is a difference for standard system include directories,
> for
--- Comment #3 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2009-06-15 10:57 ---
Subject: Re: Option -I and POSIX conformance (c99 utility)
On Mon, 15 Jun 2009, vincent at vinc17 dot org wrote:
> This may be true for standard headers, but system directories don't contain
> on
--- Comment #5 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2009-06-15 13:06 ---
Subject: Re: Option -I and POSIX conformance (c99 utility)
On Mon, 15 Jun 2009, vincent at vinc17 dot org wrote:
> --- Comment #4 from vincent at vinc17 dot org 2009-06-15 11:59 ---
> (In re
--- Comment #13 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2009-06-16 17:26
---
Subject: Re: wrong size of struct with some bit-fields on
ppc-eabi
On Tue, 16 Jun 2009, mcvick_e at iname dot com wrote:
> Furthermore, as stated numerous comments back with a link to the actual PPC
&g
--- Comment #15 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2009-06-16 20:03
---
Subject: Re: sizeof() and __attribute__ broken with
bit-fields on ppc-eabi
On Tue, 16 Jun 2009, mcvick_e at iname dot com wrote:
> Thanks for the update. I finally feel as though this is getting some te
--- Comment #2 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2009-06-17 10:13 ---
Subject: Re: linux-eabi.h:79:36: error: identifier "not"
is a special operator name in C++
On Wed, 17 Jun 2009, ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> Could you specify which version of the source
--- Comment #2 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2009-06-17 13:35 ---
Subject: Re: New: gcc 4.3 no longer warns about missing newlines
at end of files (regression from 4.2)
On Wed, 17 Jun 2009, rlerallut at free dot fr wrote:
> When compiling a C or C++ program with gcc 4.3 (
--- Comment #4 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2009-06-17 13:59 ---
Subject: Re: gcc 4.3 no longer warns about missing newlines at
end of files (regression from 4.2)
On Wed, 17 Jun 2009, rlerallut at free dot fr wrote:
> (In reply to comment #2)
> > This is deliberate
--- Comment #6 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2009-06-17 14:28 ---
Subject: Re: gcc 4.3 no longer warns about missing newlines at
end of files (regression from 4.2)
On Wed, 17 Jun 2009, rlerallut at free dot fr wrote:
> And what happened to configuration flags ?
Configurat
--- Comment #3 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2009-06-17 15:34 ---
Subject: Re: -std=c99 does not enable c99 mode in Solaris
C library
On Wed, 17 Jun 2009, rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> GCC 3.4.x is no longer maintained, please check GCC 4.3.x or newer.
It i
--- Comment #5 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2009-06-18 21:08 ---
Subject: Re: definitions of __builtin_abs() and abs() function
in one module not diagnosed
What happened to the patch for PR 32455 to disallow __builtin_*
declarations? That PR indicates it was approved for 4.5
--- Comment #6 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2009-06-18 21:49 ---
Subject: Re: -std=c99 does not enable c99 mode in Solaris
C library
On Thu, 18 Jun 2009, heydowns at borg dot com wrote:
> Was looking at modifying the spec to produce the desired results and
> cont
--- Comment #1 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2009-06-26 22:44 ---
Subject: Re: New: Invalid -Wc++-compat warning about stringized
C++ operator name
A closely related case is:
#define foo not used
There is no important difference in the meaning of this between C and C++
if
--- Comment #9 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2009-07-04 11:49 ---
Subject: Re: -std=c99 does not enable c99 mode in Solaris
C library
On Sat, 4 Jul 2009, ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> > I wasn't sure exactly how to handle the various -std=gnu* modes
--- Comment #5 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2009-07-04 11:54 ---
Subject: Re: 32-bit pointers on 64-bit operating systems
The natural analogy would be with MIPS n32 (an ILP32 ABI for 64-bit MIPS
hardware), which also indicates the directory names (/lib32) to use.
There would
--- Comment #10 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2009-07-15 14:15
---
Subject: Re: -Wconversion: do not warn for operands not larger
than target type
On Wed, 15 Jul 2009, ian at airs dot com wrote:
> Sure, it can wrap, but -Wconversion is not for wrapping warnings.
It&#x
--- Comment #2 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2009-07-26 17:32 ---
Subject: Re: complex folding inexact
The example in this bug deals with excess overflow for division. For
infinities computing as NaN + iNaN, an example is (NaN + iInf) * (NaN
+iInf) (where NaN +iInf is
--- Comment #1 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2009-07-26 21:43 ---
Subject: Re: New: Designated initializers for multi-dimensional
arrays fail in Objective-C
On Sun, 26 Jul 2009, sergei dot yakovlev at gmail dot com wrote:
> Designated initializers for multi-dimensional arr
--- Comment #4 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2009-07-27 21:02 ---
Subject: Re: New: stdarg.h does not define va_copy when building
for C89+POSIX
On Mon, 27 Jul 2009, bmerry at gmail dot com wrote:
> POSIX 2001 specifies that va_copy
> (http://www.opengroup.org/onli
--- Comment #17 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2009-07-28 11:55
---
Subject: Re: String not extracted for translation
On Mon, 27 Jul 2009, manu at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> --- Comment #3 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-07-27 16:55 ---
> (In reply to c
--- Comment #4 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2009-07-30 11:24 ---
Subject: Re: [4.5 Regression] FAIL: StackTrace2 output
- source compiled test
On Thu, 30 Jul 2009, aph at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> This regression in debuginfo seems to have been downgraded to P4, with
--- Comment #8 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2009-07-30 16:30 ---
Subject: Re: 4.5 weekly snapshot: failed to pre-compile
bits/stdc++.h.gch/O2ggnu++0x.gch
On Thu, 30 Jul 2009, paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com wrote:
> As a side note, I want to mention that we are very cl
--- Comment #10 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2009-07-30 19:28
---
Subject: Re: 4.5 weekly snapshot: failed to pre-compile
bits/stdc++.h.gch/O2ggnu++0x.gch
On Thu, 30 Jul 2009, htl10 at users dot sourceforge dot net wrote:
> I can't say about the others alpha*-de
--- Comment #1 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2009-07-30 23:45 ---
Subject: Re: New: missed optimization: x +
(-y * z * z) => x - y * z * z
Note that -frounding-math should disable the proposed optimization.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40921
--- Comment #21 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2009-07-31 12:54
---
Subject: Re: -related issues (C99 issues)
On Fri, 31 Jul 2009, paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com wrote:
> I'm wondering if there is something we can/should do here about C++1x: in the
> new St
--- Comment #23 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2009-07-31 13:09
---
Subject: Re: -related issues (C99 issues)
On Fri, 31 Jul 2009, paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com wrote:
> Note, in C++1x, those macros should be effectively predefined *only* when
> is included, not wh
--- Comment #1 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2009-08-03 19:16 ---
Subject: Re: New: Type-checking when returning from function
missing
On Mon, 3 Aug 2009, pratik dot j dot ashar at intel dot com wrote:
> Function foo() returns a char to the caller. Running objdump on
--- Comment #4 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2009-08-04 14:54 ---
Subject: Re: POSIX requires that option -D have a lower precedence
than -U
On Tue, 4 Aug 2009, vincent at vinc17 dot org wrote:
> There would the possibility to have a POSIX mode implied by c99, but I do
--- Comment #2 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2009-08-07 17:24 ---
Subject: Re: New: alloca broken for -fno-builtin
On Fri, 7 Aug 2009, ktietz at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> The function alloca (for cygwin/mingw target _alloca) is broken or not
> available (for linux64)
--- Comment #4 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2009-08-07 22:36 ---
Subject: Re: alloca broken for -fno-builtin
On Fri, 7 Aug 2009, ktietz at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> Well, if so. It makes no sense that -fno-builtins tries to call a function
> which isn't prese
--- Comment #7 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2009-08-08 10:37 ---
Subject: Re: alloca broken for -fno-builtin
On Sat, 8 Aug 2009, ktietz at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> Well, IMHO it is the same for alloca, as for setjmp, or longjmp. Even some
> code
> for detecti
--- Comment #11 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2009-08-08 16:33
---
Subject: Re: (Natural) language independent error / warning
classification
On Sat, 8 Aug 2009, manu at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> I am not planning to work on this further. This patch shows that it can
--- Comment #4 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2009-08-13 01:25 ---
Subject: Re: complex folding inexact
On Wed, 12 Aug 2009, ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
>
>
> --- Comment #3 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-08-12 22:28 ---
> (In reply t
--- Comment #5 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2009-08-13 12:23 ---
Subject: Re: Warning "cannot pass objects of non-POD type"
should be an error
On Thu, 13 Aug 2009, redi at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> I don't know about C, but C++ says:
>
> "p
--- Comment #2 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2005-11-09 18:09 ---
Subject: Re: gcc.dg/tls/pr24428.c execution test and
gcc.dg/tls/pr24428-2.c execution test fail on IA32
On Wed, 9 Nov 2005, jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> Works just fine here. What glibc are you us
--- Comment #4 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2005-11-12 14:24 ---
Subject: Re: gcc.dg/tls/pr24428.c execution test and
gcc.dg/tls/pr24428-2.c execution test fail on IA32
On Thu, 10 Nov 2005, jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> Does even a trivial __thread using program br
--- Comment #7 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2005-11-15 09:23 ---
Subject: Re: gcc.dg/tls/pr24428.c execution test and
gcc.dg/tls/pr24428-2.c execution test fail on IA32
On Tue, 15 Nov 2005, uros at kss-loka dot si wrote:
> The job of compiler is IMO to compile sour
--- Comment #2 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2005-11-21 18:21 ---
Subject: Re: New: simple hexadecimal number parsed as C99 hex
float
On Mon, 21 Nov 2005, bernie at develer dot com wrote:
> This testcase:
>
> int a = 0xe+100;
0xe+100 is a single preprocessing nu
--- Comment #3 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2005-11-23 14:07 ---
Subject: Re: New: Build failure on sparc-sun-solaris2.9:
undefined symbol __floatunsitf
On Wed, 23 Nov 2005, fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> Undefined first referenced
>
--- Comment #4 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2005-11-23 14:09 ---
Subject: Re: Build failure on sparc-sun-solaris2.9/arm:
undefined symbol __floatunsitf
On Wed, 23 Nov 2005, rearnsha at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> /work/rearnsha/gnusrc/gcc/trunk/gcc/timevar.c:203: undefi
--- Comment #6 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2005-11-23 14:28 ---
Subject: Re: [4.2 Regression] Build failure on
sparc-sun-solaris2.9/arm: undefined symbol __floatunsitf
On Wed, 23 Nov 2005, rearnsha at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> > ARM should be getting __floatunsid
--- Comment #8 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2005-11-23 14:54 ---
Subject: Re: [4.2 Regression] Build failure on
sparc-sun-solaris2.9/arm: undefined symbol __floatunsitf
On Wed, 23 Nov 2005, rearnsha at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> Not that simple, because the implementat
--- Comment #9 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2005-11-25 02:51 ---
Subject: Patch for sparc-solaris build failure
This patch fixes some of the problems associated with the use of
libcalls for unsigned-to-floating conversions (bug 24998). The
underlying problem was that my patch
--- Comment #15 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2005-11-26 03:55
---
Subject: Patch for ia64-hpux problems
This patch fixes the ia64-hpux problems with my __floatun* patch. It adds
a full set of C implementations of __floatunsi* which should also be
usable to solve the arm
--- Comment #5 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2005-11-28 00:45 ---
Subject: Re: New: [3.4/4.0/4.1/4.2] builtin printf/fprintf
is confused by -fexec-charset
On Sun, 27 Nov 2005, ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> With a program compiled with e.g. -O2 -fexec-charset=IBM1
--- Comment #17 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2005-11-28 23:43
---
Subject: Re: [4.2 Regression] Build failure on
sparc-sun-solaris2.9/arm: undefined symbol __floatunsitf
Current status:
PA needs fixing, probably similarly to ia64-hpux.
So does MIPS16.
FRV may need fixing
--- Comment #1 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2005-11-30 00:34 ---
Subject: Re: New: FAIL: gcc.dg/weak/weak-14.c
Isn't this just bug 24478?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25167
1 - 100 of 2027 matches
Mail list logo
