Re: Weird warning when building gcc
On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 12:34 PM, nick wrote: > If your able to just tell me where the functions are located or how do you > enable ctags for all of > gcc? That would just save me asking stupid questions. Is there a global > setting like make ctags for > doing this or you I have to do it manually. > > Thanks for the quick response, > > Nick Also, for `make ctags` to work from the top level source directory, this patch needs to be applied: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-10/msg00370.html (The patch is approved but the thread says I was still waiting on commit access at the time; I have since received commit access, but my ssh keys that allow me to commit are currently stuck on a failing hard drive, so if someone else could commit for me, it'd be appreciated.)
Re: Weird warning when building gcc
On 2017-09-24 10:10 AM, Eric Gallager wrote: > On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 12:34 PM, nick wrote: >> If your able to just tell me where the functions are located or how do you >> enable ctags for all of >> gcc? That would just save me asking stupid questions. Is there a global >> setting like make ctags for >> doing this or you I have to do it manually. >> >> Thanks for the quick response, >> >> Nick > > Also, for `make ctags` to work from the top level source directory, > this patch needs to be applied: > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-10/msg00370.html > (The patch is approved but the thread says I was still waiting on > commit access at the time; I have since received commit access, but my > ssh keys that allow me to commit are currently stuck on a failing hard > drive, so if someone else could commit for me, it'd be appreciated.) > Actually that patch has issues, line numbers have changed from your commit and is failing here due to that: @endif target-libffi .PHONY: configure-target-zlib maybe-configure-target-zlib maybe-configure-target-zlib: @if gcc-bootstrap error: patch failed: Makefile.in:47871 error: Makefile.in: patch does not apply Seems to be an issue that target-libffi is no longer at that line number, it was moved to 47919 on my current up to date of yesterday tree. Seems that branch is rather old i.e. last year for the mailing archives you sent me. Should I just rewrite the patch to work with current or something? Cheers, Nick
Re: Weird warning when building gcc
On 09/23/2017 04:57 PM, Eric Gallager wrote: > On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 12:34 PM, nick wrote: >> >> >> On 2017-09-23 12:05 PM, Jeff Law wrote: >>> On 09/22/2017 08:25 PM, nick wrote: Greetings All, I am wondering if this is a warning worth looking into or is it just another false postive: /home/nick/gcc/gcc/combine.c:1316:8: warning: ‘prev’ may be used uninitialized in this function [-Wmaybe-uninitialized] if ((next = try_combine (insn, prev, NULL, NULL, Maybe it's just me being new to the project but is the code for that literally or also identical between this and the one where CC0 register is directly used. >>> Looks like a false positive to me. Without more details (host, target, >>> flags, cpp output) I can't be 100% sure why it triggers though. >>> >>> Flow sensitive warnings such as this are very sensitive to a variety of >>> low level target and IL details. >>> >>> >>> >>> Jeff >>> >> >> Jeff, >> >> Thanks specifically what low level details do you need. It's currently on a >> x86-64 bit ubuntu host. >> Was build with the stock gcc from the ubuntu 17.04 repos with W=2 for extra >> warnings. What do these >> lines do, anything outside of the normal setting marcos as they seem to me: >> >> && GET_CODE (PATTERN (insn)) == SET >> && reg_mentioned_p (cc0_rtx, SET_SRC (PATTERN (insn))) >> >> I am wondering what GET_CODE,SET_SRC, PATTERN marcos do plus the function >> called, reg_mentioned_P? >> If your able to just tell me where the functions are located or how do you >> enable ctags for all of >> gcc? That would just save me asking stupid questions. Is there a global >> setting like make ctags for >> doing this or you I have to do it manually. >> >> Thanks for the quick response, >> >> Nick > > I think I remember running into this warning before; it's because > stage 1 of bootstrap is built without optimization so the warnings > don't have as good information. It's certainly the case that at -O0, -O1 or -Os you'll tend to get more -Wuninitialized warnings. Each of those throttle back jump threading which is vital to identifying and eliminating paths through the CFG that can never be executed. And a false positive -Wuninitialized warning is almost always on a path that can never be executed. jeff
Ctags Patch Fails
Jeff, Actually that patch has issues, line numbers have changed from your commit and is failing here due to that: @endif target-libffi .PHONY: configure-target-zlib maybe-configure-target-zlib maybe-configure-target-zlib: @if gcc-bootstrap error: patch failed: Makefile.in:47871 error: Makefile.in: patch does not apply Seems to be an issue that target-libffi is no longer at that line number, it was moved to 47919 on my current up to date of yesterday tree. Seems that branch is rather old i.e. last year for the mailing archives you sent me. Should I just rewrite the patch to work with current or something? Cheers, Nick P.S. I already sent this but this should be in around thread. Sorry for polluting the ML.
gcc-8-20170924 is now available
Snapshot gcc-8-20170924 is now available on ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/8-20170924/ and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details. This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 8 SVN branch with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/trunk revision 253127 You'll find: gcc-8-20170924.tar.xzComplete GCC SHA256=ea9c453e008f2fcca9e3defb4b79b2a9bf58aa251771cae5f2472cd9a9a5d1b3 SHA1=dcb7e38352798b42a1917dcac461659ee77c2410 Diffs from 8-20170917 are available in the diffs/ subdirectory. When a particular snapshot is ready for public consumption the LATEST-8 link is updated and a message is sent to the gcc list. Please do not use a snapshot before it has been announced that way.
