bootstrap 4.0-200503005: flag_unsafe_math_optimizations undeclared
Using binutils 2.15.96 and gcc 3.4.3... where have I gone wrong? -Jason gcc -c -g -DENABLE_CHECKING -DENABLE_ASSERT_CHECKING -DIN_GCC -W -Wall -Wwrite-strings -Wstrict-prototypes -Wmissing-prototypes -Wold-style-definition -Wno-error -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -DGENERATOR_FILE-I. -Ibuild -I../../gcc-4.0-20050305/gcc -I../../gcc-4.0-20050305/gcc/build -I../../gcc-4.0-20050305/gcc/../include -I../../gcc-4.0-20050305/gcc/../libcpp/include \ -o build/insn-conditions.o insn-conditions.c insn-conditions.c:97: error: `flag_unsafe_math_optimizations' undeclared here (not in a function) insn-conditions.c:97: error: initializer element is not constant insn-conditions.c:97: error: (near initialization for `insn_conditions[10].value') insn-conditions.c:97: warning: missing initializer insn-conditions.c:97: warning: (near initialization for `insn_conditions[10].value') insn-conditions.c:97: error: initializer element is not constant insn-conditions.c:97: error: (near initialization for `insn_conditions[10]') ...
RE: bootstrap 4.0-200503005: flag_unsafe_math_optimizations undeclared
insn-conditions.c:97: error: `flag_unsafe_math_optimizations' undeclared here Using binutils 2.15.96 and gcc 3.4.3... where have I gone wrong? Of course if I would have searched the archives first, I would know that I need a new gawk most likely. [argh] -Jason
Re: GCC 4.1: Buildable on GHz machines only?
A little humor from a long time ML lurker... Via C3-2 Nehemiah 1GHz 512MB ddr $ ../gcc-4.0.0/configure --prefix=/home/jason/local/gcc-400 --enable-shared \ --enable-threads=posix --disable-checking --enable-long-long --enable-__cxa_atexit \ --enable-clocale=gnu --disable-libunwind-exceptions --enable-languages=c --with-system-zlib $ time make bootstrap ... 3860.71user 245.24system 1:10:05elapsed 97%CPU 0inputs+0outputs (6698major+12862842minor)pagefaults 0swaps $ strip gcc ; upx -9 gcc ; ls -l gcc -rwxr-xr-x 1 jason jason 42672 May 5 23:07 gcc So the bootstrap process generates a useful 10 bytes/second. ;-) But seriously, GCC and various language standards have kept up with modern hardware. If someone takes a GCC release and hacks up a release to run on 50MHz boxes from years gone by, that's great, but I think the main GCC devs shouldn't worry about it because GCC is more about flexibility and extensibility than slim and trim I'd say. Perhaps there should be an "embedded GCC" team that focuses on a separate light-weight C/C++ project. Many thanks for GCC! -Jason, back to lurking.
RE: gcc template error?
I suspect this line is the source of your problems:
friend T* func(T* p);
Y isn't a template parameter here, but a (concrete?) class named "Y".
The below compiles with 3.4.3 anyways...
Regards,
-Jason
// Line 1
class A {
public:
A() { };
~A() { };
};
class B {
public:
B();
B(const A& a) { };
~B();
};
template class T;
template
T* func(T* p);
template class T {
X*m_;
public:
T(X* x) : m_(x) { };
~T() { };
friend T* func(T* p);
};
template
T* func(T* p) {
return (new T(new X(*p->m_)));
}
int main() {
A* a = new A();
T*p = new T(a);
T*q = func(p);
return 0;
}
ABI compatibility: GCC9 vs GCC10
Any notable ABI changes from 9 to 10? Thanks! -Jason (Sorry for asking here, there was no response from gcc-help in January.)
small testcase gcc6 + boost optional + Wmaybe-uninit
Web search shows that -Wmaybe-uninitialized is an imprecise check, and that
boost::optional is already a known sore spot, but I wanted to pass along this
small test case in case the warning's owner wanted to do further improvements.
We solved our one grumpy instance with auto x = make_optional(0, ...);.
Something about the loop + conditional + O1/O2/O3 optimization triggers the
false positive. Thanks! -Jason
//==
// g++ -c sample.cc -O2 -Wall -Werror
// gcc 6.1/6.2 and boost 1.61/1.62
#include
#include
int main() {
boost::optional value;
for (int x(0); x < 3; ++x) {
if (random() & 1)
value = x;
}
if (value != boost::none) {
int result = value.get();
printf("%d\n", result); // error: '*((void*)& value +4)' may be used
uninitialized
}
}
//==
Re: Building on gcc112 is stuck in msgfmt
Been doing stability testing on my x86_64 Ryzen cpu using openSUSE's (Tumbleweed) "gcc7.1.1 20170802" + compiling Linux kernel source. Every so often, the build curiously stalls on a futex between cc1 and as. cc1 is on the futex. as is waiting to read. Could that hang be related to what's being discussed here?
Re: GCC 4.3.2 bug (was: Illegal subtraction in tmp-dive_1.s)
> Vincent Lefevre writes: >while ((*(q++))-- == 0) ; Is that defined and legal?? Is q incremented before or after *q is decremented? They are both post operators! Jason Mancini _ Rediscover Hotmail®: Get e-mail storage that grows with you. http://windowslive.com/RediscoverHotmail?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Rediscover_Storage2_042009
Re: GCC 4.8.2 Status Report (2013-05-31)
> Status > == > GCC 4.8.1 has been released, the branch is again open > for regression bugfixes and documentation fixes. > GCC 4.8.2 could be tentatively released in early September. Curious user is curious about 4.8.2 status! :^)
