[Bug java/20469] New: gcjh does not rename Java variables named NULL
headers generated by gcjh contains class members (didn't check about other kind of objects) named 'NULL'. This is the name used in Java sourcecode, but cannot be safely used in C++ headers as NULL is always (or often?) defined. g++ error raised when including the produced headers is: error: expected unqualified-id before numeric constant -- Summary: gcjh does not rename Java variables named NULL Product: gcc Version: 3.4.3 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P2 Component: java AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org ReportedBy: strk at keybit dot net CC: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org,java-prs at gcc dot gnu dot org http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20469
[Bug c++/39623] New: Optimizer changes return from htons(uint16)
The bug is known to occur with the following versions: - gcc version 4.3.2 20081105 (Red Hat 4.3.2-7) (GCC) - g++ (Ubuntu 4.3.2-2ubuntu11) 4.3.3 20090111 (prerelease) The symptom of the bug is that when you use -O2 htons(short) returns 'unsigned int' (32 bit) rather then the expected 16bit value. With no optimization it returns the correct 16bit. I'll attach a testcase. -- Summary: Optimizer changes return from htons(uint16) Product: gcc Version: 4.3.3 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c++ AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org ReportedBy: strk at keybit dot net http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39623
[Bug c++/39623] Optimizer changes return from htons(uint16)
--- Comment #1 from strk at keybit dot net 2009-04-03 09:01 --- Created an attachment (id=17581) --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=17581&action=view) Testcase for optimizer bug -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39623
[Bug c++/39623] Optimizer changes return from htons(uint16)
--- Comment #3 from strk at keybit dot net 2009-04-03 09:27 --- You mean I should file a bug against libc ? Or that it's a non-bug ? The htons() manual page states it'd return a short... -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39623