[Bug fortran/32391] Wrong code with optimization on i686-pc-linux-gnu

2007-06-20 Thread kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #19 from kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-21 04:08 --- (In reply to comment #18) > > I had ONLY HOPEd VOLATILE statement in fortran 77 EXTENSION of gfortran. > I thought that would be convenient > on small modification of legacy fortran 77 program. You've completed miss

[Bug fortran/32391] Wrong code with optimization on i686-pc-linux-gnu

2007-06-20 Thread sunjoong at gmail dot com
--- Comment #18 from sunjoong at gmail dot com 2007-06-21 03:27 --- I appreciate kargl's comments; they were helpful. I had known there is VOLATILE attribute in new Fortran standard but I had worked with "LEGACY" fortran77 program! I'll write C code if I shuld write one; that is more co

[Bug fortran/32391] Wrong code with optimization on i686-pc-linux-gnu

2007-06-20 Thread kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #17 from kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-21 02:24 --- (In reply to comment #16) > Thank all of you. > I could understand what make it different. > > There is no 'volatile' statement in fortran77 syntax of gfortran. > Of course, volatile is not fortran77 standard, I thin

[Bug fortran/32391] Wrong code with optimization on i686-pc-linux-gnu

2007-06-20 Thread sunjoong at gmail dot com
--- Comment #16 from sunjoong at gmail dot com 2007-06-20 23:34 --- Thank all of you. I could understand what make it different. There is no 'volatile' statement in fortran77 syntax of gfortran. Of course, volatile is not fortran77 standard, I think, but a certian implimentation support

[Bug c++/2922] [DR 197] two-stage lookup for unqualified function calls with type-dependent arguments

2007-06-20 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #28 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-20 21:17 --- *** Bug 32440 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added -

[Bug c++/32440] Lookup fails to find later function overload if template has been defined earlier

2007-06-20 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-20 21:17 --- This is the way C++ works, yes before GCC 4.1.0, GCC did not work this way but GCC was incorrect. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 2922 *** -- pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: Wh

Processed: Bug#429657: uses abs() instead of labs() (fwd)

2007-06-20 Thread Debian Bug Tracking System
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > clone 429657 -1 Bug#429657: gcc-4.1: optimisation bug abs() in nested if Bug 429657 cloned as bug 429805. > reassign -1 abuse-sdl Bug#429805: gcc-4.1: optimisation bug abs() in nested if Bug reassigned from package `gcc-4.1' to `abuse-sdl'. > retitle

Bug#429657: uses abs() instead of labs()

2007-06-20 Thread Petr Salinger
clone 429657 -1 reassign -1 abuse-sdl retitle -1 uses abs() instead of labs() quit abuse-sdl-0.7.0 has a gun aiming problem due to a mis-optimisation. attached is a canned example. The "dx" and "dy" are defined as longs, so you have to use rather labs() (and #include to get the prototype). Th