Hi
Thanks for you answer, I just discovered though that the array-bounds-error
could be catched by "-Warray-bounds" warning.
I guess this analysis is done in Range Value Propagation "tree-vrp.c"
The testcases I tried (+mine example code) did not warn though, is it a bug?
testsuite/gcc.dg/Warray-
On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 7:57 PM, David Fang wrote:
>
>>
>> I suspect his problems will be solved by adding --with-dwarf2 to the
>> configure options. We don't seem to have a specific PR for this but I
>
> This PR seems to match: :)
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45248
> One user ha
Gerald Pfeifer writes:
> As usual, please adjust the MAINTAINERS file accordingly, and
> Happy Hacking^WTesting guys!
Done as follows.
Thanks.
Rainer
2011-02-16 Rainer Orth
* MAINTAINERS: Add myself as testsuite maintainer.
Index: MAINTAINERS
=
On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 8:54 AM, sa...@hederstierna.com
wrote:
> Hi
>
> Thanks for you answer, I just discovered though that the array-bounds-error
> could be catched by "-Warray-bounds" warning.
> I guess this analysis is done in Range Value Propagation "tree-vrp.c"
> The testcases I tried (+min
On 02/15/2011 05:33 PM, Richard Henderson wrote:
On 02/15/2011 12:35 AM, Patrick Marlier wrote:
When I was looking at this problem of tail call optimization, I have
found that _ITM_abortTransaction was not considered as a 'noreturn'
function. Do you have any reason not doing this? If not, I prop
Hi,
I updated x32 psABI draft to version 0.2 to change x32 library path
from lib32 to libx32 since lib32 is used for ia32 libraries on Debian,
Ubuntu and other derivative distributions. The new x32 psABI is
available from:
https://sites.google.com/site/x32abi/home
--
H.J.
On 02/16/2011 11:22 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I updated x32 psABI draft to version 0.2 to change x32 library path
> from lib32 to libx32 since lib32 is used for ia32 libraries on Debian,
> Ubuntu and other derivative distributions. The new x32 psABI is
> available from:
>
> https://sites.goog
> I'm wondering if we should define a section header flag (sh_flags)
> and/or an ELF header flag (e_flags) for x32 for the people unhappy about
> keying it to the ELF class...
I don't see what's wrong with paying attention to the class. IMHO sh_flags
only makes sense if you might ever mix x32 and
On 2/16/2011 3:04 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 02/16/2011 11:22 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I updated x32 psABI draft to version 0.2 to change x32 library path
>> from lib32 to libx32 since lib32 is used for ia32 libraries on Debian,
>> Ubuntu and other derivative distributions. The new x32
On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 12:35 PM, Chris Metcalf wrote:
> For what it's worth, the Tilera 64-bit architecture (forthcoming) includes
> support for a 32-bit compatibility layer that is similar to x32. It uses
> 64-bit registers throughout (e.g. for double and long long), but 32-bit
> addresses. Th
On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 12:39 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 12:35 PM, Chris Metcalf wrote:
>> For what it's worth, the Tilera 64-bit architecture (forthcoming) includes
>> support for a 32-bit compatibility layer that is similar to x32. It uses
>> 64-bit registers throughout
I'm running into a crash caused by mishandling of address calculation of an
array element address when that array is near the bottom of kseg0
(0x8000).
The code essentially does this
foo = v[i - 2].elem;
where i is current zero.
Assume for now the negative array offset is va
On 02/16/2011 01:44 PM, Paul Koning wrote:
I'm running into a crash caused by mishandling of address calculation of an
array element address when that array is near the bottom of kseg0
(0x8000).
The code essentially does this
foo = v[i - 2].elem;
where i is current zero.
A
On Feb 16, 2011, at 5:08 PM, David Daney wrote:
> On 02/16/2011 01:44 PM, Paul Koning wrote:
>> I'm running into a crash caused by mishandling of address calculation of an
>> array element address when that array is near the bottom of kseg0
>> (0x8000).
>>
>> The code essentially d
On 2/16/2011 3:46 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 12:39 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 12:35 PM, Chris Metcalf wrote:
>>> For what it's worth, the Tilera 64-bit architecture (forthcoming) includes
>>> support for a 32-bit compatibility layer that is similar to x3
On 02/16/2011 02:10 PM, Paul Koning wrote:
On Feb 16, 2011, at 5:08 PM, David Daney wrote:
On 02/16/2011 01:44 PM, Paul Koning wrote:
I'm running into a crash caused by mishandling of address calculation of an
array element address when that array is near the bottom of kseg0
(0x8000
On Feb 16, 2011, at 5:25 PM, David Daney wrote:
> What is the state of your C0_Status[{KX,SX,UX}] bits?
0, 0, 0
>
> It is not really a compiler bug, but rather a defect in the n32 ABI. When
> using 32-bit pointers you can only do 32-bit operations on them. To do
> otherwise raises the possibi
On 02/16/2011 02:32 PM, Paul Koning wrote:
On Feb 16, 2011, at 5:25 PM, David Daney wrote:
What is the state of your C0_Status[{KX,SX,UX}] bits?
0, 0, 0
It is not really a compiler bug, but rather a defect in the n32 ABI. When using
32-bit pointers you can only do 32-bit operations on the
On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 11:22 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I updated x32 psABI draft to version 0.2 to change x32 library path
> from lib32 to libx32 since lib32 is used for ia32 libraries on Debian,
> Ubuntu and other derivative distributions. The new x32 psABI is
> available from:
>
> https://s
19 matches
Mail list logo
