Andrew Pinski wrote:
>
> Wrong, try again. Violating aliasing rules cause undefined behavior
> so seg faulting is an okay thing to do.
But producing a warning message and bad code is not OK. Either
using a "type-punned pointer" should be treated as a fatal
error, because gcc would create bad code
--
What|Removed |Added
Summary|mudflap reports errors |mudflap reports errors for
||external variables
Versi
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-07
22:47 ---
Confirmed.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
E
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-07
22:42 ---
Confirmed.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
E
--
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.0.1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21403
--- Additional Comments From green at redhat dot com 2005-05-07 22:33
---
Patch applied to HEAD and 4.0 branch.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-07
22:32 ---
Subject: Bug 21403
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-05-07 22:32:04
Modified files:
gcc: ChangeLog configure.ac configure
Lo
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-07
22:30 ---
Yes the code is invalid after I thought about it and looked for another bug
which has the same issue,
see PR 11376.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 11376 ***
--
What|Remove
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-07
22:30 ---
*** Bug 21450 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-07
22:28 ---
Subject: Bug 21403
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Branch: gcc-4_0-branch
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-05-07 22:28:10
Modified files:
gcc: Change
--- Additional Comments From falk at debian dot org 2005-05-07 22:27
---
I guess I'm missing something in here. *q accesses an object of type
U* (namely p). The type of the lvalue *q is T*. Right? Which case in
3.10/15 covers this?
--
What|Removed |A
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-07
22:19 ---
Confirmed, here is a testcase which makes it fail with 3.4.0:
extern "C" void abort (void) throw();
struct T {};
struct U : T {};
int size = 2;
int main ()
{
struct T * * pretmp3;
struct U * p;
int i
--- Additional Comments From jvdelisle at verizon dot net 2005-05-07 22:16
---
A patch to fix the problem in comment #7 has been submitted for review.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17423
This C++ code snippet aborts on amd64 and i386 if compiled with -O[23]:
(Note: tree dumps are correct)
---
extern "C" void abort (void);
struct T {};
struct U : T {};
int main ()
{
int i;
U *p;
T **q;
for (i = 0
On May 7, 2005, at 6:40 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
"Julian Cummings" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Hmmm... I just read through the bug reports you cited. Sounds to me
like
| this is still somewhat of an open issue, as to whether the compiler
should
| issue an error in these cases or simply sile
"Julian Cummings" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Hmmm... I just read through the bug reports you cited. Sounds to me like
| this is still somewhat of an open issue, as to whether the compiler should
| issue an error in these cases or simply silently discard any templated
| function as a possible m
--
What|Removed |Added
Version|4.0.0 |4.1.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21449
The loop unroller over estimates the unrolled sized of an empty loop:
int f(void)
{
int i;
for(i = 0 ;i < 10; i++);
}
We get:
Loop size: 5
Estimated size after unrolling: 10
--
Summary: Loop unroller is way over estimating the unroll size of
a loop
P
Andrew Pinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On May 6, 2005, at 8:09 PM, Julian Cummings wrote:
|
| > People are reporting trouble compiling blitz with gcc-4.0.0, and the
| > compiler errors are resulting from the use of unnamed enums. A
| > simple code
| > illustrates the problem:
| >
| > stru
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-07
21:22 ---
For this one, GCC is over estimating the size of the loop.
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-07
21:00 ---
This has now been fixed.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
--
Bug 9895 depends on bug 18755, which changed state.
Bug 18755 Summary: invariant/constant not recomputed when ADDR_EXPR changed
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18755
What|Old Value |New Value
--
--
Bug 18754 depends on bug 18755, which changed state.
Bug 18755 Summary: invariant/constant not recomputed when ADDR_EXPR changed
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18755
What|Old Value |New Value
-
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-07
20:47 ---
On the mainline, we get:
.L13:
fld %st(0)
incl%ecx
fmuls (%edx)
addl%ebx, %edx
fadds (%eax)
fstps (%eax)
addl%esi, %eax
c
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-07
20:38 ---
I think this was caused by:
2005-05-06 Zdenek Dvorak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR tree-optimization/19401
* tree-flow.h (tree_unroll_loops_completely): Declaration changed.
* tre
The following test failures have appeared on mainline between 20050506 and
20050507. All are "internal compiler error: in estimate_num_insns_1, at
tree-inline.c:1433".
On i686-pc-linux-gnu and ia64-hpux:
FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-ifcvt-2.c (test for excess errors)
FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect
--- Additional Comments From dje at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-07 20:24
---
i386 synthesizes a DImode compare for 32-bit mode in target-dependent code.
PowerPC probably needs to do the same.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21237
--- Additional Comments From hjl at lucon dot org 2005-05-07 20:24 ---
That is a binutils bug:
http://sources.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=940
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21070
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-07
20:20 ---
*** Bug 21447 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-07
20:20 ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 21275 ***
--
What|Removed |Added
This problem occurs compiling wxWidgets 2.6.0 and also if I try to compile a
program using wxWidgets 2.5.x compiled with gcc 3.4.2.
It's the one when compiling wxWidgets 2.6.0:
$ sh ../configure CXXFLAGS='-O4 -s -DNO_GCC_PRAGMA' --with-msw --enable-stl
--enable-shared --with-odbc
$ make
../src/c
--
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.1.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21441
--
Bug 11706 depends on bug 19401, which changed state.
Bug 19401 Summary: Trivial loop not unrolled
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19401
What|Old Value |New Value
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-07
19:56 ---
Fixed.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
--- Additional Comments From tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-07
19:49 ---
Fixed in the 4.0 branch. Closing.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-07
19:48 ---
Subject: Bug 18958
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Branch: gcc-4_0-branch
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-05-07 19:48:19
Modified files:
libgfortran: Change
--- Additional Comments From hp at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-07 19:43
---
See http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-05/msg00595.html>.
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-07
19:40 ---
Subject: Bug 21441
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-05-07 19:40:39
Modified files:
gcc: ChangeLog
Log message:
PR t
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-07
19:33 ---
*** Bug 21446 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-07
19:33 ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 9382 ***
--
What|Removed |Added
Trying to build gcc-3.4.3 for IBM AIX 5.3L on an IBM p570 machine. Fails, and a
message asks me to file a bug report.
I have generated the .i file using ./xgcc -v -save-temps ... ... but I don't
see a way to attach the .i file (and .s file if you need) in this Bugzilla
form. I can email it on r
On May 7, 2005, at 3:25 PM, Harald Dunkel wrote:
Andrew Pinski wrote:
Stop right there, you said it warns, well this is a case where
you are violating C89/C99/C++ aliasing rules so it is a bug in your
code and not in GCC.
This is not my code. It is XFree86 4.3. I am just trying to
help by investiga
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-07
19:30 ---
Huh, I don't understand why VRP does not take care of this:
i_13: [-2147483648, ]
D.1236_4 = i_13 <= ;
i_13 = ASSERT_EXPR ;
D.1236_4 = i_13 <= ;
The following is the testcas
Andrew Pinski wrote:
>
> Stop right there, you said it warns, well this is a case where
> you are violating C89/C99/C++ aliasing rules so it is a bug in your
> code and not in GCC.
>
This is not my code. It is XFree86 4.3. I am just trying to
help by investigating a problem and providing an easy t
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-07
19:09 ---
On the mainline I get:
void foo() ()
{
void * ivtmp.3;
struct NonPod x;
:
ivtmp.3 = &x.foo[2];
:;
ivtmp.3 = ivtmp.3 - 4B;
if (ivtmp.3 == &x.foo) goto ; else goto ;
:;
return;
}
Which is stil
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-07
19:02 ---
Fixed by:
* config.gcc ({powerpc,rs6000}-ibm-aix*): Remove rs6000/aix.opt
from extra_options.
* config.in (HAVE_AS_POPCNTB): New.
* configure.ac (HAVE_AS_MFCRF): Add .machine
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-07
18:52 ---
The orginal testcase in comment #0 is fixed now but not the one in comment #2.
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-07
18:45 ---
CCing Danny as he is writting this pass right now.
--
What|Removed |Added
CC
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-07
18:37 ---
Fixed by the patch for PR 18316 and PR 19126.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
Just a meta-bug showing where a reassociate pass could help.
--
Summary: [meta-bug] we need a reassociate pass
Product: gcc
Version: 4.0.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-07
18:20 ---
Hmm, I wonder why C++ warns though:
t.c:2: warning: division by zero in '1.0e+0f / 0.'
t.c:3: warning: division by zero in '1.0e+0f / 0'
--
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-07
18:18 ---
Confirmed, it is obvious from looking at the code what was wrong. The
following patch should fix it
but I don't have time to test it fully:
Index: c-typeck.c
==
On May 7, 2005, at 2:04 PM, Harald Dunkel wrote:
Hi folks,
The testcase has been created by grabbing some code
fragments from libX11, XFree86 4.3 on Debian, amd64.
-Wall complains about dereferencing type-punned pointer.
Stop right there, you said it warns, well this is a case where
you are violati
Hi folks,
The attached testcase dies on Debian (amd64) if
compiled with -O2.
Here is the usual data:
% gcc -v
Using built-in specs.
Target: x86_64-linux
Configured with: ../src/configure -v
--enable-languages=c,c++,java,f95,objc,ada,treelang --prefix=/usr
--libexecdir=/usr/lib --enable-shared
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-07
17:43 ---
This is fall out from Aldy's changing to use .opt.
--
What|Removed |Added
CC
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-07
17:30 ---
Confirmed, this happens with any file. Some how the scheduler is broken.
Something changed between 20050502 and now.
--
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Additional Comments From kazu at cs dot umass dot edu 2005-05-07 17:02
---
A quick grep for fdump-tree-store_ccp shows
20030731-2.c:/* { dg-options "-O1 -fdump-tree-store_ccp" } */
20030917-1.c:/* { dg-options "-O1 -fdump-tree-store_ccp" } */
20030917-3.c:/* { dg-options "-O1 -fno-t
--
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |kazu at cs dot umass dot edu
|dot org |
Status|NEW
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-07
16:56 ---
Confirmed.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
E
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-07
16:56 ---
Confirmed.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
E
--- Additional Comments From ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-07
16:52 ---
> I don't know that I'm in a position to make a good decision here, but I
> do agree with Jeff -- it would be a lot more compelling to make the
> change if there was actually a demonstrable problem -- es
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-07
16:50 ---
Subject: Bug 21412
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Branch: gcc-4_0-branch
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-05-07 16:49:59
Modified files:
gcc: Change
--
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |minor
Summary|gfortran fails to open |fails to open nonexisting
|nonexisting
--
What|Removed |Added
Component|fortran |libfortran
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21435
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-07
16:46 ---
Subject: Bug 21412
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-05-07 16:46:09
Modified files:
gcc: ChangeLog
gcc/config/rs6000:
--- Additional Comments From tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-07 15:56
---
*** Bug 21434 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-07 15:56
---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 19425 ***
--
What|Removed |Added
S
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed||1
Last reconfirmed|-00-00 00:00:00 |2005-05-
--
What|Removed |Added
URL||http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-
||patches/2005-
|
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-07
15:52 ---
(In reply to comment #0)
> We have the following coverage for the COMPONENT_REF case.
Actually I think at one point this was valid to do but that was before gimple
and generic and tree-ssa.
I think the code
--- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-07
15:27 ---
Looks like -D__NO_MATH_INLINES makes gcc produced code much better...
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13712
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed||1
Last reconfirmed|-00-00 00:00:00 |2005-05-
Run the test case below, hold CTRL and try clicking multiple items.
Test case:
import javax.swing.*;
import java.awt.*;
public class testlist
{
public static void main(String[] args)
{
JFrame f = new JFrame();
DefaultListModel v = new DefaultListModel();
v.addElement("alsdkfj");
--- Additional Comments From danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-07
15:05 ---
Here's the story on this problem. Ada bootstrap was broken on this
target by this change:
2005-04-08 Diego Novillo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Merge from tree-cleanup-branch: VRP, store CCP, store
--- Additional Comments From kazu at cs dot umass dot edu 2005-05-07 15:03
---
FWIW, here is the last SSA form I get with vops.
foo (p)
{
int D.1241;
int global.0;
int D.1239;
:
# VUSE ;
D.1239_2 = p_1->c;
if (D.1239_2 != 0) goto ; else goto ;
:;
# VUSE ;
global.0_
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-07
15:02 ---
Confirmed. Related to PR 20103.
--
What|Removed |Added
BugsThisDependsOn|
--- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-07
14:04 ---
This is fixed on the tree-profiling-branch.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17667
--- Additional Comments From ornati at fastwebnet dot it 2005-05-07 14:04
---
ok
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19133
--- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-07
13:54 ---
Looks like random instruction selection weirdness.
Not much can be done about this.
--
What|Removed |Added
--
It uses -O1 -fdump-tree-store_ccp and tests for lack of link_error,
but note that store_ccp is enabled with -O2 or higher.
So the testcase is testing something that happens in
some other optimizer like DOM.
--
Summary: ssa-ccp-9.c etc is broken
Product: gcc
Versi
Another bug in multifile processing. With these two classes:
Pipe.java:
package java.nio.channels;
import java.nio.channels.spi.AbstractSelectableChannel;
public abstract class Pipe { }
SelectableChannel.java:
package java.nio.channels;
import java.nio.channels.spi.AbstractInterruptibl
--
What|Removed |Added
OtherBugsDependingO||21442
nThis||
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21436
--- Additional Comments From bonzini at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-07
09:22 ---
With this version of AWTEvent.java, this is an ice-on-valid:
package java.awt;
import java.util.EventObject;
public abstract class AWTEvent extends EventObject {
AWTEvent() { super(null); }
--
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |hp at gcc dot gnu dot org
|dot org |
Status|UNCONFIRMED
Comparison between
Fri Apr 29 20:34:58 CEST 2005
Fri Apr 29 18:34:58 UTC 2005
and
Sat Apr 30 23:09:53 CEST 2005
Sat Apr 30 21:09:53 UTC 2005
Tests that now fail, but worked before:
gcc.c-torture/execute/20040703-1.c compilation, -Os
What's even worse, the same bug (according to the message in
--- Additional Comments From dank at kegel dot com 2005-05-07 08:31 ---
Forgot to mention: I have applied the fixes for
PR20973 and PR21173 as given in bugzilla.
--
What|Removed |Added
-
The following test program works with gcc-2.95.3 and gcc-3.4.1,
but aborts with this error on gcc-4.0.0:
z.ii: In function 'void bar()':
z.ii:11: internal compiler error: in create_tmp_var, at gimplify.c:368
struct Foo {
~Foo() {}
int i;
operator bool() { return !i; }
};
void bar() {
Comparison between
Wed Apr 27 04:58:50 UTC 2005
and
Wed Apr 27 14:13:15 UTC 2005
New tests that FAIL:
...
gcc.dg/tree-ssa/gen-vect-26.c scan-tree-dump-times Alignment of access forced
using peeling 1
This was when the test was introduced, and it has failed since then.
It still fails with "Fri Ma
GCC is supposed to suppress division by zero warnings when floating point.
However the warning is based on the lexical form, i.e. the unpromoted type. I
suggest it should depend on the promoted type.
float f[] = {
1.0f/0.0f, // No warning
1.0f/0 // Warning (and diagnostic is on the wrong
void
sys_futex0 (int *addr, int op, int val)
{
register long int r0 __asm__ ("r0");
register long int r3 __asm__ ("r3");
register long int r4 __asm__ ("r4");
register long int r5 __asm__ ("r5");
register long int r6 __asm__ ("r6");
r0 = 221;
r3 = (long) addr;
r4 = op;
r5 = val;
With a patch to compile libjava on a per-directory basis, I found a bug with
imports
Take file AWTEvent.java
package java.awt;
import java.util.EventObject;
public abstract class AWTEvent extends EventObject {}
and file B.java
package java.awt;
import java.awt.event.ComponentEve
91 matches
Mail list logo
