++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: suckfish at ihug dot co.nz
Target Milestone: ---
The following C++ code produces a warning message, but the location given for
the warning message is not right. (gcc claims it comes from the expansion of
the macro GOOD. In
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: suckfish at ihug dot co.nz
Target Milestone: ---
Compiling the function
double foo(double x) { return x*x; }
on x86_64 with "gcc -Og -ffast-math" converts the multiplication to a call to
pow():
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58288
--- Comment #2 from Ralph Loader ---
Created attachment 30735
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30735&action=edit
Patch
Patch to change the error message attached. I also noticed another problem: we
were setting the global vari
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58288
--- Comment #1 from Ralph Loader ---
Whoops I meant "not specified *correctly*" rather than just "not specified".
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: suckfish at ihug dot co.nz
If a section attribute is malformed, then the gcc error message incorrectly
claims that the "section attribute [is] not allowed".
For the example below,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54969
--- Comment #3 from Ralph Loader 2012-10-18
09:56:36 UTC ---
Re copy-header: adding -ftree-ch to the command line does not improve the code.
Replacing the bitwise test 'f & 1' with a numeric test 'f < 27', gcc -Os
optimises properly.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54969
Bug #: 54969
Summary: Bitfield test not optimised at -Os.
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49152
--- Comment #20 from Ralph Loader 2012-03-23
07:54:51 UTC ---
Re comment 12 - as someone who regularly needs to understand gcc diagnostics, I
disagree completely.
Understanding a failure to look something up, the single most important thing
to k
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49152
--- Comment #18 from Ralph Loader 2012-03-22
14:21:33 UTC ---
Flaws from the pretty-printing not listed in this bug (from 25362):
It takes the address of integer constants.
The pretty printing confuses '.' and '->' [this has changed slightly si
