The behaviour of C++ with declspec sequences on pointer declarations has
changed:
Compiling:
/* declspec.c */
int i = 1;
int __attribute__((aligned(16))) * foo = &i;
int * __attribute__((aligned(16))) bar = &i;
as gcc -xc -W -S declspec.c, I get:
.section .drectve
.ascii "
--
Bug 19987 depends on bug 20219, which changed state.
Bug 20219 Summary: Missed optimisation sin / tan --> cos
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20219
What|Old Value |New Value
--- Additional Comments From uros at kss-loka dot si 2005-02-26 09:50
---
Here is the patch to implement missing folds:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2004-03/msg01024.html
And here is the explanation why this transformation is not suitable for GCC even
with -ffast-math:
http://gcc.g
--- Additional Comments From jaco at kroon dot co dot za 2005-02-26 10:03
---
A more complex example, this code works with gcc 3.3 so this imho is either
incorrect code or a bug in the new parses:
template class FakeList {
public:
void foo() {};
};
template class Factory {
pu
--- Additional Comments From rsandifo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-26
10:16 ---
Patch posted here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-02/msg01665.html
--
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Additional Comments From dirk at cle-mens dot de 2005-02-26 10:35
---
(In reply to comment #1)
> Invalid you are violating C90/C99 aliasing rules.
Ok. But where is the compiler warning?
The dokumentation of gcc says: (man gcc)
-Wstrict-aliasing
This option is only active when -fst
--- Additional Comments From hp at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-26 11:22
---
The pointer "base" looks a bit uninitialized. Fix the test-case?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20216
--- Additional Comments From hp at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-26 11:24
---
Ignore comment #4, sorry (misread this as being about run-time behavior).
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20216
--- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2005-02-26
12:01 ---
I forgot to thank Martin Wille for notifying me of this bug and providing me
with this testcase.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20220
--- Additional Comments From hp at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-26 12:56
---
(Interested because I see this for CRIS too. For CRIS v32, it's even more
interesting, because it has no reg+offset addressing.)
--
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-26
14:26 ---
*** Bug 20189 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-26
14:26 ---
Because that would be PR 13049.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 13049 ***
--
What|Removed |Added
-
built in abs (and perhaps other) function creates two loads for optimisation
-02,-O3 and -Os (-O1 does not have problem)
Also seen on 4.0 head
testcase, assembler and RTL dump are attached below.
back to back loads of volatile operand i1 are generated in initial RTL. This
remains throughout code
the libjava testsuite does not correctly re-initialize itself for testing
multiple multilib variants in a second or subsequent run. For example if your
site.exp contains:
case "$target_triplet" in {
{ "arm*-*-elf*" } {
set target_list { "arm-sim{,-mthumb}" }
set board_info(arm-si
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-26
16:15 ---
Subject: Bug 20188
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-02-26 16:15:26
Modified files:
gcc: ChangeLog tree-ssa-alias.c
g
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-26
16:24 ---
Subject: Bug 20188
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Branch: gcc-4_0-branch
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-02-26 16:24:44
Modified files:
gcc: Change
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-26
16:25 ---
Fixed, thanks for your report and thanks for looking into the problem a little
more than most would
look into it, it helped getting a short testcase and fixing the problem faster.
--
What|
--- Additional Comments From rearnsha at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-26
16:34 ---
That patch seems to work, thanks.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20160
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-26
17:19 ---
Moving to 4.1 since this will take more work as just tweaking MOVE_RATIO for
powerpc causes SPEC to
get worse. What should be tweaked is the usage of MOVE_RATIO instead.
--
What|Removed
I have a few old programs that do this - it is legal in f77 and actually has a
special name that I cannot recall at the moment. Absoft likes and runs it
correctly.
[dir:~/tests/gfortran] dir% f77 -o jump jump.f
FORTRAN 77 Compiler 8.0a, Copyright (c) 1987-2003, Absoft Corp.
[dir:~/tests/gfortran]
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-26
18:32 ---
Hmm, g77 just warned about it:
t.f: In program `main':
t.f:4: warning:
10 continue
1
t.f:9: (continued):
goto 10
2
Reference to label at (2) is outside block containing defi
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed||1
Last reconfirmed|-00-00 00:00:00 |2005-02-
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-26
18:33 ---
Subject: Bug 17748
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-02-26 18:33:12
Modified files:
libgfortran: ChangeLog
libgfortran/runtim
--- Additional Comments From dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-26
19:20 ---
The first part of the patch seems fine.
We should make tree_fold_binomial non-recursive.
Note, however, that once you do that, the other part of the patch isn't actually
doing anything (the change to chrec_a
--- Additional Comments From kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-26 19:44
---
This is illegal code with respect to F77.
>From ansi-x3dot9-1978-Fortran77.pdf
11.10.8 Transfer into the Range of a Do-Loop
Transfer of control into the range of a DO-loop from outside the range is no
--- Additional Comments From Thomas dot Koenig at online dot de 2005-02-26
20:46 ---
Patch for the first bug here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-02/msg01694.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20163
--- Additional Comments From Thomas dot Koenig at online dot de 2005-02-26
20:49 ---
Here is a reduced test case for the second error:
$ cat open-after-error.f
open(10,status="foo",err=100)
call abort
100 continue
open(10,status="scratch")
end
$ cat open-after-
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-26
22:27 ---
Subject: Bug 19360
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Branch: apple-ppc-branch
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-02-26 22:27:29
Modified files:
gcc: Chan
$ ./cc1plus -fpreprocessed libkspreadpart_la.all_cc.ii -quiet -O -w
Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault.
gt_ggc_mx_cgraph_node (x_p=) at gtype-desc.c:188
188 gt_ggc_m_9tree_node ((*x).decl);
(gdb) bt
#0 gt_ggc_mx_cgraph_node (x_p=) at gtype-desc.c:188
#1 0x404a
--- Additional Comments From schwab at suse dot de 2005-02-26 23:23 ---
Created an attachment (id=8289)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=8289&action=view)
Testcase
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20225
--
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot
||org
Component|c++
--- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2005-02-26
23:45 ---
HJL: would you please open a different bug report for the x86-64 issue and
link it to this bug?
Benjamin: can you open a different enhancement proposal about supporting the
visibility attribute at namespac
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-26
23:55 ---
Hmm, the last time this happened, it was PR 17126.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20225
--- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2005-02-27
00:02 ---
This is still incorrect code. You need an explicit template<> before that
line. Though, after that, I cannot see why it should fail to link. What is the
link error? That is a possible bug in GCC.
--
--- Additional Comments From kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-27 00:06
---
Here's a little more info from the F77 standard, Appendix A.
A2. Conflicts with ANSI X3.9-1966
An extremely important consideration in the preparation of this
standard was the minimization of conflicts with
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-27
00:10 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> Here's a little more info from the F77 standard, Appendix A.
Hmm, people still have fortran 66 code floating around.
/me hides
--
What|Removed
--- Additional Comments From fjahanian at apple dot com 2005-02-27 00:51
---
(In reply to comment #6)
> The first part of the patch seems fine.
> We should make tree_fold_binomial non-recursive.
You meant tree_fold_factorial? tree_fold_binomial is not recursive as is.
> Note, however, t
--- Additional Comments From dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-27
02:09 ---
Subject: Re: [4.0/4.1 Regression] Simple loop
runs out of stack at -O1
On Sun, 2005-02-27 at 00:51 +, fjahanian at apple dot com wrote:
> --- Additional Comments From fjahanian at apple dot
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-27
02:25 ---
Hmm, I cannot reproduce with a cross compiler from powerpc-darwin with today's
source. Either we
are missing compiling gcc or this could be related to one of my local patches
(which I really doubt it).
When bootstrapping GCC mainline 20050226, the build breaks here:
../../gnatbind -C -I- -I../rts -I. -
I/aaronwl/cs/compilers/gcc/src/cvs/head/gcc/gcc/ada -o b_gnatm.c gnatmake.ali
make[3]: *** [b_gnatm.c] Error 5
make[3]: Leaving directory `/aaronwl/cs/env/mingw-
head/20050226/build/gcc/gcc/ada
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-27
02:29 ---
Hmm, http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-02/msg01702.html but that could be
just a -Werror
problem.
Did you do make or make bootstrap
--
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Additional Comments From aaronavay62 at aaronwl dot com 2005-02-27
02:35 ---
Since you asked, I noticed that I had used 'make' instead of 'make bootstrap' by
accident. I will try again using 'make bootstrap'.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20226
--
What|Removed |Added
CC||danglin at gcc dot gnu dot
||org
Status|UNCONFIRMED
--- Additional Comments From hjl at lucon dot org 2005-02-27 03:54 ---
There are 3 bugs here:
1. libstdc++ should have pop/push of the visibility.
2. C++ should support pop/push of the visibility.
3. Gcc should emit ".hidden foo" when foo is marked hidden, defined or not.
Patches for #2
--
What|Removed |Added
OtherBugsDependingO||19664
nThis||
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20218
--- Additional Comments From danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-27
04:04 ---
inline_asm-2 test fails on all hppa targets.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20188
I found a problem because the FP emulation of long doubles in the m68k port
doesn't treat -0.0 correctly. A cast from a long double -0.0 to a double results
in a double with the value -2.0.
The relevant function is __truncxfdf2 in gcc/config/m68k/fpgnulib.c. There are
two issues here.
First of a
Try linking the following two C++ sources together:
struct a
{
virtual void g();
virtual void f(){}
};
int main() { a b; b.f(); b.g(); }
cut -
struct a
{
virtual void g();
virtual void f(){}
};
void a::g() {}
We get an error:
/tmp/ccFSWYxL.o(.eh_frame+0x11): undefined reference to
--
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.1.0
Version|4.0.0 |4.1.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20228
--
What|Removed |Added
CC||jules at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20228
--
What|Removed |Added
GCC target triplet||i686-pc-linux-gnu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20228
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-27
04:37 ---
(In reply to comment #21)
> inline_asm-2 test fails on all hppa targets.
Fails on all targets, I just committed a fix for this:
2005-02-26 Andrew Pinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* gcc.dg/tree-ssa/inli
at1drv.ali
make[3]: *** [ada/b_gnat1.c] Error 5
make[3]: Leaving directory `/aaronwl/cs/env/mingw-head/20050226/build/gcc/gcc'
make[2]: *** [stage2_build] Error 2
In gdb:
Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault.
0x004034e9 in __gnat_install_SEH_handler (ER=0x77c3b814)
at /aaronwl/c
The -Wcast-qual option in GCC can easily be evaded by "clever" hacks, which
seriously reduces the utility of this feature in catching dangerous behavior
intentionally hidden by programmers from unit testers.
Here is code for a test case (which is extremely simple, and includes no
headers, so I am
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-27
05:02 ---
Nope the following cannot be warned about because you first change the pointer
to an integer and then
cast it to a char pointer which is only defined iff int is the same size as the
pointer (which is warn
--
What|Removed |Added
CC||jaco at kroon dot co dot za
Target Milestone|3.4.0 |---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/s
When compiling code with GCC that involves passing an unqualified object to a
function that advertises certain qualification guarantees, unsuppressible
warnings are generated about passing "incompatible types."
That these types are formally incompatible under the standard is not in
question. It is
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-27
05:30 ---
Note the following warning basically says this is invalid C:
bug2.c:9: warning: passing arg 1 of `safe_function' from incompatible pointer
type
use -pedantic-errors and you will see that it is converted to
--
What|Removed |Added
Component|debug |c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20230
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-27
05:32 ---
Quals can only be promoted once.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
--- Additional Comments From kmk at ssl dot org 2005-02-27 05:40 ---
Actually, the documentation clearly claims:
"Warn WHENEVER a pointer is cast so as to remove a type qualifier from the
target type."
It does not say:
"Warn whenever a pointer is cast to ANOTHER POINTER in such a way t
--- Additional Comments From kmk at ssl dot org 2005-02-27 06:03 ---
Exactly where does it state that you can only promote one _level_ of qualifier,
as opposed to promoting a single qualifier scope more than once?
Not only that, but even if you declare the string array this way,
char a[
--- Additional Comments From jaco at kroon dot co dot za 2005-02-27 06:17
---
$ g++ -o templates templates.C -Wall
/tmp/ccoANWiL.o(.gnu.linkonce.t._ZN7FactoryIiE9createOneEv+0xd): In function
`Factory::createOne()':
: undefined reference to `Factory::_types'
collect2: ld returned 1 exit
--- Additional Comments From fang at csl dot cornell dot edu 2005-02-27
06:25 ---
1) Has anyone figured out a workaround to this yet? I suppose I could remove
some using
namespace declarations and prefix type names with namespaces... I'll keep
tinkering around.
2) New and perhaps
--- Additional Comments From fang at csl dot cornell dot edu 2005-02-27
06:53 ---
Workaround discovered (shortly after I asked for one, fancy that!)
Declaring:
using util::persistent_object_manager;
inside the 'memory' namespace before the first friend declaration (after line
[zebes:~] astrange% /usr/local/bin/gcc -v
Using built-in specs.
Target: powerpc-apple-darwin7.7.0
Configured with: ../configure --enable-threads=posix --with-threads=posix
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.1.0 20050226 (experimental)
Command line: /usr/local/bin/gcc -O3 -mcpu=7400 -mtune=7400
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-27
06:55 ---
Confirmed, this is semi hard.
--
What|Removed |Added
CC|
67 matches
Mail list logo
