--- Comment #10 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-16 08:52 ---
Re. comment #9
GCSE store motion is very broken, and it's really been like that for a long
time. And it doesn't really do much, either, when you turn it on. Sadly we
have nothing to replace it right now except the
--- Comment #8 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-16 09:09
---
Patch submitted for review.
--
fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
To reproduce:
Compile the three files with:
f951 timeinterval.f90
f951 time.f90
f951 fold.f90
clockadvance
fold_convert.f90:13: internal compiler error: in fold_convert, at fold.c:2028
Please submit a full bug report,
with preprocessed source if appropriate.
See http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs.html> for
--- Comment #1 from krebbel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-16 09:36 ---
Created an attachment (id=10246)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10246&action=view)
testcase part 1
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24887
--- Comment #2 from krebbel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-16 09:36 ---
Created an attachment (id=10247)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10247&action=view)
testcase part 2
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24887
--- Comment #3 from krebbel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-16 09:37 ---
Created an attachment (id=10248)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10248&action=view)
testcase part 3
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24887
--- Comment #16 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-16 09:39
---
Is the second reduced testcase not fine from a standards POV? I.e.
void abort(void);
int main()
{
int a[10], *p, *q;
q = &a[1];
p = &q[-1];
if (p >= &a[9])
abort ();
return 0;
}
or does "array" in
--- Comment #17 from paolo dot bonzini at lu dot unisi dot ch 2005-11-16
09:41 ---
Subject: Re: [4.1 Regression] f2c miscompilation
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
>--- Comment #16 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-16 09:39
>---
>Is the second reduced testca
--- Comment #33 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-16 09:42 ---
Zdenek, any news about your patch from comment #30?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19923
--- Comment #4 from krebbel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-16 09:46 ---
My posting was a bit corrupted - sorry.
> fold_convert.f90:13: internal compiler error: in fold_convert, at fold.c:2028
fold.f90:13: internal compiler error: in fold_convert, at fold-const.c:2028
> Please submit a f
For the testcase:
/home/razya/mainline_new_3/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/execute/2002-1.c,
when using fipa-cp, a new vfersion is created
for aim_callhandler(). the static variable is copied twice into the
unexpanded_var_list of the versioned function.
Looking at this test, even without ena
--- Comment #3 from tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-16 10:58 ---
Subject: Bug 24357
Author: tobi
Date: Wed Nov 16 10:58:41 2005
New Revision: 107078
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=107078
Log:
PR 24357
* doc/invoke.texi: Distinguish between fre
--- Comment #4 from tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-16 11:00 ---
Fixed on the trunk, 4.0 is still waiting for approval.
--
tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from amodra at bigpond dot net dot au 2005-11-16 11:03
---
The testcase in comment #2 is invalid. You can't trash part of a function
pointer (the toc pointer) and expect everything to be rosy. However, the
testcase in comment #1 does indeed show the problem you describe
--- Comment #2 from guerby at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-16 11:17 ---
Subject: Bug 24855
Author: guerby
Date: Wed Nov 16 11:17:47 2005
New Revision: 107079
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=107079
Log:
2005-11-16 Joel Sherrill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR ada/2
--- Comment #4 from amodra at bigpond dot net dot au 2005-11-16 11:29
---
The problem here is late forcing of fp constants to memory. The first
scheduling pass has merrily moved an insn loading a fp constant in amongst the
function pointer load sequence, after r2 has been loaded. Ther
--
Summary: ICE
Product: gcc
Version: 3.4.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: igodard at pacbell dot net
http://gc
--- Comment #1 from igodard at pacbell dot net 2005-11-16 11:36 ---
Created an attachment (id=10249)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10249&action=view)
compiler output
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24889
--- Comment #2 from igodard at pacbell dot net 2005-11-16 11:37 ---
Created an attachment (id=10250)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10250&action=view)
source code (compressed)
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24889
--- Comment #3 from amodra at bigpond dot net dot au 2005-11-16 11:42
---
I analysed one of these failures quite a while ago. The conclusion I came to
was that the errors were due to excess precision. gcc-4.1 makes more use of
multiply-accumulate instructions. You could try compiling
--- Comment #3 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-16 11:43 ---
This is fixed in 3.4.5. And btw, your code is invalid:
/home/ivan/ootbc/common/include/bitPointer.hh: In member function
bitPointer& bitPointer::operator=(const bitPointer&):
/home/ivan/ootbc/common/include/bitPo
--- Comment #4 from amodra at bigpond dot net dot au 2005-11-16 11:44
---
Marking as invalid given my previous analysis, and that the errors are all
1ulp.
--
amodra at bigpond dot net dot au changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-16 11:46 ---
try dumping with -fdump-tree-*-uid, they are probably different copies. You
can
try http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-08/msg00314.html to avoid having
unused versions dumped.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla
--- Comment #5 from rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-16 12:13 ---
A patch is here (only the ivopts and get_tmr_operands parts). I am retesting
it now.
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-08/msg01608.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24793
--- Comment #6 from christian dot joensson at gmail dot com 2005-11-16
12:18 ---
I may be getting this still for sparc/sparc64 linux, see, e.g., for 4.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2005-11/msg00778.html and for 4.2
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2005-11/msg00759.html
--- Comment #7 from christian dot joensson at gmail dot com 2005-11-16
12:21 ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2005-11/msg00778.html and for 4.2
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2005-11/msg00759.html
sorry, that should have been 4.1 and not 4.2
--- Comment #2 from razya at il dot ibm dot com 2005-11-16 12:45 ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> try dumping with -fdump-tree-*-uid, they are probably different copies. You
> can
> try http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-08/msg00314.html to avoid having
> unused versions dumped.
It d
--- Comment #16 from reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-16 13:03
---
Subject: Bug 23797
Author: reichelt
Date: Wed Nov 16 13:03:13 2005
New Revision: 107081
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=107081
Log:
Backport from mainline:
2005-10-12 Natha
--- Comment #17 from reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-16 13:05
---
Now also fixed on the 3.4 branch.
--
reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #21 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-16 13:19
---
(In reply to comment #19)
> There are only two choices: either __imag__ is an lvalue, and the code in
> Comment #1 is valid, or __imag__ is not an lvalue, and the compiler should
> issue an error.
For the libgfo
--- Comment #22 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-16 13:36
---
(In reply to comment #21)
> For the libgfortran issue (libgfortran uses __imag__ as a lvalue) what should
> be done? Who can decide whether __imag__ is or isn't a lvalue? Sorry to ask
> for
> the obvious, but I'm
--
giovannibajo at libero dot it changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Python miscompilation - TOC |[4.0 Regression] Python
|reload
--- Comment #12 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-16 14:12 ---
Is this bug going anywhere???
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23109
--- Comment #3 from danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-16 14:16 ---
Affects hpux as well as linux.
--
danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
GCC
--- Comment #13 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-16 14:16
---
Nobody reviewed the patch AFAIK. Still the patch hasn't caused any problems
sofar in the SUSE compiler.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #23 from schwab at suse dot de 2005-11-16 14:20 ---
(In reply to comment #22)
> Note I never said __imag__ a should not act like an lvalue. I just said that
> __imag__ a = b; acts like a = COMPLEX, b> which is just like what
> a = (a&0x)|(b&0x) does.
IMHO it
Please consider the following program.
int i;
int i;
int main() {
return 1;
}
Compiler does not reports redecleration error for i.
--
Summary: Problem with unintitalized global variables.
Product: gcc
Version: 3.3.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Sev
--- Comment #14 from bonzini at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-16 14:46
---
I have little hope of seeing this reviewed before the branch. But it should be
put in 4.2 very early so that we backport it well before 4.1.0 is released.
BTW I think that 23948 and 24123 are way more severe than
--- Comment #1 from schwab at suse dot de 2005-11-16 14:50 ---
This is not a bug. There can multiple tentative definitions for the same
object.
--
schwab at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #1 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-16 15:00
---
What kind of runtime error would you think is appropriate? I don't see where
the problem is.
--
fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
$ cat u.f
OPEN(10,ACCESS='APPEND')
END
$ g77 u.f && ./a.out
$ gfortran u.f && ./a.out
At line 1 of file u.f
Fortran runtime error: Bad ACCESS parameter in OPEN statement
I don't think it is in the standard, but I don't have the standard at hand).
--
Summary: ACCESS argume
Hi all,
We just found a bug while compiling the following code. The derived template
class doens't know the pure virtual method from its parent class when this
template class has a method with the same name, but with different arguments:
class A {
public:
virtual void doit() = 0 ;
} ;
templa
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-16 15:17 ---
First this has nothing to do with templates, you can reproduce the error
message without templates.
Second this is how C++ works.
doit(double) in B hides doit(void) in A as it is the same name.
The way to fix it woul
--- Comment #5 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-16 15:18
---
Confirmed for 4.1 on i686-linux. I reduced it a bit but lost the file :(
Anyhow, the ICE strongly relies on the heavy use of these different modules...
Maybe we should have a MODULE meta-PR.
--
fxcoudert at gc
--- Comment #11 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-16 15:24
---
*** Bug 24887 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #6 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-16 15:24 ---
This is actually a dup of bug 20244, the issue comes into play when we have two
use modulename and the fortran front-end creates two different types (in
memory) for the same type.
*** This bug has been marked as a d
--- Comment #3 from machata at post dot cz 2005-11-16 15:25 ---
Created an attachment (id=10251)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10251&action=view)
Check if we are really declaring template ::main.
I believe that this patch does the right thing. I've done bootstrap o
GCC head as of 16 Nov with newlib 1.13.0. Configured as follows:
../gcc-head-test/configure --target=avr-rtems4.7 --enable-threads=rtems
--prefix=/home/joel/gcc-41-test/ --with-gnu-as --with-gnu-ld --with-newlib
--verbose --with-system-zlib --disable-nls
--enable-version-specific-runtime-libs --e
--- Comment #1 from joel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-16 15:30 ---
Created an attachment (id=10252)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10252&action=view)
Preprocessed file that produces ICE
This is the preprocessed output of the file causing the ICE.
--
http://gc
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-16 15:36 ---
I think this is related to PR 19636.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #5 from dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-16 15:56
---
Fixed.
--
dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIG
--- Comment #4 from dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-16 15:57
---
Working on this.
--
dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assign
--- Comment #5 from dje at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-16 15:59 ---
Subject: Bug 24772
Author: dje
Date: Wed Nov 16 15:59:27 2005
New Revision: 107085
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=107085
Log:
PR target/24772
* config/rs6000/predicates.md (vrsave
--- Comment #3 from jgoerzen at complete dot org 2005-11-16 16:18 ---
Well, it got farther, but then it died with literally hundreds of messages like
this:
BFD: ../libsupc++/.libs/libsupc++convenience.a(tinfo2.o): Unrecognized storage
class 111 for .text symbol `_ZTSN10__cxxabiv117__pba
--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-16 16:19 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> Well, it got farther, but then it died with literally hundreds of messages
> like
> this:
That is because GNU ld does not work fully for AIX 5 with weak symbols. So you
have to remove GN
--- Comment #19 from thebohemian at gmx dot net 2005-11-16 16:35 ---
Created an attachment (id=10254)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10254&action=view)
lazy linking - first part
This is the first part of the patch. See above for what it does.
--
thebohemian at g
--- Comment #24 from rth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-16 16:47 ---
We tried that. You get suckier optimization that way.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23497
--- Comment #1 from thebohemian at gmx dot net 2005-11-16 16:50 ---
By working on PR 24616 I found out that this belongs together.
--
thebohemian at gmx dot net changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #20 from thebohemian at gmx dot net 2005-11-16 16:51 ---
Created an attachment (id=10255)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10255&action=view)
lazy linking - part 2
This is the second part of the lazy linking patch. Applying both fixes most of
the problems
--- Comment #25 from mark at codesourcery dot com 2005-11-16 16:53 ---
Subject: Re: [4.1 regression] Bogus 'is used uninitialized...'
warning about std::complex
schwab at suse dot de wrote:
> --- Comment #23 from schwab at suse dot de 2005-11-16 14:20 ---
> (In reply to comme
--- Comment #35 from sje at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-16 17:06 ---
Subject: Bug 24718
Author: sje
Date: Wed Nov 16 17:06:52 2005
New Revision: 107090
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=107090
Log:
PR target/24718
* mklibgcc.in: Create dummy object f
--- Comment #1 from schwab at suse dot de 2005-11-16 17:18 ---
All failures are fixed with the recent Ada update.
--
schwab at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #7 from schwab at suse dot de 2005-11-16 17:19 ---
Fixed with the recent Ada update.
--
schwab at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|
--
schwab at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.1.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24413
--- Comment #21 from aph at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-16 17:20 ---
Accesses to static fields should be fixed already when compiling BC.
We generate a call to _Jv_ResolvePoolEntry(Class, int) for every static field
reference, which resolves the target class and returns a pointer to the
--- Comment #7 from rth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-16 17:23 ---
Subject: Bug 24621
Author: rth
Date: Wed Nov 16 17:23:23 2005
New Revision: 107093
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=107093
Log:
PR rtl-opt/24160
PR target/24621
* reload1.c
--- Comment #14 from rth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-16 17:23 ---
Subject: Bug 24160
Author: rth
Date: Wed Nov 16 17:23:23 2005
New Revision: 107093
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=107093
Log:
PR rtl-opt/24160
PR target/24621
* reload1.c
This is Ada test c95086b.
/tmp/cvs/gcc-20051116/Build/gcc/xgcc -c -B/tmp/cvs/gcc-20051116/Build/gcc/
-gnatws -O2 -I/tmp/cvs/gcc-20051116/Build/gcc/testsuite/ada/acats/support
c95086b.adb
+===GNAT BUG DETECTED==+
| 4.1.0 20051116 (experimental
RUN c954026
,.,. C954026 ACATS 2.5 05-11-16 18:17:03
C954026 Check that if the original entry call was a conditional or
timed entry call, the expiration time for a requeue with
abort to a protected entry is the original expiration
time.
* C9
--- Comment #1 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-16 17:27
---
Patch submitted for review.
--
fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from schwab at suse dot de 2005-11-16 17:27 ---
Same for test c32001e and c64105b.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24896
--- Comment #15 from rth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-16 17:27 ---
Fixed.
--
rth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #29 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-16 17:27
---
> So I guess it would be possible right now to fix the bootstrap issue
> by a pure front-end patch. (This doesn't address the more general
> question of whether or not the gimplifier has a bug that can be expos
--- Comment #8 from rth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-16 17:28 ---
Fixed.
--
rth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #2 from uttamp at us dot ibm dot com 2005-11-16 17:33 ---
Any error which indicates something like, "dummy argument defined to be larger
than actual argument.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24886
Ada tests c34007p, c34007r and c45282b.
raised CONSTRAINT_ERROR : c34007p.adb:83 discriminant check failed
--
Summary: CONSTRAINT_ERROR : discriminant check failed
Product: gcc
Version: 4.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
--- Comment #3 from hjl at lucon dot org 2005-11-16 17:35 ---
A patch is posted at
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-11/msg01195.html
--
hjl at lucon dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #5 from dje at watson dot ibm dot com 2005-11-16 17:45 ---
Subject: Re: Python miscompilation - TOC reload
Appended is a proposed patch to backport the easy_fp_constant
change to 4.0. Can you check if this fixes the problem? This patch may
hurt performance becaus
With the attached testcase, we get a SIGSEGV compiling with -O2 -fno-inline,
with -O1 -fno-inline it's fine.
--
Summary: [4.1 Regression] Miscompiles libgnomecanvas
Product: gcc
Version: 4.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: wrong-code
--- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-16 17:46 ---
Created an attachment (id=10256)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10256&action=view)
testcase
Testcase. I'll investigate later.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24899
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot
|
--- Comment #1 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-16 17:48
---
The "Search" button is your friend. -:)
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 22333 ***
--
ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #11 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-16 17:48
---
*** Bug 24898 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #2 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-16 17:53
---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 18659 ***
--
ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #18 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-16 17:53
---
*** Bug 24896 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-16 17:55 ---
The only difference at the tree level is:
- uta = art_uta_new (clip_x1, clip_y1, clip_x1 + 1, clip_y1 + 1);
+ uta = art_uta_new (clip_x1, clip_y1, clip_x1 + 1, clip_y1 + 1) [tail call];
- uta = art_uta_new (clip_
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-16 17:55 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> The only difference at the tree level is:
That is -O1 vs -O2
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24899
--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-16 17:56 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> (In reply to comment #2)
> > The only difference at the tree level is:
> That is -O1 vs -O2
And -fno-optimize-sibling-calls makes no difference.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bu
--- Comment #1 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-16 17:57
---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 21317 ***
--
ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #3 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-16 17:57
---
*** Bug 24897 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #5 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-16 18:05 ---
-floop-optimize2 fixes it.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24899
--- Comment #6 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-16 18:07 ---
>From looking at the RTL dumps, old-loop is where the difference is introduced
so blocking the meta-bug for loop.c issues (this goes under section a of that
meta bug).
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
attached testcase gives a "value computed is not used" warning.
Testcase comes from the linux kernel which spews this for every .c file
compiled
--
Summary: new "value computed is not used" warning in gcc 4.1
Product: gcc
Version: 4.1.0
Status: UNCONF
--- Comment #1 from arjanv at redhat dot com 2005-11-16 18:21 ---
Created an attachment (id=10257)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10257&action=view)
fairly minimal testcase
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24900
--- Comment #2 from arjanv at redhat dot com 2005-11-16 18:23 ---
(compiler flags used were -O2 -Wall)
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24900
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-16 18:30 ---
Here is a further reduced testcase:
unsigned long t(void);
void apic_write_atomic(unsigned long reg, unsigned int v)
{
((__typeof__(*((volatile unsigned int *)((t())+regt());
}
-Wall is all is needed to reprod
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||4.1.0
Known to work||4.0.3
When compiling GCC on IA64 HP-UX with --enable-checking=all I get a bus error
in fold_checksum_tree because of the variable 'buf'. It is created as a char
buffer but later cast to a tree struct. On IA64 HP-UX with it's strict
alignment requirements, this results in a bus error because buf is not
--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-16 18:36 ---
Reduces down to:
int f(void);
void g(void)
{
(unsigned) f();
}
The typeof gets changed over to unsigned.
Maybe this is not a bug after all. Can someone else comment on this?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/s
--- Comment #26 from gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-16 18:40 ---
(In reply to comment #17)
> (In reply to comment #13)
> > It's nice to see that PR bouncing between you all. Although I don't know
> > anything about C++, I want to add my non-constructive comment to this
> > discussion
1 - 100 of 164 matches
Mail list logo
