--- Comment #2 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-13 04:45 ---
Please, don't ask language questions in bugzilla. If you are unsure whether
something is legal C++, ask first in some C++ language forum or, if it is very
specific of GCC, ask in [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I am going to close t
--- Comment #2 from dsh at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-13 04:46 ---
Created an attachment (id=14537)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=14537&action=view)
Idea for a fix
I started on a patch for this a few months ago. It basically just prepended ./
to all the temporary
--- Comment #3 from dsh at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-13 04:50 ---
Created an attachment (id=14538)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=14538&action=view)
Better patch
Sorry, this one's cleaner. That other one included some other cleanup that I
think already went in.
--- Comment #2 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-13 04:55 ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> Warnings from optimizers are semi a no-no. Yes we have them for strict
> aliasing and overflow but I think those cases are a bit weird. This is
> unspecified behavior no matter what and ther
--- Comment #4 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-13 05:00 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> Created an attachment (id=14538)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=14538&action=view) [edit]
> Better patch
>
Please, bootstrap and run the testsuite, then send the patch t
--- Comment #5 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-13 05:03 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> Created an attachment (id=14537)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=14537&action=view) [edit]
> Idea for a fix
>
> I started on a patch for this a few months ago. It basical
--- Comment #1 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-13 05:12 ---
Confirmed as far as I know. I have seen a similar bug somewhere, thoug.
--
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #2 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-13 05:13 ---
Could you try with a recent version of GCC?
--
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #3 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-13 05:19 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> va_list on the target you are using just happens to be a char* and not a
> seperate type.
>
So? Is the warning warranted? Can be worked-around? Should GCC detect this case
and not warn?
--
--- Comment #57 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-13 06:34
---
Regarding the suggestion in comment #55, there is an instance of [S.15][1] in
the dump. It will match if we bump the count from 2 to 3 in the dg-final scan
directive.
So either this:
! { dg-final { scan-tree-d
--- Comment #6 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-13 07:35 ---
I certainly can't reproduce this on x86_64-linux (with neither -m32 nor -m64).
Can you please attach the good and bad char_cshift_2.s, and the from the
debugger
which field of the array caused the abort and maybe even
--- Comment #58 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2007-11-13 07:56 ---
> Can those interested test this on char_cast_1.f90 please.
Both wok on PPC and Intel Darwin8. Note that if the first change is chosen, the
comment:
! The sign that all is well is that [S.5][1] appears twice.
shou
101 - 112 of 112 matches
Mail list logo
