http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52979
--- Comment #3 from John Regehr 2012-04-23 17:47:42
UTC ---
I'll see if I can find another test case for this one.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53091
Bug #: 53091
Summary: Const assignment fails in GCC 4.2, 4.4, 4.6, 4.7 -
works fine in clang
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
URL: http://m
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53091
--- Comment #1 from bugs at m8y dot org 2012-04-23 18:25:42 UTC ---
Created attachment 27224
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27224
Demo of problem
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53091
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-04-23
18:38:29 UTC ---
The bug reporting guidelines ask for source code, not a URL.
Here's the code from the URL
#include
const int SDL_HAT_UP = 0x01;
const int SDL_HAT_RIGHT = 0x02;
const int SDL_HAT_
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53088
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53092
Bug #: 53092
Summary: ICE using -ftree-loop-if-convert-stores -O3
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priori
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53088
--- Comment #2 from Richard Guenther 2012-04-23
18:54:41 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> Mine. i386 outputs the message with input_loc, so it seems we need to set it
> correctly.
It should use some more sensible location though - input_locat
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53089
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53091
--- Comment #3 from bugs at m8y dot org 2012-04-23 18:59:59 UTC ---
Hey. I attached it as well. I didn't just provide a URL.
Anyway, I take it this is a "Won't Fix" ?
I guess it isn't the end of the world since we are targetting clang for llvm
ou
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52528
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53091
Andreas Schwab changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53091
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
URL|http
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53091
--- Comment #6 from bugs at m8y dot org 2012-04-23 19:35:18 UTC ---
Oh, cool.
Probably going to replace w/ an enum, which does seem to work.
But it does make 0 sense to me that const int is forbidden, but enum is
allowed...
http://publications.gbd
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53093
Bug #: 53093
Summary: [4.8 Regression]: tls/alias-1.c ICE, emutls
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.4.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53091
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski 2012-04-23
19:39:52 UTC ---
>But it does make 0 sense to me that const int is forbidden, but enum is
allowed...
Why variables are not part of C's constant integer expressions. enum values
are not variables.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53084
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49152
--- Comment #44 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2012-04-23 19:54:09 UTC ---
On Sun, 1 Apr 2012, manu at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> moving
> line-map out of libcpp to create a source-location library has been rejected
> in
> the past.
I've rev
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52877
--- Comment #1 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2012-04-23 19:55:25 UTC ---
ARC support was obsoleted in 4.6 and removed for 4.7, so this should be
closed WONTFIX.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53091
--- Comment #8 from bugs at m8y dot org 2012-04-23 19:57:37 UTC ---
In response to comment #7, I was referring to this portion of the linked
document.
--
Not that you are likely to care, but the Standard states that enumeration types
are of a t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47901
--- Comment #2 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2012-04-23 19:58:15 UTC ---
There are plenty of warnings in -Wall that relate to things that are
unusual but may be OK in some cases, or where -Wall expects a particular
coding style to be used.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52907
--- Comment #2 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2012-04-23 20:02:50 UTC ---
On Tue, 10 Apr 2012, rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> Does real.c even communicate this fact?
You can identify underflow from the result of multiplication or divis
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47901
--- Comment #3 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2012-04-23
20:08:09 UTC ---
Well, I don't really see how custom_printf("") can produce any damage. It may
be an oversight when one actually wanted to print something, but it may be as
likely that one didn't
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47901
--- Comment #4 from Anders Kaseorg 2012-04-23 20:10:22
UTC ---
Yes, I understand what -Wall is supposed to mean.
I don’t have a problem with -Wall warning about ‘if (foo = 3)’ when I probably
intended ‘if (foo == 3)’ and I could have written ‘if
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53087
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Poor code for conversion|[powerpc] Poor code from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53087
--- Comment #4 from Steven Bosscher 2012-04-23
20:13:29 UTC ---
Smaller test case:
_Bool
foo (long unsigned int a)
{
return (((1L << a) & 217579583UL) != 0);
}
==>
.file "t.c"
.section".toc","aw"
.section
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53094
Bug #: 53094
Summary: vector literal
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Componen
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53084
--- Comment #7 from Kai Tietz 2012-04-23 20:14:05
UTC ---
This patch fixes issues for noticed for mingw targets on trunk and for 4.7.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47901
--- Comment #5 from Anders Kaseorg 2012-04-23 20:22:20
UTC ---
I’m not sure ("%s", "") is a suitable replacement in general. Maybe this is a
far-fetched example, but what the purpose of custom_printf is to shell-quote
all its arguments, so that
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53087
David Edelsohn changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dje at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5 fr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49152
--- Comment #45 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2012-04-23
20:27:39 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #44)
> On Sun, 1 Apr 2012, manu at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> > moving
> > line-map out of libcpp to create a source-location library has been
> > rejecte
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53091
--- Comment #9 from Andreas Schwab 2012-04-23 20:36:10
UTC ---
enum constants are not objects, they don't have an address.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53095
Bug #: 53095
Summary: std=gnu99 atof x86
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
Priority: P3
Component:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47901
--- Comment #6 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2012-04-23 20:49:38 UTC ---
-Wall is expecting printf-like functions where empty strings are useless
as arguments and might indicate e.g. cruft you hadn't completely cleaned
up from your program
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53091
--- Comment #10 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-04-23
20:50:21 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> Hey. I attached it as well. I didn't just provide a URL.
Yeah, sorry, I wrote my comment before you attached it.
(In reply to comment #6)
> Can rewrite
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53091
--- Comment #11 from bugs at m8y dot org 2012-04-23 21:01:03 UTC ---
Yeah, I get the difference now.
Ok. Fair.
So, I guess clang is just taking the values of the const ints at the time the
assignment occurs (0x01 and 0x02)
and assigning 0x03. If R
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53095
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-04-23
21:05:38 UTC ---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs/#nonbugs_general
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51712
--- Comment #6 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2012-04-23 21:11:33 UTC ---
On Tue, 17 Apr 2012, manu at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> Unfortunately, I cannot see any way to know that FOO is a constant that comes
> from an enum. Joseph, is this pos
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29467
--- Comment #4 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2012-04-23 21:22:38 UTC ---
I'd say it's a quality-of-implementation issue, but it probably would be
best to diagnose this. I've added such diagnostics for C11 keywords such
as _Noreturn and _S
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47901
--- Comment #7 from Anders Kaseorg 2012-04-23 21:31:18
UTC ---
That’s a _much_ higher-level style decision than assumed by any of the other
-Wall warnings (or indeed any other warning switches at all), and a
questionable one at that. -Wall shoul
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53028
--- Comment #8 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2012-04-23 21:38:00 UTC ---
On Wed, 18 Apr 2012, mikestump at comcast dot net wrote:
> I don't see much value in this. The primary idea of the gcc testsuite is as a
> regression suite. For a re
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47197
--- Comment #2 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2012-04-23 21:46:23 UTC ---
On Wed, 18 Apr 2012, wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> Joseph, could you please take a look? Or let me know if you think it's not a
> front end problem.
In rs6000
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29467
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
--- Comment #5 from Manuel Lópe
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53095
--- Comment #2 from q2p0 2012-04-23 22:04:15
UTC ---
But if:
I use one architecture of 64 bits OR
I use the standard -std=99 OR
I use a temporal double variable OR
I compile other compiler that is not GCC
I don't get this error.
Ok I acept the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49797
Matt Hargett changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||matt at use dot net
--- Comment #3 from Ma
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53095
--- Comment #3 from q2p0 2012-04-23 22:53:56
UTC ---
#include
int main()
{
// Error.
double a = 0.5;
double b = 0.01;
std::cout << (int)(a / b) << std::endl;
// No error.
double c = a/b;
std::cout << (int)c << std::endl;
return 0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53096
Bug #: 53096
Summary: [c++11] should be possible to default a copy ctor that
takes non-const arg
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCO
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52878
Richard Henderson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53096
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Keywords|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52878
--- Comment #17 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-04-23
23:32:58 UTC ---
Author: hjl
Date: Mon Apr 23 23:32:54 2012
New Revision: 186729
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=186729
Log:
Check if MASK_/TARGET_ macros defined for e
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53028
--- Comment #9 from Mike Stump 2012-04-24
00:31:35 UTC ---
Since little proof was added to support the assertion that the additional
testing is useful, I can remain skeptical about it, though, the CFE people
certainly are free to require it, what
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53087
--- Comment #6 from David Edelsohn 2012-04-24 00:40:28
UTC ---
GCC 4.1 produced:
lis 9,0xcf8
li 0,1
ori 9,9,63
slw 0,0,3
and 0,0,9
neg 0,0
srwi 3,0,31
blr
The branch code i
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53097
Bug #: 53097
Summary: [c++0x] Missed optimization: lambda closure object
could be smaller
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47197
--- Comment #3 from William J. Schmidt 2012-04-24
01:12:07 UTC ---
Thanks, Joseph -- I'll get that fixed up. Appreciate the help.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53098
Bug #: 53098
Summary: [4.8 Regression] tree-vect-loop.c:1414:19: error:
comparison between signed and unsigned integer
expressions [-Werror=sign-compare]
Classification: Unclassifi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53097
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Status|UN
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53064
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski 2012-04-24
03:51:32 UTC ---
> a + (++a ? 0 : 0);
Hmm, I don't think there is a sequence point issue here compared to the other
case where it might cause an undefined code.
(++a ? 0 : 0) is all in done in one s
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53064
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski 2012-04-24
03:52:18 UTC ---
Note in the other case there is no sequence point because function arguments
are in the same sequence as the addition.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53093
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52863
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52850
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski 2012-04-24
03:58:50 UTC ---
>The problem is that there is an unsuitable copy of libz installed
That sounds like an user problem rather than a GCC issue.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52847
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||powerpc-*-aix*
Component|other
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52847
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52885
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52875
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52930
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52982
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski 2012-04-24
04:17:58 UTC ---
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-04/msg00402.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52984
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51969
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kallisti5 at unixzen dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52986
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52987
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52989
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||build
Target|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52993
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52885
--- Comment #3 from Jeffrey Walton 2012-04-24
04:32:35 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> GCC is not a mind reader.
I kind of knew that.
> There is no way for GCC to know if you want to do
> PIC or PIE code.
Forgive my ignorance, but why does it
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52885
--- Comment #4 from Jeffrey Walton 2012-04-24
04:34:42 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
>
> Also how can you tell the difference between compiling for executable and
> shared library if you don't supply -fPIC? So adding -aslr is not going to be
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52885
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski 2012-04-24
04:35:57 UTC ---
>Forgive my ignorance, but why does it matter at the code generation stage?
Easy. With PIE, global variables and functions are considered to bind local
while with PIC they are consi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52998
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53010
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c |middle-end
Target Milestone|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52885
--- Comment #6 from Jeffrey Walton 2012-04-24
04:38:54 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> >At code generation, I did not think there was even the concept of program or
> >shared object.
>
> And this is where you are wrong. GCC has a concept o
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53010
--- Comment #2 from John Regehr 2012-04-24 04:51:01
UTC ---
Yes, this has gone away as of the last couple days.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52999
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-04-24
06:03:47 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Apr 24 06:03:43 2012
New Revision: 186741
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=186741
Log:
PR middle-end/52999
* varasm.c (get_section
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53084
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-04-24
06:07:34 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Apr 24 06:07:30 2012
New Revision: 186742
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=186742
Log:
PR middle-end/53084
* varasm.c (compute_rel
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52999
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-04-24
06:09:00 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Apr 24 06:08:55 2012
New Revision: 186743
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=186743
Log:
PR middle-end/52999
* varasm.c (get_section
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53084
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-04-24
06:11:00 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Apr 24 06:10:53 2012
New Revision: 186745
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=186745
Log:
PR middle-end/53084
* varasm.c (compute_rel
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53084
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-04-24
06:14:43 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Apr 24 06:14:37 2012
New Revision: 186746
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=186746
Log:
PR middle-end/53084
* varasm.c (compute_re
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53099
Bug #: 53099
Summary: Internal compiler error on short testcase
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27139
Marc Glisse changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marc.glisse at normalesup
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52428
Janne Blomqvist changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52940
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
URL|
101 - 188 of 188 matches
Mail list logo
