On 8/21/07, Michael Williamson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I would expect a message like:
>
> "the second parameter is not a pointer".
Because '\0' can converted to a pointer type as it is a 0 (for a NULL pointer).
-- Pinski
On 22 Aug 2007 23:39:50 -, dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Right. Would it be ok to make this declaration static? That
> will avoid the warning.
I think in this case, yes.
Thanks,
Andrew Pinski
On 24 Aug 2007 16:45:41 -, nikolay at totalviewtech dot com
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What do you mean?
The IA64 C++ ABI requires two (or three) versions of constructor. So
GCC "clones" functions to deal with that. And we emit the context of
the local static variable part of the original
On 26 Aug 2007 05:21:22 -, sabre at nondot dot org
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> to not call bar.
The problem is in c-typeck.c (build_unary_op) (around line 2986).
the code looks like:
if (TREE_CODE (arg) == COMPLEX_CST)
return TREE_IMAGPART (arg);
else if (TREE_CODE (TREE_T
On 28 Aug 2007 19:40:14 -, pluto at agmk dot net
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> --- Comment #34 from pluto at agmk dot net 2007-08-28 19:40 ---
> (In reply to comment #33)
> > Fixed.
> >
>
> one more testcase:
>
> $ cat X.hpp
> namespace { class Impl; }
> struct X
> {
> ~X();
quot; to get around this issue and should solve the issue and not
violate the C++ ODR.
This warning is not about style, it is about warning when you are most
likely going to violat C++'s One definition rule with anonymous
namespaces and you do violate it here as explained above.
Thanks,
Andrew Pinski
On 29 Aug 2007 00:53:35 -, Hans dot Boehm at hp dot com
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Based on Book 2, section 1.4 of the architecture manual, I believe aligned
> word
> access are always atomic on PowerPC.
They are, even cache-inheited memory too.
-- Pinski
).
So again this warning is correct based on the One definition rule.
Thanks,
Andrew Pinski
e default is to print negative 0 as -0.0 as in the 2003
Fortran standard while F95 says don't print the negative sign for
-0.0.
Thanks,
Andrew Pinski
ue if any of the compare_section_name calls returned true,
rather than if any returned false.
Try again after that patch.
Thanks,
Andrew Pinski
ARE_DEPENDENT. Also free DDR_DIST_VECTS and/or
DDR_DIR_VECTS vectors.
So can you please try a newer version?
Thanks,
Andrew Pinski
On 31 Aug 2007 01:43:51 -, michelin60 at gmail dot com
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Second I mentioned Mark Mitchell because he, as relesae manager, put a stop to
> backporting
> definitely aggravating productive use of GCC.
This is the trunk we are talking about, I am seriously thinking you
On 31 Aug 2007 04:33:12 -, michelin60 at gmail dot com
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Regarding the last quote I am led to believe that Mr. Pinski is taking undue
> credit. PR30758 (marked as a duplicate) is the first addressing the
> re-appearance of mayalias. there are another 5 PR, all appear
On 31 Aug 2007 08:38:43 -, rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> --- Comment #5 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-08-31 08:38
> ---
> Well, but 4.2/4.3 reject the testcase only if you compile with -fprofile-arcs,
> which is bogus.
With your testcase .
On 2 Sep 2007 13:19:45 -, hjl at lucon dot org
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] uninit-2]$ cat x.c
> typedef int mpz_t[1];
> typedef struct iterator_stack
> {
> struct iterator_stack *prev;
> mpz_t value;
> } iterator_stack;
> iterator_stack *x;
> void bar (mpz_t);
> void
> fo
On 2 Sep 2007 13:42:42 -, dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> --- Comment #3 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2007-09-02 13:42
> ---
> > [18:23] < apinski> between 127935 and 128000
>
> Fromp http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/, looking at the results f
On 2 Sep 2007 13:56:13 -, hjl at lucon dot org
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What does bar get back to? Are you saying if a pointer is passed to bar,
> it can get back to any original struct where the pointer is a field?
It only matters at the context at the point bar is called with the
struct
On 2 Sep 2007 13:58:23 -, hjl at lucon dot org
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> If you can write such a function, I can pass you a pointer and your function
> will be wrong.
yes so but that call would be undefined, not the one we are talking
about currently.
--Pinski
On 5 Sep 2007 09:24:09 -, manu at gcc dot gnu dot org
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There was talking about creating a -Wundefined flag that warns about undefined
> behaviour (PR30334). Would this fit in there? (-pedantic is not supposed to
> warn about undefined constructions as far as I know).
> --- Comment #4 from stevenyi at 163 dot com 2007-09-09 05:26 ---
> I can not see any reason to call the copy constructor here. If you remove
> keyword explicit so that let the code compile, you can find that the copy
> constructor is not called at all.
Again the 1998 standard (as writte
On 9 Sep 2007 06:47:40 -, dleska at gmail dot com
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is this optimisation not possible in gcc?
Only because the ABI that GCC follows (the IA64 C++ ABI) says
otherwise so we have to follow that.
If you want this optimization, you will need the whole program as even
if
On 18 Sep 2007 15:34:16 -, jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> +case VA_ARG_EXPR:
> + pp_cxx_identifier (cxx_pp, "__builtin_va_arg");
I would not use __builtin_va_arg here since this diagnostic, I would
just use va_arg.
Thanks,
Andrew Pinski
On 24 Sep 2007 15:48:19 -, michael dot a dot richmond at nasa dot
gov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> When I compile the program listed below with the snapshot version of gfortran
> dated September 24 I get the following spurious warning:
>
> pp.f90:3.15:
> rft = TRANSFER(' ', 0.0)
>
On 24 Sep 2007 19:59:37 -, sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington
dot edu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The programmer for whatever reason could be using rft as temporary storage.
> Yes, I know it's a hypothetical situation, but the following is legal code
> and should not give a warning.
Thou
as added was specifically to fix this
testcase.
See http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-05/msg01115.html which
specifically mentions this. I am still trying to understand why we
removed must_def anyways. Everything points to the removal of
must_def caused many different regressions.
Thanks,
Andrew Pinski
On 30 Sep 2007 14:32:32 -, ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> --- Comment #7 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-09-30 14:32
> ---
> > Configured with: ../configure --enable-shared --enable-threads
> > --with-ld=/usr/local/gnu/bin/ld --with-as=/us
On 1 Oct 2007 18:04:09 -, ams at gnu dot org
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> --- Comment #21 from ams at gnu dot org 2007-10-01 18:04 ---
> Subject: Re: [4.2/4.3 Regression] GNU Hurd bootstrap error: 'OPTION_GLIBC'
> undeclared
>
>To me it looks like linux.h shouldn't be included
E (...)%>, e.g. %<(... ->* %E) (...)%>",
> >+ original, original);
> > return error_mark_node;
It might be better to use %$1E (I think that is how it is done) so you
don't have to pass original twice.
Thanks,
Andrew Pinski
On 8 Oct 2007 14:56:18 -, bangerth at dealii dot org
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> quicksort.h:68
> multiway_mergesort.h:142
>
> Benjamin, as a stopgap would you mind using __builtin_alloca in these
> places as well?
Why not use __extension__ in those places?
-- Pinski
On 11 Oct 2007 10:28:03 -, tbm at cyrius dot com
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So it's just a coincidence that 4.1 and 4.3 bootstrap?
Yes. You should look at what instruction is being executed to be sure
but this is just the normal trying to boostrap using --with-cpu when
you really don't have
This is PR 13993 which only effects if you configure with a relative
patch and
only 3.4.x, it is fixed on the mainline already.
-- Pinski
On Feb 17, 2005, at 2:35 PM, gary at intrepid dot com wrote:
The MAX_FIXED_REC_SIZE defintion is a relatively recent addition to
config/rs6000.h (and from a quick review of the cvs log, it seems that
this
change hasn't yet been incorporated into a release.) Just fyi.
Yes so, just a note the patch
On Feb 18, 2005, at 11:50 AM, Kenneth Zadeck wrote:
The build gets partially thru the stage2 and then crashes when trying
to compile most of the back end in one step with the following
message:
gcc: cannot specify -o with -c or -S and multiple compilations
This same step works fine on my pentium
On Feb 21, 2005, at 3:28 PM, Bob Green wrote:
I get a segmentation fault when a C program allocates
an 8MB array in the subroutine "main()". The
specifics are listed below. Any help understanding
if this is a bug would be greatly appreciated.
No this is not a bug, you are allocating the 8MB on th
On Mar 6, 2005, at 8:31 PM, dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca
wrote:
--- Additional Comments From dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot
ca 2005-03-07 01:31 ---
Subject: Re: FAIL: 26_numerics/complex/pow.cc execution test
We have log(x) == -inf for x == 0+. The exp call is returnin
On Mar 7, 2005, at 10:16 PM, Diego Novillo wrote:
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
Why isn't the tree level loop IV-OPTs doing this?
Because variable i is static.
I think you commenting on the wrong bug.
-- Pinski
On Mar 11, 2005, at 4:59 PM, Thomas dot Koenig at online dot de wrote:
--- Additional Comments From Thomas dot Koenig at online dot de
2005-03-11 21:59 ---
There are two strange things here:
- Why the + 0. ?
- Why the casts to double?
Because that is required by the C standard.
-- Pinski
On Mar 15, 2005, at 1:46 PM, dopheide at fmf dot nl wrote:
It stills /looks/ inconsistent though.
That is because there is an optimization going on here which is allowed
by the standard.
-- Pinski
On Mar 19, 2005, at 5:27 PM, Demo Account wrote:
Hi, my gcc isn't working.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/mnt/lfs/sources$ gcc -v
Using built-in specs.
Target: i686-pc-linux-gnu
Configured with: ../gcc-4.1-20050313/configure --prefix=/tools
--libexecdir=/tools/lib --with-local-prefix=/tools --enable-clocale=gn
I had meant -mlongcall.
-- Pinski
On Mar 25, 2005, at 7:59 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
Could someone help me understand what's causing the following
warning so that I can silence it? Gcc 3.4.3 emits it for an
implicitly inline one-line definition of the function (ctor,
actually, see below), so I'm not sure what the "function body
not a
On Mar 27, 2005, at 8:06 PM, zouq wrote:
- ~{T4SJ<~~} -
~{VwLb~}: [bug fmodulo-sched/gcc]
~{7"<~HK~}: "zouq" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
~{HUFZ~}: Mon, ~{H}TB~} 28, 2005 8:09 am
~{JU<~HK~}: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
On Mar 29, 2005, at 2:13 AM, fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
-*ioparm.exist = (u != NULL);
+*ioparm.exist = (u != NULL ? 1 : 0);
This change does nothing.
-- Pinski
On Mar 30, 2005, at 3:22 PM, lothar wrote:
Hello,
Michael Meissner redirected me to this list, I contacted him because
his emailaddress was in rs6000/linux.h. I don't know who currently
maintains this file
I ran into trouble when trying to build a cross compiler for the
RS6000 (target=ppc-linux
e in final code generation.
I still haven't looked hard.
Could anyone with access to a darwin machine test this patch for
me?
I will test this soon.
Thanks,
Andrew Pinski
7;t looked hard.
Could anyone with access to a darwin machine test this patch for
me?
This fixes the bootstrap problem for me on powerpc-darwin.
Thanks,
Andrew Pinski
On Apr 10, 2005, at 9:47 PM, Diego Novillo wrote:
On Sun, Apr 10, 2005 at 05:38:31PM -0400, Andrew Pinski wrote:
This fixes the bootstrap problem for me on powerpc-darwin.
Thanks. I will commit as soon as I get a clean bootstrap.
Could you try the patch in PR 20934 and see if it fixed the
o
dates really.
This was PR 20933 by the way.
Thanks,
Andrew Pinski
On Apr 12, 2005, at 12:14 PM, amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
--- Additional Comments From amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-04-12 16:14 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
Huh? no optimization should take register pressure into account.
What we
should have is a reroller in
the registe
On Apr 14, 2005, at 8:45 PM, ltg at zes dot uni-bremen dot de wrote:
I tried to build gcc-4.0.0-20050410 (RC1) and got the following error:
BOOT_CFLAGS="-O9 -maix64" CFLAGS="-O9 -maix64" CXXFLAGS="-O9 -maix64"
LIBCFLAGS="-g -O9 -maix64" LIBCXXFLAGS="-g -O9 -maix64
-fno-implicit-templates"
nohup /u
On Apr 14, 2005, at 10:32 PM, Jay Summet wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
I ran into an interesting bug when attempting to add imlib2 to a
program that
uses GLUT. The program would compile/link fine, but segfault when the
imlib_load_image() call was made. (initial call to imlib)
The fix
imple code works correct in DEBUG. But it works INCORRECT in
> release (-O2)
You are violating C/C++ aliasing rules, either use a memcpy, an union
or -fno-strict-aliasing.
Thanks,
Andrew Pinski
On Sun, Oct 12, 2008 at 1:40 PM, rguenther at suse dot de
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> No. ifcombine only combines on the CFG, in PR28685 we are dealing
> with a CFG-less opportunity.
Well it depends really. As on some targets it has a CFG based ||/&&
depending on BRANCH_C
> FAIL: LargeFile execution - source compiled test
> FAIL: LargeFile -findirect-dispatch execution - source compiled test
> FAIL: LargeFile -O3 execution - source compiled test
> FAIL: LargeFile -O3 -findirect-dispatch execution - source compiled test
How much disk space do you have? HFS+ sucks f
On 14 Feb 2008 20:54:18 -, hjl dot tools at gmail dot com
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Where is this documented in ISO C?
There is a Defect Report explicitly about this:
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/dr_236.htm
-- Pinski
lared in this program, and so the two that have assembler
names have to have different names, and I don't think we want to start
mangling non-static variable names.
Also mangling non-static variables will cause an ABI change.
Thanks,
Andrew Pinski
riously?
I'll try to make a smaller one. But it most likely won't be small.
I think the bug is caused by a VERY large expression used with a
constructor
within a try-catch.
Most likely this is just a stack overflow so really not an interesting
testcase.
Thanks,
Andrew Pinski
This is caused by the vectorizer.
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 3, 2008, at 11:50, "reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
The following valid code snippet triggers an ICE on mainline and 4.3
branch
when compiled with "-ftrapv -O3"
-- Pinski
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 4, 2008, at 0:40, "ubizjak at gmail dot com" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
--- Comment #1 from ubizjak at gmail dot com 2008-03-04 08:40
---
Hm, -0.0 >= 0.0 is folded to TRUE, as confirmed by:
printf ("%i\n", -0.0 >= 0.0);
This produces 1.
That is
This was done for GCC 4.3.0.
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 6, 2008, at 6:58, "Laurent dot Vivier at bull dot net" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
--- Comment #1 from Laurent dot Vivier at bull dot net
2008-03-06 14:58 ---
Created an attachment (id=15270)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzil
d around it by
modifying
the GDB source code, but that isn't ideal. Also, I'd appreciate
advice on
what, if anything, to tell the GDB team.
The thing to check is if this code has already been changed in the
trunk of GDB. I think it already has.
Thanks,
Andrew Pinski
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 11, 2008, at 22:32, "xinliangli at gmail dot com" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
Value profiling on the length parameters of memset, memcpy, memmove,
strncmp,
strncpy, memcmp, etc can be guide the inline expansion strategy for
those
calls. As an example, very lar
This code is only defined if char is unsigned which it is not on avr.
(It is unsigned on some targets like powerpc-Linux-gnu.
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 18, 2008, at 22:42, "dmixm at marine dot febras dot ru" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
/* The next program is aborted with avr-gcc 4.1.2, 4.
See pr 33790.
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 19, 2008, at 17:04, "ubizjak at gmail dot com" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
--- Comment #30 from ubizjak at gmail dot com 2008-03-20 00:04
---
(In reply to comment #28)
(In reply to comment #27)
The store is not useless. Reload from "_w"
This code violates c/c++ aliasing rules.
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 23, 2008, at 6:33, "victork at gcc dot gnu dot org" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
--- Comment #6 from victork at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-23
13:33 ---
Here is AN even more reduced example which demonstrates th
No the compiler should be able to load the packed struct no matter
what. If that means doing byte by byte loads then so be it.
-- Pinski
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 25, 2008, at 7:53, "hjl dot tools at gmail dot com" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
--- Comment #2 from hjl dot tools at gma
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 28, 2008, at 21:40, "regehr at cs dot utah dot edu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
This is for "gcc (GCC) 4.3.0".
This function returns different values at -O1 and -O2:
int func_5 (void) {
int g_4 = 0x4E6D4F28;
return 0 <= (6 * g_4);
}
This multiplication overf
I forgot to mention that the dse patch fixes the problem earlier on so
we now do the optimization pre-reload. We still have an extra store
but that is recorded as another bug I filed.
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 29, 2008, at 1:55, "pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 29, 2008, at 12:16, "regehr at cs dot utah dot edu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
--- Comment #3 from regehr at cs dot utah dot edu 2008-03-29
19:16 ---
Subject: Re: apparent integer math bug
This multiplication overflows so the resulting behavior i
Sent from my iPhone
On Apr 7, 2008, at 0:06, "xinliangli at gmail dot com" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
// Test case: should print 0 but it prints 10 when compiled at -O
or -O2. The
culprit is very likely ccp1.
I don't think it should t used uninitialized if *flag is true and both
I a
Sent from my iPhone
On Apr 8, 2008, at 13:51, "janis at gcc dot gnu dot org" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
--- Comment #6 from janis at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-04-08
20:51 ---
My bootstrap on powerpc64-linux worked fine after the fix for 35620
went in;
see http://gcc.gnu.org/m
Sent from my iPhone
On Apr 8, 2008, at 14:05, "pinskia at gmail dot com" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
--- Comment #7 from pinskia at gmail dot com 2008-04-08 21:05
---
Subject: Re: [4.4 Regression] Altivec with the vectorizer causes an
ICE in
rs6000_check_sdmode
Sent from
and
> run and actually work
>cout << x << " " << y << endl;
> }
iostream is bringing in the definition of std::swap which takes a
reference. And you have a "using namespace std;" there.
Thanks,
Andrew Pinski
On Sat, Apr 25, 2009 at 7:22 AM, edwintorok at gmail dot com
wrote:
> Hmm, looks like the only way out is for me to put #if defined(__GNUC__) &&
> (__GNUC__ > 4) || (__GNUC__ == 4 && __GNUC_MINOR__ >= 4) and use memcpy.
> Either that or add a configure rule to add -fno-strict-aliasing.
GCC has b
definition?
>
bsearch is a standard C function.
https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/functions/bsearch.html
http://www.cplusplus.com/reference/cstdlib/bsearch/
Thanks,
Andrew Pinski
> / * binary bearch * /
> #include
> int bsearch(int x, int a[], int n);
> int main(void
On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 7:29 AM Slava Barinov wrote:
>
> * cp/decl.c (reshape_init_array_1): Enforce constructor creation
> for VLAs when initialized with zero value.
> * testsuite/g++.dg/pr93730.C: New test
> * testsuite/g++.dg/abi/mangle72.C: Change mangling to ne
On Sun, Oct 11, 2009 at 8:13 AM, rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
wrote:
> is this valid cross translation-unit if T is used across units?
Yes this is valid for C. In C, types are across TUs are not based on
names. This is why the code for -combine was complex with respect of
type equality.
--
Sent from my iPhone
On Nov 4, 2009, at 1:32 AM, "rguenther at suse dot de" > wrote:
--- Comment #6 from rguenther at suse dot de 2009-11-04 09:32
---
Subject: Re: -fdump-tree-all for lto does not work as
expected
On Tue, 3 Nov 2009, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
Sent from my iPhone
On Nov 8, 2009, at 11:52 AM, "rootkit85 at yahoo dot it" > wrote:
--- Comment #4 from rootkit85 at yahoo dot it 2009-11-08 19:52
---
# cat /proc/cpuinfo
processor : 0
vendor_id : AuthenticAMD
cpu family : 5
model : 10
model name
The x86_64 abi includes a red zone. So I doubt this a bug in gcc
unless netbsd's abi does not match what gcc does.
Sent from my iPhone
On Nov 8, 2009, at 12:25 PM, "cube at cubidou dot net" > wrote:
Provided a somewhat specific set of local variables, and as long as
the code of
the functio
Sent from my iPhone
On Nov 14, 2009, at 2:35 PM, "rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org" > wrote:
--- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-14
22:35 ---
I guess the easiest is to avoid the special formats and simply use %ld
and long unconditionally.
How about using
Sent from my iPhone
On Nov 16, 2009, at 6:12 AM, "jan dot kratochvil at redhat dot com" > wrote:
-g3 currently produces huge objects as it contains many unused macros.
-g2 produces no macros debug info so GDB cannot provide its expansion.
That is by design and the reason why -g is -g2 by
2011/2/7 Ry deen :
> Hi all,
>
> The code that contains the code shown below is compiled
> with arm-eabi-gcc -O2.
> if((aaa_struct *)NULL == aaa) {
> printf("1\n");
> }
> else {
> printf("2\n");
> }
>
> bbb = aaa->member1;
The output
output
> Result; Assertion failed: ((buffer[0] = 0xFF) && buffer[0] == 0xFF),
> function main, file minimalErroringCode.cpp, line 4.
Easy answer buffer[0] when promoted to int because of the rules of
C/C++, is equal to -1 and not 255. So a signed char will never equal
to 0xff.
Thanks,
Andrew Pinski
. The example uses CMake
> to compile.
>
> I have three files:
Sounds like --as-needed is the default with the linker you are using.
That is GCC is not the issue but rather the defaults with the distros
you are using are different.
Thanks,
Andrew Pinski
On 8 May 2007 14:44:16 -, dnovillo at acm dot org
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The original code did not have a race condition. The compiler
transformations introduced a race-condition. This *is* a compiler
bug.
Actually the original code has a race condition, if another thread is
reading
And BTW - wrapping is undefined operation.
One for signed integers for unsigned it is actually defined as
wrapping and the reporter used unsigned integers here.
Thanks,
Andrew Pinski
On 12 Jun 2007 17:53:19 -, gangren at google dot com
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm aware of integral promotion. But not quite understand why we can optimize
(short)((int)short_var + (int)short_var) to (short)((unsigned short)short_var +
(unsigned short)short_var), but not to (short)((short)
bug 21334 seems to deal with multiple threads accessing the same shared object
at the same time. However, the sample code provided here involves separate
private objects so there should not be any such issues. If it is not possible
to assume that separate threads can access unrelated STL objects
working in this area have an idea ...!
Some cases are our fault, others are g95's fault and Andy might not
want to say it is his fault if the middle-end optimizes away stuff
based on undefined code (which I bet is happening in the last case).
Thanks,
Andrew Pinski
On 24 Jun 2007 19:28:45 -, dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
--- Comment #29 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2007-06-24 19:28 ---
>Try with -fwarpv, I bet this is really a bug in g95's IR.
-fwarpv is not recognized by g95.
How can it not be recognize by g
On 26 Jun 2007 14:59:27 -, jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
f951: out of memory allocating 4064 bytes after a total of 1148219392 bytes
Ignore the second number, it just is total count of memory allocated
via xmalloc and not the amount of memory used at the time of the
is easier to see the diference between 3.4 and the trunk where we
don't duplicate the tail call to g.
Thanks,
Andrew Pinski
On 6/27/07, Dominique Dhumieres <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> When you invoke gfortran with -v march=native and with a source file, it will
> show the values. This is the recommended way of showing how you involved
> gcc/gfortran anyways.
I get:
f951: error: unrecognized command line option "-m
On 4 Jul 2007 19:17:22 -, jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
b.s:
.LCFI15:
cmpl$9, __cp_log_handling_MOD_stack_pointer(%rip)
callmcount
movq%rdi, %rbx
jle .L21
This is obviosuly wrong as the call will most likely clobber th
--- Comment #4 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-07-04 12:31 ---
This doesn't ICE any longer on the trunk.
But that does not mean the bug is still there. PRE/VN was changed
(which exposed the ICE) but the inliner was not. Really we should
verify this in the verify_tree_cfg so we
On Tue, May 8, 2018 at 11:07 AM, Dávid Bolvanský
wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Code example:
> #include
>
> char * a(int e) {
> char * s;
> switch (e) {
> case 0:
> s = "0";
> break;
> case 1:
> s = "1";
> break;
> case 2:
>
gt; The linker used here is powerpc-poky-linux-g++.
Considering it is ld that is crashing, maybe reporting it to binutils instead.
Thanks,
Andrew Pinski
>
> # powerpc-poky-linux-g++ -v
> Using built-in specs.
> COLLECT_GCC=powerpc-poky-linux-g++
> COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=//yocto/builds
On Sat, Mar 17, 2018 at 11:40 AM, Jonathon Reinhart
wrote:
> This was originally posted on Stack Overflow:
> https://stackoverflow.com/a/49339771/119527
>
> The following program:
>
> #include
>
> static void pshort(short val)
> {
>printf("0x%hx ", val);
> }
>
> int ma
On Sep 3, 2005, at 11:25 PM, ngmlinux at gmail dot com wrote:
--- Additional Comments From ngmlinux at gmail dot com 2005-09-04
03:25 ---
Ok after recompiling the static HelloWorld.exe with the patched
toolchain the
following happens upon execution on the target:
===code
101 - 200 of 465 matches
Mail list logo
