||2011.01.02 17:19:22
CC||aph at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55764
Andrew Haley changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55764
Andrew Haley changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|FIXED |WONTFIX
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50773
Andrew Haley changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aph at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52936
Bug #: 52936
Summary: Assertion failure in c-typeck.c
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52936
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Haley 2012-04-11 16:06:08
UTC ---
Created attachment 27134
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27134
Test case
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50888
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Haley 2011-11-21 18:02:29
UTC ---
I suppose I don't really object to a workaround in libjava, but surely the
sensible thing to do is fix isspace() not to throw. It can't, anyway: that
would be in breach of its spec.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50888
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Haley 2011-11-22 17:55:51
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> isspace is actually marked as not throwing, i.e. throw() in C++. In glibc
> 2.15+ it happens to be implemented as throw() inline function which calls
> anot
||aph at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution||WORKSFORME
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Haley 2012-01-06 10:17:52
UTC ---
Reproducible with with 4.2.4 but not with 4.4.6 or 4.6.2 or HEAD.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21855
Andrew Haley changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|WAITING
Resolution|INVALID
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21855
--- Comment #16 from Andrew Haley 2012-01-10 16:26:51
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #15)
> (In reply to comment #14)
> > (In reply to comment #13)
> > > We can't optimize this because System.out.println can change args[].
> >
> > That's the whole
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21855
--- Comment #19 from Andrew Haley 2012-01-10 16:44:16
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #17)
> (In reply to comment #16)
> > (In reply to comment #15)
> > > (In reply to comment #14)
> > > > (In reply to comment #13)
> > > > > We can't optimize this b
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21855
--- Comment #22 from Andrew Haley 2012-01-10 17:08:30
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #21)
> The Java frontend could handle this by performing loads of the length field
> via a SAVE_EXPR and sharing this across a function. That way CSE would
> happ
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65892
--- Comment #40 from Andrew Haley ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #29)
> Note I repeatedly said this part of the standard is just stupid. It makes
> most if not all type-based alias analysis useless.
I don't think so. It does
PM GMT+02:00, "aph at gcc dot gnu.org"
> wrote:
>> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65892
>>
>> --- Comment #40 from Andrew Haley ---
>> (In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #29)
>>
>>> Note I repeatedly said this part of the stan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65892
--- Comment #45 from Andrew Haley ---
(In reply to Davin McCall from comment #44)
> > Well, perhaps not, but this is the language specification.
>
> The "one special guarantee" clause appears in the section describing union
> member access via t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65892
--- Comment #47 from Andrew Haley ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #43)
> (In reply to Andrew Haley from comment #42)
> >
> > So, if any union types with a common initial sequence are declared
> > anywhere in a program, then their me
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65892
--- Comment #49 from Andrew Haley ---
(In reply to James Kuyper Jr. from comment #46)
> (In reply to Andrew Haley from comment #42)
> ...
> > In order to use type-based alias analysis in any LTO framework it's
> > necessary to save type informati
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65892
--- Comment #50 from Andrew Haley ---
(In reply to Andrew Haley from comment #49)
>
> Perhaps so, yes, but in practice it'd be pretty hard to do that.
> Functions can only be defined in the other scope,
Should be "the outer scope"
> and there'
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65892
--- Comment #57 from Andrew Haley ---
(In reply to Davin McCall from comment #52)
> (In reply to Andrew Haley from comment #45)
> > (In reply to Davin McCall from comment #44)
> > > The "one special guarantee" clause appears in the section descri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65892
--- Comment #60 from Andrew Haley ---
(In reply to James Kuyper Jr. from comment #51)
> (In reply to Andrew Haley from comment #49)
> > (In reply to James Kuyper Jr. from comment #46)
> >
> > The principle of type-based alias analysis is that al
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65892
--- Comment #62 from Andrew Haley ---
Just a bit of clarification:
(In reply to James Kuyper Jr. from comment #59)
>
> > 1) all type-based alias analysis is effectively impossible
>
> Alias analysis is only affected by the special guarantee if
||aph at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution|--- |WONTFIX
--- Comment #35 from Andrew Haley ---
Boehm GC is gone from GCC sources.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55716
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Haley 2012-12-18 10:00:29
UTC ---
Author: aph
Date: Tue Dec 18 10:00:18 2012
New Revision: 194574
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=194574
Log:
PR gcc/55716 [4.8 Regression] gjavah throw
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55716
Andrew Haley changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
Component: tree-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: aph at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 40914
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40914&action=edit
GCC test case,
If a loop index has POINTER_TYPE, sp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79943
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Haley ---
Author: aph
Date: Wed Mar 8 11:35:23 2017
New Revision: 245974
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=245974&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-03-08 Andrew Haley
PR tree-optimization/79943
* tree
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79943
Andrew Haley changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60667
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Haley ---
Still no luck with ubsan, which seems to be broken:
/usr/local/i686-pc-linux-gnu/sys-include-O2 -g -O2 -DIN_GCC-W -Wall
-Wno-narrowing -Wwrite-strings -Wcast-qual -Wstrict-prototypes
-Wmissing-prototy
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60667
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Haley ---
OK, pls ping me whan the tree is stable and I'll fix the Java FE.
++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: aph at gcc dot gnu.org
Created attachment 32683
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32683&action=edit
Reproducer here:
Summary: Devirtualization uses type information to determine if a
virtual method is re
||aph at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Haley ---
I'm closing this because it's a dupe.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 60965 ***
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60965
Andrew Haley changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||redi at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 fro
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60965
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Haley ---
Jan, can we please have an ETA to fix this? It is a very importantant problem
for Java because it breaks OpenJDK.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60965
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Haley ---
(In reply to Jason Merrill from comment #7)
> (In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #6)
> > It is a bit
> > questionable on how precisely define what type transitions are allowed by
> > placement new. This is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60965
--- Comment #11 from Andrew Haley ---
(In reply to Jason Merrill from comment #9)
> (In reply to Andrew Haley from comment #8)
> > While it's true that we can play hardball on this one by insisting that only
> > char arrays should be used with pla
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65697
Andrew Haley changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aph at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #13
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65697
--- Comment #16 from Andrew Haley ---
(In reply to mwahab from comment #14)
> (In reply to Andrew Haley from comment #13)
> > But LDAXR/STLXR doesn't do that, and there's no write barrier at all when
> > the compare fails. If the intention real
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65697
--- Comment #18 from Andrew Haley ---
(In reply to mwahab from comment #17)
>
> int cas(int* barf, int* expected, int* desired)
> {
> return __atomic_compare_exchange_n(barf, expected, desired, 0,
>__AT
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65697
--- Comment #20 from Andrew Haley ---
(In reply to mwahab from comment #19)
> (In reply to Andrew Haley from comment #18)
>
> It looks inconsistent with C11 S7.17.7.4-2 (C++11 S29.6.4-21) "Further, if
> the comparison is true, memory is affected
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21855
Andrew Haley changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15525
Andrew Haley changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64044
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Haley ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #4)
> On Mon, 24 Nov 2014, aph at redhat dot com wrote:
>
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64044
> >
> > Andrew Haley changed:
> >
> >
||2014-10-01
CC||aph at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45773
--- Comment #20 from Andrew Haley 2010-09-28 09:54:30
UTC ---
Author: aph
Date: Tue Sep 28 09:54:27 2010
New Revision: 164679
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=164679
Log:
2010-09-27 Andrew Haley
PR java/45773
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45773
Andrew Haley changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40816
Andrew Haley changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46563
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Haley 2010-11-19 16:09:00
UTC ---
If you try linking with "-lgcc_s -lgcc", does everything then work?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46563
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Haley 2010-11-19 17:30:35
UTC ---
I am cross-compiling too.
Try this:
$ cat /home/aph/x-arm/install/arm-linux-gnueabi/lib/libgcc_s.so
/* GNU ld script
Use the shared library, but some functions are only in
the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46563
Andrew Haley changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46563
--- Comment #13 from Andrew Haley 2010-11-22 10:12:04
UTC ---
Sure, but not everyone uses the driver, some use ld directly.
I might as well ask: why not? libc is linked this way on GNU/Linux systems
too. It's easy and convenient.
I don't know
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55522
--- Comment #23 from Andrew Haley ---
This bug has pernicious effects in many more places:
https://moyix.blogspot.com/2022/09/someones-been-messing-with-my-subnormals.html
Florian is right: at least, GCC should not automatically link crtfastmat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104475
Andrew Haley changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aph at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #27
53 matches
Mail list logo
