--- Comment #8 from ian at airs dot com 2007-03-27 06:56 ---
Fixed on mainline and 4.2 branch.
--
ian at airs dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status
--- Comment #6 from ian at airs dot com 2007-04-11 07:15 ---
When we pick a new range to avoid an infinite iteration, we have to pick an
overflow range. This is what catches overflows like
for (i = 1; i > 0; ++i) ++bits;
I've experimented with only doing this in a loop
--- Comment #8 from ian at airs dot com 2007-04-11 08:04 ---
That's not an infinite loop, it's just a loop with 2^31 iterations.
This patch takes a rather different approach.
Index: tree-vrp.c
===
---
--- Comment #11 from ian at airs dot com 2007-04-17 19:08 ---
Fixed on mainline.
--
ian at airs dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
--- Comment #2 from ian at airs dot com 2007-04-18 15:14 ---
Yes, the warning is happening because gcc relies on undefined signed overflow
when assuming that it will execute the loop at least once. Of course when
using -fwrapv the loop should not be executed at all when num > INT_
--- Comment #3 from ian at airs dot com 2007-04-20 16:17 ---
Created an attachment (id=13394)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=13394&action=view)
Proposed patch
This patch fixes the test case in the PR. I am testing it. It would be
interesting to hear whe
--- Comment #5 from ian at airs dot com 2007-04-21 02:08 ---
Created an attachment (id=13399)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=13399&action=view)
Proposed patch
Currently testing.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31605
--- Comment #7 from ian at airs dot com 2007-04-24 23:27 ---
Fixed on mainline and 4.2 branch.
--
ian at airs dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
--- Comment #8 from ian at airs dot com 2007-04-24 23:28 ---
Fixed on mainline and 4.2 branch.
--
ian at airs dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
--- Comment #14 from ian at airs dot com 2007-04-25 06:26 ---
-frename-registers should be rewritten to use the new DF framework when
dataflow branch is merged.
Lowering priority to P3. This is not high priority.
--
ian at airs dot com changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #18 from ian at airs dot com 2007-04-25 06:45 ---
Lowering priority of suspended PR.
--
ian at airs dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority
--- Comment #1 from ian at airs dot com 2007-04-25 06:48 ---
Adding SH maintainer to CC. Lowering priority for non-primary target.
--
ian at airs dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from ian at airs dot com 2007-04-25 06:49 ---
Adding SH maintainer to CC.
--
ian at airs dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC
tion across
function call
Product: gcc
Version: 4.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: rtl-optimization
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: ian at airs dot com
http://gcc.gnu.o
--- Comment #13 from ian at airs dot com 2007-04-26 02:01 ---
Created an attachment (id=13445)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=13445&action=view)
Proposed patch
I'm testing this patch on i686-pc-linux-gnu. If somebody can test it on ARM,
that wo
--- Comment #3 from ian at airs dot com 2007-04-27 04:52 ---
Created an attachment (id=13453)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=13453&action=view)
Proposed patch
This is an interesting test case. It turns out that VRP has always
consistently assumed that TR
--- Comment #17 from ian at airs dot com 2007-04-27 05:49 ---
Fixed on 4.1 branch, 4.2 branch, and mainline.
--
ian at airs dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from ian at airs dot com 2007-07-16 15:52 ---
The problem is that the reg_stat array in combine.c does not adjust when
splitters create new pseudo-registers. I'm working on a patch to convert
reg_stat to a VEC.
--
ian at airs dot com changed:
everity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: preprocessor
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: ian at airs dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32868
--- Comment #4 from ian at airs dot com 2007-08-07 22:47 ---
Fixed.
--
ian at airs dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|ian at gcc dot gnu dot org
ent: c++
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: ian at airs dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33093
ual template static member in
namespace
Product: gcc
Version: 4.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: ian at a
--- Comment #2 from ian at airs dot com 2007-08-17 14:31 ---
This patch fixes the problem and passes the g++ testsuite.
Index: cp/decl.c
===
--- cp/decl.c (revision 127491)
+++ cp/decl.c (working copy)
@@ -4963,7
Product: gcc
Version: 4.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: ian at airs dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33101
--- Comment #2 from ian at airs dot com 2007-08-18 04:19 ---
Thanks for the explanation. That is new to me.
I am now going to reopen this bug because the error message is terrible. There
is no anonymous or incomplete type here. gcc should perhaps print something
like
error: invalid
--- Comment #4 from ian at airs dot com 2007-08-18 17:12 ---
The error message makes some sense if you already understand the issue. If you
do not know what the problem is, then I believe it is completely obscure. This
is particularly so since the same code is valid C code.
--
ian
--- Comment #8 from ian at airs dot com 2007-08-18 22:10 ---
Works for me.
--
ian at airs dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|enhancement
sion: 4.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Component: c++
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: ian at airs dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33124
--- Comment #4 from ian at airs dot com 2007-08-20 23:30 ---
The problem I see is that this unconditional warning warns about code which is
completely safe and correct. That break -Werror builds. There is no natural
way to avoid the warning in a template. Given that, if we want to
n template parameter
Product: gcc
Version: 4.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Priority: P3
Component: c++
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: ian at airs dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33129
--- Comment #3 from ian at airs dot com 2007-08-21 13:59 ---
Index: gcc/tree-vrp.c
===
--- gcc/tree-vrp.c (revision 127491)
Testing this patch.
+++ gcc/tree-vrp.c (working copy)
@@ -2641,7 +2641,7
--- Comment #6 from ian at airs dot com 2007-08-21 21:44 ---
Fixed.
--
ian at airs dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
--- Comment #15 from ian at airs dot com 2007-09-05 05:34 ---
Fixed.
--
ian at airs dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
--- Comment #4 from ian at airs dot com 2007-09-05 06:03 ---
I haven't looked further at this since this message:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-08/msg01166.html
Testing DECL_EXTERNAL_LINKAGE_P does not make any difference: the compiler
still crashes. The decl in questi
--- Comment #1 from ian at airs dot com 2007-09-26 17:54 ---
Created an attachment (id=14253)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=14253&action=view)
Patch
I'm testing this patch.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33565
--- Comment #4 from ian at airs dot com 2007-09-27 17:37 ---
Fixed.
--
ian at airs dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: ian at airs dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33659
hift of C++ bitfield
Product: gcc
Version: 4.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: ian at airs dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33819
--- Additional Comments From ian at airs dot com 2005-03-27 17:14 ---
This bug appears to still exists in mainline. When I compile the test case
without optimization, I get both these lines
.def_Test; .val_Test; .scl2; .type 044;.endef
.def
--- Additional Comments From ian at airs dot com 2005-03-27 18:54 ---
Patch here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-03/msg02460.html
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From ian at airs dot com 2005-04-03 14:40 ---
Fixed on mainline.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
--- Additional Comments From ian at airs dot com 2005-04-05 04:15 ---
Fixed on mainline.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
--- Additional Comments From ian at airs dot com 2005-04-12 18:49 ---
The dependency on 17652 is there because of comment #17, q.v. We want to make
sure that we back out the patch to c_finish_bc_stmt when it is no longer needed,
which should happen after the tree-profiling branch is
Component: c
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: ian at airs dot com
CC: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
GCC build triplet: i686-pc-linux-gnu
GCC host triplet: i686-pc-linux-gnu
GCC target triplet: i686-pc-linux-gnu
http://gcc.gnu.org
Component: c
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: ian at airs dot com
CC: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
GCC build triplet: i686-pc-linux-gnu
GCC host triplet: i686-pc-linux-gnu
GCC target triplet: i686-pc-linux-gnu
http://gcc.gnu.org
--- Additional Comments From ian at airs dot com 2005-04-13 03:26 ---
Sorry about that.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 20983 ***
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From ian at airs dot com 2005-04-13 03:26 ---
*** Bug 20984 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20983
nedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: ian at airs dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37350
--- Comment #3 from ian at airs dot com 2008-09-04 03:38 ---
Here is further argument from a programmer here. Any language lawyers want to
comment?
14.6.1 Locally declared names [temp.local]
1. Like normal (non-template) classes, class templates have an
injected-class-name (clause 9
mpfr libraries no
longer work
Product: gcc
Version: 4.4.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: bootstrap
AssignedTo: drow at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: ian at airs dot com
--- Comment #3 from ian at airs dot com 2008-11-05 06:58 ---
hp: It will work if gmp is installed on the system. The problem is that mpfr
can't find gmp.h. If gmp is installed, then it can, and everything works.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38014
--- Comment #1 from ian at airs dot com 2008-01-18 06:11 ---
Here is a standalone test case.
template struct __are_same { enum { __value = 0 }; };
template struct __are_same<_Tp, _Tp> { enum { __value = 1 }; };
template struct __enable_if { };
template struct __enable_if<
--- Comment #35 from ian at airs dot com 2008-01-18 06:37 ---
The bug should certainly be fixed. But it's unfortunately a lot of work for a
small payoff--most people are not in your situation. I think Joseph is correct
in lowering the priority. It's pointless for us to des
--- Comment #2 from ian at airs dot com 2008-01-18 16:32 ---
When I compile this code with current mainline with -O3 -Wstrict-overflow=3 I
get the following warnings:
Objects/unicodeobject.c: In function ‘unicode_startswith’:
Objects/unicodeobject.c:6943: warning: dereferencing type
--- Comment #14 from ian at airs dot com 2008-01-18 16:17 ---
This is now fixed.
--
ian at airs dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
--- Comment #13 from ian at airs dot com 2008-01-18 16:01 ---
I think you're right. If the call to placement new is not inlined, and if we
don't know anything special about it (which we currently don't), then it seems
to me that everything is bound to work OK. It is on
--- Comment #10 from ian at airs dot com 2008-01-21 20:40 ---
This test case will give a warning with mainline with -Wstrict-overflow (aka
-Wstrict-overflow=2) but not with -Wall (which implies -Wstrict-overflow=1).
void Alpha();
void Beta() {
int i;
for (i = 1; i > 0; i +
--- Comment #15 from ian at airs dot com 2008-01-23 05:21 ---
I would be in favor of backporting to the gcc 4.2 branch. The option is new in
gcc 4.2, and this will make it less confusing to use.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32102
--- Comment #17 from ian at airs dot com 2008-01-23 05:55 ---
This is fixed in mainline.
--
ian at airs dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING
P3
Component: tree-optimization
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: ian at airs dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34943
--- Comment #1 from ian at airs dot com 2008-01-23 16:46 ---
Created an attachment (id=15009)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=15009&action=view)
Proposed patch
I believe that this is the correct patch for this bug. This should be tested
and committed for
--- Comment #1 from ian at airs dot com 2008-01-25 18:56 ---
This was probably fixed by this patch:
2008-01-22 Manuel Lopez-Ibanez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR 32102
* doc/invoke.texi (-Wall): -Wall enables -Wstrict-overflow=1.
* flags.h (warn_strict_al
--- Comment #7 from ian at airs dot com 2008-01-28 04:12 ---
Created an attachment (id=15036)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=15036&action=view)
DECL_NO_TBAA patch
With regard to comment #3, I just bootstrapped and tested this patch on
i686-pc-linux-gn
--- Comment #10 from ian at airs dot com 2008-01-28 18:12 ---
I'm not proposing to remove CHANGE_DYNAMIC_TYPE_EXPR from 4.3 at this point.
We have some experience with it in, and I don't think we should take it out.
I haven't looked at the actual bug here yet, I was res
--- Comment #12 from ian at airs dot com 2008-01-28 21:52 ---
Created an attachment (id=15039)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=15039&action=view)
Possible patch
Here is a very ugly patch which appears to fix the problem in mainline. I
haven't teste
ion: 4.4.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Component: rtl-optimization
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: ian at airs dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35404
--- Comment #1 from ian at airs dot com 2008-02-28 22:59 ---
Created an attachment (id=15244)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=15244&action=view)
Old patch for this issue
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35404
--- Comment #2 from ian at airs dot com 2008-02-29 18:43 ---
Whoops, you have to use to -fno-split-wide-types, not -fno-wide-types. Sorry.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35404
#pragma weak prevents all function aliasing
in C++
Product: gcc
Version: 4.4.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: i
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: ian at airs dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35668
--- Comment #1 from ian at airs dot com 2008-03-22 18:50 ---
By the way, note that the error is reported at line 3, but there is no
__printf__ on that line at all. This makes the error more confusing in typical
usage, where the declaration is in a .h file and the definition is in a .cc
4.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: ian at airs dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35878
ReportedBy: ian at airs dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39118
--- Comment #1 from ian at airs dot com 2009-02-06 05:53 ---
Created an attachment (id=17260)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=17260&action=view)
Test case
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39118
--- Comment #3 from ian at airs dot com 2009-02-06 14:14 ---
Yes, -fno-omit-frame-pointer, sorry.
I don't see why this has anything to do with -fno-omit-frame-pointer per se.
As far as I can see so far the same problem can arise with any function which
happens to require a
--- Comment #7 from ian at airs dot com 2009-02-06 17:25 ---
Yes, it's a regression for 4.3 relative to 4.2 for this test case. I don't
know if it is a general regression.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39118
o break ABI
Product: gcc
Version: 4.4.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: ian at airs dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39122
--- Comment #1 from ian at airs dot com 2009-02-06 23:08 ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 39095 ***
--
ian at airs dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #7 from ian at airs dot com 2009-02-06 23:08 ---
*** Bug 39122 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
ian at airs dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #21 from ian at airs dot com 2009-02-09 22:37 ---
I agree with Jakub that the original test case, and the one in comment #7,
appear to conform to the documented gcc extension. I think that gcc has to
treat this sort of code as valid, and not break it. We can't casual
--- Comment #12 from ian at airs dot com 2009-02-10 19:56 ---
I didn't get around to commenting on the patch; I'll just note that it is
conservative. We don't have to block every instruction, just those which use
memory.
Do we have to worry about the function epilogu
--- Comment #13 from ian at airs dot com 2009-02-10 21:03 ---
Created an attachment (id=17278)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=17278&action=view)
Test case
This test case is from Mark Heffernan. When compiling with -O2
-fno-omit-frame-pointer with gcc 4.3, i
--- Comment #14 from ian at airs dot com 2009-02-10 21:10 ---
I've verified that the problem in the epilogue occurs using the current 4.3
sources, so reopening the bug report. (There is no longer any problem in the
prologue.)
--
ian at airs dot com changed:
--- Comment #22 from ian at airs dot com 2009-02-11 14:49 ---
Thanks.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39118
--- Comment #3 from ian at airs dot com 2009-03-12 18:29 ---
We don't have to document all of the modifiers, but we do have to document some
of them. There are cases where they are required in order to use asm
statements effectively. Most of the modifiers haven't changed f
y-long-error-messages
--
Summary: C++ diagnostic for private operator= is voluminous and
unhelpful
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: ian at airs dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39728
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: ian at airs dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39729
: P3
Component: c++
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: ian at airs dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39730
Version: 4.5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: ian at airs dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39796
--- Comment #2 from ian at airs dot com 2009-04-18 05:40 ---
You are much more familiar with the library than I am. I don't know if this
issue arises anywhere else. cin/cout/cerr is sort of an obvious case. It
didn't really occur to me that there might be similar issues
--- Comment #2 from ian at airs dot com 2009-04-20 20:47 ---
This has already been fixed in revision 146451, which I committed an hour or
two ago.
--
ian at airs dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version: 4.5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Component: c++
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: ian at airs dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39858
gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: ian at airs dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39859
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92916
Ian Lance Taylor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ian at airs dot com
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94513
Ian Lance Taylor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94607
Ian Lance Taylor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94611
Ian Lance Taylor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ian at airs dot com
--- Comment #8
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94611
--- Comment #10 from Ian Lance Taylor ---
Thanks. This may be another example of https://gcc.gnu.org/PR94466.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94633
--- Comment #2 from Ian Lance Taylor ---
See https://gcc.gnu.org/PR94611 and https://gcc.gnu.org/PR94466.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66570
--- Comment #2 from Ian Lance Taylor ---
I personally am not going to make the decision as to whether GCC should install
libbacktrace. That is up to the GCC release managers.
Most projects that want to use libbacktrace separately from GCC are u
101 - 200 of 1633 matches
Mail list logo
