--- Comment #6 from mueller at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-23 23:02 ---
Subject: Bug 34197
Author: mueller
Date: Fri Nov 23 23:02:21 2007
New Revision: 130385
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=130385
Log:
2007-11-23 Dirk Mueller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Comment #7 from mueller at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-23 23:11 ---
Fixed for 4.3
--
mueller at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status
RMED
Keywords: rejects-valid
Severity: critical
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: mueller at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34241
--- Comment #3 from mueller at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-29 10:47 ---
fortify_source=2 is supposed to reject it (only sizeof the struct member, not
the whole struct is allowed).
use fortify_source=1 or fix your broken code.
--
mueller at gcc dot gnu dot org changed
--- Comment #7 from mueller at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-29 11:47 ---
Andrew, read the comments or stop reopening. the behaviour is documented that
way even.
--
mueller at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #5 from mueller at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-12-08 12:55 ---
this seems to be readding the warning with relatively low false positive rate
(e.g. didn't find a false one yet).
--- cp/typeck.c (revision 130658)
+++ cp/typeck.c (working copy)
@@ -5269,11 +52
--- Comment #4 from mueller at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-12-08 02:23 ---
testing patch for pointer_set conversion
--
mueller at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from mueller at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-12-08 02:07 ---
this patch seems to be an alternative way of making -Wstrict-aliasing=3 work
again for the testcase:
--- c-common.c (revision 130658)
+++ c-common.c (working copy)
@@ -1035,7 +1035,8 @@ strict_aliasing_warning
--- Comment #1 from mueller at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-12-07 22:46 ---
Created an attachment (id=14710)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=14710&action=view)
testcase
compile with g++ -ansi -O2
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34385
--
mueller at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|2007-12-08 02:23:39 |2007-12-08
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: mueller at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34385
--
mueller at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Last
--- Comment #2 from mueller at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-12-07 22:47 ---
diff between broken -fdump-tree-optimized and working one is really small:
--- out.cc.optimized.broken 2007-12-07 23:35:37.460943000 +0100
+++ out.cc.optimized.works 2007-12-07 23:35:53.641747000 +0100
n-null argument.
--
Summary: PR36320 breaks boost
Product: gcc
Version: 4.4.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: preprocessor
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy:
--- Comment #2 from mueller at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-06-10 22:14 ---
so the code should be changed to
#elif defined(BOOST_PP_ITERATION_DEPTH) && BOOST_PP_ITERATION_DEPTH() == 1
?
it is confusing that #elif behaves more like "#if" and not like "#
--- Comment #2 from mueller at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-07-07 09:00 ---
Created an attachment (id=15868)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=15868&action=view)
slightly shorter (different testcase, same bug)
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36745
--- Comment #4 from mueller at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-07-07 09:25 ---
well, lets keep it at that for now
--
mueller at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
erity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: mueller at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25977
--- Comment #1 from mueller at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-26 15:40 ---
Created an attachment (id=10734)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10734&action=view)
testcase
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25977
4.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: mueller at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26142
--- Comment #4 from mueller at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-07 21:47 ---
Subject: Bug 18150
Author: mueller
Date: Tue Feb 7 21:47:55 2006
New Revision: 110719
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=110719
Log:
2006-02-07 Dirk Mueller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Comment #2 from mueller at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-08 14:46 ---
ugh, that warning isn't even in -Wextra.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26167
t gnu dot org
ReportedBy: mueller at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26212
ambiguous overload errors
Product: gcc
Version: 4.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: mueller at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://g
--
mueller at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |critical
Keywords||rejects
--- Comment #2 from mueller at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-16 00:45 ---
how do you explain that the testcase compiles just fine if you remove the
namespace?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26311
--- Comment #17 from mueller at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-18 02:51
---
Created an attachment (id=10869)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10869&action=view)
patch
I'm currently testing this patch.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8268
--- Comment #21 from mueller at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-18 12:39
---
hmm, thanks. it should have looked like this:
+ case TRY_FINALLY_EXPR:
+ case TRY_CATCH_EXPR:
+array_offset_warning (&TREE_OPERAND (t, 0));
+array_offset_warning (&TREE_OPERA
--- Comment #22 from mueller at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-18 12:42
---
Richard: Under which assumption? because the array size is <= sizeof(int) ?
Why not suppressing the warning by changing the code to:
typedef struct {
int len;
char str[0];
} String;
?
--
h
--- Comment #31 from mueller at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-19 21:42
---
I see many false positives and negatives with the -Warray-bounds patch. I
haven't closely investigated the false positives yet, but one of the false
negatives is this:
=== Cut ===
struct bla {
bla();
: 4.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: mueller at gcc dot gnu dot org
GCC host triplet: powerpc-unknown-linux
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi
--- Comment #4 from mueller at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-19 22:04 ---
yes, full configure line:
Target: powerpc64-suse-linux
Configured with: ../configure --enable-threads=posix --prefix=/usr
--with-local-prefix=/usr/local --infodir=/usr/share/info
--mandir=/usr/share/man --libdir
--- Comment #5 from mueller at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-19 22:20 ---
hmm, I guess I'm find with resolving this as duplicate to 19779, even though I
don't understand why this is only an issue on PPC for me..
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26374
--- Comment #9 from mueller at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-22 18:53 ---
Yes, thanks.
--
mueller at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status
--- Comment #32 from mueller at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-23 09:59
---
Created an attachment (id=10899)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10899&action=view)
reworked patch
Ok, based on Falk's patch, I've hammered on it long enough until there w
--- Comment #33 from mueller at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-23 15:47
---
Created an attachment (id=10902)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10902&action=view)
updated patch.
better patch. I'm going to post that one when regtesting completes.
--
mu
--- Comment #38 from mueller at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-25 18:37
---
I think the anaylize_array_indexes has the problem of the "taking address of
array sentinel" as well.
I'll look into moving it to VRP pass.
re segfault: I got the same, will fix.
--
htt
Version: 4.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: mueller at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26626
--- Comment #1 from mueller at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-09 22:40 ---
reduce-min5.ii: In function ‘void kjs_strtod()’:
reduce-min5.ii:12: warning: ‘e1’ is used uninitialized in this
function
reduce-min5.ii:8: internal compiler error: in add_virtual_operand, at
tree-ssa-operands.c:979
--- Comment #8 from mueller at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-10 10:51 ---
shorter testcase:
=== Cut ===
typedef union {
int d;
int L;
} U;
void breakme()
{
int rv;
ovfl:
((U*)&rv)->d = 42;
if (((U*)&rv)->L)
goto ovfl;
}
=== Cut ===
--
http
--- Comment #10 from mueller at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-13 16:17
---
it looks to me that this commit exposed/introduced the ICE:
r111300 | dberlin | 2006-02-20 14:38:01 +0100 (Mon, 20 Feb 2006) | 22 lines
Changed paths:
M /trunk/gcc/ChangeLog
M /trunk/gcc/passes.c
M
--- Comment #12 from mueller at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-13 16:56
---
ah, I see. I'm fine with working around the ICE locally and let you guys figure
out how to fix the actual cause :)
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26626
--- Comment #91 from mueller at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-14 09:24
---
well, of course, because your libstdc++ is compiled with the wrong (LSB
incompliant btw) stdc++ allocator.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19664
of bounds array refs
Product: gcc
Version: 4.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: mueller at gcc dot gnu dot org
htt
--- Comment #2 from mueller at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-17 12:40 ---
one possible workaround would be to lower the ARRAY_REF's to indirect mem refs,
which I don't track
--
mueller at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--
mueller at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |mueller at gcc dot gnu dot
|dot org
--
mueller at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |mueller at gcc dot gnu dot
|dot org
--- Comment #2 from mueller at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-28 22:34 ---
Subject: Bug 29033
Author: mueller
Date: Sat Oct 28 22:34:06 2006
New Revision: 118117
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=118117
Log:
2006-10-29 Dirk Mueller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Comment #3 from mueller at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-28 22:41 ---
Fixed for 4.3.
--
mueller at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status
--- Comment #4 from mueller at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-28 23:22 ---
Testing patch.
--
mueller at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo
--- Comment #4 from mueller at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-28 23:45 ---
testing patch
--
mueller at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo
--- Comment #5 from mueller at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-29 18:38 ---
Subject: Bug 16307
Author: mueller
Date: Sun Oct 29 18:38:26 2006
New Revision: 118154
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=118154
Log:
2006-10-29 Dirk Mueller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Comment #6 from mueller at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-29 19:13 ---
Fixed in 4.3
--
mueller at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status
--- Comment #2 from mueller at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-29 19:53 ---
Subject: Bug 29089
Author: mueller
Date: Sun Oct 29 19:52:52 2006
New Revision: 118156
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=118156
Log:
PR c++/29089
* typeck.c (build_
--- Comment #3 from mueller at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-29 19:58 ---
Fixed for 4.3
--
mueller at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status
--- Comment #2 from mueller at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-30 23:09 ---
Subject: Bug 28669
Author: mueller
Date: Mon Oct 30 23:08:59 2006
New Revision: 118205
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=118205
Log:
2006-10-30 Dirk Mueller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Comment #5 from mueller at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-30 23:15 ---
Subject: Bug 6321
Author: mueller
Date: Mon Oct 30 23:15:42 2006
New Revision: 118206
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=118206
Log:
2006-10-30 Dirk Mueller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Comment #3 from mueller at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-30 23:16 ---
Fixed for 4.3
--
mueller at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status
--- Comment #6 from mueller at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-30 23:22 ---
Fixed for 4.3.0
--
mueller at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status
--- Comment #2 from mueller at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-30 23:32 ---
Subject: Bug 28704
Author: mueller
Date: Mon Oct 30 23:32:29 2006
New Revision: 118208
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=118208
Log:
2006-10-30 Dirk Mueller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Comment #3 from mueller at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-30 23:33 ---
Fixed for 4.3
--
mueller at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status
--- Comment #2 from mueller at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-30 23:34 ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 18313 ***
--
mueller at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from mueller at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-30 23:34 ---
*** Bug 24273 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
mueller at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from mueller at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-30 23:08 ---
Subject: Bug 18313
Author: mueller
Date: Thu Nov 30 23:08:27 2006
New Revision: 119382
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=119382
Log:
2006-12-01 Dirk Mueller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Comment #4 from mueller at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-30 23:11 ---
Implemented for 4.3.
--
mueller at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from mueller at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-30 23:15 ---
what is the status of these patches? I just started to look into this..
--
mueller at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #7 from mueller at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-30 23:16 ---
not entirely related.
--
mueller at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #42 from mueller at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-17 10:51
---
no, its going in real soon now (finally) :)
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8268
--- Comment #43 from mueller at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-18 13:00
---
Subject: Bug 8268
Author: mueller
Date: Thu Jan 18 13:00:33 2007
New Revision: 120898
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=120898
Log:
2007-01-18 Dirk Mueller <[EMAIL PR
--- Comment #44 from mueller at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-18 13:12
---
Fixed for 4.3.
--
mueller at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from mueller at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-19 20:04 ---
this patch fixes / works around it. I don't like it yet, I'm trying to find a
better solution.
--- tree-vrp.c (revision 120953)
+++ tree-vrp.c (working copy)
@@ -3583,6 +3583,25 @@ check_array_bounds
--- Comment #5 from mueller at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-19 22:15 ---
the ivopts problem is a duplicate of bug 26726.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30511
--- Comment #7 from mueller at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-21 16:12 ---
Subject: Bug 30511
Author: mueller
Date: Sun Jan 21 16:12:10 2007
New Revision: 121032
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=121032
Log:
2007-01-21 Dirk Mueller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]&g
--- Comment #8 from mueller at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-21 16:52 ---
Fixed for 4.3.
--
mueller at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status
--
mueller at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |mueller at gcc dot gnu dot
|dot org
--
mueller at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Last
--- Comment #3 from mueller at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-23 13:33 ---
ah, no, this doesn't seem to be the same thing.
--
mueller at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |
--- Comment #7 from mueller at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-23 15:47 ---
which revision is that? -r121081 fails here
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30510
--- Comment #5 from mueller at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-23 16:26 ---
fortran seems to bootstrap now.
--
mueller at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
101 - 179 of 179 matches
Mail list logo
