Bug#684082: gcc-doc: update to gcc 4.7
On 2012-08-06 21:32:53 +0200, Andrew Shadura wrote: Please package gcc-4.7-doc and update gcc-doc to point to it. Now that gcc-4.7-doc is available, the only thing to do is to update gcc-doc to point to it. -- Vincent Lefèvre vinc...@vinc17.net - Web: http://www.vinc17.net/ 100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: http://www.vinc17.net/blog/ Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / AriC project (LIP, ENS-Lyon) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-gcc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20121004113621.ga7...@xvii.vinc17.org
Re: RFH: compile-time assertions now broken in GCC
On 03.10.2012 15:59, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
Hi,
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/mksh/+bug/1058035
was just the beginning, as gcc-snapshot in Debian had it (I
wrote that in the bugreport already), but, now, gcc-4.{6,7}
in sid also have it.
I’ve just tracked it down for gcc-4.6 to have been introdu‐
ced between 4.6.3-9 and 4.6.3-10; gcc-4.7 as currently sits
in wheezy (4.7.1-7) doesn’t have the problem, 4.7.2-2 does.
tg@zigo:~/b $ cat t.c
#include stdint.h
typedef int32_t mksh_ari_t;
char ari_sign_32_bit_and_wrap[(
(mksh_ari_t)(mksh_ari_t)1 15) 15) - 1) * 2 + 1)
(mksh_ari_t)(mksh_ari_t)1 15) 15) - 1) * 2 + 2)
) ? 1 : -1];
int main(void) { return (sizeof(ari_sign_32_bit_and_wrap)); }
tg@zigo:~/b $ gcc-4.6 -O -Wextra t.c
t.c:6:62: warning: integer overflow in expression [-Woverflow]
t.c:3:6: error: variably modified ‘ari_sign_32_bit_and_wrap’ at file scope
My question now is, how am I supposed to deal with that? Will
the affected gcc versions transition into wheezy? In that case
I’ll need to apply the hotfix I made for Ubuntu into Debian as
well, so I’d like an answer.
More generally, why does GCC suddenly break such compile-time
check constructs? (mksh guarantees to scripts it runs that all
arithmetic operations are 32-bit and that both signed and un‐
signed operations wrap around, so it *must* know whether the
system does that correctly. And its build script is cross-com‐
pile agnostic, so it doesn’t do run-time checks.)
how does gcc-snapshot behave? If you think it's a regression, please could you
forward it upstream?
thanks, Matthias
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-gcc-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/506d9c1a.9070...@debian.org
Re: RFH: compile-time assertions now broken in GCC
Matthias Klose dixit: how does gcc-snapshot behave? It also introduces this failure. If you think it's a regression, please could you forward it upstream? OK. In the meantime, I’ve prepared workarounds upstream (and made the code a bit less depending on -fwrapv), but I need to know whether I should upload mksh to sid now with the hotfix applied to Ubuntu, i.e. whether you plan to have the affected gcc versions migrate. bye, //mirabilos -- Sometimes they [people] care too much: pretty printers [and syntax highligh- ting, d.A.] mechanically produce pretty output that accentuates irrelevant detail in the program, which is as sensible as putting all the prepositions in English text in bold font. -- Rob Pike in Notes on Programming in C -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-gcc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/pine.bsm.4.64l.1210041655180.13...@herc.mirbsd.org
