--- Additional Comments From ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-01-05
07:41 ---
Fixed by:
2004-01-01 Jakub Jelinek [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR optimization/13521
Backport from mainline:
2003-03-22 Richard Henderson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
*
Package: gnat-3.3
Version: 1:3.3.3-0pre1
Severity: normal
This is where I gave up on narrowing it down.
--*---*---*-
-*-*-*-*-*-*
-*-*-*-*-*-*
--*---*---*-
is what it should look like,
--*---*-
-*-*-*-*-*-*
Package: gnat-3.3
Version: 1:3.3.3-0pre1
Severity: important
gcc-3.3 -c -O3 -fprofile-arcs drgnchss.adb
gcc-3.3: installation problem, cannot exec `gnat1': No such file or
directory
That's because it's looking in the /usr/lib/gcc-lib/i486-linux/3.3.2
directory, not the 3.3.3 directory. So
On 3 Jan 2004, Falk Hueffner wrote:
Britton Leo Kerin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
static char *const foo = baz;
static int foo_len = strlen(foo);
/* static int foo_len = an_impure_function(); */
greenwood$ gcc test_const.c
test_const.c: In function `main':
test_const.c:14:
It can only do that because it knows strlen is pure, thats the point
of pureness.
That alone wouldn't suffice, the value has to be known at compile
time.
If the standard says constant only, gcc should choke on strlen()
with or without optimization.
Correct. Currently, it doesn't,
Ben == Ben Burton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Ben It seems then that this bug belongs to the gcj-3.3 package, which was
Ben generating the incorrect bytecode. I'm reassigning this accordingly.
Any chance you could try gcj cvs? If this bug remains I'd like to
get a bugzilla entry for it.
Tom
Hello,
I had a look at the debian bug #225313. This bug only raise raise when
optimization is used. I've submitted a patch, but would like to
understand if gcc behaviour was normal.
I've selected a sample of code that should raise the same issue:
Britton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Replaceing the strlen call with a call of an impure function
(commented out above) results in the above error whether or not -O is
used. It seems to me that pure function should either always be
usable in this way regardless of -O (and C200? should
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 12:02:29AM +0100, Nicolas François wrote:
Hello,
I had a look at the debian bug #225313. This bug only raise raise when
optimization is used. I've submitted a patch, but would like to
understand if gcc behaviour was normal.
I've selected a sample of code that
--
What|Removed |Added
Component|optimization|middle-end
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11635
--- You are receiving this mail because:
Tom Tromey writes:
Ben == Ben Burton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Ben It seems then that this bug belongs to the gcj-3.3 package, which was
Ben generating the incorrect bytecode. I'm reassigning this accordingly.
Any chance you could try gcj cvs? If this bug remains I'd like to
get a
11 matches
Mail list logo
