Re: x86_64, r120172: bootstrap error (In function `null_or_integer_zerop': undefined reference to `integer_zerop')

2006-12-23 Thread Daniel Franke
On Saturday 23 December 2006 23:35, Andrew Pinski wrote: > On Sat, 2006-12-23 at 18:32 +0100, Daniel Franke wrote: > > host: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu > > revision: r120172 > > Even though I could not reproduce this failure. The problem is simple > and obvious. vec.c includes tree.h for some reas

Re: x86_64, r120172: bootstrap error (In function `null_or_integer_zerop': undefined reference to `integer_zerop')

2006-12-23 Thread Andrew Pinski
On Sat, 2006-12-23 at 18:32 +0100, Daniel Franke wrote: > host: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu > revision: r120172 Even though I could not reproduce this failure. The problem is simple and obvious. vec.c includes tree.h for some reason, it has always be included. Committed this patch as obvious afte

Re: building gcc4-4.3.0-20061223 on OSX 10.3 failed

2006-12-23 Thread Dominique Dhumieres
> This was seen on a few platforms. I think it's due to zdenek's patch. It seems that 'integer_zerop' and 'integer_nonzerop' are defined in gcc/tree.c and as far as I can tell the file is not compiled before the error. Any idea why? TIA Dominique

Re: building gcc4-4.3.0-20061223 on OSX 10.3 failed

2006-12-23 Thread Eric Christopher
On Dec 23, 2006, at 10:28 AM, Dominique Dhumieres wrote: Building gcc4-4.3.0-20061223 on OSX 10.3 failed with: ... gcc -g -fkeep-inline-functions -no-cpp-precomp - DHAVE_DESIGNATED_INITIALIZERS=0 -DIN_GCC -W -Wall -Wwrite-strings -Wstrict-prototypes -Wmissing-prototypes -Wmissing

building gcc4-4.3.0-20061223 on OSX 10.3 failed

2006-12-23 Thread Dominique Dhumieres
Building gcc4-4.3.0-20061223 on OSX 10.3 failed with: ... gcc -g -fkeep-inline-functions -no-cpp-precomp -DHAVE_DESIGNATED_INITIALIZERS=0 -DIN_GCC -W -Wall -Wwrite-strings -Wstrict-prototypes -Wmissing-prototypes -Wmissing-format-attribute -fno-common -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -DGENERATOR_FILE -o

gcc-4.3-20061223 is now available

2006-12-23 Thread gccadmin
Snapshot gcc-4.3-20061223 is now available on ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.3-20061223/ and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details. This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.3 SVN branch with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/trunk

Re: [bug-gnulib] GCC optimizes integer overflow: bug or feature?

2006-12-23 Thread Kaveh R. GHAZI
On Tue, 19 Dec 2006, Bruno Haible wrote: > Paul Eggert wrote: > > Compiling everything with -fwrapv is simple. It has > > optimization drawbacks, but if that's the best we can do > > now, then we'll probably do it. And once we do it, human > > nature suggests that we will generally not bother wi

x86_64, r120172: bootstrap error (In function `null_or_integer_zerop': undefined reference to `integer_zerop')

2006-12-23 Thread Daniel Franke
host: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu revision: r120172 configured as: ../../svn/gcc-head/configure --prefix=$(localpath) --with-gmp=$(localpath)/gmp-4.2.1 --with-mpfr=$(localpath)/mpfr-2.2.1 --enable-bootstrap --enable-threads=posix --enable-shared --with-system-zlib --program-suffix=-svn --disa

Re: GCC optimizes integer overflow: bug or feature?

2006-12-23 Thread Rask Ingemann Lambertsen
On Sat, Dec 23, 2006 at 10:06:54AM +0100, Rask Ingemann Lambertsen wrote: > a[0] = 1; Oops, that should be a[0] = 0 or any other value than 1. -- Rask Ingemann Lambertsen

Re: GCC optimizes integer overflow: bug or feature?

2006-12-23 Thread Denis Vlasenko
On Saturday 23 December 2006 10:06, Rask Ingemann Lambertsen wrote: >No, because you'd read past the end of the array: > > #include > > int main (int argc, char *argv[]) > { > char *a; > if ((a == malloc (sizeof (char > { > int r; > > a[0] = 1; > r = f (a); >

Re: GCC optimizes integer overflow: bug or feature?

2006-12-23 Thread Rask Ingemann Lambertsen
On Fri, Dec 22, 2006 at 01:58:39AM +0100, Denis Vlasenko wrote: > > Or this, absolutely typical C code. i386 arch can compare > 16 bits at a time here (luckily, no alighment worries on this arch): > > # cat tt.c > int f(char *p) > { > if (p[0] == 1 && p[1] == 2) return 1; > return 0; > }