Mark Mitchell m...@codesourcery.com writes:
I am pleased to report that the GCC Steering Committee and the FSF have
approved the use of C++ in GCC itself. Of course, there's no reason for
us to use C++ features just because we can. The goal is a better
compiler for users, not a C++ code
On 05/31/2010 12:30 PM, 徐持恒 wrote:
I think compiler can and should be host independent, like LLVM.
It is. Changes to code generation depending on the host are considered
to be serious bugs, and have been long before LLVM existed.
Paolo
On Mon, 31 May 2010 18:24:00 -0400, Joern Rennecke wrote:
Quoting Vladimir Makarov vmaka...@redhat.com:
Reviewers are frequently busy. I bet not a lot of reviewers apply
patches and play with it.
So it would be nice that people who submits such patches report changes
in compile
On 01/06/10 10:03, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
On 05/31/2010 12:30 PM, 徐持恒 wrote:
I think compiler can and should be host independent, like LLVM.
It is. Changes to code generation depending on the host are considered
to be serious bugs, and have been long before LLVM existed.
Perhaps 徐持恒 meant
On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 10:22 AM, Duncan Sands baldr...@free.fr wrote:
[*] It is possible to choose which targets to build when configuring LLVM.
If only one is chosen then of course that's the only one that can be chosen
at run-time.
This should eventually be made possible in GCC too. It's
On 05/31/2010 06:26 PM, Basile Starynkevitch wrote:
On Mon, 2010-05-31 at 08:53 -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote:
There's no reason to get into these kinds of questions at this point.
The goal is not to reimplement GCC from the ground up using modern
OO/C++ techniques. The goal is simply to permit
Hello
On 01.06.10, you wrote:
making
it take a hundred times more specifically in the changed places would
magnify the 0.1% overall change to a measurable delta of 10%.
Your argument is applicable to any changes in GCC, not just to C to C++
conversions. Do patches that slow down the
Ira,
Thanks for the answer.
The loop that got vectorized in the older revision is another loop
associated with the same source code line:
Upon further investigation this loops is likely related to a temporary that
have been removed in recent versions. Using the older revision with
Hi Jakub,
I have not had any response from Alexandre on this yet and i haven't had
much luck in mailing list either
(http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2010-04/msg00917.html). Is there anyone else
who is familiar with VTA who could help?
Thanks
Hari
jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 6:22 PM, Diego Novillo dnovi...@google.com wrote:
Now that the SC and the FSF have agreed to this, we should decide whether we
switch and how. So, I would like comments on the following questions:
1- Should we switch to C++?
Yes.
2- What is the cost in terms of
On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 1:26 AM, Paolo Bonzini bonz...@gnu.org wrote:
Maybe we can use this in AC_CHECK_DECLS instead of having a new
separate macro. If there is a parenthesis in the name call the new
version, if there is none, call the old one.
You shouldn't need to keep the old version
Paolo Bonzini bonz...@gnu.org writes:
Also, in general compiler IRs are used in so many places that a
pattern matching style (similar to ML) actually works better than a
class hierarchy style. In other words, I doubt that C++ would
remove many of the switch statements we have in the code.
I would highly suggest looking at google guidelines.
http://google-styleguide.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/cppguide.xml
They are aimed at taking some of the landlines out of c++ and give pros and
cons for each argument.
There are many places in the gcc source where we are already doing C++
I fat-fingered what I thought was a git local command, and committed
revision 160105 with bogus changes. If you have rev 160105 checked out,
please update your tree.
Apologies for the mix up. I'll go hide now.
Diego.
Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
I have written a proposed set of C++ coding conventions on the wiki at
http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/CppConventions
This is only a preliminary proposal. It requires fleshing out and
discussion.
Thank you for volunteering to do this. How would you like to receive
On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 4:48 PM, Mark Mitchell m...@codesourcery.com wrote:
Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
I have written a proposed set of C++ coding conventions on the wiki at
http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/CppConventions
This is only a preliminary proposal. It requires fleshing out and
discussion.
Mark Mitchell m...@codesourcery.com writes:
Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
I have written a proposed set of C++ coding conventions on the wiki at
http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/CppConventions
This is only a preliminary proposal. It requires fleshing out and
discussion.
Thank you for volunteering
Hi,
When I cross build gcc on linux-amd64 box, I got a include files
search order error:
...
/root/obj/gcc-4.2/./gcc/xgcc -B/root/obj/gcc-4.2/./gcc/
-L/root/obj/gcc-4.2/i686-pc-mingw32/winsup/mingw
-L/root/obj/gcc-4.2/i686-pc-mingw32/winsup/w32api/lib -isystem
Richard Guenther wrote:
Btw - can we intially just link with libsup++ omitting libstdc++ so
that we do not get the expected flood of convert-to-STL patches?
Or is the idea of an STL free gcc bad?
I view STL as one of the bits of low-hanging C++ fruit. I think we're
all vaguely confused by
On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 12:00 PM, Richard Guenther
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 6:22 PM, Diego Novillo dnovi...@google.com wrote:
Now that the SC and the FSF have agreed to this, we should decide whether we
switch and how. So, I would like comments on the following
Hi,
I hope you don't mind my comment as I an not a project member, just a
long term multi-platform GCC user. With all due respect, I fail to
understand the decision to switch to C++ without being able to elucidate
the specific features of C++ that will benefit the GCC team and the GCC
Richard Guenther wrote:
On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 4:48 PM, Mark Mitchell m...@codesourcery.com wrote:
Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
I have written a proposed set of C++ coding conventions on the wiki at
http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/CppConventions
This is only a preliminary proposal. It requires
Mark Mitchell m...@codesourcery.com writes:
Richard Guenther wrote:
Btw - can we intially just link with libsup++ omitting libstdc++ so
that we do not get the expected flood of convert-to-STL patches?
Or is the idea of an STL free gcc bad?
I view STL as one of the bits of low-hanging C++
Richard Guenther richard.guent...@gmail.com writes:
Overall the wiki document looks good. I'd like to disallow
* Operators may only be overloaded for types which implement numeric
values, where the overloaded operators implement the usual numeric
semantics.
though.
My thinking here is
Dongsheng Song dongsheng.s...@gmail.com writes:
When I cross build gcc on linux-amd64 box, I got a include files
search order error:
This question is not appropriate for the mailing list
g...@gcc.gnu.org. It would be appropriate for gcc-h...@gcc.gnu.org.
Please take any followups to gcc-help.
Rich Wallick rwall...@gmail.com writes:
I hope you don't mind my comment as I an not a project member, just a
long term multi-platform GCC user. With all due respect, I fail to
understand the decision to switch to C++ without being able to elucidate
the specific features of C++ that will
On Tue, 2010-06-01 at 10:33 -0700, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
Here are the slides from my presentation on the topic at the 2008 GCC
Summit: http://airs.com/ian/cxx-slides.pdf .
Ian, what is that status of your GCC in C++ branch? What should be
re-usable from it? Do you think it makes sense to
Basile Starynkevitch bas...@starynkevitch.net writes:
On Tue, 2010-06-01 at 10:33 -0700, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
Here are the slides from my presentation on the topic at the 2008 GCC
Summit: http://airs.com/ian/cxx-slides.pdf .
Ian, what is that status of your GCC in C++ branch? What should
On 06/01/2010 08:02 PM, Diego Novillo wrote:
On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 14:00, Toon Moenet...@moene.org wrote:
On 06/01/2010 06:07 PM, Richard Guenther wrote:
After fixing build locally I now have
Are you planning to commit the fixes - I don't mind being a guinea pig in
this - I have been
* Toon Moene wrote on Tue, Jun 01, 2010 at 08:36:53PM CEST:
In file included from ../../gcc/libcpp/system.h:341,
from ../../gcc/libcpp/expr.c:21:
../../gcc/libcpp/../include/libiberty.h:106: error: new declaration
‘char* basename(const char*)’
/usr/include/string.h:601:
Quoting Ralf Wildenhues ralf.wildenh...@gmx.de:
* Toon Moene wrote on Tue, Jun 01, 2010 at 08:36:53PM CEST:
In file included from ../../gcc/libcpp/system.h:341,
from ../../gcc/libcpp/expr.c:21:
../../gcc/libcpp/../include/libiberty.h:106: error: new declaration
‘char*
* Joern Rennecke wrote on Tue, Jun 01, 2010 at 09:11:03PM CEST:
Quoting Ralf Wildenhues:
* Toon Moene wrote on Tue, Jun 01, 2010 at 08:36:53PM CEST:
In file included from ../../gcc/libcpp/system.h:341,
from ../../gcc/libcpp/expr.c:21:
This is a reworked patch of Andrew Pinski Subscripting on vector
types in terms of GSoC 2010 [Artjoms Sinkarovs].
This patch allows to index individual elements of vector type in C.
For example: vec[i], where vec is a vector with a base type T and i is
an integer type.
If i is a constant then we
[ moving from autoconf@ to -patches ]
* Richard Guenther wrote on Tue, Jun 01, 2010 at 01:52:07PM CEST:
Any progress here? If we want to switch on --enable-build-with-cxx
by default then this has to be addressed.
Proposed patches for Autoconf. Tested with CC=g++ in TESTSUITEFLAGS and
On 06/01/2010 02:06 PM, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
Any other issues with it?
Subject: [PATCH 1/2] Generalize AC_CHECK_DECL for C++: allow optional
arguments.
* general.m4 (_AC_CHECK_DECL_BODY): Process trailing function
argument types as arguments to use for C++.
(_AC_CHECK_DECLS): Filter
My suggestions:
* When it is appropriate to use a child class with virtual functions,
the virtual functions should all be declared as protected in the
parent class.
At first reading, I thought you meant all virtual functions should be
protected, but I think you meant if a child ADDS a
On 06/01/2010 02:06 PM, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
[ moving from autoconf@ to -patches ]
* Richard Guenther wrote on Tue, Jun 01, 2010 at 01:52:07PM CEST:
Any progress here? If we want to switch on --enable-build-with-cxx
by default then this has to be addressed.
Proposed patches for
Diego Novillo dnovi...@google.com writes:
4- Should we make the switch during the 4.6 stage 1?
My suggestion: put something in one common file that requires C++, just
to force the use of C++ compilers, but with a comment that says If you
can't build this file, comment out the following and file
DJ Delorie d...@redhat.com writes:
My suggestions:
* When it is appropriate to use a child class with virtual functions,
the virtual functions should all be declared as protected in the
parent class.
At first reading, I thought you meant all virtual functions should be
protected,
I did mean that all virtual functions should be protected.
This forbids the most useful thing about virtual functions - letting
child classes implement a public ABI defined by the base class.
* All data members should be private.
* All data members should have names which end with an
On 1 June 2010 22:13, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
DJ Delorie writes:
My suggestions:
* When it is appropriate to use a child class with virtual functions,
the virtual functions should all be declared as protected in the
parent class.
At first reading, I thought you meant all virtual
My suggestions:
* When it is appropriate to use a child class with virtual
functions,
the virtual functions should all be declared as protected in the
parent class.
At first reading, I thought you meant all virtual functions should
be
protected, but I think you meant if a
Snapshot gcc-4.4-20100601 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.4-20100601/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.4 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches
On 01/06/2010 22:13, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
* When a method refers to a non-static data member, it should always
qualify the reference with this-.
I'm very opposed to this. To me, it makes the code less readable
because it lets the author write code that's hard to understand at a
In a project with as many globals as we have, it's kinda handy to
know at a glance whether a member function is accessing a data
member or a global.
Add a globals-in-namespaces rule, or a ::global syntax, and you have
even more overkill.
IMHO we should make it easy to implement a clean
A suggestion about:
Method bodies may only appear in the class definition if they are very short,
no more than five lines. Otherwise the method body should be defined outside of
the class definition.
To avoid dependency explosions that increase compile times and allow for
link-time
On 4/25/10, Ian Lance Taylor i...@google.com wrote:
Martin Guy martinw...@gmail.com writes:
now that stage3 is over I'm thinking of updating the
MaverickCrunch FPU fixes (currently for 4.3) and merging them but
would appreciate some guidance.
There are 26 patches in all and I
As I mentioned last week, I've been talking to the SC and RMS about the
issue of automatically generating GFDL'd documentation from GPL'd code.
I will state explicitly up front a few topics I am not raising, because
I do not think they are either necessary, or likely to be productive:
* Whether
DJ Delorie d...@redhat.com writes:
I did mean that all virtual functions should be protected.
This forbids the most useful thing about virtual functions - letting
child classes implement a public ABI defined by the base class.
There are really two cases to consider, and actually the coding
On Jun 1, 2010, Hariharan harihar...@picochip.com wrote:
I have not had any response from Alexandre on this yet
Sorry, been on vacations, started looking into it last night, I think I
know why it fails and how to fix it. Expect a patch soon.
--
Alexandre Oliva, freedom fighter
Jonathan Wakely jwakely@gmail.com writes:
Nothing in C++ prevents a struct from having member functions,
constructors, base classes, virtual functions, private members etc.
If the intention is to impose a distinction between structs and
classes, based on which keyword is used to define
On 06/02/2010 01:42 AM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
The 'this-' is needed when the current class and base class are both
templates and the name is declared in the base class, and not if it's
declared in the current class. That is not likely to happen in a
hurry while the convention is to not
2) The parent class does not consist only of pure virtual methods.
In that case I am arguing that all virtual methods should be
protected.
What about the case where the parent provides default implementations
of methods that are infrequently overridden by children? Otherwise,
you end up with
Right, but it may happen some day. Also there is the issue of
clarity. I think it is clearer to see this-get() rather than get().
this-put_size (this-get_bounds (this-get_x(), this-get_y()),
this-get_variance (this-default_variance ()))
I'd like to avoid needing to assign
gold is using this convention, isn't it?
I find the gold sources harder to read than the rest of binutils, and
would like to avoid propogating that style elsewhere. This from
someone who's been writing C++ code for twenty years now.
Also, gold was added to binutils without this type of
Quoting Mark Mitchell m...@codesourcery.com:
At this point, RMS has said, answered this question from me:
Can we take comments (not code) from FSF-owned GPL'd code and process
them in some way that results in them being included in a GFDL'd manual?
We also need struct member declarations.
Joern Rennecke wrote:
And if we need
more (as I suspect), can we be specific about what toolflow we want to
follow and what content will be generated? It would help if I could
show RMS inputs and outputs, not just with some random example, but with
GCC itself. Is someone willing to apply
On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 7:00 PM, Bernd Schmidt ber...@codesourcery.com wrote:
On 06/02/2010 01:42 AM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
The 'this-' is needed when the current class and base class are both
templates and the name is declared in the base class, and not if it's
declared in the current class.
Hargett, Matt matt.harg...@bluecoat.com writes:
As noted earlier I think we do want to use some STL classes.
I agree with Mark's earlier declaration that it is relatively
straight-forward, low-hanging fruit to replace VEC_*
I do not object to simple and obvious uses of STL to replace
Mark Mitchell m...@codesourcery.com writes:
So, my question is this: is the permission above sufficient for what
people want to do at this point?
This permission exactly covers what libiberty does for its
documentation, you can use that as an example to RMS.
On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 7:05 PM, DJ Delorie d...@redhat.com wrote:
Right, but it may happen some day. Also there is the issue of
clarity. I think it is clearer to see this-get() rather than get().
this-put_size (this-get_bounds (this-get_x(), this-get_y()),
this-get_variance
On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 7:03 PM, DJ Delorie d...@redhat.com wrote:
Maybe you and I have completely different ideas about how the whole
class heirarchy works. I'm not a firm believer that the base-most
class should be an empty shell of a class that does nothing but
provide a placeholder for
On 06/01/10 17:42, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
The biggest need for this- is when calling methods in the current
class if the current class happens to be in a template.
The 'this-' is needed when the current class and base class are both
templates and the name is declared in the base
Can we make a point of not using Cpp as a normalization of C++ ?
I keep thinking it's referring to the C preprocessor. Cxx is less
misleading (and kinda looks the same), when C++ cannot be used for
character set reasons.
On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 7:38 PM, DJ Delorie d...@redhat.com wrote:
Hargett, Matt matt.harg...@bluecoat.com writes:
As noted earlier I think we do want to use some STL classes.
I agree with Mark's earlier declaration that it is relatively
straight-forward, low-hanging fruit to replace VEC_*
On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 7:47 PM, DJ Delorie d...@redhat.com wrote:
Can we make a point of not using Cpp as a normalization of C++ ?
strongly seconded.
I keep thinking it's referring to the C preprocessor.
Same here.
Cxx is less
misleading (and kinda looks the same), when C++ cannot be used
Quoting Mark Mitchell m...@codesourcery.com:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-05/msg02255.html
OK, I see what that is doing. Why did you choose to use a .def file
rather than something more like Doxygen to generate the documentation?
It is not only used to generate documenation, but
I think that would be most unproductive and misguided.
Maybe I should step back and restate my original desires.
I don't want us to move *too quickly* towards an all-STL
implementation, and end up with a hairy mess that's hard to
understand. I've had to debug our STL implementation before,
On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 8:03 PM, DJ Delorie d...@redhat.com wrote:
I think that would be most unproductive and misguided.
Maybe I should step back and restate my original desires.
I don't want us to move *too quickly* towards an all-STL
implementation, and end up with a hairy mess that's
Right, but it may happen some day. Also there is the issue of
clarity. I think it is clearer to see this-get() rather than get().
this-put_size (this-get_bounds (this-get_x(), this-get_y()),
this-get_variance (this-default_variance ()))
I think clarity can be a mixed bag
Bernd Schmidt ber...@codesourcery.com writes:
On 06/02/2010 01:42 AM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
The 'this-' is needed when the current class and base class are both
templates and the name is declared in the base class, and not if it's
declared in the current class. That is not likely to happen
Gabriel Dos Reis g...@integrable-solutions.net writes:
As I matter of fact, I have comments about the conventions being put forward,
I do not know the proper way to get them reflected in the proposal.
As I said earlier, send e-mail here, or update the wiki page. When
updating the wiki page,
On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 8:41 PM, Ian Lance Taylor i...@google.com wrote:
Gabriel Dos Reis g...@integrable-solutions.net writes:
As I matter of fact, I have comments about the conventions being put forward,
I do not know the proper way to get them reflected in the proposal.
As I said earlier,
DJ Delorie d...@redhat.com writes:
2) The parent class does not consist only of pure virtual methods.
In that case I am arguing that all virtual methods should be
protected.
What about the case where the parent provides default implementations
of methods that are infrequently overridden by
On Jun 1, 2010, at 17:41, DJ Delorie wrote:
It assumes your editor can do block-reformatting while preserving the
comment syntax. I've had too many // cases of Emacs guessing wrong //
and putting // throughout a reformatted // block.
With Ada we have no choice, and only have -- comments. I
On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 9:55 AM, 徐持恒 chiheng...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 8:38 AM, DJ Delorie d...@redhat.com wrote:
Hargett, Matt matt.harg...@bluecoat.com writes:
As noted earlier I think we do want to use some STL classes.
I agree with Mark's earlier declaration that it is
On Tue, 2010-06-01 at 19:49 -0500, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
(2) we should prefer standard solution over home-grown hacks, unless
there is a clear demonstration of value. For example, it would be
unwise to prefer our current VEC_xxx over std::vector. Conversely,
On Tue, 2010-06-01 at 19:43 -0500, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 7:03 PM, DJ Delorie d...@redhat.com wrote:
Maybe you and I have completely different ideas about how the whole
class heirarchy works. I'm not a firm believer that the base-most
class should be an empty
But C/C++ may have an another advantage, it can use ADT(Abstract Data
Type) to extend its set of primitive type, e.g., string.
But C++ may have an another advantage, it can use ADT(Abstract Data
Type) to extend its set of primitive type, e.g., string.
--
徐持恒(Chiheng Xu)
Wuhan,China
Hi,
Try using gcc-vcg-plugin to browse tree and cfg during debug gcc. It's
just an initial version for now. Any suggestions will be appreciated.
:-)
http://code.google.com/p/gcc-vcg-plugin/
Thanks,
Eric Fisher
--- Comment #2 from rwild at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-01 06:12 ---
Patch at http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-05/msg02389.html.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44286
Configured with: ../gcc-svn/configure --prefix=/home/jarryd/local/gcc-4.6
--enable-languages=c,c++
g++ init_list.cpp -o init_list.o -std=gnu++0x -c -save-temps
init_list.cpp: In function int main():
init_list.cpp:5:41: error: could not convert {{1, 1}, {2, 2}} to
std::mapint, int
--
--- Comment #1 from jarrydb at cse dot unsw dot edu dot au 2010-06-01
06:50 ---
Created an attachment (id=20790)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=20790action=view)
compilation failure
note that this file is the result of:
#include map
int main()
{
std::mapint,
--- Comment #1 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-01 07:39 ---
CONFIRM and no regression. Thanks for the report.
For the block data construct (F2008, 11.3) the compiler shall diagnose the
following constraints:
C1116 (R1120) A block-data specification-part shall contain only
--- Comment #1 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-01 07:41 ---
No regression and working with 4.6.
--
burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-01 07:44 ---
CONFIRMED - and no regression. Thanks for the report!
test.f90:4:0: internal compiler error: in string_to_single_character, at
fortran/trans-expr.c:1394
Failing assert:
string_to_single_character (tree len, tree
--- Comment #4 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-01 07:45 ---
Steve's patch: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2010-06/msg2.html
--
burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-01 07:53 ---
REOPEN to address the issue pointed out by Dominique in comment 1:
(2) the arguments of selected_real_kind should be scalar integer.
s/ should / shall /:
P (optional) shall be an integer scalar.
R (optional)
--- Comment #18 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-01 08:03 ---
Just for fun, I have feed it into NAG's f95 - and it prints:
Extension: gjff.f90, line 2: AC-implied-DO limit references control variable I
$ ./a.out
1 2 3 4 5
Where extension = vendor extension. (NAG also uses
As reported at http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2010-05/msg00320.html
For the following program, one gets the warning:
DATA a / Z'F' /, b / Z'3' /
1
Warning: Conversion from INTEGER(16) to INTEGER(4) at (1)
While this is formally correct, the warning is
The following provokes the summary, must be compiled and run:
module m1
contains
subroutine sub(pvec)
dimension :: pvec(5)
print *,'good compiler!'
end subroutine
end
module m2
contains
subroutine submain
use m1
--- Comment #2 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-06-01 08:47
---
Jason, can you have a look to this?
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-01 10:09 ---
CONFIRMED. Old bug - dating back to at least 4.1.
Even explicitly importing the symbol does not help:
use m1, only: sub
--
burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.6.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44356
--
ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Last
As noted by richi, gcc fails to bootstrap with --enable-build-with-cxx:
gcc/tree-flow-inline.h:854:8: error: variable 't' set but not used
[-Werror=unused-but-set-variable]
--
Summary: -Wunused-but-set-variable vs. explicit void cast
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
--- Comment #1 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-01 11:16 ---
Created an attachment (id=20791)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=20791action=view)
gcc46-pr44361.patch
Untested fix.
--
jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #5 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-01 12:09 ---
Subject: Bug 43853
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Jun 1 12:09:16 2010
New Revision: 160099
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=160099
Log:
2010-06-01 Richard Guenther rguent...@suse.de
PR
--- Comment #6 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-01 12:18 ---
Fixed.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
#define WORDS_BIG_ENDIAN 0
int foo(int x, int y)
{
int a = x;
int b = y;
int j = WORDS_BIG_ENDIAN ? a : b;
return j;
}
which actually breaks bootstrap with C++.
--
Summary: Bogus set-but-not-used warning
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status:
1 - 100 of 183 matches
Mail list logo
