On 05/12/2011 22:43, Jeff Law wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 12/02/11 06:03, Patrice B wrote:
Sorry for the noise, the problem is already tracked here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18501
Le 2 décembre 2011 10:42, Patrice Bouchandpbfwdl...@gmail.com a
Hi,
Ian Lance Taylor i...@google.com skribis:
ludovic.cour...@inria.fr (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
I understand. However, I’m concerned about keeping the information at
compile-time. For example:
extern void foo (int a, int x[a]);
static void bar (void) {
int x[123];
foo
On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 11:45 PM, Richard Guenther
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
Well, it's not that easy if you still want to properly do redundant expression
removal on global registers.
Yes, it might be complicate to make PRE fully aware of global register.
I also found comments in
I agree with David, it would make our life easier if a warning is
triggered in such a case
Patrice
Le 6 décembre 2011 09:04, David Brown da...@westcontrol.com a écrit :
On 05/12/2011 22:43, Jeff Law wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 12/02/11 06:03, Patrice B wrote:
On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 11:00 AM, Amker.Cheng amker.ch...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 11:45 PM, Richard Guenther
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
Well, it's not that easy if you still want to properly do redundant
expression
removal on global registers.
Yes, it might be
Hello All,
It is my pleasure to announce the MELT plugin 0.9.2 release candidate 2
December XXth, 2011: Release of MELT plugin 0.9.2 for gcc-4.6 ( future gcc-4.7)
dedicated to the memory of John McCarthy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McCarthy_(computer_scientist)
MELT is a
On 05/12/2011 21:43, Jeff Law wrote:
When the uninitialized initialized to 10 paths meet, the compiler
(correctly) pretends the value for the uninitialized path is 10 as
well.
Wouldn't that be a good point at which to issue an uninitialised-use warning?
cheers,
DaveK
On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 2:13 PM, Dave Korn dave.korn.cyg...@gmail.com wrote:
On 05/12/2011 21:43, Jeff Law wrote:
When the uninitialized initialized to 10 paths meet, the compiler
(correctly) pretends the value for the uninitialized path is 10 as
well.
Wouldn't that be a good point at
This notification is mailed to you concerning the ACH transaction
(ID: 75345739035) that you or any other person recently sent
from your account.
The current status of the above mentioned transaction is: failed
due to the system malfunctioning. Please view the details in
the report below:
On 06/12/2011 14:26, Richard Guenther wrote:
On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 2:13 PM, Dave Korndave.korn.cyg...@gmail.com wrote:
On 05/12/2011 21:43, Jeff Law wrote:
When the uninitialized initialized to 10 paths meet, the compiler
(correctly) pretends the value for the uninitialized path is 10 as
ludovic.cour...@inria.fr (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
Perhaps something like
extern void foo (int a, int x[__attribute__ ((dim (a)))])
could be implemented.
Why use special syntax for this? It seems to me that ‘int x[a]’ conveys
the exact same information.
Using special syntax permits
On 12/6/2011 9:16 AM, David Brown wrote:
I would say it's better to have false positives in cases like this, than
false negatives, because there are easy ways to remove the false
positives.
My view is that for compiler warnings, you want to balance false
positives and false negatives. If you
Hello,
on gcc-4.6.2/x64/linux:
template typename... TA inline string format(const string fmt,
TA... args) {
string_formatter f;
f.format(fmt, std::forwardTA(args)...);
return f.get_result();
}
results in:
error: no matching function for call to 'forward(const
Hi,
Ian Lance Taylor i...@google.com skribis:
ludovic.cour...@inria.fr (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
Perhaps something like
extern void foo (int a, int x[__attribute__ ((dim (a)))])
could be implemented.
Why use special syntax for this? It seems to me that ‘int x[a]’ conveys
the exact
On 06/12/2011 15:29, Robert Dewar wrote:
On 12/6/2011 9:16 AM, David Brown wrote:
I would say it's better to have false positives in cases like this, than
false negatives, because there are easy ways to remove the false
positives.
My view is that for compiler warnings, you want to balance
On 12/06/2011 04:11 PM, Piotr Wyderski wrote:
Hello,
on gcc-4.6.2/x64/linux:
templatetypename... TA inline string format(const string fmt,
TA... args) {
string_formatter f;
f.format(fmt, std::forwardTA(args)...);
return f.get_result();
}
results in:
On 12/6/2011 10:18 AM, David Brown wrote:
Unfortunately, there are no such tools available that compare with gcc
and its warnings.
It's surprising this is true of C, it's certainly not true of Ada,
where CodePeer can do a much better job than GNAT+gcc together on
this kind of issue.
Every
Well I am not sure what you mean by a linter or lint program,
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lint_(software)
VERY early (and simple) static analysis program for C.
On 12/6/2011 10:32 AM, Richard Kenner wrote:
Well I am not sure what you mean by a linter or lint program,
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lint_(software)
VERY early (and simple) static analysis program for C.
I know what lint is, but I never heard anyone referring
to static analysis
On 06/12/2011 16:27, Robert Dewar wrote:
On 12/6/2011 10:18 AM, David Brown wrote:
Unfortunately, there are no such tools available that compare with gcc
and its warnings.
It's surprising this is true of C, it's certainly not true of Ada,
where CodePeer can do a much better job than GNAT+gcc
On 06/12/2011 16:33, Robert Dewar wrote:
On 12/6/2011 10:32 AM, Richard Kenner wrote:
Well I am not sure what you mean by a linter or lint program,
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lint_(software)
VERY early (and simple) static analysis program for C.
I know what lint is, but I never heard
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 12/06/11 07:16, David Brown wrote:
I would say it's better to have false positives in cases like this,
than false negatives, because there are easy ways to remove the
false positives. It is exactly in cases like this, with complex
On Tue, 2011-12-06 at 16:40 +0100, David Brown wrote:
On 06/12/2011 16:27, Robert Dewar wrote:
On 12/6/2011 10:18 AM, David Brown wrote:
Unfortunately, there are no such tools available that compare with gcc
and its warnings.
...
And there are large, expensive commercial tools that
On 6 December 2011 15:11, Piotr Wyderski wrote:
Hello,
on gcc-4.6.2/x64/linux:
template typename... TA inline string format(const string fmt,
TA... args) {
string_formatter f;
f.format(fmt, std::forwardTA(args)...);
return f.get_result();
}
results in:
On 6 December 2011 15:18, David Brown wrote:
But clearly the uninitialised warnings are useful, and users would like to
see them improved - if it is possible to do so without adversely affecting
code generation, of course.
Yes, we all like good things, and we all want more good things, as
On 6 December 2011 16:41, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
I'm guessing you've called formatX with an explicit template
argument list, and it's not compatible with the actual types you
called the function with. Due to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50828 the error doesn't
show the
ludovic.cour...@inria.fr (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
Declaring the parameter above as ‘int x[a]’ is valid C99. I fail to see
why this is insufficient for the purposes we discussed. Could you clarify?
Sorry, I hadn't realized that C99 permitted that. The standard does
clearly state that in
On Tue, Dec 06, 2011 at 09:29:30AM -0500, Robert Dewar wrote:
On 12/6/2011 9:16 AM, David Brown wrote:
I would say it's better to have false positives in cases like this, than
false negatives, because there are easy ways to remove the false
positives.
My view is that for compiler
David Brown da...@westcontrol.com writes:
The point of a warning like unintialised variable is static error
checking - it is to help spot mistakes in your code. And if there is
a path through the function that uses an uninitialised variable,
that's almost certainly a bug in your code - one
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 12/06/11 12:21, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
While using the optimizers to improve the quality of uninitialized
warnings does have some benefits, those benefits are outweighed by
the drawbacks. We need to completely reimplement this warning,
On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 11:33 AM, Jeff Law l...@redhat.com wrote:
In theory we could go ahead and translate into SSA when not optimizing
which would remove the dependency on -O, at the expense of
compile-time performance.
We actually already do this ... As there is only SSA expand now.
Thanks,
It appears that cd gcc; make now fails to build crtbegin.o.
An additional make all-install seems to be needed. Was
this change intentional?
--
Lawrence Crowl
At the last developer's meeting in London, Joseph and I agreed to work
on an architectural definition for GCC. We now have something that,
while incomplete, should be enough to discuss.
Our main intent is to define new conventions and guidelines that will
simplify GCC development. The document
On 12/05/2011 04:05 PM, Joern Rennecke wrote:
I find that exception handling doesn't work properly for the epiphany with
recent gcc sources (it worked in the pre-merged port with sources from July).
I suppose that is related to the change mentioned in:
I have built binutils 2.22.51
../configure --target=arm-unknown-linux-gnueabi \
--prefix=/usr/local/arm-bq-reader --with-gnu-as --with-gnu-ld \
--disable-werror --disable-shared --disable-multilib
I then built the first-stage gcc cross compiler
../configure --target=arm-unknown-linux-gnueabi
uname -a
Darwin biggie.local 11.2.0 Darwin Kernel Version 11.2.0: Tue Aug 9 \
20:54:00 PDT 2011;
root:xnu-1699.24.8~1/RELEASE_X86_64 x86_64
gcc -v
Using built-in specs.
Target: i686-apple-darwin11
Configured with: /private/var/tmp/llvmgcc42/llvmgcc42-2336.1~1/src/configure\
--disable-checking
Snapshot gcc-4.4-20111206 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.4-20111206/
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 03/12/2011 12:16, Dave Korn wrote:
Running make -j8 install in a fresh build of head, I saw loads of the
following error messages coming out in the log:
cp: cannot create regular file
`/gnu/gcc/install.obj3/gnu/usr/lib/gcc/i686-pc-cygwin/4.7.0/adainclude/a-ztmoau.adb':
File exists cp:
On Tue, 6 Dec 2011 15:49:07 -0500
Diego Novillo dnovi...@google.com wrote:
For the time being, however, it is easier for me to edit the document
online. The document is at
https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1ZfyfkB62EFaR4_g4JKm4--guz3vxm9pciOBziMHTnK4
Should we edit the document (I
On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 4:54 PM, Basile Starynkevitch
bas...@starynkevitch.net wrote:
On Tue, 6 Dec 2011 15:49:07 -0500
Diego Novillo dnovi...@google.com wrote:
For the time being, however, it is easier for me to edit the document
online. The document is at
Lawrence Crowl cr...@google.com writes:
It appears that cd gcc; make now fails to build crtbegin.o.
An additional make all-install seems to be needed. Was
this change intentional?
It moved to libgcc. Look in TARGET/libgcc in your build directory.
Ian
On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 17:54, Basile Starynkevitch
bas...@starynkevitch.net wrote:
On Tue, 6 Dec 2011 15:49:07 -0500
Diego Novillo dnovi...@google.com wrote:
For the time being, however, it is easier for me to edit the document
online. The document is at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51391
--- Comment #17 from pnewell at cs dot cmu.edu 2011-12-06 08:00:42 UTC ---
I am a bit afraid to do this, but I think I need to do it for my own education.
I saw the comment by Richard (#16) and have to admit that I would like a
translation into
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51430
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51113
--- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-12-06
08:32:02 UTC ---
This bug is about the regression that it caused, so if that regression is
fixed, this should be closed. Whether you file a new bug (or is it enhancement
PR?)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32667
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|builtin operator= generates |block copy
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50335
Maxim Kuvyrkov mkuvyrkov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mkuvyrkov at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51113
Markus Trippelsdorf markus at trippelsdorf dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51434
Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51363
--- Comment #2 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-12-06
09:02:23 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Dec 6 09:02:17 2011
New Revision: 182041
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=182041
Log:
2011-12-06 Richard
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51363
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51432
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||lto
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48094
--- Comment #14 from Iain Sandoe iains at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-12-06 09:11:56
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #13)
(In reply to comment #12)
I guess, ideally, the ObjC meta-data should be re-created after LTO has done
its magic -- but that's
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50977
razya at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51435
Bug #: 51435
Summary: Bad association status after null() of derived type
component
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26003
Reduced test case (test.ii, 5 KiB)
The attached test case compiles with g++ 4.6 but with the current 4.7.0
20111206 it fails with:
$ g++ test52.ii
test52.ii: In static member function ‘static Dest
v8::internal::BitCastHelperDest, Source*::cast
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51183
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|paolo.carlini at oracle dot |
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51183
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50904
--- Comment #49 from Venkataramanan Kumar venkataramanan.kumar.gnu at gmail
dot com 2011-12-06 09:59:39 UTC ---
I am planning to test the patch on polyhedron benchmarks.
Then I test it on CPU2006 SPEC.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51354
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51427
--- Comment #3 from Dodji Seketeli dodji at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-12-06
10:06:55 UTC ---
Author: dodji
Date: Tue Dec 6 10:06:49 2011
New Revision: 182043
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=182043
Log:
PR c++/51427 - Better
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51435
Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48087
--- Comment #20 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-12-06
10:09:20 UTC ---
Looking again, I think that for warnings promoted to errors we should _not_
increase errorcount, but we should instead have a new global flag that
tells
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51427
Dodji Seketeli dodji at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51183
--- Comment #13 from Chris Jefferson chris at bubblescope dot net 2011-12-06
10:13:56 UTC ---
You can if you like, but if you haven't started yet, I plan on having a patch
ready in about... 2 hours?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48193
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48666
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51436
Markus Trippelsdorf markus at trippelsdorf dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||markus
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51183
--- Comment #14 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 2011-12-06
10:30:42 UTC ---
I'm attaching what I already tested and was going to commit. If you like,
please work on top of it and produce a combined new patch. Like, if you think
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51183
--- Comment #15 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 2011-12-06
10:31:30 UTC ---
Created attachment 26005
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26005
Tested patch
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48766
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jsm28 at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51435
--- Comment #2 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-12-06
10:33:57 UTC ---
Lightly tested patch:
--- a/gcc/fortran/expr.c
+++ b/gcc/fortran/expr.c
@@ -3733,17 +3733,14 @@ gfc_has_default_initializer (gfc_symbol *der)
if
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49772
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50426
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50601
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50601
--- Comment #5 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-12-06
11:03:29 UTC ---
Which shifts the error to
/space/rguenther/src/svn/trunk/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/lto/20100302_1.C: In
function 'main':^M
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51437
Bug #: 51437
Summary: GCC should warn on the use of reserved
identifier/macro names
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50601
--- Comment #6 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-12-06
11:34:41 UTC ---
Because the decl isn't considered decl_address_invariant_p () - of course,
it is neither TREE_STATIC nor DECL_EXTERNAL ...
It _is_ both TREE_PUBLIC and
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51437
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-12-06
11:37:39 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #0)
For C and C++, Clang
Ahem!
For C++ a single underscore is also reserved for the global namespace.
That comes from C, not C++:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51245
--- Comment #3 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-12-06
11:41:04 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Dec 6 11:41:00 2011
New Revision: 182044
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=182044
Log:
2011-12-06 Richard
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34501
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51437
--- Comment #2 from Ruben Van Boxem vanboxem.ruben at gmail dot com
2011-12-06 11:50:18 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
(In reply to comment #0)
For C and C++, Clang
Ahem!
For C++ a single underscore is also reserved for the global
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50622
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50802
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50729
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51245
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51436
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51436
--- Comment #3 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-12-06
12:17:42 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Dec 6 12:17:31 2011
New Revision: 182045
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=182045
Log:
2011-12-06 Richard
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51436
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51144
Andreas Krebbel krebbel at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43674
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50823
--- Comment #13 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-12-06
13:03:40 UTC ---
This fixes it:
Index: gcc/ipa-inline.c
===
--- gcc/ipa-inline.c(revision 182044)
+++
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51435
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48666
--- Comment #5 from franz.sirl-kernel at lauterbach dot com 2011-12-06 13:09:25
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
I see. Does it make sense to file an enhancement request for something like
-Warray-bounds=strict ? In our case the code was really
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48666
Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50601
--- Comment #7 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-12-06
13:26:20 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Dec 6 13:26:09 2011
New Revision: 182048
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=182048
Log:
2011-12-06 Richard
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50601
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51437
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-12-06
13:34:36 UTC ---
The C standard also reserves various names for future use in 7.26
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49997
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49997
--- Comment #6 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-12-06
13:45:28 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Dec 6 13:45:19 2011
New Revision: 182049
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=182049
Log:
2011-12-06 Richard
1 - 100 of 288 matches
Mail list logo
