[Bug c/22278] gcc -O2 discards cast to volatile

--- Additional Comments From gcc2eran at tromer dot org 2005-07-03 06:59 --- (In reply to comment #34) OK, that was just a demonstration of of the problem you pointed out in comments 9 and 12 and example (a) of comment 16. In this case, your analysis ("be conservative") and my reading o

[Bug tree-optimization/21568] [4.0/4.1 regression] Casts in folding *& omitted

--- Additional Comments From gcc2eran at tromer dot org 2005-07-03 06:50 --- > Did you read what was writting in comment #1 and #4? Carefully. Similarly to Paul Schlie in comment 5, I don't agree. My reasoning follows. > Because at this point avail is known not to volatile. That is

[Bug libstdc++/22218] [4.1 Regression] no rule to make target ... (constructor_destructor_fn_imps.hpp)

--- Additional Comments From bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-03 06:37 --- Cannot reproduce. -- What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOL

[Bug c/22278] gcc -O2 discards cast to volatile

--- Additional Comments From gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2005-07-03 05:11 --- Subject: Re: gcc -O2 discards cast to volatile "gdr at integrable-solutions dot net" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | | Still, consider the following variant: | | | | void quux(int *bar) { | | *(

Re: [Bug c/22278] gcc -O2 discards cast to volatile

"gdr at integrable-solutions dot net" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | | Still, consider the following variant: | | | | void quux(int *bar) { | | *(volatile int*)bar = 42; | | } | | | | volatile int foo; | | quux((int*)&foo); | | | | This time there is no "attempt [...] to refer to an

[Bug c/22278] gcc -O2 discards cast to volatile

--- Additional Comments From gcc2eran at tromer dot org 2005-07-03 05:09 --- (In reply to comment #32) > | I meant that we were mostly concerned about what the standard says about the > | effect of casting (say) int* into volatile int*, but the other directly is > | simply undefined. >

[Bug tree-optimization/21568] [4.0/4.1 regression] Casts in folding *& omitted

--- Additional Comments From gcc2eran at tromer dot org 2005-07-03 04:55 --- Why was this bug closed? The testcases in comment 5 do *not* pass. Here's the first testcase, fixed to compile cleanly: int avail; int main() { volatile int **outside = (volatile int**)0x01

[Bug tree-optimization/21568] [4.0/4.1 regression] Casts in folding *& omitted

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-03 05:52 --- *outside = &avail; Because at this point avail is known not to volatile. Did you read what was writting in comment #1 and #4? -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21568

[Bug libgcj/22283] Fail to build libjava under zh_TW.UTF-8 locale.

--- Additional Comments From jserv at kaffe dot org 2005-07-03 05:19 --- Created an attachment (id=9196) --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=9196&action=view) Fix the incorrect input filenames in the Makefile of libjava -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=

[Bug c/22278] gcc -O2 discards cast to volatile

--- Additional Comments From hugh at mimosa dot com 2005-07-03 05:40 --- Simple rule about const and volatile qualifiers (not restrict): the program can manipulate pointer values with and without their qualifiers. But when the program accesses an object that is a volatile object (i.e.

[Bug libgcj/22283] New: Fail to build libjava under zh_TW.UTF-8 locale.

I use zh_TW.UTF-8 as the default encoding in my machine, and I found that I failed to build libjava. The error messsages are as following: (LC_ALL=zh_TW.UTF-8 make) make[2]: Entering directory `/home/jserv/build-gcj/i686-pc-linux-gnu/libjava' /bin/sh ./libtool --mode=compile /home/jserv/build-gcj/

[Bug c/22278] gcc -O2 discards cast to volatile

--- Additional Comments From gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2005-07-03 05:18 --- Subject: Re: gcc -O2 discards cast to volatile "gcc2eran at tromer dot org" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | --- Additional Comments From gcc2eran at tromer dot org 2005-07-03 05:09 --- | (In

[Bug c/22278] gcc -O2 discards cast to volatile

--- Additional Comments From gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2005-07-03 04:43 --- Subject: Re: gcc -O2 discards cast to volatile "gcc2eran at tromer dot org" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | (In reply to comment #30) | > | OK. Then the volatile-stripping direction can be handled arbi

Re: [Bug c/22278] gcc -O2 discards cast to volatile

"gcc2eran at tromer dot org" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | (In reply to comment #30) | > | OK. Then the volatile-stripping direction can be handled arbitrarily. | > | > I do not understand that comment. | | I meant that we were mostly concerned about what the standard says about the | effect of

[Bug c/22278] gcc -O2 discards cast to volatile

--- Additional Comments From gcc2eran at tromer dot org 2005-07-03 04:14 --- (In reply to comment #30) > | OK. Then the volatile-stripping direction can be handled arbitrarily. > > I do not understand that comment. I meant that we were mostly concerned about what the standard says abou

[Bug c/22278] gcc -O2 discards cast to volatile

--- Additional Comments From gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2005-07-03 02:54 --- Subject: Re: gcc -O2 discards cast to volatile "gcc2eran at tromer dot org" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | >[#5] If an attempt is made to modify an object defined with | >a const-qua

[Bug c/22278] gcc -O2 discards cast to volatile

--- Additional Comments From gcc2eran at tromer dot org 2005-07-03 02:30 --- (In reply to comment #25) > If when the compiler sees "const T* p", it assumes that *p is > effectively const, then it would miscompile > >int foo(int* p, const int* q) { >int r = *q; >*p =

[Bug c/22278] gcc -O2 discards cast to volatile

--- Additional Comments From hugh at mimosa dot com 2005-07-03 01:53 --- [ see https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=162274 ] I feel that he gcc documentation promises that there will be an access. The documentation can change, but it is a contract between the implemente

[Bug fortran/20842] [4.0 only] can't use 'END=' in output statement

-- What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot |dot org |org Status|NEW

[Bug c/22278] gcc -O2 discards cast to volatile

--- Additional Comments From gcc2eran at tromer dot org 2005-07-03 01:46 --- (In reply to comment #24) Thanks! None of the quotes and references in comment 23 changed in N1124. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22278

[Bug fortran/20842] can't use 'END=' in output statement

--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-03 01:46 --- Subject: Bug 20842 CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc Module name:gcc Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-07-03 01:46:12 Modified files: gcc/fortran: ChangeLog io.c gcc/testsuite

[Bug c/22278] gcc -O2 discards cast to volatile

--- Additional Comments From gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2005-07-03 01:43 --- Subject: Re: gcc -O2 discards cast to volatile "gcc2eran at tromer dot org" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | (In reply to comment #22) | > | int foo; | > | *(volatile int*) (&foo); | > | > It

[Bug c/22278] gcc -O2 discards cast to volatile

--- Additional Comments From gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2005-07-03 01:42 --- Subject: Re: gcc -O2 discards cast to volatile "gcc2eran at tromer dot org" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | > but that is a fundamental departure from the language semantics. | > Replace "volatile" wit

[Bug c/22278] gcc -O2 discards cast to volatile

--- Additional Comments From joseph at codesourcery dot com 2005-07-03 01:27 --- Subject: Re: gcc -O2 discards cast to volatile On Sun, 3 Jul 2005, gcc2eran at tromer dot org wrote: > Of course, but please forgive my ignorance -- where does does the standard > prescribe these semanti

[Bug c/22278] gcc -O2 discards cast to volatile

--- Additional Comments From gcc2eran at tromer dot org 2005-07-03 01:19 --- (In reply to comment #22) > | int foo; > | *(volatile int*) (&foo); > > It was included in my previous message. Then it's still eluding me, since your foo (the "object"?) was volatile. > | In other

[Bug c++/18279] [4.0/4.1 regression] missing function bodies from -fdump-translation-unit

--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-03 01:15 --- Subject: Bug 18279 CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc Module name:gcc Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-07-03 01:15:01 Modified files: gcc: ChangeLog c-decl.c tree-dump.c Log

[Bug c/22278] gcc -O2 discards cast to volatile

--- Additional Comments From gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2005-07-03 00:03 --- Subject: Re: gcc -O2 discards cast to volatile "gcc2eran at tromer dot org" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | --- Additional Comments From gcc2eran at tromer dot org 2005-07-02 23:30 --- | (In

Re: [Bug c/22278] gcc -O2 discards cast to volatile

"gcc2eran at tromer dot org" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | --- Additional Comments From gcc2eran at tromer dot org 2005-07-02 23:30 --- | (In reply to comment #17) | > Furthermore, the fundamental issue is whether this | > | >*(volatile int*) (int*) (&foo); | > | > (or equivalent)

[Bug c/22278] gcc -O2 discards cast to volatile

--- Additional Comments From gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2005-07-02 23:54 --- Subject: Re: gcc -O2 discards cast to volatile "pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | > For all useful purposes, it helps remembering that GCC is not an | > academic exercise

[Bug c/22278] gcc -O2 discards cast to volatile

--- Additional Comments From falk at debian dot org 2005-07-02 23:45 --- (In reply to comment #19) > How about this? > > int foo; > *(volatile int*) (&foo); > > In other words, why should the compiler bother at all with the qualifiers of > what the pointer "really" points to?

[Bug c/22278] gcc -O2 discards cast to volatile

--- Additional Comments From gcc2eran at tromer dot org 2005-07-02 23:30 --- (In reply to comment #17) > Furthermore, the fundamental issue is whether this > >*(volatile int*) (int*) (&foo); > > (or equivalent) where foo has been defined volatile int should be > treated differentl

[Bug target/21742] [4.1 Regression] unrecognized insn for struct-layout-1 tests with complex members

--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-02 23:06 --- Subject: Bug 21742 CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc Module name:gcc Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-07-02 23:06:43 Modified files: gcc: ChangeLog expr.c Log message:

[Bug c/22278] gcc -O2 discards cast to volatile

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-02 22:49 --- > For all useful purposes, it helps remembering that GCC is not an > academic exercise in C standard reading. Ok, then all of your comments about extensions to C++ should be thrown out the window since I kn

[Bug c/22278] gcc -O2 discards cast to volatile

--- Additional Comments From gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2005-07-02 22:39 --- Subject: Re: gcc -O2 discards cast to volatile "pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | (In reply to comment #13) | > | > It is also wrong-code. | | This is the opposite view

[Bug tree-optimization/22280] [4.1 Regression] ICE in referenced_var_lookup while compiling ali.adb

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-02 22:26 --- Fixed. -- What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED

[Bug c/22278] gcc -O2 discards cast to volatile

--- Additional Comments From gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2005-07-02 22:20 --- Subject: Re: gcc -O2 discards cast to volatile "gcc2eran at tromer dot org" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | Prior versions of gcc did "respect" casts to pointer-to-volatile and did not | optimize away

[Bug c/22278] gcc -O2 discards cast to volatile

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-02 22:20 --- (In reply to comment #13) > > It is also wrong-code. This is the opposite view of what JSM said on IRC. Take it up with him if you believe otherwise. Basically this is all implemention defined and since

[Bug c/22278] gcc -O2 discards cast to volatile

--- Additional Comments From falk at debian dot org 2005-07-02 22:19 --- (In reply to comment #8) > I can't imagine a programmer casting into a pointer to volatile without really > meaning it, so if the behavior is not defined by the standard then both > compatibility and the principle

[Bug tree-optimization/22280] [4.1 Regression] ICE in referenced_var_lookup while compiling ali.adb

--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-02 22:18 --- Subject: Bug 22280 CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc Module name:gcc Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-07-02 22:18:24 Modified files: gcc: ChangeLog tree-sra.c Log message:

[Bug c/22278] gcc -O2 discards cast to volatile

--- Additional Comments From gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2005-07-02 22:12 --- Subject: Re: gcc -O2 discards cast to volatile "falk at debian dot org" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | According to Joseph Myers, the question is whether this counts as "access" to | a volatile object

[Bug c/22278] gcc -O2 discards cast to volatile

--- Additional Comments From gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2005-07-02 22:11 --- Subject: Re: gcc -O2 discards cast to volatile "pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | Since the orginal pointer is not violatile How do you know that? Just looking at functi

[Bug c/22278] gcc -O2 discards cast to volatile

--- Additional Comments From gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2005-07-02 22:10 --- Subject: Re: gcc -O2 discards cast to volatile "falk at debian dot org" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | I see a difference here in that gcc doesn't know whether the referenced | object is declared to b

[Bug c/22278] gcc -O2 discards cast to volatile

--- Additional Comments From gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2005-07-02 22:10 --- Subject: Re: gcc -O2 discards cast to volatile "pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | Did you read the message which I referenced? Not just because people disagrees with you

[Bug c/22278] gcc -O2 discards cast to volatile

--- Additional Comments From gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2005-07-02 22:08 --- Subject: Re: gcc -O2 discards cast to volatile "pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | See PR 21568 and http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-05/msg00085.html. Both those issues abou

Re: [Bug c/22278] gcc -O2 discards cast to volatile

"pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | See PR 21568 and http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-05/msg00085.html. Both those issues about completely *different* from the issue submitted in this PR. In the above cases, the accessed object actually is NOT volatile. This is not the

[Bug c/22278] gcc -O2 discards cast to volatile

--- Additional Comments From gcc2eran at tromer dot org 2005-07-02 22:07 --- Prior versions of gcc did "respect" casts to pointer-to-volatile and did not optimize away the access. I've seen a lot of code that relies on that, and which would thus be broken by gcc 4.x (in a subtle and hard

[Bug tree-optimization/22280] [4.1 Regression] ICE in referenced_var_lookup while compiling ali.adb

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-02 20:45 --- Patch here: . I can confirm that it fixes the ICE too. -- What|Removed |Added --

[Bug c/22278] gcc -O2 discards cast to volatile

--- Additional Comments From falk at debian dot org 2005-07-02 20:38 --- According to Joseph Myers, the question is whether this counts as "access" to a volatile object, which is implementation defined (6.7.3#6). However, extend.texi doesn't answer this, so I'll reopen it as a documentat

[Bug fortran/22282] loc intrinsic is not implemented in gfortran

-- What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||19292 nThis|| http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22282

[Bug fortran/22282] New: loc intrinsic is not implemented in gfortran

See: http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-3.4.4/g77/Loc-Intrinsic.html -- Summary: loc intrinsic is not implemented in gfortran Product: gcc Version: 4.1.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: enhancement Priority: P2 Component: fort

[Bug c++/22132] [4.0/4.1 Regression] Wrong code: upcasting a const class pointer to struct the class derives from (C/old-style cast)

-- What|Removed |Added BugsThisDependsOn||22281 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22132

[Bug c++/22281] [4.0/4.1 Regression] C-Style cast does reinterpret_cast when it should do a static_cast

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-02 19:55 --- This looks like basicially PR 22132 but this has a short testcase. -- What|Removed |Added Oth

[Bug c++/22281] [4.0/4.1 Regression] C-Style cast does reinterpret_cast when it should do a static_cast

-- What|Removed |Added CC||mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot ||org Keywords|

[Bug c++/22281] New: C-Style cast does reinterpret_cast when it should do a static_cast

The following program returns 1 instead of 0 because gcc seems not to do a static_cast followed by a const_cast when doing the C-style cast. This is in violation of 5.4 of the standard. The problem first appeared in gcc 4.0.0. Here is the -v output of the version I am currently using: Target: i48

[Bug tree-optimization/22280] [4.1 Regression] ICE in referenced_var_lookup while compiling ali.adb

--- Additional Comments From dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-02 19:34 --- We can't iterate in sequence anymore. i'll fix this. -- What|Removed |Added Assigne

[Bug tree-optimization/22280] [4.1 Regression] ICE in referenced_var_lookup while compiling ali.adb

--- Additional Comments From dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-02 19:28 --- We can't iterate in sequence anymore. i'll fix this. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22280

[Bug tree-optimization/22280] [4.1 Regression] ICE in referenced_var_lookup while compiling ali.adb

-- What|Removed |Added CC||dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot ||org Target Milestone|---

[Bug tree-optimization/22280] New: [4.1 Regression] ICE in referenced_var_lookup while compiling ali.adb

This was introduced by: 2005-06-29 Daniel Berlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * tree-complex.c (complex_variable_components): Now a hashtable. (cvc_lookup): Ditto. (cvc_insert): Ditto. (create_components): Use referenced var iterator. Initialize hashtable.

[Bug tree-optimization/22279] [4.1 Regression] ICE in first_vi_for_offset, at tree-ssa-structalias.c:2566

--- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2005-07-02 19:10 --- Can we get a preprocessed/reduced source? -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22279

[Bug tree-optimization/22037] [4.1 Regression] internal compiler error: verify_ssa failed

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-02 18:32 --- Here is a patch fixes the problem: Index: tree-cfg.c === RCS file: /cvs/gcc/gcc/gcc/tree-cfg.c,v retrieving revision 2.207 diff -u -p -r2.207

[Bug c/22278] gcc -O2 discards cast to volatile

--- Additional Comments From falk at debian dot org 2005-07-02 17:53 --- (In reply to comment #5) > Since the orginal pointer is not violatile the cast will not change any thing since the compiler can > deduce it is not violatile. It could deduce that if it was invalid to form a point

[Bug c/22278] gcc -O2 discards cast to volatile

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-02 17:42 --- Since the orginal pointer is not violatile the cast will not change any thing since the compiler can deduce it is not violatile. >From C99, 5.1.2.3 P3: In the abstract machine, all expressions are evaluat

[Bug c/22278] gcc -O2 discards cast to volatile

--- Additional Comments From falk at debian dot org 2005-07-02 17:33 --- I see a difference here in that gcc doesn't know whether the referenced object is declared to be volatile, it isn't visible as in PR 21568. IMHO we actually have a bug here; I don't see anything in the standard whic

[Bug tree-optimization/22196] Missed back prop

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-02 17:32 --- Confirmed. -- What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW E

[Bug treelang/22188] Some warnings during building

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-02 17:32 --- Never mind, this is comming from flex. -- What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug rtl-optimization/22258] combine causes spill failure on return value register

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-02 17:26 --- Confirmed. -- What|Removed |Added URL|http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc- |

[Bug tree-optimization/22279] [4.1 Regression] ICE in first_vi_for_offset, at tree-ssa-structalias.c:2566

-- What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||22277 nThis|| http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22279

[Bug tree-optimization/22277] [4.1 Regression] ACATS ICE cc40001 in first_vi_for_offset, at tree-ssa-structalias.c:2566

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-02 17:23 --- Most likely related to PR 22279. -- What|Removed |Added BugsThisDependsOn|

[Bug middle-end/22276] [4.1 regression] bootstrap failure on i686-pc-mingw32

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-02 17:22 --- Are you sure that your tree-ssa-alias.c is not modified? -- What|Removed |Added

[Bug bootstrap/22259] [4.1 Regression] spawnv cannot execute gcc/as

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-02 17:18 --- Patch here but you forgot the changeLog :). -- What|Removed |Added URL|

[Bug libstdc++/22272] endless loop during compile of all-target-libstdc++-v3

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-02 17:17 --- Are you building in the source directory? if so can you try building in an object directory like the instation directions recomend? -- What|Removed |Added --

[Bug tree-optimization/22277] [4.1 Regression] ACATS ICE cc40001 in first_vi_for_offset, at tree-ssa-structalias.c:2566

-- What|Removed |Added Component|ada |tree-optimization http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22277

[Bug ada/22277] [4.1 Regression] ACATS ICE cc40001 in first_vi_for_offset, at tree-ssa-structalias.c:2566

-- What|Removed |Added CC||dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot ||org, pinskia at gcc dot gnu

[Bug middle-end/22276] [4.1 regression] bootstrap failure on i686-pc-mingw32

-- What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |4.1.0 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22276

[Bug c/22278] gcc -O2 discards cast to volatile

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-02 17:03 --- Did you read the message which I referenced? it is still not a bug if you read the message. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22278

[Bug tree-optimization/22279] [4.1 Regression] ICE in first_vi_for_offset, at tree-ssa-structalias.c:2566

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-02 17:01 --- Looks like it only effects 64bit targets: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2005-07/msg00058.html -- What|Removed |Added -

[Bug c/22278] gcc -O2 discards cast to volatile

--- Additional Comments From olivier dot baudron at m4x dot org 2005-07-02 16:59 --- I am not sure this is the same problem. Besides, the following code is *not* optimized away with -O2: void test (volatile char *addr) { *addr; } -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?

[Bug tree-optimization/22279] [4.1 Regression] ICE in first_vi_for_offset, at tree-ssa-structalias.c:2566

-- What|Removed |Added CC||dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot ||org Keywords|

[Bug tree-optimization/22279] New: [4.1 Regression] ICE in first_vi_for_offset, at tree-ssa-structalias.c:2566

On various platforms, the libstdc++ testsuite fails early with an ICE building testsuite_abi.cc. This includes at least hppa64-hpux and ia64-hpux (compilers as of 20050702 07:00 UTC) and gcc-testresults shows it on x86_64-linux; it didn't happen with 20050630 compilers. The dates show this

[Bug c/22278] gcc -O2 discards cast to volatile

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-02 16:48 --- See PR 21568 and http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-05/msg00085.html. This is allowed by the C and C++ standards. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 21568 *** -- What|Removed

[Bug tree-optimization/21568] [4.0/4.1 regression] Casts in folding *& omitted

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-02 16:48 --- *** Bug 22278 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- What|Removed |Added

[Bug c/22278] New: gcc -O2 discards cast to volatile

st, .-test .ident "GCC: (GNU) 4.1.0 20050702 (experimental)" .section.note.GNU-stack,"",@progbits --- -- Summary: gcc -O2 discards cast to volatile Product: gcc Version: 4.1.0

[Bug middle-end/19987] [meta-bug] fold missing optimizations in general

-- Bug 19987 depends on bug 14490, which changed state. Bug 14490 Summary: [tree-ssa] Simplify "a - 10 > 150" into "a > 160" http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14490 What|Old Value |New Value

[Bug tree-optimization/14490] [tree-ssa] Simplify "a - 10 > 150" into "a > 160"

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-02 16:25 --- Fixed. -- What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED

[Bug tree-optimization/14490] [tree-ssa] Simplify "a - 10 > 150" into "a > 160"

: gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg: 20050702-1.c gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa: pr14490-1.c pr14490-2.c pr14490-3.c pr14490-4.c Log message: 2005-07-02 Andrew Pinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> PR middle-end/14490

[Bug tree-optimization/22212] [4.1 Regression] SEGV in is_gimple_variable during loop-ivopts while building Ada RTS

--- Additional Comments From kenner at vlsi1 dot ultra dot nyu dot edu 2005-07-02 16:04 --- Subject: Re: [4.1 Regression] SEGV in is_gimple_variable during loop-ivopts while building Ada RTS cxa4006 and cxa4017 fail the same way (STORAGE_ERROR) as vms_conv.adb. See the email I s

[Bug middle-end/22275] [3.4/4.0/4.1 Regression] bitfield layout change (regression?)

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-02 15:08 --- 3.4.0 also fails on your test so it is not the bit-field changes in 4.0.0 which caused this. -- What|Removed |Added -

[Bug tree-optimization/22037] [4.1 Regression] internal compiler error: verify_ssa failed

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-02 14:30 --- (In reply to comment #10) > The bug is really in cleanup_tree_cfg which is doing the merge of the two BBs. > This patch fixes the problem but I have not yet bootstrapped it yet: This patch does not bootstrap

[Bug tree-optimization/22212] [4.1 Regression] SEGV in is_gimple_variable during loop-ivopts while building Ada RTS

--- Additional Comments From laurent at guerby dot net 2005-07-02 13:08 --- cxa4006 and cxa4017 fail the same way (STORAGE_ERROR) as vms_conv.adb. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22212

[Bug ada/22277] New: ACATS ICE cc40001 in first_vi_for_offset, at tree-ssa-structalias.c:2566

On x86_64-linux as of LAST_UPDATED: Sat Jul 2 09:40:45 UTC 2005 +===GNAT BUG DETECTED==+ | 4.1.0 20050702 (experimental) (x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu) GCC error: | | in first_vi_for_offset, at tree-ssa-structalias.c:2566

[Bug middle-end/22276] [4.1 regression] bootstrap failure on i686-pc-mingw32

--- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2005-07-02 11:00 --- Provide a preprocessed testcase, this bug might be target-independent. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22276

[Bug middle-end/22276] New: [4.1 regression] bootstrap failure on i686-pc-mingw32

Building gcc on i686-pc-mingw32 (with patch from http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-05/msg9.html) fails with: ./xgcc -B./ -B/mingw/i686-pc-mingw32/bin/ -isystem /mingw/i686-pc-mingw32/include -isystem /mingw/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-include -L/home/FX/ibin/gcc/../ld -O2 -I../../gcc/gcc/../winsu

[Bug target/16331] x86-64 inline asm register constraints insufficient WRT ABI

--- Additional Comments From falk at debian dot org 2005-07-02 10:17 --- (In reply to comment #4) > The first call of pokus() completely ignores the assigned value of the > variable > r8 -- instead the value '6' into it for the call. The second call assumes the > the register r8 shoul

[Bug c/22275] bitfield layout change (regression?)

--- Additional Comments From marcus at jet dot franken dot de 2005-07-02 09:00 --- Created an attachment (id=9193) --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=9193&action=view) xx.c testcase extracted from WINE -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22275

[Bug c/22275] New: bitfield layout change (regression?)

the following testcase is extracted from WINE. It is to some degree problematic because "BOOL" is a signed int, but we use 1 bit wide bitfields here. Also the ":0" might be a GNU extension. The problem is that with gcc 3.3.5: gcc -O2 -o xx xx.c ; ./xx but with gcc 4.1 branch: /home

[Bug bootstrap/22259] [4.1 Regression] spawnv cannot execute gcc/as

--- Additional Comments From fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-02 08:55 --- Created an attachment (id=9192) --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=9192&action=view) Patch Attached patch implements the idea of making a special case for mingw32 in stamp-as, stamp-colle

[Bug libstdc++/22272] endless loop during compile of all-target-libstdc++-v3

--- Additional Comments From lehmann at ans-netz dot de 2005-07-02 08:53 --- I can't install APAR IY26685 because it is already included in AIX's ML11 for 4.3.3. -> I already have that fix installed.: All of the selected fixes in your download list are currently installed on your system

[Bug bootstrap/22259] [4.1 Regression] spawnv cannot execute gcc/as

--- Additional Comments From fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-02 08:08 --- > One option: have gcc/Makefile stamp-as target test "build" and output > appropriate script to MS Windows BATCH file as.bat. I tried to copy the assembler in the tree, instead of making a script pointing