--- Additional Comments From hjl at lucon dot org 2005-07-05 06:09 ---
My patch doesn't work with gcc.dg/varpool-1.c. c_write_global_declarations
seems calling check_global_declarations and cgraph_optimize in the wrong
order. Shouldn't check_global_declarations be called after
--- Additional Comments From charlet at adacore dot com 2005-07-05 07:11
---
Subject: Re: [4.1 Regression] Ada does not build into a clean prefix when
unwind.h is not installed
I got the same issue on i686-linux, so this is affecting several
targets apparently.
Arno
--
--- Additional Comments From Ralf_Recker at gmx dot de 2005-07-05 07:25
---
(In reply to comment #5)
I forgot to mention this is due to how tree-optimizate works, it is really a
bug (a known one), please file
so we don't lose track of it.
Sorry, I didn't understood your answer fully
I have the following errors during the make on AIX 5.2 ML5 with GCC4.0:
cc -c -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I.. -I. -I./../lib -g m4.c
cc -c -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I.. -I. -I./../lib -g builtin.c
builtin.c, line 618.60: 1506-280 (W) Function argument assignment between
types int(*)(const void*,const
The attached code generates the subject error
[EMAIL PROTECTED] TEMP]$ gfortran -v
Using built-in specs.
Target: i686-pc-linux-gnu
Configured with: ../gcc-4.1-20050702/configure --prefix=/usr/local/gfortran
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.1.0 20050702 (experimental)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] TEMP]$
--- Additional Comments From sfilippone at uniroma2 dot it 2005-07-05
07:49 ---
Created an attachment (id=9204)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=9204action=view)
Test case
I believe the code is standard compliant, but even if it isn't the compiler
fails spectacularly.
--- Additional Comments From fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-05
07:52 ---
For the GFC_LARGEST_INTEGER_KIND macro, there is already a GFC_INTEGER_LARGEST.
Or do you mean that GFC_LARGEST_INTEGER_KIND should be just 8 (or 16), not
GFC_INTEGER_8 (or GFC_INTEGER_16)?
As for this
--- Additional Comments From laurent at guerby dot net 2005-07-05 08:26
---
Still failing as of 4.0.1 RC3 (20050702)
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2005-07/msg00183.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19382
--- Additional Comments From fengwang at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-05
08:39 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
int4 nz.0 = -2; look line an INIT_EXPR. It should be
int4 nz.0;
nz.0 = -2
Shall we add an assignment explicitly? Just give an initial value. I don't
think we should
For a number of library functions, the current
tests only check what the compiler does.
Look at this:
$ cat ishft.f90
! { dg-do run }
! verifies basic functioning of the ishft and ishftc intrinsics
if (ishft (1_1, 0) /= 1) call abort
if (ishft (1_1, 1) /= 2) call abort
if (ishft (3_1, 1) /= 6)
--- Additional Comments From fengwang at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-05
08:44 ---
From as.f.t22.ccp:
bb 0:
nz.0_1 = -1;
nz.1_2 = __label_93;
D.475_3 = 0;
D.476_4 = 0;
if (D.476_4 != 0) goto L0; else goto L1;
This is also wrong.
--
--- Additional Comments From sfilippone at uniroma2 dot it 2005-07-05
09:44 ---
Changing the line
type(stack_node), pointer :: new_node
into
type(stack_node), pointer :: new_node = null()
is a workaround.
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From jserv at kaffe dot org 2005-07-05 09:59
---
So that, is there any chance to fix the issue, even via specific workaround? I
have to change locale settings (zh_TW.UTF-8 -- C) when I rebuild GCJ.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22283
--- Additional Comments From micis at gmx dot de 2005-07-05 10:48 ---
With snapshot gcc-4.1-20050702 the following gcc tests fail:
gcc.c-torture/compile/20020701-1.c
gcc.c-torture/compile/20021108-1.c
gcc.c-torture/compile/920501-7.c
gcc.c-torture/compile/labels-1.c
--- Additional Comments From jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-05 10:50
---
This bug has nothing to do with GCC or the C front end in particular: the make
output shown is for a build of GNU m4 (not GCC) with a compiler which is not GCC
either.
--
What|Removed
With -ansi -pedantic-errors, GCC fails to reject the following assignment.
struct foo s;
volatile struct foo t;
struct foo { const int z; };
void bar (void)
{
t = s;
}
GCC is tricked by the delayed completion of a qualified form of the type.
--
Summary: Failure to diagnose
--- Additional Comments From pbrook at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-05
12:10 ---
unwind.h is a target header. It should not be included by host code (ie. the
compiler).
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From chris at bubblescope dot net 2005-07-05 12:11
---
It seems to me that this is just a simple NAB. There seems to be 3 options
1) Just leave it as is
2) Alter list::remove so in debug mode it aborts if you give it an element from
the list
3) Alter
--- Additional Comments From charlet at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-05
12:26 ---
Hmm, so it means that there is no way for a compiler front-end to use GCC's
exception handling mechanism ?
I would guess adding a #if IN_RTS around the unwind.h include would probably
solve this issue:
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-05
12:53 ---
Confirmed, a regression from 2.95.3.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-05
12:56 ---
(In reply to comment #6)
Sorry, I didn't understood your answer fully (stupid me :-)
So is it entered in the BugZilla database, shall I enter it or shall we leave
it
alone?
It is known meaning people
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-05
13:04 ---
Confirmed, reduced testcase:
module stackmod
type stack_node
integer :: intval=0
type(stack_node), pointer :: next
end type stack_node
contains
subroutine push()
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-05
13:13 ---
Confirmed, what about using temporary variables which should solve this
problem. This does not look
that critical.
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-05
13:26 ---
Here is reference to the problem back in 2002:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2002-11/msg00896.html
I thought I had saw another mail in the last year about this but I cannot find
it any more.
--
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-05
13:53 ---
Patch posted here: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-07/msg00258.html.
--
What|Removed |Added
With libstdc++ configured with --enable-libstdcxx-allocator=mt (on 4.0 branch
or on HEAD for linux even without it, as mt is the default there), following
testcase crashes:
cat O.c EOF
#include dlfcn.h
#include pthread.h
void *
tf (void *arg)
{
void *h = dlopen (./libO.so, RTLD_LAZY);
void
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-05
13:55 ---
Mine.
--
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |pinskia at gcc
--- Additional Comments From hainque at adacore dot com 2005-07-05 14:08
---
Subject: Re: [4.1 Regression] Ada does not build into a clean prefix when
unwind.h is not installed
charlet at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
Hmm, so it means that there is no way for a compiler front-end to
--- Additional Comments From pbrook at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-05
14:19 ---
In that case this may be a darwin bug.
IIUC gnat1 uses exceptions, and needs the host unwind.h to do so. These
exceptions may be different to the exceptions on the target system. If darwin
doesn't have this
--- Additional Comments From para at cfl dot rr dot com 2005-07-05 14:40
---
The analysis is slightly flawed. For example:
UINT32 r0045025C = opt_and(ic, r004501D4);// N = and (_, M) :00022108
UINT32 r00450994 = opt_not(r0045025C);// b = not (N) :fffddef7
--- Additional Comments From gruel at astro dot ufl dot edu 2005-07-05
14:51 ---
the problem is still there with the actual version of gfortran. The result is
totally incoherent. I don't know for the bug 15553 but this one is still
present.
--
What|Removed
--- Additional Comments From rsandifo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-05
14:51 ---
The analysis is slightly flawed. For example:
UINT32 r0045025C = opt_and(ic, r004501D4); // N = and (_, M) :00022108
UINT32 r00450994 = opt_not(r0045025C); // b = not (N)
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-05
15:10 ---
*** Bug 22283 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-05
15:10 ---
This is a dup of bug 21058. The problem is not in libgcj but in libtool. We
semi worked around it in
4.0.0 by sorting but that does not always work as shown here.
*** This bug has been marked as a
--- Additional Comments From jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-05 15:19
---
Testing a patch.
--
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu
--- Additional Comments From mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-05
15:40 ---
This is OK for 4.0.2, once the branch re-opens.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20746
% g++ -v -O -c min4.cc
Using built-in specs.
Target: alphaev68-unknown-linux-gnu
Configured with: ../configure --disable-nls --enable-languages=c++
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.1.0 20050705 (experimental)
/usr/local/stow/gcc-2005.07.05/bin/../libexec/gcc/alphaev68-unknown-linux-gnu/4.1.0
$ /apa/gnu/Linux-RH-7.2/gcc/gcc-4.0.0/bin/gcc -O3 -march=pentium4 -mfpmath=sse
-fomit-frame-pointer -ffast-math -std=c99 -fshort-enums -Wall -Wno-unused
BlockRegion.i
/home/compwork/monat/Open64-1-7-0-B-Linux/CVSTop-LAO2/LAO_PRO/lao/PFA/BlockRegion.xcc:
In function 'BlockRegion_findInvariants':
--- Additional Comments From falk at debian dot org 2005-07-05 15:52
---
Created an attachment (id=9206)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=9206action=view)
test case (use -O)
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22310
--- Additional Comments From christophe dot monat at st dot com 2005-07-05
15:52 ---
Created an attachment (id=9207)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=9207action=view)
Preprocessed input file to reproduce bug
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22311
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-05
16:04 ---
Confirmed, reduced testcase:
typedef enum {
IssueItemFlag_Discard = 0x1
} IssueItemFlag;
void
BlockRegion_findInvariants(IssueItemFlag invariant, unsigned char a)
{
a |= invariant;
}
Only -fshort-enums
--- Additional Comments From pcarlini at suse dot de 2005-07-05 16:27
---
Jakub, is this issue related to libstdc++/19265?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22309
--- Additional Comments From pcarlini at suse dot de 2005-07-05 16:29
---
Not a regression, completely fixed for 4.1.0.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
--- Additional Comments From pcarlini at suse dot de 2005-07-05 16:30
---
Also investigate a better hashing of floating point values.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21193
--
What|Removed |Added
CC||pcarlini at suse dot de
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22309
--- Additional Comments From jakub at redhat dot com 2005-07-05 16:48
---
Yes, that's the same thing apparently.
I'm pretty sure a reproducer can be written even for libstdc++ not configured
to default to the mt allocator, by including ext/mt_allocator.h etc. or
however you explicitely
--- Additional Comments From pcarlini at suse dot de 2005-07-05 16:55
---
Yes, that's the same thing apparently.
Thanks. And now we have also a compact testcase.
I'm pretty sure a reproducer can be written even for libstdc++ not configured
to default to the mt allocator, by
--- Additional Comments From hjl at lucon dot org 2005-07-05 16:56 ---
Patches for mainline and 4.0 are posted at
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-07/msg00270.html
I hope they lead to the proper fixes and this critical regression
is fixed in 4.0.1.
--
--- Additional Comments From ro at techfak dot uni-bielefeld dot de
2005-07-05 17:04 ---
Subject: Re: [4.0/4.1 Regression] Cannot build gnattools on Tru64 UNIX V5.1B
charlet at gcc dot gnu dot org writes:
Given your last comment (a variable set to 4), it still looks very much like
--- Additional Comments From ro at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-05 17:11
---
Richard, maybe you could have a look since this seems to be caused by your
patch?
Thanks.
Rainer
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From ro at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-05 17:11
---
Richard, maybe you could have a look since this seems to be caused by your
patch?
It is a latent bug in Ada front-end. RTH just exposed the latent bug.
-- Pinski
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu 2005-07-05
17:13 ---
Subject: Re: Many attribute directive ignored warnings during Tru64 UNIX Ada
bootstrap
--- Additional Comments From ro at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-05 17:11
---
Richard, maybe you
--- Additional Comments From ro at techfak dot uni-bielefeld dot de
2005-07-05 17:15 ---
Subject: Re: Many attribute directive ignored warnings during Tru64 UNIX Ada
bootstrap
pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu writes:
It is a latent bug in Ada front-end. RTH just exposed the latent
--- Additional Comments From amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-05
17:24 ---
(In reply to comment #4)
This bug hasn't been modified in more than 18 months. What is the
current status of this bug? And is this not really a target specific
issue for SH with its silly r0, or can
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-05
17:34 ---
Subject: Bug 22308
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-07-05 17:34:29
Modified files:
gcc: ChangeLog c-decl.c
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-05
17:35 ---
This is 64bit targets only.
--
What|Removed |Added
CC|
On Jul 5, 2005, at 10:19 AM, pbrook at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
The other alternative is ada is very confused about host vs. target,
and raise.c
shouldn't be in the compiler at all.
Ada is very confused it looks like as raise.c is both a host and target
file
which seems to me wrong.
--
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu 2005-07-05
17:37 ---
Subject: Re: [4.1 Regression] Ada does not build into a clean prefix when
unwind.h is not installed
On Jul 5, 2005, at 10:19 AM, pbrook at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
The other alternative is ada is
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-05
17:50 ---
Subject: Bug 22013
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-07-05 17:50:24
Modified files:
gcc: ChangeLog c-objc-common.h c-tree.h
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-05
17:50 ---
Subject: Bug 22098
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-07-05 17:50:24
Modified files:
gcc: ChangeLog c-objc-common.h c-tree.h
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-05
18:06 ---
Confirmed, reduced as far as I can get it:
struct location
{
int x, y;
};
struct defensive_position
{
int chance_to_hit;
long long vulnerability, support;
};
templateclass _T1, class _T2 struct pair
{
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-05
18:10 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
Confirmed, reduced as far as I can get it:
One more thing, this testcase also fails on 32bit ppc-darwin and 64bit
ppc-darwin.
--
What|Removed
take the following example:
int f(int i, int j, int k, int l)
{
int r1 = (i+j)+(k+l);
int r2 = (j+k)+(l+i);
return r1 == r2;
}
This should return 1 all the time. I found this while making testcases for
reassoc working fp (well I just
change one little thing to make it work really).
--
SSIA.
Building with gcc 3.4.4, binutils 2.16.1 (tried 2.16.91.0.1 too, same
behavior) results in
stage1/xgcc -Bstage1/ -B/usr/i586-ark-linux/bin/ -c -g -O2 -fprofile-use
-freorder-blocks-and-partition -DIN_GCC -W -Wall -Wwrite-strings
-Wstrict-prototypes -Wmissing-prototypes -pedantic
--- Additional Comments From bero at arklinux dot org 2005-07-05 18:37
---
Created an attachment (id=9208)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=9208action=view)
preprocessed source
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22313
--- Additional Comments From bero at arklinux dot org 2005-07-05 18:39
---
Created an attachment (id=9209)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=9209action=view)
Generated asm code
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22313
--- Additional Comments From dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-05
19:02 ---
Subject: Re: New: reassoc does not handle
(i+j)+(k+l) well
On Tue, 2005-07-05 at 18:33 +, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
take the following example:
int f(int i, int j, int k, int l)
--
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Summary|gcc HEAD as of 2005/07/05 |[4.1 Regression] gcc HEAD as
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-05
19:35 ---
Confirmed then.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-05
19:37 ---
I think PR 22312 mentions what the current problem with reassoc is (well once I
submit the patch to
introduce reassociation for fp).
--
What|Removed |Added
--
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.0.2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22098
--
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[4.0/4.1 Regression] ICE in |[4.0 Regression] ICE in
|gimple_add_tmp_var, at |gimple_add_tmp_var, at
Tried to build the gentoo ebuild for gcc head pulled from CVS on 20050702. Got
this error:
stage1/xgcc -Bstage1/ -B/usr/i686-pc-linux-gnu/bin/ -c -save-temps
-march=athlon-xp -O2 -pipe -fprofile-use -freorder-blocks-and-partitio
n -DIN_GCC -W -Wall -Wwrite-strings -Wstrict-prototypes
--- Additional Comments From greenrd at greenrd dot org 2005-07-05 19:54
---
Created an attachment (id=9210)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=9210action=view)
gzipped testcase
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22314
--
What|Removed |Added
Severity|critical|normal
Keywords||build, ice-on-valid-code
Summary|ICE in
The following code ICEs at -O2 on amd64. It was reduced from galgel,
which is broken at the moment because of this bug.
SUBROUTINE FOO (N, A, LDA, X, INCX)
INTEGER :: INCX, LDA, N
REAL*8 :: A(LDA,*), X(*)
REAL*8 :: TEMP
INTEGER :: I, J, IX, JX, KX
IF
--- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-05
20:10 ---
Zdenek, this is ICE in IVopts. Can you give it a look? It'd be nice
if we can get galgel to compile again.
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-05
20:14 ---
I want to say this is a dup of bug 21963 which has a patch.
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-05
20:25 ---
Yes it is a dup, the backtraces are identical.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 21963 ***
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-05
20:25 ---
*** Bug 22315 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
What|Removed |Added
FAIL: objc.dg/selector-2.m (test for excess errors)
fails now, which did not fail for 4.0.0
see:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2005-04/msg00797.html
and:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2005-07/msg00264.html
regards, Lars
--
Summary: 4.0.1 ObjC regression compared
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-05
20:38 ---
What is the excess errors?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22316
FAIL: 26_numerics/cmath/c99_classification_macros_c.cc (test for excess errors)
fails now, which did not fail for 4.0.0
see:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2005-04/msg00797.html
and:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2005-07/msg00264.html
regards, Lars
--
Summary:
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-05
20:42 ---
This is a problem with darwin's headers really and not really a regression.
libstdc++'s testsuite was not
running it correctly before for some reason.
--
What|Removed
--- Additional Comments From lars dot sonchocky-helldorf at hamburg dot de
2005-07-05 20:46 ---
Executing on host:
/Volumes/Data/Users/lars/GCC/FSF/gcc-4.0.1-20050702-build/gcc/xgcc -B/
Volumes/Data/Users/lars/GCC/FSF/gcc-4.0.1-20050702-build/gcc/
/Users/lars/GCC/FSF/gcc-4.0.1-
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-05
20:48 ---
Not really a regression. This test was broken for 4.0.0 also.
This was fixed already for 4.1.0.
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From pcarlini at suse dot de 2005-07-05 20:54
---
Also, this test should be really xfailed everywhere and only passes by chance
on some systems due to complex interactions with PCHs: given the current
structure
of the library the test cannot meaningfully pass.
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-05
21:10 ---
Subject: Bug 19674
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-07-05 21:09:58
Modified files:
gcc/java : ChangeLog parse.y
libjava
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-05
21:19 ---
Subject: Bug 22308
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Branch: gcc-3_4-branch
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-07-05 21:19:17
Modified files:
gcc:
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-05
22:30 ---
(In reply to comment #8)
Subject: Re: [4.1 Regression] Ada does not build into a clean prefix when
unwind.h is not installed
I will try this patch later tonight after testing PR 18692.
--
--- Additional Comments From dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-05
23:07 ---
(In reply to comment #13)
Fixed
Have the URL for the aliasing discussion?
Thanks.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21407
--- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2005-07-05
23:16 ---
Zdenek, is the patch still valid? If so, maybe it's time to ping it?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21963
--- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2005-07-05
23:17 ---
Approved here already:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-07/msg00293.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21963
--- Additional Comments From dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-06
00:16 ---
It's in the ml archives, i'll try to find it.
Basically, Mark and friends believe that in C, it's legal to add or subtract
some bytes from a pointer to a field of a structure and have a valid pointer to
On Wed, Jul 06, 2005 at 12:16:20AM -, dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
--- Additional Comments From dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-06
00:16 ---
It's in the ml archives, i'll try to find it.
Thanks. I remember the discussion, but I need some URL so that
we can
--- Additional Comments From dnovillo at redhat dot com 2005-07-06 00:23
---
Subject: Re: [4.1 Regression] wrong code with downcast in C++
On Wed, Jul 06, 2005 at 12:16:20AM -, dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
--- Additional Comments From dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Additional Comments From gdr at integrable-solutions dot net
2005-07-06 00:42 ---
Subject: Re: [4.1 Regression] wrong code with downcast in C++
dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| Nathan queried the C++ committee, and they actually *don't* think
| it's
--- Additional Comments From dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-06
00:58 ---
Subject: Re: [4.1 Regression] wrong code with
downcast in C++
| Nathan queried the C++ committee, and they actually *don't* think
| it's legal in C++,
It is more accurate to say that Nathan
--- Additional Comments From gdr at integrable-solutions dot net
2005-07-06 01:16 ---
Subject: Re: [4.1 Regression] wrong code with downcast in C++
dberlin at dberlin dot org [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| Subject: Re: [4.1 Regression] wrong code with
| downcast in C++
|
|
| |
This is a problem in gcc's default debug format. It works fine with -gstabs.
struct X
{
bool x;
double d;
};
int main()
{
X x;
x.d = 42.0;
}
When debugging with gdb, x.d will contain something wrong, (often something
like
1 - 100 of 118 matches
Mail list logo
