--- Additional Comments From uros at kss-loka dot si 2005-07-18 06:36
---
(In reply to comment #1)
With last night's compiler I get:
Strange...
I have tested gcc snapshot 'gcc version 4.1.0 20050716 (experimental)',
with 'gcc -O2 -ftree-vectorize -msse2' and it still produces code
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-18
06:43 ---
Created an attachment (id=9298)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=9298action=view)
patch which I need to test
This patch which needs more comments but should be complete otherwise. This
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-18
06:49 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
I have tested gcc snapshot 'gcc version 4.1.0 20050716 (experimental)',
with 'gcc -O2 -ftree-vectorize -msse2' and it still produces code with both %
eax and %edx used.
--- Additional Comments From mpeterseim at samson dot de 2005-07-18 07:18
---
Adding -v to the invocation of gcc gives the following result:
C:\5824\Sourceavr-gcc -c -g -Os -gdwarf-2 -Wall -Wstrict-prototypes -Wa,-adhlns
=Serial.lst -mmcu=atmega16 -I. -I../../inc Serial.c -o Serial.o
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed||1
Last reconfirmed|-00-00 00:00:00
--- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-18
07:47 ---
The 128 bits arithmetic has improved now:
typedef unsigned long mp_word __attribute__ ((mode(TI)));
mp_word a, b;
void test(void) { a += b; }
test:
movqa(%rip), %rax
--- Additional Comments From rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-18
07:52 ---
I'll see where I can find an interesting machine to test the obvious fix on.
Care to suggest the correct one out of ppc, ia64, x86_64, i686, s390 (all
running Linux)? Thx.
--
What|Removed
--- Additional Comments From pluto at agmk dot net 2005-07-18 07:56 ---
also fails on i486/i686 target.
on ppc ices in:
stage1/xgcc -Bstage1/ -B/usr/ppc-pld-linux/bin/ -c -O2
-fsigned-char -gnatpg -gnata -g -O1 -fno-inline \
-I- -I. -Iada -I../../gcc/ada
--- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-18
07:56 ---
The code for the second test case is also much better. The code produced
for the test3 case does not look like what you want it to produce. Probably
the inline asm constraints are not correct.
Note
There seems to be a problem when an ostringstream gets its input from, f.i., a
double. I've noticed the problem for at least exact halfway cases such as 4.5.
In two of the four cases, the output is incorrect. The same behaviour is
present in g++ 4.0.0 (prerelease 20050319).
--
--- Additional Comments From stefan dot becuwe at ua dot ac dot be
2005-07-18 08:48 ---
Created an attachment (id=9299)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=9299action=view)
preprocessed file
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22542
--- Additional Comments From pcarlini at suse dot de 2005-07-18 09:16
---
Well, certainly, this is not a libstdc++-v3 bug: internally we are simply
printing floating point numbers using sprintf (or snprintf, when available), as
mandated by the standard. Actually, however, I'm not at
--- Additional Comments From stefan dot becuwe at ua dot ac dot be
2005-07-18 09:30 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
Well, certainly, this is not a libstdc++-v3 bug: internally we are simply
printing floating point numbers using sprintf (or snprintf, when available),
as
mandated by
--- Additional Comments From bonzini at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-18
09:37 ---
Will be fixed by toplevel bootstrap.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Additional Comments From rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-18
09:39 ---
Patch.
--
What|Removed |Added
URL|
--- Additional Comments From rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-18
09:44 ---
Probably the same as PR 22438.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22516
--- Additional Comments From pcarlini at suse dot de 2005-07-18 09:46
---
Ok, I'll reformulate it and I've even simplified the input. 4.5 is exactly
representable in double precision, regardless of the active rounding
precision.
It should always be 4.5. What I would like to do is
--- Additional Comments From themis_hv at yahoo dot co dot uk 2005-07-18
10:14 ---
I see this with GCC 4.1.0 20050716 snapshot on i686-pc-linux-gnu
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22416
When I compile ace542 with the actual snapshot of gcc41 I get an ICE when I
enable autovectorisation.
Michael Cieslinski
g++41g -O -ftree-vectorize -c -o Policy_Set.o Policy_Set.ii
Policy_Set.cpp: In copy constructor 'TAO_Policy_Set::TAO_Policy_Set(const
TAO_Policy_Set)':
Policy_Set.cpp:32:
--- Additional Comments From micis at gmx dot de 2005-07-18 10:44 ---
Created an attachment (id=9300)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=9300action=view)
preprocessed source
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22543
--- Additional Comments From micis at gmx dot de 2005-07-18 10:45 ---
This ICE is new, the snapshot from last week is working
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22543
--- Additional Comments From zadeck at naturalbridge dot com 2005-07-18
10:50 ---
It looks pretty clear to me that this test case should be non conforming. It is
almost exactly example 2 of the committee discussion and that case is invalid.
--
--- Additional Comments From joseph at codesourcery dot com 2005-07-18
10:59 ---
Subject: Re: [4.1 Regression] [DR236]
gcc.c-torture/execute/2603-1.c execution, -O2 fails
On Mon, 18 Jul 2005, zadeck at naturalbridge dot com wrote:
It looks pretty clear to me that this test
--- Additional Comments From micis at gmx dot de 2005-07-18 11:04 ---
I can't reproduce it with the current snapshot
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
--- Additional Comments From themis_hv at yahoo dot co dot uk 2005-07-18
11:09 ---
After analysising libstdc++.log
For me, the testsuite failure is caused by:
FAIL: 23_containers/set/explicit_instantiation/1.cc (test for excess errors)
Excess errors:
--- Additional Comments From mdweb at web dot de 2005-07-18 11:14 ---
Sorry, my sentence with 'inherit directly' was missing the point and probably
misleading.
Both A::foo() and A::i are _static_ public, so they should be accessible
directly. The example
gcc-3.4 introduced a syntax for compilation with inter-module analysis:
$ gcc -c foo1.c foo2.c -o foo.o
gcc-4.0 performs the same with the command-line option -combine:
$ gcc -combine -c foo1.c foo2.c -o foo.o
But Makefiles that have already switched to using the gcc-3.4 invocation
--- Additional Comments From zadeck at naturalbridge dot com 2005-07-18
11:53 ---
I am not a language lawyer (at least with respect to c) but it seems that the
intent of the committee in n was to limit when you were looking at a
union,
Dr 257 seems to be only talking about what
--- Additional Comments From ralfixx at gmx dot de 2005-07-18 12:03 ---
Thanks. At this point in 3_4-branch go only very-very safe changes. Therefore,
before considering fixing in that branch too the problem (*), let's test the
new algorithm in mainline and 4_0-branch for a while.
Compiling the example below with g++ from snapshot 4.1.0 20050716 causes
the following error message:
g++ -S cpp_parse_internal_error.cpp
cpp_parse_internal_error.cpp: In function 'int main()':
cpp_parse_internal_error.cpp:23: internal compiler error: tree check: expected
class 'type', have
--
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Known to fail||4.1.0
Known to work|
--- Additional Comments From pcarlini at suse dot de 2005-07-18 12:28
---
I'm wondering why this problem does not break tons of code,
Just read the audit trail, about that. In particular my comment #3: portable C++
code using pipes has better being very very careful with short reads,
--- Additional Comments From jh at suse dot cz 2005-07-18 12:45 ---
Subject: Re: Poor x86-64 performance with 128bit ints
--- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-18
07:47 ---
The 128 bits arithmetic has improved now:
typedef unsigned long
void foo(void)
{
int i[2];
i[2] = 0;
i[3] = 0;
}
does not get warned on, even with -Wall. This might catch some subtle
bugs in gcc itself.
--
Summary: does not warn for out-of-bound array access
Product: gcc
Version: 4.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
--- Additional Comments From pcarlini at suse dot de 2005-07-18 13:45
---
How does this relate to mudflap?!?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22546
http://j3-fortran.org/doc/standing/2003/007.pdf contains on page 376 (360) in
section 13.8.2 the ISO_FORTRAN_ENV intrinsic module, which supplies some
constants for:
- CHARACTER_STORAGE_SIZE (e.g. integer, parameter :: CHARACTER_STORAGE_SIZE = 8)
- ERROR_UNIT (e.g. integer, parameter :: ERROR_UNIT
--- Additional Comments From pcarlini at suse dot de 2005-07-18 14:01
---
My vague idea would be that mudflap already does this (and *much* more). Maybe
a small part of its logic could be moved to a compile-time warning.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22546
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-18
14:02 ---
(In reply to comment #1)
How does this relate to mudflap?!?
Compile time vs runtime warnings.
This is also a dup of bug 8268.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 8268 ***
*** This bug has
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-18
14:02 ---
*** Bug 22546 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-18
14:06 ---
Not a GCC bug, report this to binutils as GCC invokes as correctly:
C:/Programme/WinAVR/bin/../lib/gcc/avr/3.4.3/../../../../avr/bin/as.exe --tradi
tional-format -mmcu=atmega16 -adhlns=Serial.lst -o
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-18
14:10 ---
Confirmed, 3.4 ICEs when checking is turned on too. Likewise for 4.0.0.
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-18
14:35 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
ultimately, things have to be written by a system call, and a system call is
expensive. (One system call per array element is out of the question.)
With the current
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-18
14:39 ---
Does not matter as A gets injected into B as a name. If you want ::A use that
instead.
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-18
14:41 ---
An updated patch is here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-07/msg01140.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18992
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-18
14:41 ---
Confirmed.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-18
14:42 ---
Note GCC 3.3 gave an error:
gcc: cannot specify -o with -c or -S and multiple compilations
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22544
--
What|Removed |Added
CC||pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot
||org
GCC build
For the following testcase (s is global so SRA cannot decompose it), aliasing
can not tell that the store to s.i[1] does not alias s.i[0]. So instead of
optimizing this to return 3; at the tree-level, we do a load of s.i[0].
struct { int i[2]; } s;
int foo(void)
{
s.i[0] = 1;
s.i[1] = 2;
--
What|Removed |Added
BugsThisDependsOn||22548
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22501
--
What|Removed |Added
URL||http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-
||patches/2005-
|
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-18
14:55 ---
Confirmed, related a little bit to PR 2480.
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-18
14:57 ---
Subject: Bug 21848
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Branch: sh-elf-4_1-branch
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-07-18 14:57:06
Modified files:
gcc:
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-18
14:57 ---
Subject: Bug 20370
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Branch: sh-elf-4_1-branch
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-07-18 14:57:06
Modified files:
gcc:
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-18
14:57 ---
Subject: Bug 18992
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Branch: sh-elf-4_1-branch
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-07-18 14:57:06
Modified files:
gcc:
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-18
14:57 ---
Subject: Bug 12142
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Branch: sh-elf-4_1-branch
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-07-18 14:57:06
Modified files:
gcc:
While looking at having a better error message (giving types in the message
operands to ?: have different types, I found a strange behaviour of gcc.
When a variable is declared local (a function parameter) it gives the message
no match for 'operator-' and when declared global it gives the above
--- Additional Comments From bangerth at dealii dot org 2005-07-18 14:59
---
Andrew is correct: if you write A::foo, then access happens within
the class hierarchy, where foo is inaccessible. If you want to access
foo from the outside, where it is accessible, you need to write
--- Additional Comments From theodore dot papadopoulo at sophia dot inria
dot fr 2005-07-18 15:00 ---
Created an attachment (id=9301)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=9301action=view)
The two function should give the same error message!!!
--
--- Additional Comments From ralfixx at gmx dot de 2005-07-18 15:01 ---
portable C++ code using pipes has better being very very
careful with short reads, because the current Standard is
way too vague in this area
I prefer C++ for the abstractions it allows. Having to code my I/O
--
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #9301|application/octet-stream|text/plain
mime type||
Compiling the example below with g++ from snapshot 4.1.0 20050716 causes
the following error message:
g++ -O2 ICE_vrp.cpp
ICE_vrp.cpp: In function 'int main()':
ICE_vrp.cpp:17: internal compiler error: in vrp_evaluate_conditional, at
tree-vrp.c:3048
Version 3.4.4 correctly creates an
--
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Known to fail||4.1.0
Known to work|
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-18
15:09 ---
I think the error message is fine for being different as there is no way to
convert const A to char.
Take the following reduced testcase:
struct A {
A(const char);
operator char(); /* We cannot
--- Additional Comments From bangerth at dealii dot org 2005-07-18 15:12
---
I can see how this is happening, and I believe the compiler is correct.
Take this slight modification of the code:
---
struct A {
A(const char);
operator char();
};
extern
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-18
15:14 ---
Confirmed, VRP is not allowing an INTEGER_CST in a condtional expression.
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-18
15:16 ---
The other issue is cleanup CFG is not doing its job really, well really its
full job.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22550
On Mon, 2005-07-18 at 15:12 +, bangerth at dealii dot org wrote:
--- Additional Comments From bangerth at dealii dot org 2005-07-18 15:12
---
I can see how this is happening, and I believe the compiler is correct.
Take this slight modification of the code:
Sorry, it was right
--- Additional Comments From theodore dot papadopoulo at sophia dot inria
dot fr 2005-07-18 15:26 ---
Subject: Re: Differing error messages depending on
thelocality of a variable
On Mon, 2005-07-18 at 15:12 +, bangerth at dealii dot org wrote:
--- Additional Comments
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-18
15:44 ---
Subject: Bug 22263
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-07-18 15:44:36
Modified files:
gcc/testsuite : ChangeLog
gcc/cp :
--- Additional Comments From pcarlini at suse dot de 2005-07-18 15:56
---
Let's pronounce it [k#601;#712;p#650;t] then :-)
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Kaput
Yes. My point was simply that in order to have the attention of the maintainers
you don't need to use exagerated expressions.
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-18
17:08 ---
Subject: Bug 22263
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Branch: gcc-4_0-branch
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-07-18 17:08:22
Modified files:
gcc/cp :
--- Additional Comments From kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-18 17:15
---
This should be fairly straight forward to implement. The
question is where do we put the module and 8.o file. Is
${prefix}/lib/modules a good enough place? There is also
the possibility of
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-18
17:18 ---
Confirmed.
--
What|Removed |Added
OtherBugsDependingO||20585
This code was distilled from debian source pose_3.5-7.dsc (The Palm OS
Emulator).
The bug manifests after a number of warning: overflow in implicit constant
conversion and then internal compiler error: in tree_low_cst, at tree.c:3843.
There must be at least 5 warnings or the ICE does not
--- Additional Comments From mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-18
17:22 ---
Fixed in 4.0.2.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Additional Comments From emailwastefilter-bugzillagccorg at yahoo dot
com 2005-07-18 17:23 ---
Created an attachment (id=9302)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=9302action=view)
Testcase which causes the ICE
Same as the code that was pasted in the report (just
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-18
20:54 ---
Subject: Bug 21058
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-07-18 20:54:01
Modified files:
libjava: ChangeLog Makefile.in sources.am
--- Additional Comments From tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-18
18:35 ---
I'm testing a patch for this.
I didn't fix libtool but instead changed how we perform these compilations.
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-18
18:36 ---
Just FYI, 4.0.x is open again.
This fix could go in now.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21943
--- Additional Comments From tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-18
20:58 ---
I checked in a fix on the trunk.
I think this is already fixed on the 4.0 branch.
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From pcarlini at suse dot de 2005-07-18 18:39
---
Fixed for 3.4.4 too.
--
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[4.0/4.1 Regression]
--- Additional Comments From tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-18
20:59 ---
Does this also fail with 4.0.x?
If so perhaps we need LANG=C sort there.
On the trunk I fixed this in a different way.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22283
--- Additional Comments From pcarlini at suse dot de 2005-07-18 18:40
---
Sorry, I meant 3.4.5.
--
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|3.4.4 |4.0.1
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-18
17:27 ---
Hmm, 0x8000+1 overflows which is invalid for constant expressions and
really should be
rejected.
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From david dot nospam dot hopwood at blueyonder dot
co dot uk 2005-07-18 20:30 ---
Note that the fix is only for Linux. For other platforms, see bug 20705.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=
It would be nice to have an option for gfortran that emits a warning when an
undeclared function or subroutine is called. This would be similar to
-Wimplicit-interface, except that this new warning would also accept
non-explicit interfaces. For example, the fragment
external a
call a
--- Additional Comments From jbucata at tulsaconnect dot com 2005-07-18
21:11 ---
FWIW, I'm trying 4.1.0 beta 20050716, and it does better than 4.0.1.
-funroll-loops still slows it down (about 0.5s vs without it), but without, 4.1
shaves about 1.5 seconds off user time vs 4.0.1 (about
--- Additional Comments From fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-18
21:38 ---
Can't reproduce it any more. Sorry.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-18
17:41 ---
Subject: Bug 21333
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Branch: gcc-4_0-branch
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-07-18 17:40:51
Modified files:
libgfortran:
--- Additional Comments From tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-18
17:41 ---
Fixed in 4.0.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Additional Comments From fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-18
21:42 ---
This is part of my patch for complete large kinds support (see for example
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2005-06/msg00433.html). Will submit all this once
I get back home.
--
What|Removed
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-18
21:42 ---
(In reply to comment #1)
on ppc ices in:
The PPC bug is a different bug for sure which I have a patch and testing it
right now.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22533
--- Additional Comments From fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-18
21:43 ---
I noticed that one when I worked on large kinds I/O but didn't know what format
to choose for real(10) and real(16). Any ideas welcome.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22436
Building a C/C++ cross-compiler targeting sh4-linux fails with
include/ext/bitmap_allocator.h:1085: internal compiler error: in spill_failure,
at reload1.c:1889
I grabbed the preprocessed source, and was able to reproduce it with
the commandline
gcc-4.1-20050716-glibc-2.3.2/build-gcc/./gcc/xgcc
--- Additional Comments From dank at kegel dot com 2005-07-18 19:10 ---
Created an attachment (id=9303)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=9303action=view)
Preprocessed source showing the problem
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From dank at kegel dot com 2005-07-18 19:10 ---
Created an attachment (id=9303)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=9303action=view)
Preprocessed source showing the problem
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From emailwastefilter-bugzillagccorg at yahoo dot
com 2005-07-18 18:03 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
Hmm, 0x8000+1 overflows which is invalid for constant expressions and
really should be
rejected.
The warnings seem on the money, but they should not cause
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-18
22:04 ---
Confirmed.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-18
18:05 ---
If you add -pedantic and compile your example, you will see that we error out
instead of accepting the
code.
You might want to use unsigned instead of signed as signed overflow is
undefined.
--
--- Additional Comments From tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-18
18:07 ---
Confirmed with 4.0 and cvs trunk.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
1 - 100 of 119 matches
Mail list logo
