--- Comment #3 from pluto at agmk dot net 2009-07-07 10:33 ---
sounds like PR36485.
--
pluto at agmk dot net changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
--- Comment #6 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-07-07 10:25 ---
(In reply to comment #5)
>
> Thus code is undefined you have an acess of a char array as a struct.
> Yes you are only taking the address of an element but it is still
> considered an acess by the standards.
I see
--- Comment #2 from mikpe at it dot uu dot se 2009-07-07 10:18 ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> Now I'm trying to compile gcc-4.4.0 configured as follows:
>
> ../gcc-4.4.0/configure --build=x86_64-pc-linux-gnu --host=x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
> --target=x86_64-pc-linux-gnu --enable-languages=c
--- Comment #4 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-07-07 10:01 ---
4.4 will need a backport of PR40328 as well. Your attached patch is ok.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot
|
--- Comment #3 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-07-07 09:46 ---
Created an attachment (id=18150)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=18150&action=view)
gcc45-pr40669.patch
Patch I'm going to bootstrap/regtest.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=406
--- Comment #1 from carrot at google dot com 2009-07-07 09:38 ---
Created an attachment (id=18149)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=18149&action=view)
test case
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40670
Compile following function with options -Os -mthumb -march=armv5te
float return_zero()
{
return 0;
}
Gcc generates:
ldr r0, .L2
bx lr
.L3:
.align 2
.L2:
.word 0
Floating point 0 is also integer 0. So the function body can be simplified as
mo
--- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-07-07 09:23 ---
Yeah, PR40328. Then we are left with
t.i: In function test:
t.i:22: error: invalid operand to binary operator
add_acc.0_64
t.i:22: error: invalid operand to binary operator
add_acc.0_64
t.i:22: internal compile
--- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-07-07 09:15 ---
With my local 4.3 copy it prints
t.i: In function test:
t.i:22: error: PHI def is not a GIMPLE value
add_acc.0_64 = PHI (0), add_acc.0_60(7),
add_acc.0_64(6), add_acc.0_64(4)>
COMPLEX_EXPR <0.0, 0.0>;
t.i:22: er
--- Comment #2 from debian-gcc at lists dot debian dot org 2009-07-07
09:08 ---
proposed patch at http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-07/msg00322.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40134
--- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-07-07 09:07 ---
Why do you limit your stack boundary artificially?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40667
--
jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.4.1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40669
double _Complex
test (int d, int t, double *x, double *y, double *z, int n,
double _Complex (*fnp) (double))
{
int m = n / 2;
double min = y[t], max = z[t], med = x[m * d + t];
double _Complex result = 0.0;
if (n == 0)
return 0.0;
if (min > med)
result += test (d, (t + 1)
101 - 114 of 114 matches
Mail list logo
