Compile the following code with options -march=armv5te -mthumb -Os -fpic
extern int i;
int foo(int j)
{
int t = i;
i = j;
return t;
}
GCC generates following code:
foo:
ldr r3, .L2// A
ldr r2, .L2+4 // B
.LPIC0:
add r3, pc // A
--- Comment #6 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-20 08:31 ---
Subject: Bug 42958
Author: burnus
Date: Sat Feb 20 08:31:25 2010
New Revision: 156923
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=156923
Log:
2010-02-20 Tobias Burnus bur...@net-b.de
PR
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 19, 2010, at 10:51 PM, glenn at zewt dot org gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org
wrote:
--- Comment #3 from glenn at zewt dot org 2010-02-20 06:51
---
(4:16? I havn't seen that before. I hope gcc isn't going to start
outputting character offsets by default;
--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gmail dot com 2010-02-20 09:00 ---
Subject: Re: at this point in file warnings are upside down
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 19, 2010, at 10:51 PM, glenn at zewt dot org gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org
wrote:
--- Comment #3 from glenn at zewt dot org
--- Comment #12 from danny dot backx at scarlet dot be 2010-02-20 09:55
---
Re: comments #9, 11
I don't understand this comment. Is it a simple observation, or should I
be able to draw conclusions about the origin of the problem from this?
Re: comment #10
I don't know whether
--- Comment #1 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-20 10:40 ---
What are the excess messages?
--
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 20, 2010, at 2:40 AM, manu at gcc dot gnu dot org gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org
wrote:
--- Comment #1 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-20
10:40 ---
What are the excess messages?
The problem is simple c does nit have overloaded functions. I am
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gmail dot com 2010-02-20 11:00 ---
Subject: Re: c-c++-common/pr41779.c doesn't work
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 20, 2010, at 2:40 AM, manu at gcc dot gnu dot org
gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org
wrote:
--- Comment #1 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #13 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-20 11:14 ---
We're using bugzilla to share what we find in our efforts to debug your
problem. So it is observations.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43047
--- Comment #3 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-20 11:51 ---
Subject: Bug 43128
Author: manu
Date: Sat Feb 20 11:51:02 2010
New Revision: 156924
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=156924
Log:
2010-02-20 Manuel López-Ibáñez m...@gcc.gnu.org
PR
--- Comment #4 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-20 11:51 ---
Andrew,
Sorry I read your message after hitting commit!
Is it fixed now?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43128
--
steven at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rearnsha at gcc dot gnu dot
|
--- Comment #3 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-20 12:47 ---
Subject: Bug 43111
Author: pault
Date: Sat Feb 20 12:46:43 2010
New Revision: 156926
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=156926
Log:
2010-02-20 Paul Thomas pa...@gcc.gnu.org
PR
--- Comment #4 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-20 12:47 ---
Subject: Bug 43072
Author: pault
Date: Sat Feb 20 12:46:43 2010
New Revision: 156926
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=156926
Log:
2010-02-20 Paul Thomas pa...@gcc.gnu.org
PR
--- Comment #12 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-20 12:47 ---
Subject: Bug 36932
Author: pault
Date: Sat Feb 20 12:46:43 2010
New Revision: 156926
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=156926
Log:
2010-02-20 Paul Thomas pa...@gcc.gnu.org
PR
--- Comment #8 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-20 12:47 ---
Subject: Bug 36933
Author: pault
Date: Sat Feb 20 12:46:43 2010
New Revision: 156926
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=156926
Log:
2010-02-20 Paul Thomas pa...@gcc.gnu.org
PR
--- Comment #4 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-20 12:47 ---
Fixed.
Paul
--
pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #5 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-20 13:52 ---
Fixed.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
--- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-20 14:00 ---
You can even use
virtual ptr clone () const
{
return new object(*this);
}
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43127
--- Comment #11 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-20 14:03
---
Are they marked as DECL_PRESERVED_P? No, they are not.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41674
--- Comment #14 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-20 14:08
---
On trunk I get:
foo:
subl$44, %esp
movl48(%esp), %eax
movaps (%eax), %xmm0
leal16(%esp), %eax
movl%eax, (%esp)
movaps %xmm0, 16(%esp)
call
--- Comment #3 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-20 14:28 ---
Fixed.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #5 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-20 15:31 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
(4:16? I havn't seen that before. I hope gcc isn't going to start
outputting character offsets by default; that's a lot of noise.)
From GCC 4.5, you can disable it with -fno-show-column.
--- Comment #6 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2010-02-20 15:53 ---
On Linux/ia32, I still got
Executing on host: /export/gnu/import/svn/gcc-test/bld/gcc/xgcc
-B/export/gnu/import/svn/gcc-test/bld/gcc/
/export/gnu/import/svn/gcc-test/src-trunk/gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/pr41779.c
--- Comment #6 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-20 15:56 ---
I have a patch.
--
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Hi all. When I compile gcc-4.4.3 on Mac OS X 10.6 (x86_64) with this
configuration:
./configure --prefix=/usr/local/openseeslib/gcc/4.4.3/
--enable-languages=c,c++,objc,obj-c++,fortran
--with-gmp=/usr/local/openseeslib/gmp/4.3.2/
--with-mpfr=/usr/local/openseeslib/mpfr/2.4.2/
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-20 16:23 ---
Yes have Apple submit their patches for -mdynamic-no-pic for x86_64.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #10 from cgerdy at wanadoo dot fr 2010-02-20 16:24 ---
Subject: Re: bug with gfortran on Windows vista, correct on Linux
I made a new test with an older version of gfortran I had download on your
Internet page for Windows :
http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/GFortranBinaries and on
--- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-20 16:24 ---
This is a powerpc-only option.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from hresquiveloa at gmail dot com 2010-02-20 16:58 ---
Thanks Andrew and Richard for your quick reply.
If this is a powerpc-only option, why I can successfully compile the program on
x86_64 by using the default gcc? Ok... the program I am trying to compile is
Tcl-8.5.8
--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-20 17:05 ---
As I mentioned Apple has not contributed the option support back to the FSF for
x86_64-darwin yet. For TCL building, you might want to go and ask the TCL
folks.
--
--- Comment #5 from hresquiveloa at gmail dot com 2010-02-20 17:07 ---
Ok Thanks!
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43130
--- Comment #3 from mrs at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-20 17:28 ---
Subject: Bug 43125
Author: mrs
Date: Sat Feb 20 17:28:14 2010
New Revision: 156927
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=156927
Log:
PR middle-end/43125
* c-decl.c (merge_decls): Merge
--- Comment #2 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-20 17:56 ---
This bug is too old, too vague and probably fixed.
--
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #16 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-20 17:58 ---
Finally (!) posted the patch...
--
steven at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from stvwooddell at embarqmail dot com 2010-02-20 18:01
---
This compiles for you?
virtual ptr clone () const
{
return new object(*this);
}
gives me the error that a function matching the copy
--- Comment #3 from stvwooddell at embarqmail dot com 2010-02-20 18:13
---
Scratch that, that's a error from a file that shouldn't even exist. Copied the
given code to a clean project and it compiled. So bug, but a miscommunication
in that the constructor is being implicitly add so
--- Comment #2 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-20 18:19 ---
Jason, do we want this?
It seems trivial:
Index: gcc/cp/typeck.c
===
--- gcc/cp/typeck.c (revision 156923)
+++ gcc/cp/typeck.c (working copy)
@@
--- Comment #2 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-20 18:35 ---
This is confirmed in C and C++. The front-ends need location information
everywhere. Any help is appreciated.
--
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-20 18:47 ---
You are using an assignment as a truth value and that is a typical error when
ones confuses == with =, so we warn. Add parenthesis as the warning suggest
bool = (nobool = value) or silence the warning with the
--- Comment #2 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-20 18:59 ---
Unfortunately, I have to agree with Wolfgang. We could do better with caret
diagnostics but that is still far away. Sorry, closing as WONTFIX.
--
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #3 from jason at redhat dot com 2010-02-20 20:15 ---
Subject: Re: Cast to pointer from integer of different size
On 02/20/2010 01:19 PM, manu at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
Jason, do we want this?
Sure.
Jason
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28584
--- Comment #26 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-20 21:32 ---
Subject: Bug 35669
Author: manu
Date: Sat Feb 20 21:32:06 2010
New Revision: 156928
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=156928
Log:
2010-02-20 Manuel López-Ibáñez m...@gcc.gnu.org
PR
--- Comment #27 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-20 21:38 ---
FIXED in GCC 4.5
--
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
--- Comment #13 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-20 21:46 ---
Can this PR be closed? I think all items are fixed.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36932
--- Comment #5 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-20 21:48 ---
Can this PR be closed? I think it is fixed now.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43072
--- Comment #22 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-20 21:51 ---
Can this PR be closed as FIXED?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41113
--- Comment #4 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-20 21:51 ---
Can this PR be closed as FIXED?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41117
--- Comment #4 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-20 21:56 ---
Rob, this is very old. Is it still a problem?
--
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-20 22:08 ---
Marking it as STATIC will become difficult with SUBMODULES as one has several
.o files belonging to one common MODULE, i.e. the function shall be accessible
by all submodules, which are scattered over several .o
--- Comment #2 from uros at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-20 22:11 ---
Subject: Bug 43067
Author: uros
Date: Sat Feb 20 22:11:32 2010
New Revision: 156929
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=156929
Log:
PR target/43067
* config/i386/sse.md
--- Comment #25 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-20 22:11 ---
Can you summarize what it left to do?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32972
--- Comment #3 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-20 22:17 ---
Close as FIXED. Seemingly, the issues reported here are now fixed. Cf.
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2010-02/msg00162.html and PR 36932, PR 36933, PR
43072, and PR 43111.
--
burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
--- Comment #3 from ubizjak at gmail dot com 2010-02-20 22:19 ---
Fixed.
--
ubizjak at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL|
--- Comment #2 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-20 23:02 ---
Is this solved? Anyway, this does not seem to be a bug in GCC.
--
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-20 23:10 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
Either a gcc-4_3-trunk/contrib/README (might as well describe all the files)
_or_ a oneliner in gcc-4_3-trunk/README that explains to:
Use contrib/gcc_update to get the newest revision
--- Comment #6 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-20 23:17 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
I'll be glad to make the patch, just send me the scripts that are used to read
the reports and perform breakage e-mailing and I'll ensure that my patch is
compatable.
--- Comment #7 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-20 23:18 ---
Bah, Rob is not even reading mail anymore, so why bother to have this open.
No patch, no clear problem, no one is interested, so closing.
--
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #4 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-20 23:23 ---
Is this a valid bug? Really, you should split the bug into components so the
respective maintainers can know about their corresponding warnings. Not
everybody reads all PRs.
--
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
--- Comment #25 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-20 23:43 ---
I understand that this is INVALID because all the points raised by comment #21.
If crlibm is better than what we have, but we cannot use it, it is the same as
if it didn't exist.
--
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #5 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-20 23:47 ---
Is this stil valid? Patches go to gcc-patches, see also
http://gcc.gnu.org/contribute.html
--
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
jason at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.5.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35669
--- Comment #3 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-20 23:56 ---
(In reply to comment #1)
The main reason why is that we don't process the initializer for foo if we get
an error.
What? Don't we process the initializer of foo before processing bar()? That is
weird.
But we still
--- Comment #4 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-21 00:02 ---
This is not going to happen because no one working on GCC is interested on
pursuing it. Your only chance is
1) to do it yourself to show GCC devs that can be done and it is beneficial.
2) to pay someone to do it
--- Comment #2 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-21 00:14 ---
Apart from Andrea's answer, you can use PRIu32 to print uint32_type. See
inttypes.h in your system for the complete list.
Closing.
--
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #8 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-21 00:17 ---
(In reply to comment #5)
I filed the bug because it seems like this would be at least marginally
useful,
and this way people can find it / read the discussion / whatever. Even if the
end result is WONTFIX, that at
--- Comment #1 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-21 00:21 ---
Confirmed in GCC 4.5
This whole business with the parenthesis to avoid warning in this case always
seemed fishy to me.
--
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #7 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-21 00:30 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
As another data-point,
if ( (a=10) ) ;
also doesn't warn. I'm not sure what the standard says on that, but other
contemporary compilers do give the an assignment used as truth value
--- Comment #1 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-21 00:31 ---
*** Bug 32587 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-21 00:31 ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 32614 ***
--
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-21 00:32 ---
wrong duplicate
--
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-21 00:33 ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 25733 ***
--
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #8 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-21 00:33 ---
*** Bug 32587 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #9 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-21 00:34 ---
Another testcase:
int bar(int a, int b, int c)
{
if ((b = c) (a == 0))
{
return 0;
}
return 1;
}
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25733
--- Comment #3 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-21 00:38 ---
I agree with the reporter. The warning text suggests what it is actually not
the most common solution and it fails miserably in some cases (see PR 25733).
--
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What
--- Comment #2 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-21 00:46 ---
Tom,
this is not a code bug. Perhaps is the wrong default. So please, unless you
want to change the current default, commit your doc patch and let someone
interested in changing the default to get a patch
--- Comment #3 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-21 00:48 ---
4.1.x is already too old, so if you cannot reproduce it in a recent version, we
consider this FIXED.
--
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-21 00:48 ---
Thanks for the report, nonetheless.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32750
--- Comment #1 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-21 00:52 ---
Confirmed. Please send a patch to gcc-patc...@gcc.gnu.org.
--
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-21 01:05 ---
I understand that this is not a bug, so closing. Please Paolo, reopen if I am
mistaken.
--
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-21 01:06 ---
What does EDG say? What is the problem? This bug summary is too vague.
--
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #10 from bangerth at gmail dot com 2010-02-21 01:25 ---
(In reply to comment #7)
(In reply to comment #3)
As another data-point,
if ( (a=10) ) ;
also doesn't warn. I'm not sure what the standard says on that, but other
contemporary compilers do give the an
--- Comment #2 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-21 01:27 ---
Confirmed. The problem is that constant_value_1 has the following code:
if (!init
|| !TREE_TYPE (init)
|| (integral_p
? !INTEGRAL_OR_ENUMERATION_TYPE_P (TREE_TYPE (init))
--- Comment #2 from bangerth at gmail dot com 2010-02-21 01:27 ---
I don't see what should be warned about. The 'const' in the signature of
'f' has no effect here, but it also doesn't hurt -- its presence or
absence simply doesn't make a difference.
W.
--
bangerth at gmail dot com
--- Comment #5 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-02-21 01:31
---
Reopen...
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #6 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-02-21 01:31
---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 35353 ***
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #14 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-02-21 01:31
---
*** Bug 33852 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #7 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-21 01:34 ---
Given Richard's comment, I am confirming this.
Joseph,
bugzilla is too busy to keep track of conversations. If you have questions
about gcc development, go to g...@gcc.gnu.org. See also
--- Comment #11 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-21 01:43 ---
I am not saying that the warning is not useful. I am saying that the current
behaviour of not warning if there are parenthesis is not ideal.
So either:
if ((bool) a = 0)
or
if ( (a=0) != 0)
seem much better
--- Comment #11 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-21 04:06
---
I have been able to reproduce this with the binary from the wiki. We get an
END condition at line 5 of the test file. You have to use the test case with:
character(len = n2):: ligne
I have a vague
--- Comment #30 from veksler at il dot ibm dot com 2010-02-21 07:52 ---
(In reply to comment #25)
It would probably be useful to add a preprocessor macro when -fwrapv is
in effect.
Wouldn't it be a violation of the one definition rule (ODR),
when one translation unit is compiled
91 matches
Mail list logo
