--- Comment #3 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-27 13:00 ---
Confirmed. This is a diagnostics bug. (And perhaps a duplicate).
Thanks for the report. If you would like to contribute a patch, please read
http://gcc.gnu.org/contribute.html
--
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #14 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-27 13:42 ---
(In reply to comment #13)
Thanks a lot for taking the time to write a patch for this. I do have one
question: if I'm reading the patch correctly, this postpones warnings about
unrecognised options not just for -Wno
--- Comment #4 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-26 14:04 ---
Subject: Bug 34351
Author: manu
Date: Tue Feb 26 14:04:09 2008
New Revision: 132675
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=132675
Log:
2008-02-26 Manuel Lopez-Ibanez [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR 34351
--- Comment #5 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-26 14:06 ---
Fixed in 4.4.
--
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
--- Comment #12 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-26 14:17 ---
Subject: Bug 26264
Author: manu
Date: Tue Feb 26 14:16:13 2008
New Revision: 132677
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=132677
Log:
2008-02-26 Manuel Lopez-Ibanez [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR
--- Comment #13 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-26 14:45 ---
Fixed in GCC 4.4
--
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status
--- Comment #1 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-26 19:02 ---
H.J.
Could you suggest a more robust testcase?
Or if that is not possible, there should be a way to only compile the testcase
for valid targets. Ideas?
--
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What
--- Comment #3 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-26 20:14 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
You can use
/* { dg-add-options register } */
register int * volatile x asm REGISTER; /* { dg-warning optimization may
eliminate reads and/or writes to register variables } */
You
--- Comment #10 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-25 23:42 ---
Subject: Bug 28322
Author: manu
Date: Mon Feb 25 23:41:43 2008
New Revision: 132648
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=132648
Log:
2008-02-26 Manuel Lopez-Ibanez [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR
--- Comment #11 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-26 00:59 ---
The main request of this bug (ignore unknown -Wno-* options) has been committed
to 4.4. Is there anything else left to do?
As for
5. The changes to implement (1) and (2) should be backported to
earlier GCCs
--- Comment #1 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-20 21:14 ---
Confirmed.
--
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC
--- Comment #7 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-19 10:34 ---
Come on HJL, don't be so pessimistic...
--
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #8 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-19 10:35 ---
...this is FIXED in GCC 4.3 and trunk ;-)
(thanks to you!)
--
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #12 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-19 11:20 ---
Nick,
Didn't this got approved for GCC 4.3? Notice that you committed the patch
*after* GCC 4.3 branched. Also:
+ description = _(The following options are specific to the just the
language );
should
--- Comment #14 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-19 14:44 ---
Didn't this got approved for GCC 4.3?
No. :-(
Too bad. On the other hand, we can close this, can't we?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31349
--- Comment #16 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-19 16:15 ---
Fixed in GCC 4.4.
--
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status
--- Comment #17 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-20 01:10 ---
(In reply to comment #16)
Is there any possibility of getting a fix for this into 4.3.0?
No. GCC 4.3 will be released soon and this isn't even marked as a regression
(much less a P1 regression).
--
manu at gcc
--- Comment #10 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-19 02:20 ---
Paul,
notice that you fixed this *after* GCC 4.3 branched, so if your intention was
to fix it also for GCC 4.3, you would need to commit the fix to the branch (and
get a RM to approve it).
--
manu at gcc dot gnu
--
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Last
--- Comment #3 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-17 21:56 ---
And the message:
foo.cc:16: error: expected ';' before 'baz2'
is just broken. What does
typedef foosizeof(T)::unsigned_t;
is supposed to mean?
It is obvious that something went wrong here.
--
manu at gcc dot
--- Comment #2 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-17 21:51 ---
The C++ parser can probably mention 'typename' in the error message.
--
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #8 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-16 16:29 ---
Subject: Bug 28368
Author: manu
Date: Sat Feb 16 16:29:12 2008
New Revision: 132367
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=132367
Log:
2008-02-16 Manuel Lopez-Ibanez [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR c
--- Comment #9 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-16 18:16 ---
Subject: Bug 28368
Author: manu
Date: Sat Feb 16 18:15:20 2008
New Revision: 132368
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=132368
Log:
2008-02-16 Manuel Lopez-Ibanez [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR c
--- Comment #8 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-16 18:16 ---
Closing. Thanks for the report anyway.
--
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #10 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-16 18:20 ---
The new description in GCC 4.3 and GCC 4.2.4 should clarify this from now on.
--
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #6 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-16 17:50 ---
Please do not expect a compilable testcase from me. 1) I don't know whether
this is a bug, 2) have no experience in gcc testcases.
The above is a testcase. See http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs.html#report on how to make
--- Comment #2 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-15 10:24 ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 7654 ***
--
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #8 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-15 10:24 ---
*** Bug 35207 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 2008-02-15 10:36 ---
It is not clear whether we want such a warning or not (and in 6 years, just 2
people have suggested it not too loudly). But if we do:
* -Wstrict-enums seems a better name. It should be consistent and not handle
only
--- Comment #9 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-15 11:09 ---
(In reply to comment #0)
enum E { A };
...
E e = static_castE (10);
Yes, i know that result of this is undefined.
Is this true? I haven't found any mention of this.
However, previous versions of g++ (and every
--- Comment #5 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-15 11:25 ---
I am not sure how we want to fix this bug.
A possible fix is to have 2 behaviours, one with -std=cX and another with
-std=gnuX. So, for -std=cX we always convert enum values to integer, while for
-std=gnuX we don't
--- Comment #11 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-15 11:32 ---
(In reply to comment #10)
Is this true? I haven't found any mention of this.
It is at least unspecified.
So warning makes sense then, doesn't it? But perhaps the wording is not ideal.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org
--- Comment #13 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-15 11:42 ---
(In reply to comment #12)
It should probably say that it will truncate the value, which is what will
happen.
That doesn't happen. The result of the conversion is 10 in GCC 4.3. It seems it
doesn't need to be 10
--- Comment #3 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-15 14:36 ---
Andrew,
what is the status of this bug? It seems fixed in trunk. Do you want to fix it
in the branches or should we close it?
--
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #6 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-15 16:34 ---
Some more findings:
build_binary_op receives two parameters of type int: '(int)x' and '0x7fff'
then it performs the shorten magic that seems right and produces:
bit_and_expr
type integer_type short int
arg 0
--- Comment #7 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-15 16:53 ---
So fold_unary is transforming (T)(x c) into (T)x (T)c. Which is exactly the
opposite transformation that build_binary_op just performed! Weird...
So I see two options:
* Either teach fold_unary to avoid
--- Comment #8 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-15 18:04 ---
This patch fixes this bug but it is an ugly hack. Perhaps such an ugly hack is
the only thing we can do at the moment.
Once bootstrapping + testing finishes, I will submit.
Index: gcc/c-common.c
--- Comment #12 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-14 23:39 ---
Fixed in GCC 4.3 per Jason's commit. Not worth fixing it in branches.
--
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #15 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-13 11:13 ---
I am going to close this as a duplicate of 5645 and post a patch there that
includes the testcases of both PRs. Both bugs are about the definition (or lack
of it) of this warning.
*** This bug has been marked
--- Comment #8 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-13 11:13 ---
*** Bug 11159 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-13 11:16 ---
Subject: Bug 29673
Author: manu
Date: Wed Feb 13 11:15:51 2008
New Revision: 132284
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=132284
Log:
2008-02-13 Manuel Lopez-Ibanez [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR 29673
--- Comment #9 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-13 11:23 ---
Created an attachment (id=15136)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=15136action=view)
patch and testcases
This patch contains an attempt to implement the suggestions given here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml
--- Comment #10 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-13 11:38 ---
Created an attachment (id=15137)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=15137action=view)
patch and testcases
Correct patch, the previous one did not contain pr11159.C
--
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #4 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-13 11:42 ---
Subject: Bug 29673
Author: manu
Date: Wed Feb 13 11:41:23 2008
New Revision: 132285
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=132285
Log:
2008-02-13 Manuel Lopez-Ibanez [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR 29673
--- Comment #5 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-13 11:42 ---
Fixed code and doc in 4.3.0, fixed doc in 4.2.4.
--
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-13 21:05 ---
This is confirmed. H.J., are you waiting for something to commit to 4.2 or
should this be closed?
--
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #7 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-13 21:08 ---
Is this still a problem in a recent GCC ?
--
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-13 22:10 ---
Confirmed in GCC 4.3 revision 132291.
--
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-14 02:15 ---
I have a patch for this but it is not suitable for stage3, so it'll have to
wait until 4.4.
--
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #10 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-12 09:28 ---
Old unsupported GCC version, three years since last confirmed, sco... close?
--
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-12 10:09 ---
Confirmed.
--
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC
--- Comment #2 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-12 22:38 ---
Please, try with the new -Wconversion (http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/NewWconversion),
it shouldn't warn for values that fit (without changing sign) into the target
type.
Nevertheless, perhaps it may be interesting to make
--- Comment #4 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-12 14:25 ---
This bug is confirmed.
--
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-11 16:44 ---
This seems confirmed
--
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status
--- Comment #9 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-11 23:43 ---
(In reply to comment #8)
This bug is present in gcc 3.4.3. Was ever fixed or forgotten forever?
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ ~/132202/build/gcc/cc1plus --version
GNU C++ (GCC) version 4.3.0 20080209 (experimental) [trunk
--- Comment #4 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-10 13:01 ---
This is still a problem in GCC 4.1.2 and GCC 4.3
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ ./test
terminate called after throwing an instance of 'std::bad_cast'
what(): St8bad_cast
foobarAborted
--
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #8 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-10 13:38 ---
I am all for making parser errors more accurate but I honestly think we should
close this as WONTFIX because this particular testcase is a waste of time. I
don't think automatic reduction is possible since small
--- Comment #3 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-10 13:41 ---
CCing ARM maintainers.
--
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-10 13:43 ---
CCing ARM maintainers.
--
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #5 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-10 14:08 ---
Confirmed in g++ 4.3.
--
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC
--- Comment #1 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-10 14:43 ---
This was fixed by:
r113201 | doko | 2006-04-23 20:15:34 +0200 (Sun, 23 Apr 2006) | 4 lines
2006-04-22 Matthias Klose [EMAIL PROTECTED
--- Comment #2 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-10 14:50 ---
I think this is confirmed.
--
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-10 15:52 ---
Tom, as the libcpp maintainer, could you give your opinion about this? I
personally think a warning could be useful, it may point out some bug in an
auto-generated file. Moreover, I think that the standard also require
--- Comment #3 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-10 16:12 ---
Also, I noticed that there is an implicit conversion from ulong to uint when
calling _cpp_do_file_change in do_linemarker. That is the point where the
truncation takes place.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla
--- Comment #2 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-10 16:20 ---
This seems to have slipped through the cracks, sorry about that.
This works for me in GCC 4.3 and gcc 3.4.1 is too old already. Please, reopen
if you are still able to reproduce the bug with a recent release of GCC
--- Comment #6 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-08 09:01 ---
(In reply to comment #5)
As i know C++ doesn't support VLA. Please update me if i m wrong.
That is why it is an extension. There are many things that GCC supports and ISO
C++ doesn't. Read the GCC's manual
--- Comment #6 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-09 00:23 ---
(In reply to comment #5)
Could you please tell me which standard does not allow it, and if a previous
standard does allow it.
The only thing I can tell you is that in our codebase the code is commented
--- Comment #1 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-07 19:56 ---
Created an attachment (id=15117)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=15117action=view)
Patch
Bootstrapped with --enable-languages=all and regression tested on
x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
--
manu at gcc
: enhancement
Priority: P3
Component: c
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: manu at gcc dot gnu dot org
BugsThisDependsOn: 33702
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35129
--- Comment #3 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-07 20:50 ---
Fixed in GCC 4.2.4 and GCC 4.3. I don't think it is worth to fix this in
earlier versions.
--
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-07 20:49 ---
Subject: Bug 32754
Author: manu
Date: Thu Feb 7 20:48:24 2008
New Revision: 132175
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=132175
Log:
2008-02-07 Manuel Lopez-Ibanez [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR other
--- Comment #1 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-07 20:19 ---
Sorry for the delay, this seems to have fallend through bugzilla's cracks.
GCC 3.3.1 is not supported anymore. Can you reproduce the bug in a recent
release like GCC 4.2.3 or preferably in GCC 4.3?
Thanks
--- Comment #1 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-07 20:41 ---
Subject: Bug 32754
Author: manu
Date: Thu Feb 7 20:40:19 2008
New Revision: 132174
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=132174
Log:
2008-02-07 Manuel Lopez-Ibanez [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR other
--- Comment #2 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-07 19:57 ---
Got the blocks/depends thing wrong, sorry.
--
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-07 16:07 ---
Also, you should get a warning when using -Wuninitialized -O (or -Wall -O).
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35125
--- Comment #5 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-07 20:56 ---
Cachis, I didn't find this when searching. Anyway, there is a patch that fixes
this in PR35129.
--
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #17 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-07 00:12 ---
Try dropping --enable-checking=release from your configure. Or alternatively,
finding out on which revision it broke by doing a regression hunt. If you need
help with the latter, mail me privately and I will explain
--- Comment #2 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-07 07:44 ---
Regressions need a target milestone, otherwise they don't appear in the list of
regressions.
--
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #5 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-05 11:21 ---
You should use OPT_Wtype_limits instead of OPT_Wextra.
Also, the code could simply do:
+ tree op0 = TREE_OPERAND (cond, 0);
+ tree op1 = TREE_OPERAND (cond, 1);
+ tree type = TREE_TYPE (op0
--
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
OtherBugsDependingO||33702
nThis||
Target
--- Comment #7 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-04 11:08 ---
(In reply to comment #6)
I can't reproduce the problem that showed up with
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/2008-02/msg00328.html so closing.
Wow, that was weird... Hardware glitch?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org
--- Comment #13 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-04 20:37 ---
Created an attachment (id=15095)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=15095action=view)
Reduced testcase (16K) GCC 4.3
I can't reduce this further, so I post it here in case someone wants to give
--- Comment #14 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-04 20:39 ---
Created an attachment (id=15096)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=15096action=view)
Test for a valid testcase
This is the test I am using for reducing the testcase. If you change something
and run
--- Comment #2 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-03 13:36 ---
Created an attachment (id=15084)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=15084action=view)
patch
This patch fixes the problem. Testcases for this would be cumbersome but could
be created if required. Are we
--- Comment #1 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-02 12:52 ---
Add alias to this bug.
--
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-02 12:52 ---
Patch here: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2008-02/msg00044.html
I miss the patch tracker :(
--
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-02 21:15 ---
Thanks for the report.
Any warning that does not show with -fdiagnostics-show-option is very likely to
not work with -Werror= and viceversa, so please report all of them that you
find.
--
manu at gcc dot gnu dot
--- Comment #6 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-01 13:10 ---
Reported almost 4 years ago, never confirmed. Is this still valid?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14743
--- Comment #8 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-01 16:28 ---
(In reply to comment #6)
Here is what happens (note that, differently from what was the case, now the
warning is give three times in a row):
The is used warning is the same issue with virtual operands. The relevant
--- Comment #9 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-01 16:29 ---
Changing subject to something more informative.
--
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-01 17:08 ---
... to mark as a duplicate of PR 27289. They are almost the same testcase. The
other one is shorter.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 27289 ***
--
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed
--- Comment #4 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-01 17:08 ---
Argh, the other way around (this testcase is shorter).
--
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #20 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-01 17:05 ---
See comment 17 and comment 19. This is fixed by chance by CCP, so not worth to
keep it open.
--
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-01 17:02 ---
Reopen temporarily ...
--
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-01 17:05 ---
... to mark as a duplicate of PR 29479. They are almost the same testcase.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 29479 ***
--
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #3 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-01 17:05 ---
*** Bug 27289 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29479
--- Comment #5 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-01 17:08 ---
*** Bug 29479 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27289
--- Comment #6 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-01 17:10 ---
Confirmed with GNU C (GCC) version 4.3.0 20080122 (experimental)
(x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu)
--
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #16 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-01 17:55 ---
Somehow after SRA we end up creating a PHI node with an empty definition:
# BLOCK 5 freq:2931, starting at line 7057
# PRED: 276 [98.0%] (true,exec) 3 [98.0%] (true,exec)
# inf$sideD.88720_393 = PHI inf
--- Comment #2 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-01 17:00 ---
Not a duplicate of PR 5035, sice that one is fixed and this isn't.
--
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
901 - 1000 of 1559 matches
Mail list logo
