http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57647
--- Comment #7 from vijay Nag ---
(In reply to vijay Nag from comment #6)
> (In reply to Andreas Schwab from comment #5)
> > ((unsigned long*)foo)++ and ((unsigned long *)foo++) are not equivalent
> > expressions. The former is the same as foo =
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57647
--- Comment #6 from vijay Nag ---
(In reply to Andreas Schwab from comment #5)
> ((unsigned long*)foo)++ and ((unsigned long *)foo++) are not equivalent
> expressions. The former is the same as foo = (char *)((unsigned long*)foo +
> 1), the latte
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57647
--- Comment #4 from vijay Nag ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #3)
> It should work for any type, but, why don't you do only foo++;, i.e. drop
> the cast? In that case there shouldn't be value computed is not used
> warning.
Pointer A
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57647
--- Comment #2 from vijay Nag ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #1)
> While 4.7 issues warning: value computed is not used, 4.8 and 4.9 do not for
> int
> main ()
> {
> char bar = 4;
> char *foo = &bar;
> (unsigned long *)foo++;
>
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: vijunag at gmail dot com
I recently upgraded my gcc compiler from 3.4.X to 4.7.2 for my project.
Consider the following expression
char *foo = &bar;
((unsigned long*)foo)++
While gcc 3.4.X was more forgiving of this issue, 4.7.2 b
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57635
--- Comment #2 from vijay Nag ---
With the compiler flag "-fno-var-tracking", it compiles in less than a minute.
Although it is quite conspicuous from back-trace I thought it is worth
mentioning this info.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57635
--- Comment #1 from vijay Nag ---
Let me know if you will need any additional information. It is also difficult
to isolate one single huge file from my project to attach it here. It will be
great if you can suggest me to proceed in some direction
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: vijunag at gmail dot com
to gcc
Hello,
I recently upgraded my compiler to 4.7.2 and I'm trying to compile a huge file
containing as much as 92840 lines and gcc is taking an eternity to compile.
(more than 18 hours)
I see vi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57531
--- Comment #5 from vijay Nag ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #4)
> I think the problem is the comma operator causes it to be a rvalue. In that
> ((void)0, x) is considered rvalue rather than what you want as a lvalue.
>
> Note C doe
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57531
vijay Nag changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vijunag at gmail dot com
Severity
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57531
--- Comment #3 from vijay Nag ---
(In reply to vijay Nag from comment #2)
> Sorry for the confusion. Please try the unit test case below
>
> #include
>
> /*remove assert in production*/
>
> #define ASSERT(x) (void)0
> #define GET_VALUE_A(valu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57531
vijay Nag changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c++ |c
Severity|normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57531
vijay Nag changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |critical
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: vijunag at gmail dot com
Following expression cannot be compiled using gcc-4.7.2 where as the same
statement is perfectly acceptable by gcc version 4.4.5
(void) 0, a = b;
[vinag]$ ~/tools/bintools/linux-x86/gcc/201302221200/bin/i686-pc
14 matches
Mail list logo
