--- Comment #22 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-03-12 18:27
---
Danny, please apply the patch to 4.2.0.
Thanks,
-- Mark
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28544
--- Comment #23 from dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-03-12 19:09
---
Subject: Bug 28544
Author: dberlin
Date: Mon Mar 12 19:09:05 2007
New Revision: 122857
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=122857
Log:
2007-03-12 Daniel Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Fix PR
--- Comment #24 from dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-03-12 19:12
---
Fixed
--
dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #20 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-19 23:33
---
Is there a backport of the mainline patch that I could review, or ask another
maintainer to review for inclusion in 4.2?
Thanks,
-- Mark
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28544
--- Comment #21 from dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-19 23:41
---
(In reply to comment #20)
Is there a backport of the mainline patch that I could review, or ask another
maintainer to review for inclusion in 4.2?
Thanks,
-- Mark
The attached patch named
--- Comment #19 from howarth at nitro dot med dot uc dot edu 2007-02-04
17:23 ---
Did the patch fixing this on gcc 4.2 branch get posted to the gcc-patches
mailing list?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28544
--- Comment #17 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-01 16:40
---
Still fails on the 4.2 branch.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #18 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-01 16:41
---
And yes, the attached fixes it.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28544
--- Comment #9 from tbm at cyrius dot com 2006-09-02 13:27 ---
Here's another testcase. It fails at -O3. Is this code problematic too?
(sid)45:[EMAIL PROTECTED]: ~] /usr/lib/gcc-snapshot/bin/g++ -c -O3
p7zip-SHA256.cc
p7zip-SHA256.cc: In member function 'void
--- Comment #10 from tbm at cyrius dot com 2006-09-02 13:27 ---
Created an attachment (id=12174)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=12174action=view)
test case
Testcase from application p7zip.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28544
--- Comment #11 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-02 16:29
---
(In reply to comment #9)
Here's another testcase. It fails at -O3. Is this code problematic too?
No it is not problematic but it is a different bug. Can you file it
seperately?
--
--- Comment #12 from tbm at cyrius dot com 2006-09-02 16:34 ---
(In reply to comment #11)
(In reply to comment #9)
Here's another testcase. It fails at -O3. Is this code problematic too?
No it is not problematic but it is a different bug. Can you file it
seperately?
Sure,
--- Comment #8 from dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-08-09 14:38 ---
I can trivially fix this, but the code isn't going to do what you want when i'm
done, since it is an aliasing violation :)
The assert in question just happens to be good at catching them.
--
--
dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot
|dot org
--- Comment #7 from janis at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-08-08 15:54 ---
A regression hunt using an i686-linux cross compiler with the testcase from
comment #6 identified the following patch:
http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?view=revrev=111300
r111300 | dberlin | 2006-02-20 13:38:01
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28544
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-30 13:53 ---
First I like to say this is violating C++ aliasing rules but that is a
different story.
Second this is most likely a dup of bug 28479.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #2 from tbm at cyrius dot com 2006-07-30 13:55 ---
(In reply to comment #1)
First I like to say this is violating C++ aliasing rules but that is a
different story.
Second this is most likely a dup of bug 28479.
Are you sure you got that bug number right? I'm seeing
--- Comment #3 from tbm at cyrius dot com 2006-07-30 13:59 ---
Reproducible with gcc 4.2.0 way back to 20060325. I've nothing older around
right now.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28544
--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-30 14:26 ---
Oh, yes it is unrelated to that PR. In fact I think the aliasing violating
causes the problem.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #5 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-30 14:44 ---
Confirmed (reduced C and C++ testcases:
typedef unsigned long int ulong;
typedef struct
{
volatile int counter;
}atomic_t;
static ulong volatile Cversion = 0;
void
sp_cache_invalidate ()
{
atomic_t * v1 =
--- Comment #6 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-30 14:45 ---
Even without the volatile, it ICEs:
typedef unsigned long int ulong;
typedef struct
{
int counter;
}atomic_t;
static ulong Cversion = 0;
void
sp_cache_invalidate ()
{
atomic_t * v1 = (atomic_t *) Cversion;
22 matches
Mail list logo
