* [Bug preprocessor/16621] [3.5 Regression] C4x fails miserably
2004-07-18 22:33 [Bug target/16621] New: C4x fails miserably steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2004-07-18 22:43 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-11-27 0:36 ` [Bug preprocessor/16621] [4.0 " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (7 subsequent siblings)
8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2004-07-18 22:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-07-18 22:43 -------
Zack you had said that libcpp should not dependent on HOST_WIDE_INT, here is the bug filed for that
since it effects C4x.
Confirmed.
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |zack at gcc dot gnu dot org
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Component|target |preprocessor
Ever Confirmed| |1
Keywords| |rejects-valid
Last reconfirmed|0000-00-00 00:00:00 |2004-07-18 22:43:35
date| |
Summary|C4x fails miserably |[3.5 Regression] C4x fails
| |miserably
Target Milestone|--- |3.5.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16621
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread* [Bug preprocessor/16621] [4.0 Regression] C4x fails miserably
2004-07-18 22:33 [Bug target/16621] New: C4x fails miserably steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-07-18 22:43 ` [Bug preprocessor/16621] [3.5 Regression] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2004-11-27 0:36 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-11-27 18:44 ` neroden at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (6 subsequent siblings)
8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2004-11-27 0:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-27 00:36 -------
Any news on this bug, it has been opened for a while now (4 months) and no news about it.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16621
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread* [Bug preprocessor/16621] [4.0 Regression] C4x fails miserably
2004-07-18 22:33 [Bug target/16621] New: C4x fails miserably steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-07-18 22:43 ` [Bug preprocessor/16621] [3.5 Regression] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-11-27 0:36 ` [Bug preprocessor/16621] [4.0 " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2004-11-27 18:44 ` neroden at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-11-27 19:13 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (5 subsequent siblings)
8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: neroden at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2004-11-27 18:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From neroden at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-27 18:44 -------
libcpp no longer uses HOST_WIDE_INT.
The computation which leads to the error is done in c-decl.c in "target
arithmetic" as follows:
/* Compute the maximum valid index, that is, size
- 1. Do the calculation in index_type, so that
if it is a variable the computations will be
done in the proper mode. */
itype = fold (build2 (MINUS_EXPR, index_type,
convert (index_type, size),
convert (index_type,
size_one_node)));
/* If that overflowed, the array is too big. ???
While a size of INT_MAX+1 technically shouldn't
cause an overflow (because we subtract 1), the
overflow is recorded during the conversion to
index_type, before the subtraction. Handling
this case seems like an unnecessary
complication. */
if (TREE_OVERFLOW (itype))
{
error ("size of array %qs is too large", name);
type = error_mark_node;
continue;
}
This looks OK.
Steven, can you possibly check to see whether this bug still exists in
mainline?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16621
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread* [Bug preprocessor/16621] [4.0 Regression] C4x fails miserably
2004-07-18 22:33 [Bug target/16621] New: C4x fails miserably steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2004-11-27 18:44 ` neroden at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2004-11-27 19:13 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-11-27 19:15 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (4 subsequent siblings)
8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2004-11-27 19:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-27 19:13 -------
Yes libcpp still uses HOST_WIDE_INT:
include/cpplib.h:typedef unsigned HOST_WIDE_INT cpp_num_part;
plus we use cpp_num_part all over the place in libcpp.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16621
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread* [Bug preprocessor/16621] [4.0 Regression] C4x fails miserably
2004-07-18 22:33 [Bug target/16621] New: C4x fails miserably steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2004-11-27 19:13 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2004-11-27 19:15 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-11-27 20:10 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (3 subsequent siblings)
8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2004-11-27 19:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-27 19:15 -------
But again ways this is now fixed.
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution| |FIXED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16621
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread* [Bug preprocessor/16621] [4.0 Regression] C4x fails miserably
2004-07-18 22:33 [Bug target/16621] New: C4x fails miserably steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2004-11-27 19:15 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2004-11-27 20:10 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-11-27 20:13 ` giovannibajo at libero dot it
` (2 subsequent siblings)
8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: steven at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2004-11-27 20:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-27 20:10 -------
Have you actually verified that this is fixed?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16621
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread* [Bug preprocessor/16621] [4.0 Regression] C4x fails miserably
2004-07-18 22:33 [Bug target/16621] New: C4x fails miserably steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2004-11-27 20:10 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2004-11-27 20:13 ` giovannibajo at libero dot it
2004-11-27 20:14 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-11-27 20:25 ` zack at codesourcery dot com
8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: giovannibajo at libero dot it @ 2004-11-27 20:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2004-11-27 20:13 -------
Reopening until someone builds a C4x compiler and test it first-hand.
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|RESOLVED |REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED |
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16621
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread* [Bug preprocessor/16621] [4.0 Regression] C4x fails miserably
2004-07-18 22:33 [Bug target/16621] New: C4x fails miserably steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (6 preceding siblings ...)
2004-11-27 20:13 ` giovannibajo at libero dot it
@ 2004-11-27 20:14 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-11-27 20:25 ` zack at codesourcery dot com
8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2004-11-27 20:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-27 20:14 -------
Yes I did verify it was fixed:
[zhivago:gcc/objdir-c4x/gcc] pinskia% cat t.c
int i[2];
[zhivago:gcc/objdir-c4x/gcc] pinskia% ./cc1 -version t.c
GNU C version 4.0.0 20041126 (experimental) (c4x-unknown-elf)
compiled by GNU C version 3.3 20030304 (Apple Computer, Inc. build 1495).
GGC heuristics: --param ggc-min-expand=30 --param ggc-min-heapsize=4096
options passed:
options enabled: -falign-loops -fargument-alias -fbranch-count-reg
-fcommon -feliminate-unused-debug-types -ffinite-math-only -ffunction-cse
-fgcse-lm -fident -fivopts -fkeep-static-consts -fleading-underscore
-floop-optimize2 -fpeephole -freg-struct-return -fsched-interblock
-fsched-spec -fsched-stalled-insns-dep -fsplit-ivs-in-unroller
-ftree-loop-im -ftree-loop-ivcanon -ftree-loop-optimize
-funsafe-math-optimizations -fvar-tracking -fzero-initialized-in-bss
-mrptb -m40 -mparallel-insns -mparallel-mpy -maliases
Execution times (seconds)
parser : 0.01 (33%) usr 0.00 ( 0%) sys 0.02 (10%) wall
symout : 0.00 ( 0%) usr 0.01 (25%) sys 0.01 ( 5%) wall
TOTAL : 0.03 0.04 0.21
Extra diagnostic checks enabled; compiler may run slowly.
Configure with --disable-checking to disable checks.
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|REOPENED |RESOLVED
Resolution| |FIXED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16621
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread* [Bug preprocessor/16621] [4.0 Regression] C4x fails miserably
2004-07-18 22:33 [Bug target/16621] New: C4x fails miserably steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (7 preceding siblings ...)
2004-11-27 20:14 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2004-11-27 20:25 ` zack at codesourcery dot com
8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: zack at codesourcery dot com @ 2004-11-27 20:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From zack at codesourcery dot com 2004-11-27 20:25 -------
Subject: Re: [4.0 Regression] C4x fails miserably
I have no plans to do anything about this bug. Someone who cares
about C4x should look at it.
zw
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16621
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread