* [Bug objc++/31134] objc-act.c:570: error: comparison is always false
2007-03-11 14:40 [Bug objc++/31134] New: objc-act.c:570: error: comparison is always false danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2007-03-11 14:42 ` danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-03-11 15:03 ` schwab at suse dot de
` (7 subsequent siblings)
8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2007-03-11 14:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #1 from danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-03-11 14:42 -------
Occurs in stage2.
dave@mx3210:~/gnu/gcc-4.3/objdir/prev-gcc$ ./xgcc -B./ -v
Reading specs from ./specs
Target: hppa-linux
Configured with: ../gcc/configure --with-gnu-as --with-gnu-ld --enable-shared
--prefix=/home/dave/opt/gnu/gcc/gcc-4.3.0
--with-local-prefix=/home/dave/opt/gnu --enable-threads=posix
--enable-__cxa_atexit --build=hppa-linux --enable-clocale=gnu
--enable-java-gc=boehm --enable-java-awt=xlib
--enable-languages=c,c++,objc,fortran,java,obj-c++,ada
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.3.0 20070310 (experimental)
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31134
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* [Bug objc++/31134] objc-act.c:570: error: comparison is always false
2007-03-11 14:40 [Bug objc++/31134] New: objc-act.c:570: error: comparison is always false danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-03-11 14:42 ` [Bug objc++/31134] " danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2007-03-11 15:03 ` schwab at suse dot de
2007-03-11 22:53 ` [Bug objc++/31134] [4.3 Regression] Objective-C++ has ran into the tree number limit dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca
` (6 subsequent siblings)
8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: schwab at suse dot de @ 2007-03-11 15:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #2 from schwab at suse dot de 2007-03-11 15:02 -------
The limit on the number of tree codes is reached (LAST_CPLUS_TREE_CODE = 251,
LAST_OBJC_TREE_CODE = 262).
--
schwab at suse dot de changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
GCC build triplet|hppa-unknown-linux-gnu |
GCC host triplet|hppa-unknown-linux-gnu |
GCC target triplet|hppa-unknown-linux-gnu |
Keywords| |build
Last reconfirmed|0000-00-00 00:00:00 |2007-03-11 15:02:59
date| |
Target Milestone|--- |4.3.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31134
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* [Bug objc++/31134] [4.3 Regression] Objective-C++ has ran into the tree number limit
2007-03-11 14:40 [Bug objc++/31134] New: objc-act.c:570: error: comparison is always false danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-03-11 14:42 ` [Bug objc++/31134] " danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-03-11 15:03 ` schwab at suse dot de
@ 2007-03-11 22:53 ` dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca
2007-03-11 23:48 ` pcarlini at suse dot de
` (5 subsequent siblings)
8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca @ 2007-03-11 22:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #3 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2007-03-11 22:53 -------
Subject: Re: [4.3 Regression] Objective-C++ has ran into the tree number limit
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Summary|objc-act.c:570: error: |[4.3 Regression] Objective-
> |comparison is always false |C++ has ran into the tree
> | |number limit
Don't like to name people, but I suppose this patch should be reverted:
2007-03-09 Douglas Gregor <doug.gregor@gmail.com>
PR c++/20599
* typeck.c (check_return_expr): Check for bare parameter packs.
(comptypes): Compare template parameter packs and
type pack expansions.
...
Dave
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31134
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* [Bug objc++/31134] [4.3 Regression] Objective-C++ has ran into the tree number limit
2007-03-11 14:40 [Bug objc++/31134] New: objc-act.c:570: error: comparison is always false danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2007-03-11 22:53 ` [Bug objc++/31134] [4.3 Regression] Objective-C++ has ran into the tree number limit dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca
@ 2007-03-11 23:48 ` pcarlini at suse dot de
2007-03-12 0:56 ` dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca
` (4 subsequent siblings)
8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: pcarlini at suse dot de @ 2007-03-11 23:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #4 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-03-11 23:48 -------
(In reply to comment #3)
> Don't like to name people, but I suppose this patch should be reverted:
Please, please, don't do that! Instead, let's solve the real issue with the
tree-codes limit once and for all, because sooner or later we have to do that
anyway (as Rth, among others, also maintained time ago, in the occasion of the
GOMP additions)
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31134
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* [Bug objc++/31134] [4.3 Regression] Objective-C++ has ran into the tree number limit
2007-03-11 14:40 [Bug objc++/31134] New: objc-act.c:570: error: comparison is always false danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2007-03-11 23:48 ` pcarlini at suse dot de
@ 2007-03-12 0:56 ` dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca
2007-03-12 1:04 ` pcarlini at suse dot de
` (3 subsequent siblings)
8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca @ 2007-03-12 0:56 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #5 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2007-03-12 00:55 -------
Subject: Re: [4.3 Regression] Objective-C++ has ran into the tree number limit
> > Don't like to name people, but I suppose this patch should be reverted:
>
> Please, please, don't do that! Instead, let's solve the real issue with the
> tree-codes limit once and for all, because sooner or later we have to do that
> anyway (as Rth, among others, also maintained time ago, in the occasion of the
> GOMP additions)
I recognize that the patch contains a very significant body of work.
I also realize that the tree code limit needs fixing. However,
that may require a significant increase in memory for trees. That's
why I added the comment.
It's not fair to trade one feature for another (variadic templates
for obj-c++).
There's been no discussion on the impact of fixing the tree code limit.
I note that a 15% compile time memory usage regression,
<http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-03/msg00652.html>,
would be considered a release blocker.
The patch was obviously not fully tested, or the problem was overlooked.
As a backend maintainer, I've seen build and check times grow substantially
with every new release. So, I'm highly suspicious of the process used
to introduce major new features. The tree code limit should have been
fixed first.
Dave
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31134
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* [Bug objc++/31134] [4.3 Regression] Objective-C++ has ran into the tree number limit
2007-03-11 14:40 [Bug objc++/31134] New: objc-act.c:570: error: comparison is always false danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2007-03-12 0:56 ` dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca
@ 2007-03-12 1:04 ` pcarlini at suse dot de
2007-03-12 5:05 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (2 subsequent siblings)
8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: pcarlini at suse dot de @ 2007-03-12 1:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #6 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-03-12 01:04 -------
> It's not fair to trade one feature for another (variadic templates
> for obj-c++).
I agree.
> There's been no discussion on the impact of fixing the tree code limit.
> I note that a 15% compile time memory usage regression,
> <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-03/msg00652.html>,
> would be considered a release blocker.
By the way, that issue has been already analyzed and seems solvable rather
easily, Doug is working on it with Richard' help.
> The patch was obviously not fully tested, or the problem was overlooked.
> As a backend maintainer, I've seen build and check times grow substantially
> with every new release. So, I'm highly suspicious of the process used
> to introduce major new features. The tree code limit should have been
> fixed first.
Yes, you have a point. But now, since because of our "lazyness" we never
managed to attack the tree code limit, let's take this "crisis" as an occasion
to do that, or at least let's try to our best, instead of reverting completely
Doug' work, which is incredibly important for our implementation of C++0x
features and, I would say, gives GCC a great competitive advantage.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31134
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* [Bug objc++/31134] [4.3 Regression] Objective-C++ has ran into the tree number limit
2007-03-11 14:40 [Bug objc++/31134] New: objc-act.c:570: error: comparison is always false danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2007-03-12 1:04 ` pcarlini at suse dot de
@ 2007-03-12 5:05 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-03-12 9:08 ` pcarlini at suse dot de
2007-03-28 18:46 ` dgregor at gcc dot gnu dot org
8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2007-03-12 5:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #7 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-03-12 05:05 -------
Even though Objective-C++ is not a release blocker, it would be nice for all of
the C++ patches to test with objective-C++ on and really that should be a
requirement. I rather see Objective-C++ working than C++0x. The features that
C++0x give are not as good as the features give by Objective-C++ in my mind.
Though the objective-C++ can reduce the number of tree codes it uses, the
number will only be by like 2-3. Objective-C++ uses only 10 extra tree codes
about C++ so really C++ is going to hit the limit soon if we are not careful
anyways.
Also adding new features should not break old features so Doug in my mind you
should revert your patch in 48 hours if you cannot fix it by then, I requesting
this as the GNU libobjc maintainer.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Severity|normal |blocker
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31134
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* [Bug objc++/31134] [4.3 Regression] Objective-C++ has ran into the tree number limit
2007-03-11 14:40 [Bug objc++/31134] New: objc-act.c:570: error: comparison is always false danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (6 preceding siblings ...)
2007-03-12 5:05 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2007-03-12 9:08 ` pcarlini at suse dot de
2007-03-28 18:46 ` dgregor at gcc dot gnu dot org
8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: pcarlini at suse dot de @ 2007-03-12 9:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #8 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-03-12 09:07 -------
(In reply to comment #7)
> Also adding new features should not break old features
Here we are not talking about trade-offs, that should be rather clear by now.
We are talking about fixing for real the underlying very serious issue with the
tree code limit which otherwise blocks development in many new areas.
Temporarily, Doug can well revert his patch but the limit **must** be removed
anyway.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31134
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* [Bug objc++/31134] [4.3 Regression] Objective-C++ has ran into the tree number limit
2007-03-11 14:40 [Bug objc++/31134] New: objc-act.c:570: error: comparison is always false danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (7 preceding siblings ...)
2007-03-12 9:08 ` pcarlini at suse dot de
@ 2007-03-28 18:46 ` dgregor at gcc dot gnu dot org
8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: dgregor at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2007-03-28 18:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #9 from dgregor at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-03-28 19:46 -------
This problem has been solved by 16-bit tree codes:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-03/msg01721.html
--
dgregor at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution| |FIXED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31134
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread