From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3742 invoked by alias); 18 Jan 2008 14:49:56 -0000 Received: (qmail 3518 invoked by uid 48); 18 Jan 2008 14:49:09 -0000 Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2008 15:23:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20080118144909.3517.qmail@sourceware.org> X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC References: Subject: [Bug c/34841] 'make check' of libsndfile-1.0.17 fails with gcc-4.2.2 -O2 optimization, OK with -O1 one In-Reply-To: Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org From: "manu at gcc dot gnu dot org" Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2008-01/txt/msg01945.txt.bz2 ------- Comment #17 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-18 14:49 ------- (In reply to comment #15) > With CFLAGS='-O2 -Wstrict-overflow=5' still there is no warnings in > 'make_check.log': > > If I do _not_ have "-Wstrict-overflow", I _do_ have these warnings during > compilation: Any of those looks like a bug to me. At a minimum, one warning flag that doesn't warn should not affect another that does. > Folks, libsndfile is easy to compile - it has (kind of) no external > dependencies, i.e. it depends only on basic libraries like libm, glibc, etc., > so you can easily conduct such experiments yourselves - the the needed "beef", > including libsdnfile sources, is in the uploaded file. I personally hack gcc in my precious free time. The larger the file that triggers the bug, the harder and tedious it becomes to simply understand what is going on, let alone having a chance to fix it. -- manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Keywords| |diagnostic Last reconfirmed|0000-00-00 00:00:00 |2008-01-18 14:49:09 date| | http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34841