From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-425846-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 6378 invoked by alias); 6 Jul 2013 09:13:30 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 6347 invoked by uid 48); 6 Jul 2013 09:13:26 -0000
From: "manu at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c++/16093] Bad error messages for missing declarations.
Date: Sat, 06 Jul 2013 09:13:00 -0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: c++
X-Bugzilla-Version: 4.0.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: diagnostic
X-Bugzilla-Severity: enhancement
X-Bugzilla-Who: manu at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags:
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields:
Message-ID: <bug-16093-4-dfrwWlpMdh@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-16093-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-16093-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-SW-Source: 2013-07/txt/msg00353.txt.bz2

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D16093

--- Comment #7 from Manuel L=C3=B3pez-Ib=C3=A1=C3=B1ez <manu at gcc dot gnu=
.org> ---
(In reply to Paolo Carlini from comment #6)
> Honestly I didn't pay attention to the second testcase and didn't consider
> the first issue serious enough ;) Anyway, let's keep this open for now,
> thanks.

The first issue is just a "nice-to-have" thing, but not very important. As =
for
the second issue, it is already opened in a more general way at PR52277.
>>From gcc-bugs-return-425847-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org Sat Jul 06 09:25:41 2013
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-425847-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Delivered-To: listarch-gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 12457 invoked by alias); 6 Jul 2013 09:25:41 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Delivered-To: mailing list gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 12402 invoked by uid 48); 6 Jul 2013 09:25:36 -0000
From: "jakub at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug debug/57835] variable tracking produces weird const
Date: Sat, 06 Jul 2013 09:25:00 -0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: debug
X-Bugzilla-Version: unknown
X-Bugzilla-Keywords:
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags:
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: cc
Message-ID: <bug-57835-4-sFqCaR2tMp@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-57835-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-57835-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-SW-Source: 2013-07/txt/msg00354.txt.bz2
Content-length: 593

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57835

Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org

--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
And what exactly do you think is wrong about it?
The value of res looks to be really some_reg + (&from_ucs4 - 100), and
in RTL it is standard to place CONST around SYMBOL_REF plus CONST_INT, that
value doesn't change.