From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30580 invoked by alias); 12 May 2014 15:38:30 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 30534 invoked by uid 48); 12 May 2014 15:38:26 -0000 From: "manu at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug c/39438] Can't compile a wrapper around strftime with -Werror=format-nonliteral Date: Mon, 12 May 2014 15:38:00 -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: 4.3.2 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: manu 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: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: 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: 2014-05/txt/msg01040.txt.bz2 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D39438 --- Comment #7 from Manuel L=C3=B3pez-Ib=C3=A1=C3=B1ez --- (In reply to D. Hugh Redelmeier from comment #6) > > The best would be to include only the definitions of the types that you= need > and declare as 'extern' library functions that you use to avoid inc= luding headers. >=20 > I didn't do this part. My excuses: the type declarations are not portable > but the example should be; the solution might be in fixing headers; this = way > is shorter too. If you compile with --save-temps (as the instruction say), you will see what GCC parses. All that code makes debugging more complex. So if someone had to debug this, he would have to cut down that code to a few lines. This is one reason why examples should be minimal. >>From gcc-bugs-return-451349-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org Mon May 12 15:44:19 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: listarch-gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 1464 invoked by alias); 12 May 2014 15:44:19 -0000 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 Delivered-To: mailing list gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 1434 invoked by uid 48); 12 May 2014 15:44:15 -0000 From: "matthijs at stdin dot nl" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug target/60300] [avr] Suboptimal stack pointer manipulation for frame setup Date: Mon, 12 May 2014 15:44:00 -0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: target X-Bugzilla-Version: 4.8.2 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: matthijs at stdin dot nl 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: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: 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: 2014-05/txt/msg01041.txt.bz2 Content-length: 727 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60300 --- Comment #5 from Matthijs Kooijman --- Ah, then the comments are a bit misleading, yes. Wouldn't it make sense to put this decision outside of avr_sp_immediate_operand, in the same area where the decision between the two options is made? Might lead to a bit of duplication, though, it seems the function is callled twice. In any case, from a user perspective, it surprises me that this exception is made, even when compiling with -Os. Wouldn't it make sense to ignore the range check with -Os? Or is -Os really only used to determine the list of optimizations to (not) run and not supposed to influence the behaviour of the compiler otherwise?