* [Bug c/56724] sub-optimal location in error
[not found] <bug-56724-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
@ 2013-03-25 18:45 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-03-25 18:46 ` tromey at gcc dot gnu.org
` (13 subsequent siblings)
14 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2013-03-25 18:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56724
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> 2013-03-25 18:45:24 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #0)
> t.c: In function ‘docall’:
> t.c:8:3: warning: passing argument 3 of ‘callf’ from incompatible pointer type
> [enabled by default]
> If you have many parameters, it can be hard to find the right one.
Though it does say the 3rd argument though.
>From gcc-bugs-return-418379-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org Mon Mar 25 18:46:53 2013
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-418379-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Delivered-To: listarch-gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 6588 invoked by alias); 25 Mar 2013 18:46:53 -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 6509 invoked by uid 48); 25 Mar 2013 18:46:46 -0000
From: "paolo.carlini at oracle dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c++/56723] wrong location in error message
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2013 18:46:00 -0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: c++
X-Bugzilla-Keywords:
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: paolo.carlini at oracle dot com
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Status Last reconfirmed Ever Confirmed
Message-ID: <bug-56723-4-624eIPQw7g@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-56723-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-56723-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-SW-Source: 2013-03/txt/msg01820.txt.bz2
Content-length: 736
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?idV723
Paolo Carlini <paolo.carlini at oracle dot com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed| |2013-03-25
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Paolo Carlini <paolo.carlini at oracle dot com> 2013-03-25 18:46:46 UTC ---
Unfortunately, only by chance "slightly": AFAICS the column is at the closing
round bracket. Compare:
int f (int *);
int callf (int (*)(double *), int, int);
int docall(void)
{
return callf (f, 23, 72);
}
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread* [Bug c/56724] sub-optimal location in error
[not found] <bug-56724-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
2013-03-25 18:45 ` [Bug c/56724] sub-optimal location in error pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2013-03-25 18:46 ` tromey at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-03-26 7:25 ` mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
` (12 subsequent siblings)
14 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: tromey at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2013-03-25 18:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56724
--- Comment #3 from Tom Tromey <tromey at gcc dot gnu.org> 2013-03-25 18:46:47 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> Though it does say the 3rd argument though.
Sure, it is just nicer if the compiler counts commas instead of me doing it.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread* [Bug c/56724] sub-optimal location in error
[not found] <bug-56724-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
2013-03-25 18:45 ` [Bug c/56724] sub-optimal location in error pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-03-25 18:46 ` tromey at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2014-03-26 7:25 ` mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-05-15 15:50 ` tromey at gcc dot gnu.org
` (11 subsequent siblings)
14 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2014-03-26 7:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56724
Marek Polacek <mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed| |2014-03-26
CC| |mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek <mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Confirmed. I though about tweaking this, too. I may look at it in next
stage1, but not assigning right now.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread* [Bug c/56724] sub-optimal location in error
[not found] <bug-56724-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2014-03-26 7:25 ` mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2014-05-15 15:50 ` tromey at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-05-15 15:59 ` tromey at gcc dot gnu.org
` (10 subsequent siblings)
14 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: tromey at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2014-05-15 15:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56724
--- Comment #5 from Tom Tromey <tromey at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
I tried this today with a recent-ish gcc trunk build, and
there's been a regression.
Now:
barimba. gcc --syntax-only r.c
r.c: In function ‘docall’:
r.c:7:10: warning: passing argument 3 of ‘callf’ from incompatible pointer type
return callf (23, 72,
^
r.c:3:5: note: expected ‘int (*)(double *)’ but argument is of type ‘int
(*)(int *)’
int callf (int, int, int (*)(double *));
^
Note how the first warning now points to "callf", whereas
in comment #0 it pointed to the actual argument causing the diagnostic.
The new situation is much worse for me as it prevents automated
rewriting...
>From gcc-bugs-return-451706-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org Thu May 15 15:55:18 2014
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-451706-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Delivered-To: listarch-gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 14668 invoked by alias); 15 May 2014 15:55:18 -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 14622 invoked by uid 48); 15 May 2014 15:55:15 -0000
From: "manu at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c/56724] sub-optimal location in error
Date: Thu, 15 May 2014 15:55:00 -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: unknown
X-Bugzilla-Keywords:
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
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: cc
Message-ID: <bug-56724-4-89sK7Lkhsa@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-56724-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-56724-4@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: 2014-05/txt/msg01398.txt.bz2
Content-length: 704
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56724
Manuel López-Ibáñez <manu at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |manu at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6 from Manuel López-Ibáñez <manu at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Tom Tromey from comment #5)
> The new situation is much worse for me as it prevents automated
> rewriting...
What automated rewriting?
For 4.10/11, I would like to implement either fix-it hints or location ranges,
and I wonder what would be the most useful of the two.
>From gcc-bugs-return-451707-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org Thu May 15 15:57:50 2014
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-451707-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Delivered-To: listarch-gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 16246 invoked by alias); 15 May 2014 15:57:50 -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 16196 invoked by uid 48); 15 May 2014 15:57:46 -0000
From: "dominiq at lps dot ens.fr" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug fortran/61028] [4.9/4.10 Regression] -g3 -g leads to spurious warnings
Date: Thu, 15 May 2014 15:57:00 -0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: fortran
X-Bugzilla-Version: 4.9.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords:
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 4.9.1
X-Bugzilla-Flags:
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields:
Message-ID: <bug-61028-4-OzmrbkZ2Xo@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-61028-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-61028-4@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: 2014-05/txt/msg01399.txt.bz2
Content-length: 314
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?ida028
--- Comment #3 from Dominique d'Humieres <dominiq at lps dot ens.fr> ---
> I remember some posts about the order of -gx -gy, but cannot find it right now.
It is pr61013, fixed by r210442 on trunk and r210456 for 4.9.1. AFAICT the
warnings are gone at r210475.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread* [Bug c/56724] sub-optimal location in error
[not found] <bug-56724-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2014-05-15 15:50 ` tromey at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2014-05-15 15:59 ` tromey at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-05-16 18:53 ` manu at gcc dot gnu.org
` (9 subsequent siblings)
14 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: tromey at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2014-05-15 15:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56724
--- Comment #7 from Tom Tromey <tromey at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #6)
> (In reply to Tom Tromey from comment #5)
> > The new situation is much worse for me as it prevents automated
> > rewriting...
>
> What automated rewriting?
I'm experimenting with automated rewriting of C to C++
using -Wc++-compat and some scripts.
https://github.com/tromey/gdb-refactoring-scripts
It's fairly specific to gdb.
>From gcc-bugs-return-451709-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org Thu May 15 16:25:28 2014
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-451709-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Delivered-To: listarch-gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 5373 invoked by alias); 15 May 2014 16:25:27 -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 5319 invoked by uid 48); 15 May 2014 16:25:23 -0000
From: "Joost.VandeVondele at mat dot ethz.ch" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug fortran/61028] [4.9/4.10 Regression] -g3 -g leads to spurious warnings
Date: Thu, 15 May 2014 16:25:00 -0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: fortran
X-Bugzilla-Version: 4.9.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords:
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: Joost.VandeVondele at mat dot ethz.ch
X-Bugzilla-Status: RESOLVED
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 4.9.1
X-Bugzilla-Flags:
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: bug_status resolution
Message-ID: <bug-61028-4-8yI8UFbR8H@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-61028-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-61028-4@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: 2014-05/txt/msg01401.txt.bz2
Content-length: 462
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?ida028
Joost VandeVondele <Joost.VandeVondele at mat dot ethz.ch> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|--- |FIXED
--- Comment #4 from Joost VandeVondele <Joost.VandeVondele at mat dot ethz.ch> ---
so, fixed.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread* [Bug c/56724] sub-optimal location in error
[not found] <bug-56724-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2014-05-15 15:59 ` tromey at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2014-05-16 18:53 ` manu at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-05-19 18:47 ` mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
` (8 subsequent siblings)
14 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: manu at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2014-05-16 18:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8", Size: 3514 bytes --]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56724
--- Comment #8 from Manuel López-Ibáñez <manu at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Tom Tromey from comment #5)
> I tried this today with a recent-ish gcc trunk build, and
> there's been a regression.
I think the problem is that convert_for_assignment uses "location" instead of
"expr_loc".
The original issue is harder to fix. I am not sure we have locations for the
different types in a function declaration, do we?
>From gcc-bugs-return-451783-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org Fri May 16 18:59:31 2014
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-451783-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Delivered-To: listarch-gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 8893 invoked by alias); 16 May 2014 18:59:31 -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 8860 invoked by uid 48); 16 May 2014 18:59:28 -0000
From: "zsojka at seznam dot cz" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/61203] New: [4.7/4.8/4.9/4.10 Regression] g++.old-deja/g++.jason/rvalue2.C FAILs with -O2 -fno-inline
Date: Fri, 16 May 2014 18:59:00 -0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: new
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: tree-optimization
X-Bugzilla-Version: 4.10.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords:
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: zsojka at seznam dot cz
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: bug_id short_desc product version bug_status bug_severity priority component assigned_to reporter attachments.created
Message-ID: <bug-61203-4@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: 2014-05/txt/msg01475.txt.bz2
Content-length: 1170
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?ida203
Bug ID: 61203
Summary: [4.7/4.8/4.9/4.10 Regression]
g++.old-deja/g++.jason/rvalue2.C FAILs with -O2
-fno-inline
Product: gcc
Version: 4.10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: zsojka at seznam dot cz
Created attachment 32809
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id2809&actioníit
reduced testcase
I think the code has defined behaviour. The temporal object created by A() is
afaict alive when the pointer comparison is being done (but it is not when the
result of the comparison is being used)... but it might easily happen that I am
wrong; I am certainly not an C++ expert, the code is quite artificial.
Attached is a reduced testcase.
Output:
$ g++ -O2 testcase.C
$ ./a.out
a.out: testcase.C:16: int main(): Assertion `!r' failed.
Aborted
Tested revisions:
trunk r210490 - fail
4.9 r210307 - fail
4.8 r210303 - fail
4.7 r210302 - fail
4.6 r197894 - OK
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread* [Bug c/56724] sub-optimal location in error
[not found] <bug-56724-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2014-05-16 18:53 ` manu at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2014-05-19 18:47 ` mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-05-25 15:40 ` mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
` (7 subsequent siblings)
14 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2014-05-19 18:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56724
--- Comment #9 from Marek Polacek <mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Tom Tromey from comment #5)
> I tried this today with a recent-ish gcc trunk build, and
> there's been a regression.
>
> Now:
>
> barimba. gcc --syntax-only r.c
> r.c: In function ‘docall’:
> r.c:7:10: warning: passing argument 3 of ‘callf’ from incompatible pointer
> type
> return callf (23, 72,
> ^
> r.c:3:5: note: expected ‘int (*)(double *)’ but argument is of type ‘int
> (*)(int *)’
> int callf (int, int, int (*)(double *));
> ^
>
>
> Note how the first warning now points to "callf", whereas
> in comment #0 it pointed to the actual argument causing the diagnostic.
>
> The new situation is much worse for me as it prevents automated
> rewriting...
That is not a regression; previously it didn't point to the actual argument,
but it used input_location, so it pointed to the start of the line. In the
previous testcase it only looks like it's pointing to the last argument. E.g.
on this
int f (int *);
int callf (int, int, int (*)(double *));
int docall(void)
{
return callf (23,
72, f);
}
it will point to "72".
I hope I will have the cycles to look into this this week.
>From gcc-bugs-return-451957-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org Mon May 19 18:52:01 2014
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-451957-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Delivered-To: listarch-gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 6582 invoked by alias); 19 May 2014 18:52:01 -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 6531 invoked by uid 48); 19 May 2014 18:51:56 -0000
From: "jakub at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug rtl-optimization/61220] [4.10 Regression] ICE on valid code at -O2 on x86_64-linux-gnu in maybe_record_trace_start, at dwarf2cfi.c:2239
Date: Mon, 19 May 2014 18:52:00 -0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: rtl-optimization
X-Bugzilla-Version: 4.10.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords:
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: jakub 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: 4.10.0
X-Bugzilla-Flags:
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: cc short_desc
Message-ID: <bug-61220-4-Mu6diXChXD@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-61220-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-61220-4@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: 2014-05/txt/msg01649.txt.bz2
Content-length: 828
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?ida220
Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
| |zqchen at gcc dot gnu.org
Summary|ICE on valid code at -O2 on |[4.10 Regression] ICE on
|x86_64-linux-gnu in |valid code at -O2 on
|maybe_record_trace_start, |x86_64-linux-gnu in
|at dwarf2cfi.c:2239 |maybe_record_trace_start,
| |at dwarf2cfi.c:2239
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Caused by r210457.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread* [Bug c/56724] sub-optimal location in error
[not found] <bug-56724-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (6 preceding siblings ...)
2014-05-19 18:47 ` mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2014-05-25 15:40 ` mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-05-27 20:15 ` mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
` (6 subsequent siblings)
14 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2014-05-25 15:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56724
Marek Polacek <mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Version|unknown |4.10.0
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone|--- |4.10.0
--- Comment #10 from Marek Polacek <mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Taking now.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread* [Bug c/56724] sub-optimal location in error
[not found] <bug-56724-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (7 preceding siblings ...)
2014-05-25 15:40 ` mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2014-05-27 20:15 ` mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-06-05 3:09 ` tromey at gcc dot gnu.org
` (5 subsequent siblings)
14 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2014-05-27 20:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56724
--- Comment #11 from Marek Polacek <mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Tue May 27 20:14:22 2014
New Revision: 210980
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=210980&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c/56724
* c-typeck.c (convert_arguments): Get location of a parameter. Change
error and warning calls to error_at and warning_at. Pass location of
a parameter to it. Call warning_at with OPT_Wtraditional_conversion.
(convert_for_assignment): Add parameter to WARN_FOR_ASSIGNMENT and
WARN_FOR_QUALIFIERS. Pass expr_loc to those.
* gcc.dg/pr56724-1.c: New test.
* gcc.dg/pr56724-2.c: New test.
* gcc.dg/wtr-conversion-1.c: Use -Wtraditional-conversion instead of
-Wtraditional.
* gcc.dg/dfp/wtr-conversion-1.c: Likewise.
Added:
trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr56724-1.c
trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr56724-2.c
Modified:
trunk/gcc/c/ChangeLog
trunk/gcc/c/c-typeck.c
trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/dfp/wtr-conversion-1.c
trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/wtr-conversion-1.c
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread* [Bug c/56724] sub-optimal location in error
[not found] <bug-56724-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (8 preceding siblings ...)
2014-05-27 20:15 ` mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2014-06-05 3:09 ` tromey at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-06-05 5:41 ` mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
` (4 subsequent siblings)
14 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: tromey at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2014-06-05 3:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56724
--- Comment #12 from Tom Tromey <tromey at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
I noticed this patch today and tried it out on my current
test case, which uses -Wc++-compat... unfortunately it
still fails.
Test code:
extern void xfer (int, int, unsigned char *);
void call (int x, int y, void *arg)
{
xfer (x, y, arg);
}
barimba. gcc --syntax-only -Wc++-compat /tmp/r.c
/tmp/r.c: In function ‘call’:
/tmp/r.c:5:3: warning: request for implicit conversion from ‘void *’ to
‘unsigned char *’ not permitted in C++ [-Wc++-compat]
xfer (x, y, arg);
^
I think perhaps the problem is that the warning_at call in
convert_for_assignment that emits this warning should use
expr_loc rather than 'location'. I haven't tested this theory.
>From gcc-bugs-return-453247-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org Thu Jun 05 03:32:46 2014
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-453247-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Delivered-To: listarch-gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 27348 invoked by alias); 5 Jun 2014 03:32:45 -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 27292 invoked by uid 48); 5 Jun 2014 03:32:39 -0000
From: "amker.cheng at gmail dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug target/61411] [NEON] ICE in reload_cse_simplify_operands, at postreload.c:411
Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2014 03:32:00 -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: 4.9.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords:
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: amker.cheng at gmail dot com
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-61411-4-dLCWOHBm5K@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-61411-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-61411-4@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: 2014-06/txt/msg00329.txt.bz2
Content-length: 912
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?ida411
bin.cheng <amker.cheng at gmail dot com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |amker.cheng at gmail dot com,
| |mshawcroft at gcc dot gnu.org,
| |vmakarov at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 from bin.cheng <amker.cheng at gmail dot com> ---
The patch can fix the issue, but problem is why GCC/lra generated
register-indexing ([reg+reg]) addressing mode for V8HImode in the first place.
Since without this patch, the address expression is illegal and shouldn't be
generated. I didn't look into LRA's code and am not very sure whether this
patch is covering the problem.
Also added Marcus and Vlad to the CC list.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread* [Bug c/56724] sub-optimal location in error
[not found] <bug-56724-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (9 preceding siblings ...)
2014-06-05 3:09 ` tromey at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2014-06-05 5:41 ` mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-06-05 9:35 ` mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
` (3 subsequent siblings)
14 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2014-06-05 5:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56724
--- Comment #13 from Marek Polacek <mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Yea, you're right, not everything has been fixed. I'll fix up this specific
case in a bit, thanks for reporting it.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread* [Bug c/56724] sub-optimal location in error
[not found] <bug-56724-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (10 preceding siblings ...)
2014-06-05 5:41 ` mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2014-06-05 9:35 ` mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-09-11 14:36 ` mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
` (2 subsequent siblings)
14 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2014-06-05 9:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56724
--- Comment #14 from Marek Polacek <mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Thu Jun 5 09:35:05 2014
New Revision: 211261
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=211261&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c/56724
* c-typeck.c (convert_for_assignment): Use expr_loc for ic_argpass.
* gcc.dg/pr56724-3.c: New test.
Added:
trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr56724-3.c
Modified:
trunk/gcc/c/ChangeLog
trunk/gcc/c/c-typeck.c
trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread* [Bug c/56724] sub-optimal location in error
[not found] <bug-56724-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (11 preceding siblings ...)
2014-06-05 9:35 ` mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2014-09-11 14:36 ` mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-04-22 12:01 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-07-16 9:15 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
14 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2014-09-11 14:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56724
--- Comment #16 from Marek Polacek <mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
What's not fixed is this:
r.c:3:5: note: expected ‘int (*)(double *)’ but argument is of type ‘int
(*)(int *)’
int callf (int, int, int (*)(double *));
^
we should point to the actual parameter. I think PR60129 is a dupe for this,
though.
We'll probably have to add some *location_t stuff into the function_decl or
somewhere for this...
>From gcc-bugs-return-461601-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org Thu Sep 11 14:36:55 2014
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-461601-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Delivered-To: listarch-gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 889 invoked by alias); 11 Sep 2014 14:36:54 -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 32749 invoked by uid 48); 11 Sep 2014 14:36:49 -0000
From: "dcb314 at hotmail dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c++/55095] Wshift-overflow
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2014 14:36:00 -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: 4.8.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: diagnostic
X-Bugzilla-Severity: enhancement
X-Bugzilla-Who: dcb314 at hotmail dot com
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-55095-4-Z8eNhZdGmT@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-55095-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-55095-4@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: 2014-09/txt/msg01435.txt.bz2
Content-length: 505
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55095
--- Comment #8 from David Binderman <dcb314 at hotmail dot com> ---
(In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #7)
> I think we want this but nobody so far got enough free time to work on it.
I checked Redhat Fedora and only three packages out of about
9,600 that I looked at produced the -Wshift-overflow warning,
so it's maybe the case that it isn't so important.
Clang is available for anyone who cares much about this warning.
>From gcc-bugs-return-461602-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org Thu Sep 11 14:54:11 2014
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-461602-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Delivered-To: listarch-gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 23272 invoked by alias); 11 Sep 2014 14:54:10 -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 22822 invoked by uid 48); 11 Sep 2014 14:54:05 -0000
From: "xinliangli at gmail dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug middle-end/63220] error: inlining failed in call to always_inline
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2014 14:54:00 -0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: middle-end
X-Bugzilla-Version: 5.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords:
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: xinliangli at gmail dot com
X-Bugzilla-Status: RESOLVED
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-63220-4-h13Cmdm8Vg@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-63220-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-63220-4@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: 2014-09/txt/msg01436.txt.bz2
Content-length: 1462
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?idc220
--- Comment #2 from davidxl <xinliangli at gmail dot com> ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> First of all you should mark the functions 'inline' as well.
This does not help.
Then the issue
> is that 'eq' is called indirectly which isn't allowed for always_inline
> functions:
Is this documented somewhere? A function can be called indirectly and directly.
What is the right way to force inlining the direct calls?
A warning is already emitted about always_inline might not be inlinable, why
the error?
>
> t.C:81:66: error: inlining failed in call to always_inline 'static constexpr
> bool std::__1::char_traits<char>::eq(std::__1::char_traits<char>::char_type,
> std::__1::char_traits<char>::char_type)': indirect function call with a yet
> undetermined callee
> __attribute__ (( __always_inline__)) static constexpr bool
> eq(char_type __c1, char_type __c2) {
> ^
> t.C:75:37: error: called from here
> if (!__pred(*__m1, *__m2)) { }
> ^
>
> which means this is a missed-optimization only. The error is your fault.
>
> Note that getting the error is unreliable so -O0 simply doesn't discover the
> failed inlining.
-O2 works fine -- I have not debugged the problem -- but it seems to be some
newly cloned cgraph edge to be in inconsistent state.
David
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread* [Bug c/56724] sub-optimal location in error
[not found] <bug-56724-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (12 preceding siblings ...)
2014-09-11 14:36 ` mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2015-04-22 12:01 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-07-16 9:15 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
14 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2015-04-22 12:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56724
Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target Milestone|5.0 |5.2
--- Comment #17 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
GCC 5.1 has been released.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread* [Bug c/56724] sub-optimal location in error
[not found] <bug-56724-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (13 preceding siblings ...)
2015-04-22 12:01 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2015-07-16 9:15 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
14 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2015-07-16 9:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56724
Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target Milestone|5.2 |5.3
--- Comment #18 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
GCC 5.2 is being released, adjusting target milestone to 5.3.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread