From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13597 invoked by alias); 9 Jul 2013 09:50:52 -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 13558 invoked by uid 48); 9 Jul 2013 09:50:48 -0000 From: "manu at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug c++/57854] Would like to have a warning for virtual overrides without C++11 "override" keyword Date: Tue, 09 Jul 2013 09:50:00 -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: 4.8.1 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: enhancement 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: 2013-07/txt/msg00514.txt.bz2 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D57854 --- Comment #3 from Manuel L=C3=B3pez-Ib=C3=A1=C3=B1ez --- (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #2) > (In reply to Thiago Macieira from comment #0) > >=20 > > It should be in -Weffc++. >=20 > Not unless a new C++11 edition of Effective C++ recommends using override= on > all overriding functions, and not unless we update -Weffc++ to correspond= to > something other than the first edition. >=20 > This seems like something that would fit better into a plugin than the co= re > compiler. We could add a new option -Wbase-check, no?=20 Or we could also write a plugin and distribute it with GCC. I think it is something that could be generally used and an useful example of how to write plugins (and a testcase testing the plugin infrastructure). >>From gcc-bugs-return-426008-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org Tue Jul 09 09:59:53 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: listarch-gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 21281 invoked by alias); 9 Jul 2013 09:59:53 -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 21215 invoked by uid 48); 9 Jul 2013 09:59:50 -0000 From: "mikpe at it dot uu.se" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug c/57862] invalid read struct uint32_t member (ARMV5) Date: Tue, 09 Jul 2013 09:59:00 -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: 4.7.2 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: critical X-Bugzilla-Who: mikpe at it dot uu.se 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: 2013-07/txt/msg00515.txt.bz2 Content-length: 496 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57862 --- Comment #1 from Mikael Pettersson --- This has all the indications of a mis-aligned memory access. Since you're on Linux, please make sure that the 'User faults' field in /proc/cpu/alignment shows a value of 2 (fixup) or 3 (fixup+warn). You can 'echo 3 > /proc/cpu/alignment' in your startup scripts to ensure this setting, or you can hack it into the kernel source's arch/arm/mm/alignment.c (which is what I do).