From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 16204 invoked by alias); 18 Mar 2014 14:12:58 -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 16162 invoked by uid 48); 18 Mar 2014 14:12:52 -0000 From: "patrick at parcs dot ath.cx" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug c++/60565] Bogus not-in-scope error Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2014 14:12:00 -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: 4.9.0 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: patrick at parcs dot ath.cx 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: 2014-03/txt/msg01585.txt.bz2 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D60565 --- Comment #4 from patrick at parcs dot ath.cx --- (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #3) > (In reply to patrick from comment #1) > > Er, sorry, the call to "foo ()" within main ought to be "B::foo ()". >=20 > OK, in that case you need to fix the declaration of B::foo() if you want = to > call it. I think G++ is ignoring the inconsistent declaration of B::foo(= ). > I'm not sure if that's correct, or whether it should give an error at that > point. I think the compiler should not ignore the ill-formed declaration because 1) the diagnostic emitted is just a warning and 2) acknowledging the declarati= on even though it is ill-formed is consistent with the behavior of the followi= ng test case: namespace A { extern "C" void foo (int); } namespace B { extern "C" void foo (); } int main () { B::foo (); } $ g++ -c exc.c exc.C:9:29: warning: declaration of =E2=80=98void B::foo(int)=E2=80=99 with= C language linkage [enabled by default] extern "C" void foo (int); ^ exc.C:3:21: warning: conflicts with previous declaration =E2=80=98void A::f= oo()=E2=80=99 [enabled by default] extern "C" void foo (); ^ Here, a much more egregious bug may have been introduced yet the the second ill-formed declaration is still usable. >>From gcc-bugs-return-446717-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org Tue Mar 18 14:23:47 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: listarch-gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 2118 invoked by alias); 18 Mar 2014 14:23:47 -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 2075 invoked by uid 48); 18 Mar 2014 14:23:42 -0000 From: "ramana at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug target/60459] Crash seen in _Unwind_VRS_Pop() for ARM platform Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2014 14:23:00 -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: 4.2.1 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: critical X-Bugzilla-Who: ramana at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: WAITING 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: 2014-03/txt/msg01586.txt.bz2 Content-length: 2465 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60459 --- Comment #4 from Ramana Radhakrishnan --- (In reply to Raghu from comment #3) > (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1) > > Can you try a newer version than GCC 4.2.1? > > > > Also can you provide the exact options you compiled your source with? And > > the exact configure options you configured GCC with? > > Hi, > > I am using the GCC which we got from the toolchain for ARM target. > Below are config options with which GCC was configured. > > ./gcc -B./ -v > Using built-in specs. > Target: arm-linux-uclibcgnueabi > Configured with: > /home/ben/Katalix/toolchain/arm-toolchain/stb_toolchain_2.1/ > toolchain_build_arm_nofpu/gcc-4.2.1/configure --prefix=/usr > --build=i386-pc-linux-gnu --host=i386-pc-linux-gnu > --target=arm-linux-uclibcgnueabi --enable-languages=c,c++ > --with-sysroot=/opt/toolchains/tools-4.2.1-arm9 > --with-build-time-tools=/opt/toolchains/tools-4.2.1-arm9/usr/arm-linux- > uclibcgnueabi/bin --disable-__cxa_atexit --enable-target-optspace > --with-gnu-ld --enable-shared > --with-gmp=/home/ben/Katalix/toolchain/arm-toolchain/stb_toolchain_2.1/ > toolchain_build_arm_nofpu/gmp > --with-mpfr=/home/ben/Katalix/toolchain/arm-toolchain/stb_toolchain_2.1/ > toolchain_build_arm_nofpu/mpfr --disable-nls --enable-threads > --enable-multilib --with-float=soft --with-tune=arm920t > Thread model: posix > gcc version 4.2.1 > > > Please advice if the above configure options are correct? Looks sane to me - depends on what you want to do. > > Any thoughts why the crash in _Unwind_VRS_Pop() is seen? > No idea, search in the archives and any bug reports or look at changes in the files. It's such an old toolchain and there have been tons of changes since that it is difficult for someone to work out what's going on and what the issue might be. Without a small testcase that shows the problem, to see whether the crash happens with a more recent toolchain not many folks are going to be able to support you further. > We don't have another version of ARM toolchain. Is there any stable prebuild > toolchain for ARM platform to use? > There are some that are available if you google for it. https://launchpad.net/gcc-arm-embedded might help you but YMMV if you want to target arm9's by default. Changing the priority won't help when you haven't followed instructions as you have been asked to from commnent #c2 Ramana > Thanks, > Raghu