[Bug target/60811] New: arc/arc.c:2135: possible bad argument to abs

[Bug target/60811] New: arc/arc.c:2135: possible bad argument to abs

[dcb314 at hotmail dot com]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60811

            Bug ID: 60811
           Summary: arc/arc.c:2135: possible bad argument to abs
           Product: gcc
           Version: 4.9.0
            Status: UNCONFIRMED
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P3
         Component: target
          Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
          Reporter: dcb314 at hotmail dot com

Static analyser cppcheck says

[trunk/gcc/config/arc/arc.c:2135]: (error) Invalid abs() argument nr 1. A
non-boolean value is required.

Source code is

    gcc_assert (epilogue_p || abs (*first_offset <= 127));

Maybe better code might be

    gcc_assert (epilogue_p || abs (*first_offset) <= 127);

[Bug target/60811] arc/arc.c:2135: possible bad argument to abs

[amylaar at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60811

Jorn Wolfgang Rennecke <amylaar at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |NEW
   Last reconfirmed|                            |2014-04-11
     Ever confirmed|0                           |1

--- Comment #1 from Jorn Wolfgang Rennecke <amylaar at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Confirmed.  I also did a test-build in r209293 with current arc versions
of binutils/newlib.

Though it seems too insignificant to make a change that late
in phase 3, so I think this should wait for 4.10.

Although such a small straightforward bug-fix can hardly considered
Copyrightable, I suppose you are technically the author of a patch, so
it would be SOP to name you in the ChangeLog - unless you don't want that.

Using the email from bugzilla, that would be:

David Bindermann  <dcb314@hotmail.com>

is that OK?

[Bug target/60811] arc/arc.c:2135: possible bad argument to abs

[dcb314 at hotmail dot com]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60811

--- Comment #2 from David Binderman <dcb314 at hotmail dot com> ---
(In reply to Jorn Wolfgang Rennecke from comment #1)
> Though it seems too insignificant to make a change that late
> in phase 3, so I think this should wait for 4.10.

Seems reasonable to me, but at worst, it's only going to break
one architecture and I think I'm right in saying arc isn't a
primary or secondary architecture.

> Although such a small straightforward bug-fix can hardly considered
> Copyrightable, I suppose you are technically the author of a patch, so
> it would be SOP to name you in the ChangeLog - unless you don't want that.

But I haven't written a patch, I've only reported a bug with a suggested
solution.

I think who fixes it gets to put their name on the record, not me.

[Bug target/60811] arc/arc.c:2135: possible bad argument to abs

[amylaar at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60811

--- Comment #3 from Jorn Wolfgang Rennecke <amylaar at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Author: amylaar
Date: Fri Apr 11 18:04:43 2014
New Revision: 209311

URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=209311&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
        PR target/60811
        * config/arc/arc.c (arc_save_restore): Fix assert typo.

Modified:
    trunk/gcc/ChangeLog
    trunk/gcc/config/arc/arc.c

[Bug target/60811] arc/arc.c:2135: possible bad argument to abs

[amylaar at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60811

Jorn Wolfgang Rennecke <amylaar at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |RESOLVED
         Resolution|---                         |FIXED

--- Comment #4 from Jorn Wolfgang Rennecke <amylaar at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Fixed with commit of comment #3.