public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "harald at gigawatt dot nl" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug c++/64531] `casting between pointer-to-function and pointer-to-object` is still a warning instead of error with `-pedantic -pedantic-errors` Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2015 09:52:00 -0000 [thread overview] Message-ID: <bug-64531-4-l2cIN7qZgj@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw) In-Reply-To: <bug-64531-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64531 Harald van Dijk <harald at gigawatt dot nl> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |harald at gigawatt dot nl --- Comment #2 from Harald van Dijk <harald at gigawatt dot nl> --- It's already been fixed. $ g++-4.8.4 -pedantic -pedantic-errors -c test.cc test.cc: In function ‘int main()’: test.cc:1:33: error: ISO C++ forbids casting between pointer-to-function and pointer-to-object [-Werror=pedantic] int main() { (void(*)())(void *)0; } ^ cc1plus: some warnings being treated as errors But the comments in PR 60850 note that this may have been a bad idea (at least a bad idea for a release branch). >From gcc-bugs-return-478144-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org Mon Feb 23 09:17:03 2015 Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-478144-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org> Delivered-To: listarch-gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 12034 invoked by alias); 23 Feb 2015 09:17:03 -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 11498 invoked by uid 55); 23 Feb 2015 09:16:58 -0000 From: "rguenther at suse dot de" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/65084] Lack of type narrowing/widening inhibits good vectorization Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2015 10:00:00 -0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: tree-optimization X-Bugzilla-Version: unknown X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: rguenther at suse dot de 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-65084-4-xVHreOZV6N@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> In-Reply-To: <bug-65084-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> References: <bug-65084-4@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: 2015-02/txt/msg02474.txt.bz2 Content-length: 1394 https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?ide084 --- Comment #6 from rguenther at suse dot de <rguenther at suse dot de> --- On Fri, 20 Feb 2015, law at redhat dot com wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?ide084 > > --- Comment #5 from Jeffrey A. Law <law at redhat dot com> --- Some of > the stuff you're doing in that patch matches what I was poking at as > well (for a different BZ). There's clearly much room for improvement > here and if we weren't in stage4, I'd be pushing harder on expanding > what these patterns do now rather than waiting. Note that for aggressive narrowing (which eventually makes sense for early GIMPLE) and for widening (which makes sense towards RTL expansion with the targets word_mode / PROMOTE_MODE in mind) having a separate pass that deals with the actual transform step (but re-using the matching from the match.pd code) makes sense - triggering the transform from forwprop via fold_stmt creates garbage that can confuse single-use tests (yeah, it's on my list of things to investigate on whether we can improve here in a somewhat generic way for GCC 6). As in this bugs summary - what are the cases where vectorization is bad because of the lack of widening? > I'm already of the mind that we're going to want to factor some of that > type testing so we're not repeating it in a half-dozen patterns. Yeah, that makes sense.
prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-02-23 8:52 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2015-01-07 22:16 [Bug c++/64531] New: " iamsupermouse at mail dot ru 2015-02-21 22:43 ` [Bug c++/64531] " iamsupermouse at mail dot ru 2015-02-22 4:41 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2015-02-23 9:52 ` harald at gigawatt dot nl [this message]
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to=bug-64531-4-l2cIN7qZgj@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ \ --to=gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org \ --cc=gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: linkBe sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).