Re: c++/1631

[nathan@gcc.gnu.org]

The following reply was made to PR c++/1631; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: nathan@gcc.gnu.org
To: fsm@robots.ox.ac.uk, gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org, nobody@gcc.gnu.org
Cc:  
Subject: Re: c++/1631
Date: 16 Jan 2001 16:30:11 -0000

 Synopsis: placement new broken for enumeration types
 
 State-Changed-From-To: open->analyzed
 State-Changed-By: nathan
 State-Changed-When: Tue Jan 16 08:30:11 2001
 State-Changed-Why:
     confirmed as a bug
 
 http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/gnatsweb.pl?cmd=view&pr=1631&database=gcc
>From rearnsha@arm.com Sun Apr 01 00:00:00 2001
From: Richard Earnshaw <rearnsha@arm.com>
To: gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: middle-end/1557: Regrename macro not documented
Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2001 00:00:00 -0000
Message-id: <200101051124.LAA07803@sun18.cambridge.arm.com>
X-SW-Source: 2001-q1/msg00030.html
Content-length: 2201

>Number:         1557
>Category:       middle-end
>Synopsis:       Regrename macro not documented
>Confidential:   no
>Severity:       non-critical
>Priority:       medium
>Responsible:    unassigned
>State:          open
>Class:          doc-bug
>Submitter-Id:   net
>Arrival-Date:   Fri Jan 05 03:26:02 PST 2001
>Closed-Date:
>Last-Modified:
>Originator:     Richard Earnshaw
>Release:        2.97 20010103 (experimental)
>Organization:
ARM
>Environment:
System: SunOS sun18 5.7 Generic_106541-11 sun4u sparc SUNW,Ultra-5_10
Architecture: sun4

	
host: sparc-sun-solaris2.5.1
build: sparc-sun-solaris2.5.1
target: arm-unknown-elf
configured with: /home/rearnsha/gnusrc/egcs-cross/configure --target=arm-elf --with-headers=/home/rearnsha/gnusrc/utils/newlib/libc/include --prefix=/home/rearnsha/gnu/egcs/install/SunOS5 : (reconfigured)  : (reconfigured)  : (reconfigured)  : (reconfigured)  : (reconfigured) /home/rearnsha/gnusrc/egcs-cross/configure --with-gcc-version-trigger=/home/rearnsha/gnusrc/egcs-cross/gcc/version.c --host=sparc-sun-solaris2.5.1 --target=arm-elf --with-headers=/home/rearnsha/gnusrc/utils/newlib/libc/include --prefix=/home/rearnsha/gnu/egcs/install/SunOS5 : (reconfigured)  : (reconfigured)  : (reconfigured)  : (reconfigured)  : (reconfigured)  : (reconfigured)  : (reconfigured)  : (reconfigured)  : (reconfigured)  : (reconfigured)  : (reconfigured)  : (reconfigured)  : (reconfigured)  : (reconfigured)  : (reconfigured)  : (reconfigured)  : (reconfigured)  : (reconfigured) 
>Description:
	The macro

	HARD_REGNO_RENAME_OK(FROM,TO)

	which is used by the regrename pass is undocumented.
	
>How-To-Repeat:
	Read the documentation
	
>Fix:
	Document them.  The IA64 port has the following comments:


	/* A C expression that is nonzero if hard register number REGNO2 can be
	   considered for use as a rename register for REGNO1 */

	#define HARD_REGNO_RENAME_OK(REGNO1,REGNO2) ...


	/* Define this macro if the compiler should use extended basic blocks
	   when renaming registers.  Define this macro if the target has 
	   predicate registers.  */

	#define RENAME_EXTENDED_BLOCKS

	However, the latter seems to be unused.
	
>Release-Note:
>Audit-Trail:
>Unformatted:
>From davek-ml@ntlworld.com Sun Apr 01 00:00:00 2001
From: "Dave Korn" <davek-ml@ntlworld.com>
To: nobody@gcc.gnu.org
Cc: gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: c/2371: Hang with long long function argument.
Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2001 00:00:00 -0000
Message-id: <20010401055601.14266.qmail@sourceware.cygnus.com>
X-SW-Source: 2001-q1/msg02703.html
Content-length: 1226

The following reply was made to PR c/2371; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: "Dave Korn" <davek-ml@ntlworld.com>
To: <snowball3@bigfoot.com>,
	<gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org>
Cc:  
Subject: Re: c/2371: Hang with long long function argument.
Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2001 06:45:55 +0100

 ----- Original Message -----
 From: <snowball3@bigfoot.com>
 To: <gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org>
 Sent: Saturday, March 24, 2001 4:53 AM
 Subject: c/2371: Hang with long long function argument.
 
 
 > >Description:
 > It seems that code generated for handling variables of
 > type 'long long' is incorrect. The sample program when
 > run hangs. Changing the type to 'long' allows the program
 > to exit normally.
 > >How-To-Repeat:
 > # 1 "longlong.c"
 > int long_long_test(  long long x)
 > {
 >   do
 >   {
 >     x =- 1;
 >   } while (x);
 
   It seems that you meant to say x-=1 there.  Otherwise looping forever is
 the expected behaviour.  I've tested your code with both longs and long
 longs, and both with and without your bugfix.  Both the bugged versions
 looped forever and both the fixed versions exit almost instantly.  Are you
 sure you didn't fix the bug at the same time as you changed from long longs
 to plain longs?
 
          DaveK