1 | |
---|
2 | GCC Bugs |
---|
3 | |
---|
4 | The latest version of this document is always available at |
---|
5 | [1]http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs.html. |
---|
6 | _________________________________________________________________ |
---|
7 | |
---|
8 | Table of Contents |
---|
9 | |
---|
10 | * [2]Reporting Bugs |
---|
11 | + [3]What we need |
---|
12 | + [4]What we DON'T want |
---|
13 | + [5]Where to post it |
---|
14 | + [6]Detailed bug reporting instructions |
---|
15 | + [7]Detailed bug reporting instructions for GNAT |
---|
16 | + [8]Detailed bug reporting instructions when using a |
---|
17 | precompiled header |
---|
18 | * [9]Frequently Reported Bugs in GCC |
---|
19 | + [10]C++ |
---|
20 | o [11]Missing features |
---|
21 | o [12]Bugs fixed in the 3.4 series |
---|
22 | + [13]Fortran |
---|
23 | * [14]Non-bugs |
---|
24 | + [15]General |
---|
25 | + [16]C |
---|
26 | + [17]C++ |
---|
27 | o [18]Common problems when upgrading the compiler |
---|
28 | _________________________________________________________________ |
---|
29 | |
---|
30 | Reporting Bugs |
---|
31 | |
---|
32 | The main purpose of a bug report is to enable us to fix the bug. The |
---|
33 | most important prerequisite for this is that the report must be |
---|
34 | complete and self-contained, which we explain in detail below. |
---|
35 | |
---|
36 | Before you report a bug, please check the [19]list of well-known bugs |
---|
37 | and, if possible in any way, try a current development snapshot. If |
---|
38 | you want to report a bug with versions of GCC before 3.1 we strongly |
---|
39 | recommend upgrading to the current release first. |
---|
40 | |
---|
41 | Before reporting that GCC compiles your code incorrectly, please |
---|
42 | compile it with gcc -Wall and see whether this shows anything wrong |
---|
43 | with your code that could be the cause instead of a bug in GCC. |
---|
44 | |
---|
45 | Summarized bug reporting instructions |
---|
46 | |
---|
47 | After this summary, you'll find detailed bug reporting instructions, |
---|
48 | that explain how to obtain some of the information requested in this |
---|
49 | summary. |
---|
50 | |
---|
51 | What we need |
---|
52 | |
---|
53 | Please include in your bug report all of the following items, the |
---|
54 | first three of which can be obtained from the output of gcc -v: |
---|
55 | * the exact version of GCC; |
---|
56 | * the system type; |
---|
57 | * the options given when GCC was configured/built; |
---|
58 | * the complete command line that triggers the bug; |
---|
59 | * the compiler output (error messages, warnings, etc.); and |
---|
60 | * the preprocessed file (*.i*) that triggers the bug, generated by |
---|
61 | adding -save-temps to the complete compilation command, or, in the |
---|
62 | case of a bug report for the GNAT front end, a complete set of |
---|
63 | source files (see below). |
---|
64 | |
---|
65 | What we do not want |
---|
66 | |
---|
67 | * A source file that #includes header files that are left out of the |
---|
68 | bug report (see above) |
---|
69 | * That source file and a collection of header files. |
---|
70 | * An attached archive (tar, zip, shar, whatever) containing all (or |
---|
71 | some :-) of the above. |
---|
72 | * A code snippet that won't cause the compiler to produce the exact |
---|
73 | output mentioned in the bug report (e.g., a snippet with just a |
---|
74 | few lines around the one that apparently triggers the bug, with |
---|
75 | some pieces replaced with ellipses or comments for extra |
---|
76 | obfuscation :-) |
---|
77 | * The location (URL) of the package that failed to build (we won't |
---|
78 | download it, anyway, since you've already given us what we need to |
---|
79 | duplicate the bug, haven't you? :-) |
---|
80 | * An error that occurs only some of the times a certain file is |
---|
81 | compiled, such that retrying a sufficient number of times results |
---|
82 | in a successful compilation; this is a symptom of a hardware |
---|
83 | problem, not of a compiler bug (sorry) |
---|
84 | * E-mail messages that complement previous, incomplete bug reports. |
---|
85 | Post a new, self-contained, full bug report instead, if possible |
---|
86 | as a follow-up to the original bug report |
---|
87 | * Assembly files (*.s) produced by the compiler, or any binary |
---|
88 | files, such as object files, executables, core files, or |
---|
89 | precompiled header files |
---|
90 | * Duplicate bug reports, or reports of bugs already fixed in the |
---|
91 | development tree, especially those that have already been reported |
---|
92 | as fixed last week :-) |
---|
93 | * Bugs in the assembler, the linker or the C library. These are |
---|
94 | separate projects, with separate mailing lists and different bug |
---|
95 | reporting procedures |
---|
96 | * Bugs in releases or snapshots of GCC not issued by the GNU |
---|
97 | Project. Report them to whoever provided you with the release |
---|
98 | * Questions about the correctness or the expected behavior of |
---|
99 | certain constructs that are not GCC extensions. Ask them in forums |
---|
100 | dedicated to the discussion of the programming language |
---|
101 | |
---|
102 | Where to post it |
---|
103 | |
---|
104 | Please submit your bug report directly to the [20]GCC bug database. |
---|
105 | Alternatively, you can use the gccbug script that mails your bug |
---|
106 | report to the bug database. |
---|
107 | Only if all this is absolutely impossible, mail all information to |
---|
108 | [21]gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org. |
---|
109 | |
---|
110 | Detailed bug reporting instructions |
---|
111 | |
---|
112 | Please refer to the [22]next section when reporting bugs in GNAT, the |
---|
113 | Ada compiler, or to the [23]one after that when reporting bugs that |
---|
114 | appear when using a precompiled header. |
---|
115 | |
---|
116 | In general, all the information we need can be obtained by collecting |
---|
117 | the command line below, as well as its output and the preprocessed |
---|
118 | file it generates. |
---|
119 | |
---|
120 | gcc -v -save-temps all-your-options source-file |
---|
121 | |
---|
122 | Typically the preprocessed file (extension .i for C or .ii for C++, |
---|
123 | and .f if the preprocessor is used on Fortran files) will be large, so |
---|
124 | please compress the resulting file with one of the popular compression |
---|
125 | programs such as bzip2, gzip, zip or compress (in decreasing order of |
---|
126 | preference). Use maximum compression (-9) if available. Please include |
---|
127 | the compressed preprocessor output in your bug report, even if the |
---|
128 | source code is freely available elsewhere; it makes the job of our |
---|
129 | volunteer testers much easier. |
---|
130 | |
---|
131 | The only excuses to not send us the preprocessed sources are (i) if |
---|
132 | you've found a bug in the preprocessor, (ii) if you've reduced the |
---|
133 | testcase to a small file that doesn't include any other file or (iii) |
---|
134 | if the bug appears only when using precompiled headers. If you can't |
---|
135 | post the preprocessed sources because they're proprietary code, then |
---|
136 | try to create a small file that triggers the same problem. |
---|
137 | |
---|
138 | Since we're supposed to be able to re-create the assembly output |
---|
139 | (extension .s), you usually should not include it in the bug report, |
---|
140 | although you may want to post parts of it to point out assembly code |
---|
141 | you consider to be wrong. |
---|
142 | |
---|
143 | Whether to use MIME attachments or uuencode is up to you. In any case, |
---|
144 | make sure the compiler command line, version and error output are in |
---|
145 | plain text, so that we don't have to decode the bug report in order to |
---|
146 | tell who should take care of it. A meaningful subject indicating |
---|
147 | language and platform also helps. |
---|
148 | |
---|
149 | Please avoid posting an archive (.tar, .shar or .zip); we generally |
---|
150 | need just a single file to reproduce the bug (the .i/.ii/.f |
---|
151 | preprocessed file), and, by storing it in an archive, you're just |
---|
152 | making our volunteers' jobs harder. Only when your bug report requires |
---|
153 | multiple source files to be reproduced should you use an archive. This |
---|
154 | is, for example, the case if you are using INCLUDE directives in |
---|
155 | Fortran code, which are not processed by the preprocessor, but the |
---|
156 | compiler. In that case, we need the main file and all INCLUDEd files. |
---|
157 | In any case, make sure the compiler version, error message, etc, are |
---|
158 | included in the body of your bug report as plain text, even if |
---|
159 | needlessly duplicated as part of an archive. |
---|
160 | |
---|
161 | If you fail to supply enough information for a bug report to be |
---|
162 | reproduced, someone will probably ask you to post additional |
---|
163 | information (or just ignore your bug report, if they're in a bad day, |
---|
164 | so try to get it right on the first posting :-). In this case, please |
---|
165 | post the additional information to the bug reporting mailing list, not |
---|
166 | just to the person who requested it, unless explicitly told so. If |
---|
167 | possible, please include in this follow-up all the information you had |
---|
168 | supplied in the incomplete bug report (including the preprocessor |
---|
169 | output), so that the new bug report is self-contained. |
---|
170 | |
---|
171 | Detailed bug reporting instructions for GNAT |
---|
172 | |
---|
173 | See the [24]previous section for bug reporting instructions for GCC |
---|
174 | language implementations other than Ada. |
---|
175 | |
---|
176 | Bug reports have to contain at least the following information in |
---|
177 | order to be useful: |
---|
178 | * the exact version of GCC, as shown by "gcc -v"; |
---|
179 | * the system type; |
---|
180 | * the options when GCC was configured/built; |
---|
181 | * the exact command line passed to the gcc program triggering the |
---|
182 | bug (not just the flags passed to gnatmake, but gnatmake prints |
---|
183 | the parameters it passed to gcc) |
---|
184 | * a collection of source files for reproducing the bug, preferably a |
---|
185 | minimal set (see below); |
---|
186 | * a description of the expected behavior; |
---|
187 | * a description of actual behavior. |
---|
188 | |
---|
189 | If your code depends on additional source files (usually package |
---|
190 | specifications), submit the source code for these compilation units in |
---|
191 | a single file that is acceptable input to gnatchop, i.e. contains no |
---|
192 | non-Ada text. If the compilation terminated normally, you can usually |
---|
193 | obtain a list of dependencies using the "gnatls -d main_unit" command, |
---|
194 | where main_unit is the file name of the main compilation unit (which |
---|
195 | is also passed to gcc). |
---|
196 | |
---|
197 | If you report a bug which causes the compiler to print a bug box, |
---|
198 | include that bug box in your report, and do not forget to send all the |
---|
199 | source files listed after the bug box along with your report. |
---|
200 | |
---|
201 | If you use gnatprep, be sure to send in preprocessed sources (unless |
---|
202 | you have to report a bug in gnatprep). |
---|
203 | |
---|
204 | When you have checked that your report meets these criteria, please |
---|
205 | submit it according to our [25]generic instructions. (If you use a |
---|
206 | mailing list for reporting, please include an "[Ada]" tag in the |
---|
207 | subject.) |
---|
208 | |
---|
209 | Detailed bug reporting instructions when using a precompiled header |
---|
210 | |
---|
211 | If you're encountering a bug when using a precompiled header, the |
---|
212 | first thing to do is to delete the precompiled header, and try running |
---|
213 | the same GCC command again. If the bug happens again, the bug doesn't |
---|
214 | really involve precompiled headers, please report it without using |
---|
215 | them by following the instructions [26]above. |
---|
216 | |
---|
217 | If you've found a bug while building a precompiled header (for |
---|
218 | instance, the compiler crashes), follow the usual instructions |
---|
219 | [27]above. |
---|
220 | |
---|
221 | If you've found a real precompiled header bug, what we'll need to |
---|
222 | reproduce it is the sources to build the precompiled header (as a |
---|
223 | single .i file), the source file that uses the precompiled header, any |
---|
224 | other headers that source file includes, and the command lines that |
---|
225 | you used to build the precompiled header and to use it. |
---|
226 | |
---|
227 | Please don't send us the actual precompiled header. It is likely to be |
---|
228 | very large and we can't use it to reproduce the problem. |
---|
229 | _________________________________________________________________ |
---|
230 | |
---|
231 | Frequently Reported Bugs in GCC |
---|
232 | |
---|
233 | This is a list of bugs in GCC that are reported very often, but not |
---|
234 | yet fixed. While it is certainly better to fix bugs instead of |
---|
235 | documenting them, this document might save people the effort of |
---|
236 | writing a bug report when the bug is already well-known. |
---|
237 | |
---|
238 | There are many reasons why a reported bug doesn't get fixed. It might |
---|
239 | be difficult to fix, or fixing it might break compatibility. Often, |
---|
240 | reports get a low priority when there is a simple work-around. In |
---|
241 | particular, bugs caused by invalid code have a simple work-around: fix |
---|
242 | the code. |
---|
243 | _________________________________________________________________ |
---|
244 | |
---|
245 | C++ |
---|
246 | |
---|
247 | Missing features |
---|
248 | |
---|
249 | The export keyword is not implemented. |
---|
250 | Most C++ compilers (G++ included) do not yet implement export, |
---|
251 | which is necessary for separate compilation of template |
---|
252 | declarations and definitions. Without export, a template |
---|
253 | definition must be in scope to be used. The obvious workaround |
---|
254 | is simply to place all definitions in the header itself. |
---|
255 | Alternatively, the compilation unit containing template |
---|
256 | definitions may be included from the header. |
---|
257 | |
---|
258 | Bugs fixed in the 3.4 series |
---|
259 | |
---|
260 | The following bugs are present up to (and including) GCC 3.3.x. They |
---|
261 | have been fixed in 3.4.0. |
---|
262 | |
---|
263 | Two-stage name-lookup. |
---|
264 | GCC did not implement two-stage name-lookup (also see |
---|
265 | [28]below). |
---|
266 | |
---|
267 | Covariant return types. |
---|
268 | GCC did not implement non-trivial covariant returns. |
---|
269 | |
---|
270 | Parse errors for "simple" code. |
---|
271 | GCC gave parse errors for seemingly simple code, such as |
---|
272 | |
---|
273 | struct A |
---|
274 | { |
---|
275 | A(); |
---|
276 | A(int); |
---|
277 | }; |
---|
278 | |
---|
279 | struct B |
---|
280 | { |
---|
281 | B(A); |
---|
282 | B(A,A); |
---|
283 | void foo(); |
---|
284 | }; |
---|
285 | |
---|
286 | A bar() |
---|
287 | { |
---|
288 | B b(A(),A(1)); // Variable b, initialized with two temporaries |
---|
289 | B(A(2)).foo(); // B temporary, initialized with A temporary |
---|
290 | return (A()); // return A temporary |
---|
291 | } |
---|
292 | |
---|
293 | Although being valid code, each of the three lines with a |
---|
294 | comment was rejected by GCC. The work-arounds for older |
---|
295 | compiler versions proposed below do not change the semantics of |
---|
296 | the programs at all. |
---|
297 | |
---|
298 | The problem in the first case was that GCC started to parse the |
---|
299 | declaration of b as a function called b returning B, taking a |
---|
300 | function returning A as an argument. When it encountered the 1, |
---|
301 | it was too late. To show the compiler that this should be |
---|
302 | really an expression, a comma operator with a dummy argument |
---|
303 | could be used: |
---|
304 | |
---|
305 | B b((0,A()),A(1)); |
---|
306 | |
---|
307 | The work-around for simpler cases like the second one was to |
---|
308 | add additional parentheses around the expressions that were |
---|
309 | mistaken as declarations: |
---|
310 | |
---|
311 | (B(A(2))).foo(); |
---|
312 | |
---|
313 | In the third case, however, additional parentheses were causing |
---|
314 | the problems: The compiler interpreted A() as a function |
---|
315 | (taking no arguments, returning A), and (A()) as a cast lacking |
---|
316 | an expression to be casted, hence the parse error. The |
---|
317 | work-around was to omit the parentheses: |
---|
318 | |
---|
319 | return A(); |
---|
320 | |
---|
321 | This problem occurred in a number of variants; in throw |
---|
322 | statements, people also frequently put the object in |
---|
323 | parentheses. |
---|
324 | _________________________________________________________________ |
---|
325 | |
---|
326 | Fortran |
---|
327 | |
---|
328 | Fortran bugs are documented in the G77 manual rather than explicitly |
---|
329 | listed here. Please see [29]Known Causes of Trouble with GNU Fortran |
---|
330 | in the G77 manual. |
---|
331 | _________________________________________________________________ |
---|
332 | |
---|
333 | Non-bugs |
---|
334 | |
---|
335 | The following are not actually bugs, but are reported often enough to |
---|
336 | warrant a mention here. |
---|
337 | |
---|
338 | It is not always a bug in the compiler, if code which "worked" in a |
---|
339 | previous version, is now rejected. Earlier versions of GCC sometimes |
---|
340 | were less picky about standard conformance and accepted invalid source |
---|
341 | code. In addition, programming languages themselves change, rendering |
---|
342 | code invalid that used to be conforming (this holds especially for |
---|
343 | C++). In either case, you should update your code to match recent |
---|
344 | language standards. |
---|
345 | _________________________________________________________________ |
---|
346 | |
---|
347 | General |
---|
348 | |
---|
349 | Problems with floating point numbers - the [30]most often reported |
---|
350 | non-bug. |
---|
351 | In a number of cases, GCC appears to perform floating point |
---|
352 | computations incorrectly. For example, the C++ program |
---|
353 | |
---|
354 | #include <iostream> |
---|
355 | |
---|
356 | int main() |
---|
357 | { |
---|
358 | double a = 0.5; |
---|
359 | double b = 0.01; |
---|
360 | std::cout << (int)(a / b) << std::endl; |
---|
361 | return 0; |
---|
362 | } |
---|
363 | |
---|
364 | might print 50 on some systems and optimization levels, and 49 |
---|
365 | on others. |
---|
366 | |
---|
367 | This is the result of rounding: The computer cannot represent |
---|
368 | all real numbers exactly, so it has to use approximations. When |
---|
369 | computing with approximation, the computer needs to round to |
---|
370 | the nearest representable number. |
---|
371 | |
---|
372 | This is not a bug in the compiler, but an inherent limitation |
---|
373 | of the floating point types. Please study [31]this paper for |
---|
374 | more information. |
---|
375 | _________________________________________________________________ |
---|
376 | |
---|
377 | C |
---|
378 | |
---|
379 | Increment/decrement operator (++/--) not working as expected - a |
---|
380 | [32]problem with many variations. |
---|
381 | The following expressions have unpredictable results: |
---|
382 | |
---|
383 | x[i]=++i |
---|
384 | foo(i,++i) |
---|
385 | i*(++i) /* special case with foo=="operator*" */ |
---|
386 | std::cout << i << ++i /* foo(foo(std::cout,i),++i) */ |
---|
387 | |
---|
388 | since the i without increment can be evaluated before or after |
---|
389 | ++i. |
---|
390 | |
---|
391 | The C and C++ standards have the notion of "sequence points". |
---|
392 | Everything that happens between two sequence points happens in |
---|
393 | an unspecified order, but it has to happen after the first and |
---|
394 | before the second sequence point. The end of a statement and a |
---|
395 | function call are examples for sequence points, whereas |
---|
396 | assignments and the comma between function arguments are not. |
---|
397 | |
---|
398 | Modifying a value twice between two sequence points as shown in |
---|
399 | the following examples is even worse: |
---|
400 | |
---|
401 | i=++i |
---|
402 | foo(++i,++i) |
---|
403 | (++i)*(++i) /* special case with foo=="operator*" */ |
---|
404 | std::cout << ++i << ++i /* foo(foo(std::cout,++i),++i) */ |
---|
405 | |
---|
406 | This leads to undefined behavior (i.e. the compiler can do |
---|
407 | anything). |
---|
408 | |
---|
409 | Casting does not work as expected when optimization is turned on. |
---|
410 | This is often caused by a violation of aliasing rules, which |
---|
411 | are part of the ISO C standard. These rules say that a program |
---|
412 | is invalid if you try to access a variable through a pointer of |
---|
413 | an incompatible type. This is happening in the following |
---|
414 | example where a short is accessed through a pointer to integer |
---|
415 | (the code assumes 16-bit shorts and 32-bit ints): |
---|
416 | |
---|
417 | #include <stdio.h> |
---|
418 | |
---|
419 | int main() |
---|
420 | { |
---|
421 | short a[2]; |
---|
422 | |
---|
423 | a[0]=0x1111; |
---|
424 | a[1]=0x1111; |
---|
425 | |
---|
426 | *(int *)a = 0x22222222; /* violation of aliasing rules */ |
---|
427 | |
---|
428 | printf("%x %x\n", a[0], a[1]); |
---|
429 | return 0; |
---|
430 | } |
---|
431 | |
---|
432 | The aliasing rules were designed to allow compilers more |
---|
433 | aggressive optimization. Basically, a compiler can assume that |
---|
434 | all changes to variables happen through pointers or references |
---|
435 | to variables of a type compatible to the accessed variable. |
---|
436 | Dereferencing a pointer that violates the aliasing rules |
---|
437 | results in undefined behavior. |
---|
438 | |
---|
439 | In the case above, the compiler may assume that no access |
---|
440 | through an integer pointer can change the array a, consisting |
---|
441 | of shorts. Thus, printf may be called with the original values |
---|
442 | of a[0] and a[1]. What really happens is up to the compiler and |
---|
443 | may change with architecture and optimization level. |
---|
444 | |
---|
445 | Recent versions of GCC turn on the option -fstrict-aliasing |
---|
446 | (which allows alias-based optimizations) by default with -O2. |
---|
447 | And some architectures then really print "1111 1111" as result. |
---|
448 | Without optimization the executable will generate the |
---|
449 | "expected" output "2222 2222". |
---|
450 | |
---|
451 | To disable optimizations based on alias-analysis for faulty |
---|
452 | legacy code, the option -fno-strict-aliasing can be used as a |
---|
453 | work-around. |
---|
454 | |
---|
455 | The option -Wstrict-aliasing (which is included in -Wall) warns |
---|
456 | about some - but not all - cases of violation of aliasing rules |
---|
457 | when -fstrict-aliasing is active. |
---|
458 | |
---|
459 | To fix the code above, you can use a union instead of a cast |
---|
460 | (note that this is a GCC extension which might not work with |
---|
461 | other compilers): |
---|
462 | |
---|
463 | #include <stdio.h> |
---|
464 | |
---|
465 | int main() |
---|
466 | { |
---|
467 | union |
---|
468 | { |
---|
469 | short a[2]; |
---|
470 | int i; |
---|
471 | } u; |
---|
472 | |
---|
473 | u.a[0]=0x1111; |
---|
474 | u.a[1]=0x1111; |
---|
475 | |
---|
476 | u.i = 0x22222222; |
---|
477 | |
---|
478 | printf("%x %x\n", u.a[0], u.a[1]); |
---|
479 | return 0; |
---|
480 | } |
---|
481 | |
---|
482 | Now the result will always be "2222 2222". |
---|
483 | |
---|
484 | For some more insight into the subject, please have a look at |
---|
485 | [33]this article. |
---|
486 | |
---|
487 | Cannot use preprocessor directive in macro arguments. |
---|
488 | Let me guess... you used an older version of GCC to compile |
---|
489 | code that looks something like this: |
---|
490 | |
---|
491 | memcpy(dest, src, |
---|
492 | #ifdef PLATFORM1 |
---|
493 | 12 |
---|
494 | #else |
---|
495 | 24 |
---|
496 | #endif |
---|
497 | ); |
---|
498 | |
---|
499 | and you got a whole pile of error messages: |
---|
500 | |
---|
501 | test.c:11: warning: preprocessing directive not recognized within macro arg |
---|
502 | test.c:11: warning: preprocessing directive not recognized within macro arg |
---|
503 | test.c:11: warning: preprocessing directive not recognized within macro arg |
---|
504 | test.c: In function `foo': |
---|
505 | test.c:6: undefined or invalid # directive |
---|
506 | test.c:8: undefined or invalid # directive |
---|
507 | test.c:9: parse error before `24' |
---|
508 | test.c:10: undefined or invalid # directive |
---|
509 | |
---|
510 | This is because your C library's <string.h> happens to define |
---|
511 | memcpy as a macro - which is perfectly legitimate. In recent |
---|
512 | versions of glibc, for example, printf is among those functions |
---|
513 | which are implemented as macros. |
---|
514 | |
---|
515 | Versions of GCC prior to 3.3 did not allow you to put #ifdef |
---|
516 | (or any other preprocessor directive) inside the arguments of a |
---|
517 | macro. The code therefore would not compile. |
---|
518 | |
---|
519 | As of GCC 3.3 this kind of construct is always accepted and the |
---|
520 | preprocessor will probably do what you expect, but see the |
---|
521 | manual for detailed semantics. |
---|
522 | |
---|
523 | However, this kind of code is not portable. It is "undefined |
---|
524 | behavior" according to the C standard; that means different |
---|
525 | compilers may do different things with it. It is always |
---|
526 | possible to rewrite code which uses conditionals inside macros |
---|
527 | so that it doesn't. You could write the above example |
---|
528 | |
---|
529 | #ifdef PLATFORM1 |
---|
530 | memcpy(dest, src, 12); |
---|
531 | #else |
---|
532 | memcpy(dest, src, 24); |
---|
533 | #endif |
---|
534 | |
---|
535 | This is a bit more typing, but I personally think it's better |
---|
536 | style in addition to being more portable. |
---|
537 | |
---|
538 | Cannot initialize a static variable with stdin. |
---|
539 | This has nothing to do with GCC, but people ask us about it a |
---|
540 | lot. Code like this: |
---|
541 | |
---|
542 | #include <stdio.h> |
---|
543 | |
---|
544 | FILE *yyin = stdin; |
---|
545 | |
---|
546 | will not compile with GNU libc, because stdin is not a |
---|
547 | constant. This was done deliberately, to make it easier to |
---|
548 | maintain binary compatibility when the type FILE needs to be |
---|
549 | changed. It is surprising for people used to traditional Unix C |
---|
550 | libraries, but it is permitted by the C standard. |
---|
551 | |
---|
552 | This construct commonly occurs in code generated by old |
---|
553 | versions of lex or yacc. We suggest you try regenerating the |
---|
554 | parser with a current version of flex or bison, respectively. |
---|
555 | In your own code, the appropriate fix is to move the |
---|
556 | initialization to the beginning of main. |
---|
557 | |
---|
558 | There is a common misconception that the GCC developers are |
---|
559 | responsible for GNU libc. These are in fact two entirely |
---|
560 | separate projects; please check the [34]GNU libc web pages for |
---|
561 | details. |
---|
562 | _________________________________________________________________ |
---|
563 | |
---|
564 | C++ |
---|
565 | |
---|
566 | Nested classes can access private members and types of the containing |
---|
567 | class. |
---|
568 | Defect report 45 clarifies that nested classes are members of |
---|
569 | the class they are nested in, and so are granted access to |
---|
570 | private members of that class. |
---|
571 | |
---|
572 | G++ emits two copies of constructors and destructors. |
---|
573 | In general there are three types of constructors (and |
---|
574 | destructors). |
---|
575 | |
---|
576 | 1. The complete object constructor/destructor. |
---|
577 | 2. The base object constructor/destructor. |
---|
578 | 3. The allocating constructor/deallocating destructor. |
---|
579 | |
---|
580 | The first two are different, when virtual base classes are |
---|
581 | involved. |
---|
582 | |
---|
583 | Global destructors are not run in the correct order. |
---|
584 | Global destructors should be run in the reverse order of their |
---|
585 | constructors completing. In most cases this is the same as the |
---|
586 | reverse order of constructors starting, but sometimes it is |
---|
587 | different, and that is important. You need to compile and link |
---|
588 | your programs with --use-cxa-atexit. We have not turned this |
---|
589 | switch on by default, as it requires a cxa aware runtime |
---|
590 | library (libc, glibc, or equivalent). |
---|
591 | |
---|
592 | Classes in exception specifiers must be complete types. |
---|
593 | [15.4]/1 tells you that you cannot have an incomplete type, or |
---|
594 | pointer to incomplete (other than cv void *) in an exception |
---|
595 | specification. |
---|
596 | |
---|
597 | Exceptions don't work in multithreaded applications. |
---|
598 | You need to rebuild g++ and libstdc++ with --enable-threads. |
---|
599 | Remember, C++ exceptions are not like hardware interrupts. You |
---|
600 | cannot throw an exception in one thread and catch it in |
---|
601 | another. You cannot throw an exception from a signal handler |
---|
602 | and catch it in the main thread. |
---|
603 | |
---|
604 | Templates, scoping, and digraphs. |
---|
605 | If you have a class in the global namespace, say named X, and |
---|
606 | want to give it as a template argument to some other class, say |
---|
607 | std::vector, then std::vector<::X> fails with a parser error. |
---|
608 | |
---|
609 | The reason is that the standard mandates that the sequence <: |
---|
610 | is treated as if it were the token [. (There are several such |
---|
611 | combinations of characters - they are called digraphs.) |
---|
612 | Depending on the version, the compiler then reports a parse |
---|
613 | error before the character : (the colon before X) or a missing |
---|
614 | closing bracket ]. |
---|
615 | |
---|
616 | The simplest way to avoid this is to write std::vector< ::X>, |
---|
617 | i.e. place a space between the opening angle bracket and the |
---|
618 | scope operator. |
---|
619 | |
---|
620 | Copy constructor access check while initializing a reference. |
---|
621 | Consider this code: |
---|
622 | |
---|
623 | class A |
---|
624 | { |
---|
625 | public: |
---|
626 | A(); |
---|
627 | |
---|
628 | private: |
---|
629 | A(const A&); // private copy ctor |
---|
630 | }; |
---|
631 | |
---|
632 | A makeA(void); |
---|
633 | void foo(const A&); |
---|
634 | |
---|
635 | void bar(void) |
---|
636 | { |
---|
637 | foo(A()); // error, copy ctor is not accessible |
---|
638 | foo(makeA()); // error, copy ctor is not accessible |
---|
639 | |
---|
640 | A a1; |
---|
641 | foo(a1); // OK, a1 is a lvalue |
---|
642 | } |
---|
643 | |
---|
644 | Starting with GCC 3.4.0, binding an rvalue to a const reference |
---|
645 | requires an accessible copy constructor. This might be |
---|
646 | surprising at first sight, especially since most popular |
---|
647 | compilers do not correctly implement this rule. |
---|
648 | |
---|
649 | The C++ Standard says that a temporary object should be created |
---|
650 | in this context and its contents filled with a copy of the |
---|
651 | object we are trying to bind to the reference; it also says |
---|
652 | that the temporary copy can be elided, but the semantic |
---|
653 | constraints (eg. accessibility) of the copy constructor still |
---|
654 | have to be checked. |
---|
655 | |
---|
656 | For further information, you can consult the following |
---|
657 | paragraphs of the C++ standard: [dcl.init.ref]/5, bullet 2, |
---|
658 | sub-bullet 1, and [class.temporary]/2. |
---|
659 | |
---|
660 | Common problems when upgrading the compiler |
---|
661 | |
---|
662 | ABI changes |
---|
663 | |
---|
664 | The C++ application binary interface (ABI) consists of two components: |
---|
665 | the first defines how the elements of classes are laid out, how |
---|
666 | functions are called, how function names are mangled, etc; the second |
---|
667 | part deals with the internals of the objects in libstdc++. Although we |
---|
668 | strive for a non-changing ABI, so far we have had to modify it with |
---|
669 | each major release. If you change your compiler to a different major |
---|
670 | release you must recompile all libraries that contain C++ code. If you |
---|
671 | fail to do so you risk getting linker errors or malfunctioning |
---|
672 | programs. Some of our Java support libraries also contain C++ code, so |
---|
673 | you might want to recompile all libraries to be safe. It should not be |
---|
674 | necessary to recompile if you have changed to a bug-fix release of the |
---|
675 | same version of the compiler; bug-fix releases are careful to avoid |
---|
676 | ABI changes. See also the [35]compatibility section of the GCC manual. |
---|
677 | |
---|
678 | Remark: A major release is designated by a change to the first or |
---|
679 | second component of the two- or three-part version number. A minor |
---|
680 | (bug-fix) release is designated by a change to the third component |
---|
681 | only. Thus GCC 3.2 and 3.3 are major releases, while 3.3.1 and 3.3.2 |
---|
682 | are bug-fix releases for GCC 3.3. With the 3.4 series we are |
---|
683 | introducing a new naming scheme; the first release of this series is |
---|
684 | 3.4.0 instead of just 3.4. |
---|
685 | |
---|
686 | Standard conformance |
---|
687 | |
---|
688 | With each release, we try to make G++ conform closer to the ISO C++ |
---|
689 | standard (available at [36]http://www.ncits.org/cplusplus.htm). We |
---|
690 | have also implemented some of the core and library defect reports |
---|
691 | (available at |
---|
692 | [37]http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/cwg_defects.html & |
---|
693 | [38]http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/lwg-defects.html |
---|
694 | respectively). |
---|
695 | |
---|
696 | Non-conforming legacy code that worked with older versions of GCC may |
---|
697 | be rejected by more recent compilers. There is no command-line switch |
---|
698 | to ensure compatibility in general, because trying to parse |
---|
699 | standard-conforming and old-style code at the same time would render |
---|
700 | the C++ frontend unmaintainable. However, some non-conforming |
---|
701 | constructs are allowed when the command-line option -fpermissive is |
---|
702 | used. |
---|
703 | |
---|
704 | Two milestones in standard conformance are GCC 3.0 (including a major |
---|
705 | overhaul of the standard library) and the 3.4.0 version (with its new |
---|
706 | C++ parser). |
---|
707 | |
---|
708 | New in GCC 3.0 |
---|
709 | |
---|
710 | * The standard library is much more conformant, and uses the std:: |
---|
711 | namespace (which is now a real namespace, not an alias for ::). |
---|
712 | * The standard header files for the c library don't end with .h, but |
---|
713 | begin with c (i.e. <cstdlib> rather than <stdlib.h>). The .h names |
---|
714 | are still available, but are deprecated. |
---|
715 | * <strstream> is deprecated, use <sstream> instead. |
---|
716 | * streambuf::seekoff & streambuf::seekpos are private, instead use |
---|
717 | streambuf::pubseekoff & streambuf::pubseekpos respectively. |
---|
718 | * If std::operator << (std::ostream &, long long) doesn't exist, you |
---|
719 | need to recompile libstdc++ with --enable-long-long. |
---|
720 | |
---|
721 | If you get lots of errors about things like cout not being found, |
---|
722 | you've most likely forgotten to tell the compiler to look in the std:: |
---|
723 | namespace. There are several ways to do this: |
---|
724 | * Say std::cout at the call. This is the most explicit way of saying |
---|
725 | what you mean. |
---|
726 | * Say using std::cout; somewhere before the call. You will need to |
---|
727 | do this for each function or type you wish to use from the |
---|
728 | standard library. |
---|
729 | * Say using namespace std; somewhere before the call. This is the |
---|
730 | quick-but-dirty fix. This brings the whole of the std:: namespace |
---|
731 | into scope. Never do this in a header file, as every user of your |
---|
732 | header file will be affected by this decision. |
---|
733 | |
---|
734 | New in GCC 3.4.0 |
---|
735 | |
---|
736 | The new parser brings a lot of improvements, especially concerning |
---|
737 | name-lookup. |
---|
738 | * The "implicit typename" extension got removed (it was already |
---|
739 | deprecated since GCC 3.1), so that the following code is now |
---|
740 | rejected, see [14.6]: |
---|
741 | |
---|
742 | template <typename> struct A |
---|
743 | { |
---|
744 | typedef int X; |
---|
745 | }; |
---|
746 | |
---|
747 | template <typename T> struct B |
---|
748 | { |
---|
749 | A<T>::X x; // error |
---|
750 | typename A<T>::X y; // OK |
---|
751 | }; |
---|
752 | |
---|
753 | B<void> b; |
---|
754 | |
---|
755 | * For similar reasons, the following code now requires the template |
---|
756 | keyword, see [14.2]: |
---|
757 | |
---|
758 | template <typename> struct A |
---|
759 | { |
---|
760 | template <int> struct X {}; |
---|
761 | }; |
---|
762 | |
---|
763 | template <typename T> struct B |
---|
764 | { |
---|
765 | typename A<T>::X<0> x; // error |
---|
766 | typename A<T>::template X<0> y; // OK |
---|
767 | }; |
---|
768 | |
---|
769 | B<void> b; |
---|
770 | |
---|
771 | * We now have two-stage name-lookup, so that the following code is |
---|
772 | rejected, see [14.6]/9: |
---|
773 | |
---|
774 | template <typename T> int foo() |
---|
775 | { |
---|
776 | return i; // error |
---|
777 | } |
---|
778 | |
---|
779 | * This also affects members of base classes, see [14.6.2]: |
---|
780 | |
---|
781 | template <typename> struct A |
---|
782 | { |
---|
783 | int i, j; |
---|
784 | }; |
---|
785 | |
---|
786 | template <typename T> struct B : A<T> |
---|
787 | { |
---|
788 | int foo1() { return i; } // error |
---|
789 | int foo2() { return this->i; } // OK |
---|
790 | int foo3() { return B<T>::i; } // OK |
---|
791 | int foo4() { return A<T>::i; } // OK |
---|
792 | |
---|
793 | using A<T>::j; |
---|
794 | int foo5() { return j; } // OK |
---|
795 | }; |
---|
796 | |
---|
797 | In addition to the problems listed above, the manual contains a |
---|
798 | section on [39]Common Misunderstandings with GNU C++. |
---|
799 | |
---|
800 | References |
---|
801 | |
---|
802 | 1. http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs.html |
---|
803 | 2. http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs.html#report |
---|
804 | 3. http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs.html#need |
---|
805 | 4. http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs.html#dontwant |
---|
806 | 5. http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs.html#where |
---|
807 | 6. http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs.html#detailed |
---|
808 | 7. http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs.html#gnat |
---|
809 | 8. http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs.html#pch |
---|
810 | 9. http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs.html#known |
---|
811 | 10. http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs.html#cxx |
---|
812 | 11. http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs.html#missing |
---|
813 | 12. http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs.html#fixed34 |
---|
814 | 13. http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs.html#fortran |
---|
815 | 14. http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs.html#nonbugs |
---|
816 | 15. http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs.html#nonbugs_general |
---|
817 | 16. http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs.html#nonbugs_c |
---|
818 | 17. http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs.html#nonbugs_cxx |
---|
819 | 18. http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs.html#upgrading |
---|
820 | 19. http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs.html#known |
---|
821 | 20. http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ |
---|
822 | 21. mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org |
---|
823 | 22. http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs.html#gnat |
---|
824 | 23. http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs.html#pch |
---|
825 | 24. http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs.html#detailed |
---|
826 | 25. http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs.html#where |
---|
827 | 26. http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs.html#detailed |
---|
828 | 27. http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs.html#detailed |
---|
829 | 28. http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs.html#new34 |
---|
830 | 29. http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/g77/Trouble.html |
---|
831 | 30. http://gcc.gnu.org/PR323 |
---|
832 | 31. http://www.validlab.com/goldberg/paper.ps |
---|
833 | 32. http://gcc.gnu.org/PR11751 |
---|
834 | 33. http://mail-index.NetBSD.org/tech-kern/2003/08/11/0001.html |
---|
835 | 34. http://www.gnu.org/software/libc/ |
---|
836 | 35. http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Compatibility.html |
---|
837 | 36. http://www.ncits.org/cplusplus.htm |
---|
838 | 37. http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/cwg_defects.html |
---|
839 | 38. http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/lwg-defects.html |
---|
840 | 39. http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/C---Misunderstandings.html |
---|