I just tried to compile Suse Linux package ruby-zypp-0.1-44
with the GNU C++ compiler version 4.3 snapshot 20070216.
The compiler said
/usr/include/boost/regex/v4/perl_matcher_non_recursive.hpp:190: internal
compiler error: tree check: expected tree_list, have function_decl in
build_call, at
--- Comment #1 from dcb314 at hotmail dot com 2007-02-18 11:26 ---
Created an attachment (id=13062)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=13062action=view)
gzipped C++ source code
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30839
I just tried to compile Suse Linux package rxvt-unicode-8.1-3
with the GNU C++ compiler version 4.3 snapshot 20070216.
The compiler said
screen.C: In member function 'void rxvt_term::scr_reset()':
screen.C:160: internal compiler error: in set_lattice_value, at
tree-ssa-ccp.c:487
Please submit a
--- Comment #1 from dcb314 at hotmail dot com 2007-02-18 11:28 ---
Created an attachment (id=13063)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=13063action=view)
C++ source code
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30840
--- Comment #12 from paolo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-18 11:33 ---
Subject: Bug 28080
Author: paolo
Date: Sun Feb 18 11:32:44 2007
New Revision: 122089
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=122089
Log:
2007-02-18 Paolo Carlini [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR
demo.c:
#define PORTD (*(volatile unsigned char *)(50))
int
main (void)
{
PORTD |= 1;
return 0;
}
Revision r118474:
.LM2:
; (insn 14 12 18 main.c:6 (set (mem/v:QI (const_int 50 [0x32]) [0 S1 A8])
; (ior:QI (mem/v:QI (const_int 50 [0x32]) [0 S1 A8])
; (const_int 1
--- Comment #2 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-18 13:24
---
Most likely a bug in the bootstrap compiler (PR ada/27936). Try with 3.4.x.
--
ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
class A {
class __attribute__((visibility(hidden))) B {
};
B v;
};
int main (void) { A a; return (0); }
Compiling the above code with 4.2.0 20070207 generates:
--- Comment #4 from dorit at il dot ibm dot com 2007-02-18 16:42 ---
patch: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-02/msg01555.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30795
I just tried to compile Suse Linux package sane-backends-1.0.18-5
with the GNU C++ compiler version 4.3 snapshot 20070216.
The compiler said
plustek-pp_dac.c: In function 'dacP98WaitForShading':
plustek-pp_dac.c:780: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault
Please submit a full bug report,
--- Comment #1 from dcb314 at hotmail dot com 2007-02-18 16:58 ---
Created an attachment (id=13064)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=13064action=view)
C source code
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30843
--- Comment #4 from sayle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-18 17:10 ---
Subject: Bug 28173
Author: sayle
Date: Sun Feb 18 17:10:19 2007
New Revision: 122100
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=122100
Log:
Backport from mainline.
PR middle-end/24427
--- Comment #8 from sayle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-18 17:10 ---
Subject: Bug 24427
Author: sayle
Date: Sun Feb 18 17:10:19 2007
New Revision: 122100
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=122100
Log:
Backport from mainline.
PR middle-end/24427
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-18 17:27 ---
This is way unrelated to that Ada bug.
The reasoning behind the warning is because you will get an ODR issue if you
define the class A in a shared library and use it in the executable.
--
--- Comment #9 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-18 17:58
---
Roger, I'm a little puzzled by your last move: is it really necessary to
backport a patch for a missed optimization, after a delay of 1 full year,
to a branch which is supposed to be in stabilization mode now?
--- Comment #10 from roger at eyesopen dot com 2007-02-18 18:10 ---
Hi Eric,
It's not PR24427 that's the motivation for this backport, but PR 28173.
In fact, it was *your* request in comment #2 of PR28173 to backport this!
I'm a little disappointed you'd even question my
--- Comment #11 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-18 18:50
---
It's not PR24427 that's the motivation for this backport, but PR 28173.
In fact, it was *your* request in comment #2 of PR28173 to backport this!
Well, I only requested that you comment on the proposed
--- Comment #3 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-18 19:52 ---
Subject: Bug 30400
Author: pault
Date: Sun Feb 18 19:52:16 2007
New Revision: 122102
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=122102
Log:
2007-02-18 Roger Sayle [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Paul Thomas
The following code, placed in a file named A.java, fails to compile with GCJ
4.1.0. Sun's javac has no problem with it. Interestingly, if you comment out
the line marked with /**/, the code compiles.
/* Begin A.java */
public class A
{
public A() { }
public int foo(Object a) { return 1; }
--- Comment #1 from rizzolo at gmail dot com 2007-02-18 21:07 ---
Created an attachment (id=13065)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=13065action=view)
The code causing the problem.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30844
--- Comment #1 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-18 21:18 ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 27866 ***
--
tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #6 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-18 21:18 ---
*** Bug 28399 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27866
--- Comment #8 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-18 21:18 ---
Subject: Bug 30235
Author: pault
Date: Sun Feb 18 21:18:28 2007
New Revision: 122105
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=122105
Log:
2007-02-18 Brooks Moses [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR 30235
--- Comment #9 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-18 21:23 ---
Good one, Brooks.
Fixed on trunk and 4.2
Paul
--
pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Compile the attached source file to see the segfault:
$ g++4 -v bug.cpp
Using built-in specs.
Target: i686-pc-linux-gnu
Configured with: ../gcc-4.1.2/configure --program-suffix=4 : (reconfigured)
../gcc-4.1.2/configure --enable-languages=c,c++ --program-suffix=4
Thread model: posix
gcc version
--- Comment #1 from cpp at tempest-sw dot com 2007-02-18 21:37 ---
Created an attachment (id=13066)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=13066action=view)
Source file to demonstrate problem
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30845
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-18 21:42 ---
ld terminated with signal 11 [Segmentation fault]
ld segfaulted and not collect2.
ld is part the GNU binutils.
You should updated to the latest stable binutils and then if it is still
reproducable, report this bug
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-18 21:49 ---
reducing ...
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-18 21:50 ---
Note this is related to placement new in a template.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30839
--- Comment #2 from dorit at il dot ibm dot com 2007-02-18 21:50 ---
I was able to reproduce it. Here's a reduced testcase:
void dacP98FillRGBMap( unsigned char *pBuffer )
{
unsigned long dw, dw1;
unsigned long *pdw = (unsigned long *)(pBuffer);
for( dw = 256, dw1 = 0; dw;
I just tried to compile Suse Linux package snd-8.8-2
with the GNU C++ compiler version 4.3 snapshot 20070216.
The compiler said
clm2xen.c: In function 'g_edot_product':
clm2xen.c:7351: internal compiler error: in sra_build_assignment, at
tree-sra.c:1733
Please submit a full bug report,
with
--- Comment #1 from dcb314 at hotmail dot com 2007-02-18 21:52 ---
Created an attachment (id=13067)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=13067action=view)
C source code
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30846
--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-18 22:04 ---
Reduced testcase:
typedef __SIZE_TYPE__ size_t;
inline void* operator new(size_t, void* __p) throw() { return __p; }
inline void operator delete (void*, void*) throw() { }
struct saved_extra_block
{
--- Comment #7 from sdack at gmx dot de 2007-02-18 22:12 ---
I dug a bit deeper and should now get my gcc compiled with a load full of
options. It is compiling right now. The idea is to get a highly optimized
output as well as to cause high stress to gcc. However, there is a file called
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-18 22:12 ---
Reducing ...
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-18 22:27 ---
reducing ...
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #9 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-18 22:33 ---
Subject: Bug 30773
Author: steven
Date: Sun Feb 18 22:33:23 2007
New Revision: 122106
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=122106
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/30773
* local-alloc.c
--- Comment #10 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-18 22:34 ---
Fixed on the trunk. I'll open a new PR for the missed rematerialization
opportunity that this causes.
--
steven at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #5 from sandra at codesourcery dot com 2007-02-18 22:37 ---
This bug is fixed by this already-posted patch, which does some restructuring
of the code in build_op_delete_call where the error is happening:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-02/msg01487.html
I could come
The follwoing code snippet triggers an ICE since GCC 4.0.0:
=
void foo(int i)
{
(i ? 1 : 2) = ({ int X; });
}
=
bug.cc: In function 'void foo(int)':
bug.cc:3: internal compiler error: in build_target_expr_with_type, at
--
reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.1.3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30847
The following invalid code snippet triggers an ICE since GCC 3.0
(with the exception of GCC 3.4.4 - 3.4.6):
=
void foo(double d)
{
__asm__ ( : =u (d));
}
=
bug.c: In function 'foo':
bug.c:3: error: output regs must be
--
reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.1.3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30848
The following invalid code snippet triggers an ICE since GCC 3.4.0:
=
void foo()
{
asm( : 0);
}
=
bug.cc: In function 'void foo()':
bug.cc:3: error: expected string-literal before numeric constant
bug.cc:3: error: expected
--
reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.1.3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30849
--- Comment #7 from kkojima at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-18 23:08 ---
Subject: Bug 29599
Author: kkojima
Date: Sun Feb 18 23:08:15 2007
New Revision: 122109
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=122109
Log:
Backport from mainline.
PR
--- Comment #8 from kkojima at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-18 23:10 ---
Fixed.
--
kkojima at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
The following invalid code snippet triggers an ICE since GCC 3.4.0:
=
void foo()
{
asm( :: 0);
}
=
bug.cc: In function 'void foo()':
bug.cc:3: error: expected string-literal before numeric constant
bug.cc:3: error:
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-18 23:10 ---
This is an x86 specific inline-asm bug really as the u constraint is x86
specific.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
The following invalid code snippet triggers an ICE since GCC 3.4.0:
=
void foo()
{
asm (%[x] : [0](x));
}
=
bug.cc: In function 'void foo()':
bug.cc:3: error: expected identifier before numeric constant
bug.cc:3: error:
--
reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.1.3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30851
--- Comment #28 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-18 23:28
---
I think this is honza's bug. The backtrace:
#0 fancy_abort (file=0xda66cc ../../gcc/dominance.c, line=374,
function=0xda66e4 calc_dfs_tree) at ../../gcc/diagnostic.c:642
#1 0x0077eba8 in calc_dfs_tree
--- Comment #29 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-18 23:30
---
Created an attachment (id=13068)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=13068action=view)
Reduced testcase as far as I can reduce it
This is the most reduced testcase I can get it. it is down to 39k.
The following invalid code snippet triggers an ICE since GCC 4.0.0:
=
struct A
{
static int i;
};
int j = __builtin_offsetof(volatile A, i);
=
bug.cc:6: internal compiler error: in fold_offsetof_1, at c-common.c:6316
--
reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.1.3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30852
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-18 23:43 ---
We generate two complex double types.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30846
Through a change in gcc-4.1.2/config/mh-x86omitfp to replace -O2
-fomit-framepointer with -O3 the bootstrap process will fail with the
following warnings:
../../gcc-4.1.2/libcpp/traditional.c: In function '_cpp_scan_out_logical_line':
../../gcc-4.1.2/libcpp/traditional.c:349: warning:
--- Comment #4 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2007-02-19 00:01 ---
Subject: Re: [4.3 Regression] ice for legal
code with -O2
On Sun, 18 Feb 2007, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
We generate two complex double types.
build_common_tree_nodes_2 probably ought to use
--- Comment #5 from reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-19 00:26
---
Confirmed. Reduced testcase (compile with -O):
=
void foo()
{
_Complex double z = ({ 0; 1.0i; });
}
=
--
reichelt at gcc dot
--
reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Last
On mainline we get a wrong diagnostic for the follwoing code snippet:
struct A
{
A();
};
A a = -A();
bug.cc:6: error: no match for 'operator-' in '-A(0u)'
Note, that the constructor has no arguments, but 'A(0u)' is printed
in the error message. This gets
--- Comment #5 from sayle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-19 00:54 ---
Subject: Bug 28173
Author: sayle
Date: Mon Feb 19 00:54:29 2007
New Revision: 122116
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=122116
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/28173
* simplify-rtx.c
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-19 01:51 ---
It is printing out the in-charge argument.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30854
gcc changes the logical order of the code.
I have a 16 byte structure on which I use a macro version of bzero() that looks
like this:
#define lipc_bzero( __buf, __size ) \
{ \
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-19 02:12 ---
You are violating C aliasing rules, use -fno-strict-aliasing or fix the code so
you don't violate the rules.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 21920 ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
--- Comment #112 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-19 02:12
---
*** Bug 30855 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #5 from sandra at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-19 04:13 ---
Subject: Bug 30833
Author: sandra
Date: Mon Feb 19 04:12:49 2007
New Revision: 122122
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=122122
Log:
2007-02-18 Sandra Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR
--- Comment #6 from sandra at codesourcery dot com 2007-02-19 04:15 ---
I looked around and found another switch that was missing case tcc_vl_exp as
well. Revised patch has been regtested and committed; see
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-02/msg01584.html
--
--- Comment #6 from aoliva at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-19 06:20 ---
Fixed in revision 122120.
--
aoliva at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #5 from patchapp at dberlin dot org 2007-02-19 06:30 ---
Subject: Bug number PR30681
A patch for this bug has been added to the patch tracker.
The mailing list url for the patch is
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-02/msg01587.html
--
--- Comment #6 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-19 06:48
---
Subject: Bug 30681
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Mon Feb 19 06:48:07 2007
New Revision: 122124
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=122124
Log:
2007-02-18 Jerry DeLisle [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR
--- Comment #7 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-19 06:52
---
Subject: Bug 30681
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Mon Feb 19 06:52:18 2007
New Revision: 122125
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=122125
Log:
2007-02-18 Jerry DeLisle [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR
--
bonzini at gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |bonzini at gnu dot org
|dot org |
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-19 06:53 ---
Confirmed, reduced testcase as far as I can do it:
typedef struct rxvt_term *rxvt_t;
struct rxvt_salloc {
struct chain {
struct chain *next;
};
chain *firstline;
74 matches
Mail list logo
