[Bug c/36914] va_list is treatead as an array when complied in 64bits

2008-07-24 Thread schwab at suse dot de
--- Comment #3 from schwab at suse dot de 2008-07-24 08:29 --- va_list can be any object type, including an array. -- schwab at suse dot de changed: What|Removed |Added

[Bug fortran/29952] Flag to give runtime information array temporary was created for argument

2008-07-24 Thread burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #4 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-07-24 08:33 --- (In reply to comment #3) Test case for the run-time check. By itself this PR not related is PR 36909. However, both require that gfc_conv_function_call passes on information. For PR 36909 one needs to have the

[Bug fortran/36915] New: Unneccessary array temporary for same_array = scalar * same_array

2008-07-24 Thread burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
Maybe this could be handled by the Middle End, once the array operations in the ME are implemented. This would save us from checking the alias information in the FE. Regarding the Middle-End Array Expressions, see: http://www.gccsummit.org/2008/gcc-2008-proceedings.pdf, pp. 33-42. * * * From:

[Bug tree-optimization/36917] New: [4.3 regression] miscompilation with -O2 and r136501

2008-07-24 Thread doko at ubuntu dot com
OpenJDK (using the IcedTea6 build and patches) fails to build with 4.3 from the 4.3 branch, when the jvm built in stage1 is used for the first time in the stage2 build: -def-pcompile: [javac] Compiling 2 source files to

[Bug tree-optimization/36917] [4.3 regression] miscompilation with -O2 and r136501

2008-07-24 Thread doko at ubuntu dot com
--- Comment #1 from doko at ubuntu dot com 2008-07-24 09:05 --- Created an attachment (id=15948) -- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=15948action=view) preprocessed source -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36917

[Bug tree-optimization/36917] [4.3 regression] miscompilation with -O2 and r136501

2008-07-24 Thread doko at ubuntu dot com
--- Comment #2 from doko at ubuntu dot com 2008-07-24 09:06 --- Created an attachment (id=15949) -- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=15949action=view) tree dump (r136501 reverted) -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36917

[Bug tree-optimization/36917] [4.3 regression] miscompilation with -O2 and r136501

2008-07-24 Thread doko at ubuntu dot com
--- Comment #3 from doko at ubuntu dot com 2008-07-24 09:06 --- Created an attachment (id=15950) -- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=15950action=view) tree dump (r136501) -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36917

[Bug tree-optimization/36917] [4.3 regression] miscompilation with -O2 and r136501

2008-07-24 Thread doko at ubuntu dot com
--- Comment #4 from doko at ubuntu dot com 2008-07-24 09:07 --- Created an attachment (id=15951) -- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=15951action=view) diff of tree dump -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36917

[Bug tree-optimization/36917] [4.3 regression] miscompilation with -O2 and r136501

2008-07-24 Thread doko at ubuntu dot com
--- Comment #5 from doko at ubuntu dot com 2008-07-24 09:15 --- -O3 and -fwrapv, r136501 not reverted works -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36917

[Bug tree-optimization/36917] [4.3 regression] miscompilation with -O2 and r136501

2008-07-24 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #6 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-07-24 09:27 --- if -fwrapv works then is really a bug? Yes overflow is defined in java but c++ is not java. -- pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added

[Bug fortran/29952] Flag to give runtime information array temporary was created for argument

2008-07-24 Thread tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #5 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-07-24 09:27 --- Subject: Bug 29952 Author: tkoenig Date: Thu Jul 24 09:26:43 2008 New Revision: 138112 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=138112 Log: 2008-07-24 Thomas Koenig [EMAIL PROTECTED] PR

[Bug tree-optimization/36917] [4.3 regression] miscompilation with -O2 and r136501

2008-07-24 Thread doko at ubuntu dot com
--- Comment #7 from doko at ubuntu dot com 2008-07-24 09:31 --- Created an attachment (id=15952) -- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=15952action=view) preprocessed source (no pch used) -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36917

[Bug tree-optimization/36917] [4.3 regression] miscompilation with -O2 and r136501

2008-07-24 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #8 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-07-24 09:31 --- Looking at the source I don't see any integer overflows - the fact that -fno-ivopts makes it work and the effect is on a variable introduced by ivopts hints at a GCC bug more than a application bug. So - now I

[Bug tree-optimization/36917] [4.3 regression] miscompilation with -O2 and r136501

2008-07-24 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #9 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-07-24 09:52 --- The difference comes from the second VRP pass which concludes that c_76 is [1, +INF] from which it changes # c_173 = PHI 0(7), c_76(12) to # c_173 = PHI 0(7), 1(12) which it concludes from c_76 = (Cell)

[Bug fortran/36915] Unneccessary array temporary for same_array_ptr = const * same_array_ptr

2008-07-24 Thread dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #1 from dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-07-24 10:14 --- Tobias, thanks for opening the PR. -- dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added

[Bug target/36840] Fortran complex array multiply missed optimization

2008-07-24 Thread victork at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #4 from victork at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-07-24 12:30 --- I'm going to submit a patch which will enable SLP vectorization on complex data types. But SLP will handle only add, substruct, compare and other operations which doesn't require permutation. Adding ability to

[Bug c/36913] rewind does not work for files over 8GB

2008-07-24 Thread paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com
--- Comment #3 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2008-07-24 12:44 --- (In reply to comment #2) Do you imply that it's source is universal? If so, can it be true that the GNU implementation of some lower level function called by 'rewind' is incorrect? I meant simply that one

[Bug fortran/36915] Unneccessary array temporary for same_array_ptr = const * same_array_ptr

2008-07-24 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-07-24 13:03 --- See also PR36842 which would benefit as well. -- rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added

[Bug middle-end/36885] [TUPLES] tuples branch bootstrap failure in libstdc++-v3

2008-07-24 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #10 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-07-24 14:34 --- Created an attachment (id=15953) -- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=15953action=view) reduced testcase Reduced testcase, -O2 -g --param ggc-min-expand=0 --param ggc-min-heapsize=0 --

[Bug bootstrap/36907] [4.4 Regression]: Gcc failed to bootstrap

2008-07-24 Thread hjl dot tools at gmail dot com
--- Comment #12 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2008-07-24 13:15 --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] gcc]$ cat bar.i typedef __builtin_va_list __gnuc_va_list; extern void warning (int, const char *, ...) __attribute__ ((__format__ (__printf__, 2, 3))) __attribute__ ((__nonnull__ (2)))

[Bug c/36869] OpenMP issue in gcc vs icc

2008-07-24 Thread singler at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #1 from singler at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-07-24 15:02 --- The test program is wrong. The loop counter i is not mentioned in the parallel clause, so it is *shared*. Thus, the two loops interfere and the calculation of pi goes wrong. Add private(i) to the clause or declare

[Bug middle-end/36885] [TUPLES] tuples branch bootstrap failure in libstdc++-v3

2008-07-24 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #11 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-07-24 15:45 --- I have a patch. -- rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added

[Bug middle-end/36885] [TUPLES] tuples branch bootstrap failure in libstdc++-v3

2008-07-24 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #12 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-07-24 15:51 --- Can you re-test bootstrap with http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2008-07/msg01896.html applied? Thanks. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36885

[Bug bootstrap/36907] [4.4 Regression]: Gcc failed to bootstrap

2008-07-24 Thread hjl dot tools at gmail dot com
--- Comment #13 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2008-07-24 15:51 --- ia64_override_options has ia64_flag_schedule_insns2 = flag_schedule_insns_after_reload; flag_schedule_insns_after_reload = 0; If decode_options is called again without calling ia64_override_options,

[Bug middle-end/36885] [TUPLES] tuples branch bootstrap failure in libstdc++-v3

2008-07-24 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #13 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-07-24 16:12 --- Subject: Bug 36885 Author: rguenth Date: Thu Jul 24 16:11:28 2008 New Revision: 138121 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=138121 Log: 2008-07-24 Richard Guenther [EMAIL PROTECTED] PR

[Bug fortran/31243] truncating strings longer than 2**32 characters

2008-07-24 Thread domob at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #4 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-07-24 16:31 --- This seems to be still in there... Any interest that I work on this? What's about emitting a warning if either len= or a substring-reference expression is of a KIND that can have larger values than the machine can

[Bug fortran/36403] [4.4 Regression] Some fortran tests using eoshift fail on SH

2008-07-24 Thread domob at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #2 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-07-24 17:03 --- Isn't this maybe a general problem about optional string arguments? Or is this really a eoshift-specific problem? I'm just thinking about a general solution for this kind of problem if it isn't; in that case it

[Bug bootstrap/36918] New: [4.4 regression] Bootstrap failure on sparc: assertion failure in options.c

2008-07-24 Thread ro at gcc dot gnu dot org
As of 20080724, mainline doesn't bootstrap on sparc-sun-solaris2.11 (and probably every sparc target) like this: checking for suffix of object files... configure: error: in `/vol/gccsrc/obj/gcc-4.4.0-20080724/11-gcc/sparc-sun-solaris2.11/libgcc': configure: error: cannot compute suffix of object

[Bug bootstrap/36918] [4.4 regression] Bootstrap failure on sparc: assertion failure in options.c

2008-07-24 Thread ro at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #1 from ro at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-07-24 17:21 --- Michael, could you have a look? This seems to have been introduced by this change: 2008-07-23 Michael Meissner [EMAIL PROTECTED] Karthik Kumar [EMAIL PROTECTED] [...] * optc-gen.awk: Add support

[Bug bootstrap/36907] [4.4 Regression]: Gcc failed to bootstrap

2008-07-24 Thread hjl dot tools at gmail dot com
--- Comment #14 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2008-07-24 17:41 --- The following targets are affected by revision 138075: arm/arm.c:flag_schedule_insns = flag_schedule_insns_after_reload = 0; bfin/bfin.c: bfin_flag_var_tracking = flag_var_tracking; bfin/bfin.c:

[Bug bootstrap/36907] [4.4 Regression]: Gcc failed to bootstrap

2008-07-24 Thread hjl dot tools at gmail dot com
--- Comment #15 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2008-07-24 17:49 --- I don't think the middle-end should change optimization options which have been overridden by the backend. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36907

[Bug bootstrap/36918] [4.4 regression] Bootstrap failure on sparc: assertion failure in options.c

2008-07-24 Thread gnu at the-meissners dot org
--- Comment #2 from gnu at the-meissners dot org 2008-07-24 18:26 --- Subject: Re: [4.4 regression] Bootstrap failure on sparc: assertion failure in options.c On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 05:21:10PM -, ro at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote: --- Comment #1 from ro at gcc dot

[Bug bootstrap/36918] [4.4 regression] Bootstrap failure on sparc: assertion failure in options.c

2008-07-24 Thread andreast at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #3 from andreast at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-07-24 18:36 --- I bootstrapped choice 1. No regressions. I also prefer to save space where possible. So I'd like to avoid choice 3. Can we also use 255 or 127 as value for DEFAULT_PCC_STRUCT_RETURN? -- andreast at gcc dot

[Bug bootstrap/36918] [4.4 regression] Bootstrap failure on sparc: assertion failure in options.c

2008-07-24 Thread gnu at the-meissners dot org
--- Comment #5 from gnu at the-meissners dot org 2008-07-24 18:49 --- Subject: Re: [4.4 regression] Bootstrap failure on sparc: assertion failure in options.c On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 06:36:20PM -, andreast at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote: --- Comment #3 from andreast

[Bug fortran/33141] Intrinsic procedures: Improve warning/error with -std=*

2008-07-24 Thread domob at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #8 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-07-24 18:53 --- Subject: Bug 33141 Author: domob Date: Thu Jul 24 18:52:51 2008 New Revision: 138122 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=138122 Log: 2008-07-24 Daniel Kraft [EMAIL PROTECTED] PR

[Bug middle-end/36885] [TUPLES] tuples branch bootstrap failure in libstdc++-v3

2008-07-24 Thread andreast at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #14 from andreast at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-07-24 18:58 --- Bootstrap passed. Tests will start soon. Thanks. -- andreast at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added

[Bug bootstrap/36919] New: [4.4 regression] Bootstrap failure on IRIX 6.5: unrecognizable insn in errors.c

2008-07-24 Thread ro at gcc dot gnu dot org
As of 20080724, mainline fails to bootstrap on IRIX 6.5: /vol/gccsrc/obj/gcc-4.4.0-20080724/6.5-gcc/./prev-gcc/xgcc -B/vol/gccsrc/obj/gcc-4.4.0-20080724/6.5-gcc/./prev-gcc/ -B/vol/gcc/mips-sgi-irix6.5/bin/ -c -g -O2 -DIN_GCC -W -Wall -Wwrite-strings -Wstrict-prototypes -Wmissing-prototypes

[Bug target/36806] [4.4 Regression] I/Os hang at rev. 137631 on darwin9

2008-07-24 Thread andreast at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #17 from andreast at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-07-24 19:03 --- Just a comment, on the tuples branch, merged from main on 2008-07-23, the hangs do not happen anymore. At least on x86_64-apple-darwin. i686-apple-darwin build in progress. --

[Bug target/35936] Cannot compile libgcc.S on avr

2008-07-24 Thread eric dot weddington at atmel dot com
--- Comment #1 from eric dot weddington at atmel dot com 2008-07-24 19:13 --- What 4.4 snapshot did you use to build? I'm getting something very similar, but it's for avr5, not avr3: ../../../../gcc-4.4-20080718/libgcc/../gcc/config/avr/libgcc.S: Assembler messages:

[Bug fortran/33141] Intrinsic procedures: Improve warning/error with -std=*

2008-07-24 Thread domob at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #9 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-07-24 19:16 --- Resolving fixed, discussion on better option names and minor changes welcome :) -- domob at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added

[Bug bootstrap/36907] [4.4 Regression]: Gcc failed to bootstrap

2008-07-24 Thread gnu at the-meissners dot org
--- Comment #16 from gnu at the-meissners dot org 2008-07-24 19:19 --- Subject: Re: [4.4 Regression]: Gcc failed to bootstrap On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 05:49:02PM -, hjl dot tools at gmail dot com wrote: --- Comment #15 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2008-07-24 17:49

[Bug bootstrap/36907] [4.4 Regression]: Gcc failed to bootstrap

2008-07-24 Thread hjl dot tools at gmail dot com
--- Comment #17 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2008-07-24 19:32 --- (In reply to comment #16) I haven't done a bootstrap built yet, but could you try this patch on the ia-64? When I try it via a cross compiler, it works fine, but I wonder whether random ports will do weird

[Bug target/36047] -pg does not work on large binaries and m68k

2008-07-24 Thread gcc at breakpoint dot cc
--- Comment #1 from gcc at breakpoint dot cc 2008-07-24 19:48 --- Does anybody care about this bug? -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36047

[Bug bootstrap/36918] [4.4 regression] Bootstrap failure on sparc: assertion failure in options.c

2008-07-24 Thread andreast at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #6 from andreast at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-07-24 19:50 --- Patch: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2008-07/msg01916.html -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36918

[Bug c++/36920] New: internal compiler error building libicu package

2008-07-24 Thread john dot spelis at 3dlabs dot com
Building libicu from http://packages.ubuntu.com/hardy/libicu38 using configure --build=i686-pc-linux-gnu --host=arm-3d-linux-gnueabi make Configured and built without issue for a while then blew up; arm-3d-linux-gnueabi-g++ -D_REENTRANT \ -I../common

[Bug c++/36920] internal compiler error building libicu package

2008-07-24 Thread john dot spelis at 3dlabs dot com
--- Comment #1 from john dot spelis at 3dlabs dot com 2008-07-24 20:01 --- Created an attachment (id=15954) -- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=15954action=view) save-temps file -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36920

[Bug target/36920] internal compiler error building libicu package

2008-07-24 Thread john dot spelis at 3dlabs dot com
--- Comment #2 from john dot spelis at 3dlabs dot com 2008-07-24 20:01 --- Created an attachment (id=15955) -- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=15955action=view) save-temps output -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36920

[Bug target/36920] internal compiler error building libicu package

2008-07-24 Thread john dot spelis at 3dlabs dot com
--- Comment #3 from john dot spelis at 3dlabs dot com 2008-07-24 20:02 --- Created an attachment (id=15956) -- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=15956action=view) output file from save-temp -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36920

[Bug bootstrap/36907] [4.4 Regression]: Gcc failed to bootstrap

2008-07-24 Thread gnu at the-meissners dot org
--- Comment #18 from gnu at the-meissners dot org 2008-07-24 20:11 --- Subject: Re: [4.4 Regression]: Gcc failed to bootstrap On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 07:33:01PM -, hjl dot tools at gmail dot com wrote: --- Comment #17 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2008-07-24 19:32

[Bug bootstrap/36907] [4.4 Regression]: Gcc failed to bootstrap

2008-07-24 Thread hjl dot tools at gmail dot com
--- Comment #19 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2008-07-24 20:14 --- (In reply to comment #18) Subject: Re: [4.4 Regression]: Gcc failed to bootstrap Yes, I came to the same conclusion when trying a bootstrap. This patch adds a new SECONDARY_OVERRIDE_OPTION to be run in the

[Bug bootstrap/36907] [4.4 Regression]: Gcc failed to bootstrap

2008-07-24 Thread gnu at the-meissners dot org
--- Comment #20 from gnu at the-meissners dot org 2008-07-24 20:21 --- Subject: Re: [4.4 Regression]: Gcc failed to bootstrap On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 08:14:35PM -, hjl dot tools at gmail dot com wrote: --- Comment #19 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2008-07-24 20:14

[Bug target/36806] [4.4 Regression] I/Os hang at rev. 137631 on darwin9

2008-07-24 Thread andreast at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #18 from andreast at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-07-24 20:23 --- I confirm that i686-apple-darwin on tuples branch does _not_ hang in these test cases Proposal, I know about plans to merge tuples in the next few days to trunk, so we wait until this merge happened and see how

[Bug c++/36921] New: comparsion does not have mathematical meaning is not correct

2008-07-24 Thread deba at inf dot elte dot hu
In c++ the operators could be overloaded, therefore in special cases it could have real and correct mathematical meaning. In my opinion, the bool-numeric comparisons should be warned instead of the current solution. -- Summary: comparsion does not have mathematical meaning is not

[Bug bootstrap/36907] [4.4 Regression]: Gcc failed to bootstrap

2008-07-24 Thread hjl dot tools at gmail dot com
--- Comment #21 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2008-07-24 20:29 --- (In reply to comment #18) +#ifdef SECONDARY_OVERRIDE_OPTIONS + /* Some machines may reject certain combinations of options. */ + if (! first_time_p) +SECONDARY_OVERRIDE_OPTIONS; +#endif + #ifdef

[Bug c++/36921] comparsion does not have mathematical meaning is not correct

2008-07-24 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-07-24 20:30 --- Example? -- pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added

[Bug tree-optimization/36922] New: ICE in tree-data-ref.c with -ftree-loop-linear

2008-07-24 Thread pthaugen at gcc dot gnu dot org
Current trunk is ICE'ing when trying to build CPU2006 benchmark 416.gamess with -ftree-loop-linear. run/build_base_gcc_64.0001 cat junk.f SUBROUTINE GETCOF2(NP,FLM,ZLL,COEFF) C IMPLICIT DOUBLE PRECISION(A-H,O-Z) PARAMETER (MAXCOF=23821) DIMENSION COEFF(MAXCOF), *

[Bug inline-asm/36923] New: Crashes with FPU inline-assembly

2008-07-24 Thread tobias dot doerffel at gmail dot com
Trying to compile the following (already pre-processed) code causes ICE: # 1 gcc-ice.cpp # 1 built-in # 1 command-line # 1 gcc-ice.cpp static float fraction( float _x ) { int tmp; asm ( fld %0\n fld %%st(0)\n fisttp %1\n fild %1\n fxch\n fsub %%st(1),%%st(0)\n : =t( _x ), =m( tmp

[Bug bootstrap/36330] i386-pc-solaris2.10 configure: error: C compiler cannot create executables

2008-07-24 Thread andry at inbox dot ru
--- Comment #12 from andry at inbox dot ru 2008-07-24 21:14 --- I have the same issue on i686-pc-mingw32. It is slightly different issue, is about: ld: no such file or directory. I take a look in to generated Makefile and found this: LD =

[Bug bootstrap/36330] i386-pc-solaris2.10 configure: error: C compiler cannot create executables

2008-07-24 Thread andry at inbox dot ru
--- Comment #13 from andry at inbox dot ru 2008-07-24 21:35 --- I found which part of Makefile broken: $CC -print-prog-name=ld. This is means that mingw build already broken, if root mingw directory differs from mingw32 folder. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36330

[Bug libstdc++/36924] New: [4.4 Regression] Revision 138087 breaks libstdc++

2008-07-24 Thread hjl dot tools at gmail dot com
On Linux/x86, revision 138087 caused FAIL: ext/mt_allocator/deallocate_local_thread-5.cc execution test FAIL: ext/mt_allocator/deallocate_local_thread-7.cc execution test -- Summary: [4.4 Regression] Revision 138087 breaks libstdc++ Product: gcc Version: 4.4.0

[Bug libstdc++/36924] [4.4 Regression] Revision 138087 breaks libstdc++

2008-07-24 Thread paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com
--- Comment #1 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2008-07-24 22:06 --- I suppose you can believe me if I tell you that I care about libstdc++-v3. Then, commit 138087 cannot have anything to do with these failures, really, believe me. Actually, I suspect 138092 is at fault. Are

[Bug tree-optimization/36861] [4.3 Regression] boost's compressed avl confuses GCC

2008-07-24 Thread drow at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #18 from drow at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-07-24 22:18 --- Putting the regression marker back. The code doesn't matter; if it's a regression, then it's regression. -- drow at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added

[Bug libstdc++/36924] mt_allocator/deallocate_local_thread-5.cc and ext/mt_allocator/deallocate_local_thread-7.cc fail sometimes

2008-07-24 Thread paolo at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #2 from paolo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-07-24 22:48 --- Subject: Bug 36924 Author: paolo Date: Thu Jul 24 22:47:26 2008 New Revision: 138127 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=138127 Log: 2008-07-24 Paolo Carlini [EMAIL PROTECTED] PR

[Bug libstdc++/36924] mt_allocator/deallocate_local_thread-5.cc and ext/mt_allocator/deallocate_local_thread-7.cc fail sometimes

2008-07-24 Thread paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com
--- Comment #3 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2008-07-24 22:49 --- Reverted the commit because anyway we want to pursue a completely different strategy. Really, my previous comment stays. Anyway. -- paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed: What|Removed

[Bug libstdc++/36924] mt_allocator/deallocate_local_thread-5.cc and ext/mt_allocator/deallocate_local_thread-7.cc fail sometimes

2008-07-24 Thread hjl dot tools at gmail dot com
--- Comment #4 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2008-07-24 23:17 --- (In reply to comment #1) I suppose you can believe me if I tell you that I care about libstdc++-v3. Then, commit 138087 cannot have anything to do with these failures, really, believe me. Actually, I suspect

[Bug target/36925] New: 3.5 malloc(), vec_malloc(), and new part of the Alivec PIM is not implemented

2008-07-24 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
When I was looking up something in the Altivec PIM if vector bool a; was valid, I noticed a section which I had never read before, most likely because it is part of the ABI section of the Altivec PIM. The specific section says: 3.5 malloc(), vec_malloc(), and new In the interest of saving

[Bug libstdc++/36924] mt_allocator/deallocate_local_thread-5.cc and ext/mt_allocator/deallocate_local_thread-7.cc fail sometimes

2008-07-24 Thread paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com
--- Comment #5 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2008-07-24 23:20 --- (In reply to comment #4) librt will make stack limit very small. It is a known issue. Ah, Ok, that is useful to know. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36924

[Bug tree-optimization/36926] New: [4.4 Regression] Revision 138092 breaks C++

2008-07-24 Thread hjl dot tools at gmail dot com
While compiling 483.xalancbmk in SPEC CPU 2006, revision 138092 caused: [EMAIL PROTECTED] build_base_o2.]$ /export/gnu/import/rrs/138092/usr/bin/g++ -c -o NamespacesHandler.o -DSPEC_CPU -DNDEBUG -DAPP_NO_THREADS -DXALAN_INMEM_MSG_LOADER -I. -Ixercesc -Ixercesc/dom -Ixercesc/dom/impl

[Bug target/36927] New: Altivec #pragma's can be implemented now

2008-07-24 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
With the addition of the function specific attributes support, the #pragma that the Altivec PIM describes can be implemented. #pragma altivec_codegen on | off When this pragma is on, the compiler may use AltiVec instructions. When you set this pragma off, the altivec_model pragma is also set to

[Bug tree-optimization/36926] [4.4 Regression] Revision 138092 breaks building of xalancbmk

2008-07-24 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-07-24 23:50 --- please attach the preprocessed source and maybe even the backtrace. -- pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added

[Bug tree-optimization/36926] [4.4 Regression] Revision 138092 breaks building of xalancbmk

2008-07-24 Thread hjl dot tools at gmail dot com
--- Comment #2 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2008-07-24 23:55 --- Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault. ipa_get_stmt_member_ptr_load_param (stmt=0x0) at ../../src/gcc/ipa-prop.c:611 611 if (TREE_CODE (stmt) != GIMPLE_MODIFY_STMT) (gdb) bt #0

[Bug c++/36767] [4.3/4.4 Regression] Segmentation fault with -fprofile-arcs -O2

2008-07-24 Thread dodji at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #7 from dodji at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-07-25 00:03 --- Created an attachment (id=15957) -- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=15957action=view) fixes DECL_CONTEXT() of the temporary variables in the initialiser So this patch seems to make the crash go away

[Bug c++/36767] [4.3/4.4 Regression] Segmentation fault with -fprofile-arcs -O2

2008-07-24 Thread dodji at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #8 from dodji at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-07-25 00:04 --- By the way, I can reproduce the problem on trunk. I think I was lacking sleep when I first said I could not reproduce it on trunk. Sorry. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36767

[Bug tree-optimization/36926] [4.4 Regression] Revision 138092 breaks building of xalancbmk

2008-07-24 Thread hjl dot tools at gmail dot com
--- Comment #3 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2008-07-25 00:11 --- (gdb) f 1 #1 0x008e3619 in ipa_analyze_call_uses (info=0x2a9bed6998, call=0x2a9bb25690, stmt=0x2a9bb285a0) at ../../src/gcc/ipa-prop.c:749 749 if ((rec = ipa_get_stmt_member_ptr_load_param (d1)))

[Bug tree-optimization/36926] [4.4 Regression] Revision 138092 breaks building of xalancbmk

2008-07-24 Thread hjl dot tools at gmail dot com
--- Comment #4 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2008-07-25 00:12 --- (gdb) call debug_tree (def) phi_node 0x2a9bb03a00 asm_written visited result ssa_name 0x2a9bb2b960 type pointer_type 0x2a9ac8a3c0 type method_type 0x2a9a30b0c0 unsigned DI size

[Bug tree-optimization/36926] [4.4 Regression] Revision 138092 breaks building of xalancbmk

2008-07-24 Thread hjl dot tools at gmail dot com
--- Comment #5 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2008-07-25 01:05 --- Created an attachment (id=15958) -- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=15958action=view) A testcase [EMAIL PROTECTED] XSLT]$ /export/gnu/import/rrs/138092/usr/bin/g++ -O2 -S x.ii x.cc: In member

[Bug c++/36767] [4.3/4.4 Regression] Segmentation fault with -fprofile-arcs -O2

2008-07-24 Thread jason at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #9 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-07-25 02:32 --- I accidentally checked in the demangler patch with my defaulted/deleted functions work today, so you don't need to worry about that. :) As for the patch itself, does it work to scan for DECL_EXPRs instead of the