--- Comment #4 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-05 09:08 ---
Subject: Bug 29624
Author: burnus
Date: Fri Jan 5 09:08:37 2007
New Revision: 120472
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=120472
Log:
fortran/
2007-01-05 Tobias Burnus [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- Comment #5 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-05 09:20 ---
Fixed in 4.3.
--
burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
--- Comment #2 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-05 09:30 ---
(In reply to comment #1)
What GCC is doing is calling _gfortran_internal_pack/_gfortran_internal_unpack
in a different order than most other compilers.
It should not call _gfortran_internal_unpack at all for the
--- Comment #4 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-05 10:06
---
I guess we could try to provide a graceful degradation for such systems... The
use of dup() can probably be avoided if dup() isn't available, without too much
degradation in the library features. access() can
--- Comment #1 from rearnsha at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-05 10:10
---
A better patch, suggested by Nicolas Pitre is:
@ Result is x + 0.0 = x or 0.0 + y = y.
- teq r4, #0
+ orrsip, r4, xl
moveq xh, yh
moveq xl, yl
RETLDM r4, r5
which performs the
--- Comment #3 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-05 10:10
---
Confirmed as it has been reported by other people as well. I don't understand
enough of this name aliasing to understand the reason for this bug. Can you
confirm that the following is enough to trigger the bug?
--- Comment #7 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-05 11:35 ---
Subject: Bug 29241
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri Jan 5 11:35:01 2007
New Revision: 120475
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=120475
Log:
2007-01-05 Richrad Guenther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- Comment #8 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-05 11:36 ---
Fixed for 4.1.2.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to
--- Comment #14 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-05 11:43
---
Mine. I'm testing the inliner fix.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
Summary: [4.1 RegressionICE in build_enumerator, at
cp/decl.c:10111
Product: gcc
Version: 4.1.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
AssignedTo: unassigned at
--- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-05 12:31 ---
I see
=== g++ tests ===
Running target unix
FAIL: g++.dg/parse/enum3.C (test for errors, line 3)
FAIL: g++.dg/parse/enum3.C (test for excess errors)
FAIL: g++.old-deja/g++.bugs/900405_01.C (test
--- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-05 12:40 ---
Reverting
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Jan 3 08:13:50 2007
New Revision: 120392
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=120392
Log:
PR c++/29535
Backported from mainline
2006-10-17
--- Comment #2 from vk3ty at bigpond dot com 2007-01-05 12:57 ---
(In reply to comment #1)
../../../unxfbsdi.pro/misc/dict_zh.cxx
g++-ooo: Internal error: Killed: 9 (program cc1plus)
This usually means GCC is running out of memory.
Can you do two things for us?
First can you
--- Comment #16 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-05 13:01
---
Reconfirmed. The problem still exists.
#1 0x0844d296 in copy_to_mode_reg (mode=SImode, x=0xb7c8b1a0)
at /home/richard/src/gcc-4_1-branch/gcc/explow.c:577
577 gcc_assert (GET_MODE (x) == mode ||
--- Comment #17 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-05 13:06
---
But of course at least after SRA we miss a NOP_EXPR on the initialization:
intD.2 SR.40D.1798;
short intD.12 SR.39D.1797;
short intD.12 test$typeD.1796;
short intD.12 D.1745;
short intD.12 D.1744;
--- Comment #3 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-05 13:17
---
=== g++ tests ===
Running target unix
FAIL: g++.dg/parse/enum3.C (test for errors, line 3)
FAIL: g++.dg/parse/enum3.C (test for excess errors)
FAIL: g++.old-deja/g++.bugs/900405_01.C
--- Comment #4 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-05 13:44 ---
Sorry, I have mistakenly bootstrapped this with the default checking
(i.e. --enable-checking=release).
--
jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #18 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-05 13:45
---
And we get that because for the COMPONENT_REF
D.1741.typeD.1734
we have
component_ref 0xb7c3d168
type integer_type 0xb7c401cc short int HI
size integer_cst 0xb7c2e300 constant invariant 16
--- Comment #19 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-05 13:46
---
So the proposed patch (for all branches) is:
Index: tree.c
===
*** tree.c (revision 120477)
--- tree.c (working copy)
***
--- Comment #5 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-05 13:47
---
Sorry, I have mistakenly bootstrapped this with the default checking
(i.e. --enable-checking=release).
Richard's log is actually --enable-checking=release. With tree checking
=== g++ tests
--- Comment #15 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-05 13:53
---
Subject: Bug 28116
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri Jan 5 13:53:45 2007
New Revision: 120480
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=120480
Log:
2007-01-05 Richard Guenther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR
--- Comment #16 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-05 13:57
---
Subject: Bug 28116
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri Jan 5 13:56:54 2007
New Revision: 120481
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=120481
Log:
2007-01-05 Richard Guenther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR
--- Comment #2 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-05 13:59
---
Various cygwin testresults posted to the gcc-testresults mailing-list show no
failure of these tests. Closing accordingly.
--
fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #17 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-05 14:00
---
Subject: Bug 28116
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri Jan 5 14:00:46 2007
New Revision: 120482
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=120482
Log:
2007-01-05 Richard Guenther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR
--- Comment #18 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-05 14:02
---
Fixed.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #12 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-05 14:03
---
(In reply to comment #11)
A draft patch was posted (quite a while ago) by FX:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2006-11/msg00634.html
I'd add that it's easy to separate the coredump part of the patch (handling of
--- Comment #10 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-05 14:06
---
This bug has been open for more that one year without any update, without
general agreement on wether we have a bug or a testcase exhibiting incorrect or
suboptimal behaviour.
Closing.
--
fxcoudert at gcc
--- Comment #3 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-05 14:12
---
ping: Would you have either an example where this limit is encountered?
Wouldn't 4.3 be ideal for that work?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21881
--- Comment #7 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-05 14:15
---
Is this still a bug, with the new patches for optimizing calls to memcpy?
--
fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #6 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-05 14:18 ---
http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?view=revrevision=115086
Hope it is enough to put in just the 4 lines...
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30382
--- Comment #20 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-05 14:30
---
Mine (patch posted).
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-05 14:45 ---
Subject: Bug 27996
Author: pault
Date: Fri Jan 5 14:45:20 2007
New Revision: 120485
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=120485
Log:
2007-01-05 Paul Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR
--- Comment #9 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-05 14:45 ---
Subject: Bug 23232
Author: pault
Date: Fri Jan 5 14:45:20 2007
New Revision: 120485
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=120485
Log:
2007-01-05 Paul Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR
--- Comment #4 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-05 14:45 ---
Subject: Bug 27998
Author: pault
Date: Fri Jan 5 14:45:20 2007
New Revision: 120485
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=120485
Log:
2007-01-05 Paul Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR
--- Comment #7 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-05 14:56 ---
Created an attachment (id=12859)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=12859action=view)
gcc41-pr30382.patch
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30382
I just tried to compile package libhugetlbfs-1.0.1-200612221420
with the GNU C compiler version 4.2 snapshot 20061230
The compiler said
/usr/include/bits/string3.h: In function 'jumpfunc':
/usr/include/bits/string3.h:51: internal compiler error: in ix86_expand_movmem,
at config/i386/i386.c:13608
--- Comment #1 from dcb314 at hotmail dot com 2007-01-05 15:31 ---
Created an attachment (id=12860)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=12860action=view)
C source code
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30383
--- Comment #2 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-05 15:49 ---
Subject: Bug 30360
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Jan 5 15:49:05 2007
New Revision: 120486
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=120486
Log:
PR c/30360
* libgcc2.c (__divdc3): Compare c and d
--- Comment #3 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-05 15:50 ---
Subject: Bug 30360
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Jan 5 15:50:25 2007
New Revision: 120487
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=120487
Log:
PR c/30360
* libgcc2.c (__divdc3): Compare c and d
--- Comment #4 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-05 15:53 ---
Subject: Bug 30360
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Jan 5 15:53:31 2007
New Revision: 120488
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=120488
Log:
PR c/30360
* libgcc2.c (__divdc3): Compare c and d
--- Comment #7 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-05 15:55 ---
Subject: Bug 25993
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Jan 5 15:55:45 2007
New Revision: 120489
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=120489
Log:
Backported from mainline
2006-09-17 Steven
--- Comment #5 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-05 16:16 ---
Fixed.
--
jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
--- Comment #6 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-05 16:30 ---
It seems to be IVOPTs rewriting introduces the trees. Testcase:
extern void op( int, int);
void foo(int f0, int f1, int e0, int e1)
{
for (int i1 = f1; i1 = e1; ++i1)
for (int i0 = f0; i0 = e0; ++i0)
on i386-darwin. The command-line generating this error is:
/tmp/gfortran-20070105/ibin/./prev-gcc/xgcc
-B/tmp/gfortran-20070105/ibin/./prev-gcc/
-B/usr/local/gfortran/i386-apple-darwin8.8.1/bin/ -c -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -O2 -g
-fomit-frame-pointer -I. -I../../gcc/libiberty/../include -W -Wall -pedantic
--- Comment #2 from hartmann at physik dot uni-kl dot de 2007-01-05 16:42
---
ok.
the trick with the include which provides additional 7 chars confused me. but
the issue remains: I'm not able to produce an position independent gcc for
mingw without hacking cppdefaults.c. The reason for
--- Comment #5 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-05 16:51 ---
(In reply to comment #4)
I guess we could try to provide a graceful degradation for such systems... The
use of dup() can probably be avoided if dup() isn't available, without too
much
degradation in the library
--- Comment #8 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-05 16:53 ---
Subject: Bug 30382
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Jan 5 16:53:27 2007
New Revision: 120490
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=120490
Log:
PR c++/30382
Backported from mainline:
--- Comment #9 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-05 16:54 ---
Fixed.
--
jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-05 17:08 ---
Mine for now as I am going to apply the testcase:
static void g(int t)
{
int a;
while (a f())
;
}
void h(int t)
{
g(t);
}
-
Which was fixed by:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-01/msg00359.html
--- Comment #3 from rask at sygehus dot dk 2007-01-05 17:29 ---
Created an attachment (id=12861)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=12861action=view)
patch in testing to fix typo
The option -specs=ldblspecs is added by gcc/config/rs6000/t-ppccomm when
compiling libgcc2
--- Comment #15 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-05 17:39
---
Eric asked me to weigh in here. My only concern about a backport is Comment
#9, which suggests that the patch didn't work. I'm assuming that since we're
all talking about backporting it, that comment was
--- Comment #4 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2007-01-05 17:52 ---
Subject: Re: Build failure in libgcc2 powitf2 with ICE in
gen_reg_rtx
On Fri, 5 Jan 2007, rask at sygehus dot dk wrote:
The option -specs=ldblspecs is added by gcc/config/rs6000/t-ppccomm when
compiling
--- Comment #16 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-05 18:10
---
Eric asked me to weigh in here. My only concern about a backport is Comment
#9, which suggests that the patch didn't work. I'm assuming that since we're
all talking about backporting it, that comment was
--- Comment #17 from mark at codesourcery dot com 2007-01-05 18:13 ---
Subject: Re: [4.0/4.1 regression] internal consistency
failure
ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
Thanks Mark. It seems that a whole new class of internal consistency failures
due to the mishandling of
--- Comment #3 from stuart at apple dot com 2007-01-05 18:27 ---
Created an attachment (id=12862)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=12862action=view)
vectorized assembly output from ICC v9.1
Generated from the indefinite loop variant of the testcase on OS X 10.4.7,
--- Comment #4 from stuart at apple dot com 2007-01-05 18:30 ---
I ran the testcase through ICC, and it unrolled the loops without vectorizing
them. However, making the loops indefinite gets us the desired, vectorized
result. Here is the modified, indefinite loop version of the
--- Comment #18 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-05 18:33
---
Do you mean positive cascading effects, in that bugs go away, or
negative, in that new bugs show up?
Positive cascading effects if the set of patch is backported to the branch.
Do you think that backporting
--- Comment #19 from mark at codesourcery dot com 2007-01-05 18:37 ---
Subject: Re: [4.0/4.1 regression] internal consistency
failure
ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
--- Comment #18 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-05 18:33
---
Do you mean positive
--- Comment #5 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-05 18:39 ---
SPU has vectorizable conversion also.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #6 from gkvoykov at yahoo dot com 2007-01-05 18:53 ---
With GCC 4.1.0, using 'djgpp' binaries under Windows XP, the problem 'bug
10277' is absent.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10277
--- Comment #20 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-05 19:03
---
I know Richard's busy (he's getting ready to submit a big batch of
changes), so if you feel like trying the backport you might want to give
it a go. Otherwise, I'm sure Richard will get to it in the
--- Comment #5 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-05 19:06 ---
Do the parenthesis matter in C? They do matter in say Fortran, but in C I
think
(a - 20) + (b - 20) can be evaluated as (a + b) + (-20 + -20) or a - 20 - 20 +
b
etc.
--
--- Comment #5 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-05 19:44 ---
Subject: Bug 25795
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri Jan 5 19:44:10 2007
New Revision: 120495
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=120495
Log:
2007-01-05 Richard Guenther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- Comment #16 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-05 19:44
---
Subject: Bug 27369
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri Jan 5 19:44:10 2007
New Revision: 120495
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=120495
Log:
2007-01-05 Richard Guenther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- Comment #17 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-05 19:45
---
Fixed.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
--- Comment #6 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-05 19:58 ---
(In reply to comment #5)
Do the parenthesis matter in C? They do matter in say Fortran, but in C I
think
(a - 20) + (b - 20) can be evaluated as (a + b) + (-20 + -20) or a - 20 - 20 +
b
etc.
In fact, a-20 + c
--- Comment #3 from fang at csl dot cornell dot edu 2007-01-05 20:11
---
I've checked out the latest aspell-0.60.5 and found the same thing using a 4.2
prerelease with -O3. This is not gcc's problem, as this can (and should) be
easily fixed in their source with an additional explicit
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-05 20:13 ---
anther, consider an example definite[2] of 'offsetof', if you think
that is undefined, it's almost impossible to give a definite of
offsetof.
#define offsetof(TYPE,MEMBER) ((size_t)((TYPE*)0)-MEMBER)
The C
--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-05 20:14 ---
Not a GCC bug but an aspell bug.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #7 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-05 20:32 ---
From C99, 5.1.2.3/14:
14 EXAMPLE 6 To illustrate the grouping behavior of expressions, in the
following fragment
int a, b;
/* ... */
a = a + 32760 + b + 5;
the expression statement behaves exactly the same as
a =
Every test that includes stdbool.h starting failing as of bootstraps on the
trunk this morning. Note the following find for stdbool.h:
yesterday:
dev-zero:{root}# find ../gcc_20070104 -name stdbool.h
../gcc_20070104/gcc/include/stdbool.h
../gcc_20070104/stage1-gcc/include/stdbool.h
--- Comment #21 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-05 20:59
---
Subject: Bug 27826
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri Jan 5 20:59:15 2007
New Revision: 120497
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=120497
Log:
2007-01-05 Richard Guenther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR
--- Comment #22 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-05 21:04
---
Subject: Bug 27826
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri Jan 5 21:04:23 2007
New Revision: 120498
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=120498
Log:
2007-01-05 Richard Guenther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR
--- Comment #8 from gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2007-01-05 21:06
---
Subject: Re: [4.1/4.2/4.3 Regression] Wrong variable ranges due to constant
folding
jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| Do the parenthesis matter in C?
Yes, see paragraphes 11 dowward
--- Comment #23 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-05 21:09
---
Subject: Bug 27826
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri Jan 5 21:08:47 2007
New Revision: 120499
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=120499
Log:
2007-01-05 Richard Guenther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR
--- Comment #9 from gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2007-01-05 21:09
---
Subject: Re: [4.1/4.2/4.3 Regression] Wrong variable ranges due to constant
folding
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[...]
| That is most explict thing about overflow and
--- Comment #24 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-05 21:10
---
Fixed on the 4.1 branch.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2007-01-05 21:11
---
Subject: Re: wrong result
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| anther, consider an example definite[2] of 'offsetof', if you think
| that is undefined, it's almost impossible to give
--- Comment #13 from patchapp at dberlin dot org 2007-01-05 21:25 ---
Subject: Bug number PR29649
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/2007-01/msg00431.html
--
When compiling the following conditional:
if (gerror)
{
printf (%s%d: Error %s\n, __FILE__, __LINE__, gerror-message);
std::auto_ptrGlib::Error e (Glib::Error::throw_exception (gerror));
printf (If reached, code generation worked.\n);
}
else
{
printf (%s:%d: No
--- Comment #1 from matt dot hoosier at gmail dot com 2007-01-05 21:47
---
The GCC version in question here is the stock g++ shipped with Ubuntu edgy, but
the bug has been observed on other (3.4.4 and 4.1.1) builds too.
The test program (see attachment) is compiled with:
g++ -Wall
--- Comment #2 from matt dot hoosier at gmail dot com 2007-01-05 21:54
---
Test case is posted at http://www.cis.ksu.edu/~matt/pub/gcc_bug_30387.ii (~2
MB).
Apologies for the large post, but the code generation bug wasn't triggered when
all the imported types were stubbed out.
--
--- Comment #6 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-05 21:57 ---
Subject: Bug 19978
Author: manu
Date: Fri Jan 5 21:57:01 2007
New Revision: 120505
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=120505
Log:
2007-01-05 Manuel Lopez-Ibanez [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-05 22:06 ---
Are you sure that _ZN4Glib5Error15throw_exceptionEP7_GError
(Glib::Error::throw_exception(_GError*) ) does not always throw an exception
and is marked as noreturn? If that is the case then this is not a bug.
--
--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-05 22:08 ---
static std::auto_ptrGlib::Error throw_exception(GError* gobject)
__attribute__((__noreturn__));
This is not a GCC bug because the function is marked as noreturn.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
--- Comment #4 from Michael dot McElroy at schange dot com 2007-01-05
22:10 ---
Get the same error doing a X86 to X86_64 cross compile building gcc 4.1 and
glibc 2.3.6 (crosstool 0.43). If I downgrade to gcc 3.4.5 and glibc 2.3.2, get
the sam segmentation fault on a different file in
--- Comment #8 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-05 22:47 ---
Subject: Bug 30212
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri Jan 5 22:47:47 2007
New Revision: 120507
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=120507
Log:
2007-01-05 Richard Guenther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR
--- Comment #9 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-05 22:48 ---
Fixed for 4.1.2.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #17 from patchapp at dberlin dot org 2007-01-05 23:40 ---
Subject: Bug number PR7651
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/2007-01/msg00440.html
--
--- Comment #6 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-05 23:57 ---
The only problem with spu-elf right now with respect of fortran compiler is
that the spu compiler says it supports TI mode but libgcc does not fully
support TI mode, this will get fixed but later.
--
--- Comment #12 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-06 00:14
---
Subject: Bug 30162
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Sat Jan 6 00:14:38 2007
New Revision: 120512
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=120512
Log:
2007-01-05 Jerry DeLisle [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-06 00:26 ---
Subject: Bug 30385
Author: pinskia
Date: Sat Jan 6 00:26:24 2007
New Revision: 120519
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=120519
Log:
2007-01-05 Andrew Pinski [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-06 00:26 ---
Fixed.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
1. download http://accc.riken.jp/HPC/HimenoBMT/Load_module/himenoBMTxp_m.lzh
% wget http://accc.riken.jp/HPC/HimenoBMT/Load_module/himenoBMTxp_m.lzh
2. extract with lha
% lha x himenoBMTxp_m.lzh
himenobmtxp_m.f - Melted : o
3. apply following patch:
--- himenobmtxp_m.f~Mon Jan 7 13:54:48
--- Comment #1 from chat95 at mac dot com 2007-01-06 00:32 ---
My CPU is :
Jan 6 06:59:54 debussy kernel: ACPI APIC Table: INTEL D845PESV
Jan 6 06:59:54 debussy kernel: Timecounter i8254 frequency 1193182 Hz
quality 0
Jan 6 06:59:54 debussy kernel: CPU: Intel(R) Pentium(R) 4 CPU
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-06 00:33 ---
What happens if you use -O2 instead of -O ?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30388
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot
|
--- Comment #3 from chat95 at mac dot com 2007-01-06 00:38 ---
% gfortran42 -o himenobmtxp_m.gfortran42 -O2 -ffast-math -finline-functions
-fomit-frame-pointer -funroll-loops -fexpensive-optimizations himenobmtxp_m.f
% ./himenobmtxp_m.gfortran42
mimax= 257 mjmax= 129
--- Comment #4 from lmillward at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-06 01:06
---
Subject: Bug 19439
Author: lmillward
Date: Sat Jan 6 01:06:04 2007
New Revision: 120520
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=120520
Log:
PR c++/19439
* class.c (add_method): Don't
--- Comment #5 from lmillward at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-06 01:09
---
Fixed in 4.3.
--
lmillward at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
1 - 100 of 113 matches
Mail list logo
