--- Comment #23 from dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-03 03:19
---
Subject: Bug 26626
Author: dberlin
Date: Wed May 3 03:19:22 2006
New Revision: 113493
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=113493
Log:
2006-05-02 Daniel Berlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Fix
--- Comment #5 from janis at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-02 23:04 ---
A regression hunt on powerpc-linux using the test from comment #0 identified
this patch:
http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?view=rev&rev=111608
r111608 | dberlin | 2006-03-01 17:46:56 + (Wed, 01 Mar 2006)
--
Package: gcc-4.1
Version: 4.1.0-2
Severity: serious
The patch ada-link-lib.dpatch changes the top-level configure.in, then
calls autoconf to regenerate configure. Autoconf then bails out with:
configure.in:2177: error: possibly undefined macro: AS_FOR_TARGET
If this token and others are le
The removal of the email address:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>From the mailing list:
Al-Manahel Newsletter List
is all set.
Date of this removal: Tue May 2 15:51:33 2006
Please save this email message for future reference.
--
* Reinhard Tartler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-04-18 16:05]:
> I got this response from Upstream. I haven't look more deeply into the
> problem, but on the one side, in the bug you claim the bug was in the
> package, but upstream claims the bug is in gcc-4.2. Can you comment on
> that? TIA!
Please t
Hi,
Hope I am not writing to wrong address. I am nice, pretty looking
girl. I am plabnning on visiting your town this month. Can
we meet each other in person? Message me back at [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [
Your message dated Tue, 02 May 2006 09:29:15 -0700
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#360466: fixed in gcc-4.1 4.1.0-2
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now yo
Your message dated Tue, 02 May 2006 09:29:16 -0700
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#363289: fixed in gcc-4.1 4.1.0-2
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now yo
Your message dated Tue, 02 May 2006 09:29:16 -0700
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#361409: fixed in gcc-4.1 4.1.0-2
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now yo
Your message dated Tue, 02 May 2006 09:29:16 -0700
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#360895: fixed in gcc-4.1 4.1.0-2
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now yo
Your message dated Tue, 02 May 2006 09:29:16 -0700
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#360895: fixed in gcc-4.1 4.1.0-2
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now yo
Your message dated Tue, 02 May 2006 09:29:15 -0700
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#356896: fixed in gcc-4.1 4.1.0-2
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now yo
Your message dated Tue, 02 May 2006 09:29:16 -0700
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#360895: fixed in gcc-4.1 4.1.0-2
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now yo
Your message dated Tue, 02 May 2006 09:29:16 -0700
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#360895: fixed in gcc-4.1 4.1.0-2
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now yo
Your message dated Tue, 02 May 2006 09:29:15 -0700
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#360498: fixed in gcc-4.1 4.1.0-2
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now yo
Your message dated Tue, 02 May 2006 09:29:16 -0700
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#360895: fixed in gcc-4.1 4.1.0-2
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now yo
Your message dated Tue, 02 May 2006 09:29:16 -0700
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#361904: fixed in gcc-4.1 4.1.0-2
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now yo
Your message dated Tue, 02 May 2006 09:29:16 -0700
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#360895: fixed in gcc-4.1 4.1.0-2
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now yo
Accepted:
cpp-4.1-doc_4.1.0-2_all.deb
to pool/main/g/gcc-4.1/cpp-4.1-doc_4.1.0-2_all.deb
cpp-4.1_4.1.0-2_hppa.deb
to pool/main/g/gcc-4.1/cpp-4.1_4.1.0-2_hppa.deb
cpp-4.1_4.1.0-2_i386.deb
to pool/main/g/gcc-4.1/cpp-4.1_4.1.0-2_i386.deb
cpp-4.1_4.1.0-2_powerpc.deb
to pool/main/g/gcc-4.1/cpp-
> Ok, coming back to the question of the system compiler on hppa for
> etch. Assuming that hppa does want to do that:
>
> - is glibc buildable with gcc-4.1 on hppa?
As far as I know, there's no new problems using 4.1 instead of 4.0. See
http://lists.parisc-linux.org/pipermail/parisc-linux/2006-A
--- Comment #11 from rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-02 12:42
---
The problem is that unsigned_type_for returns a size_type for pointers, and
that happens to be signed for fortran. I am not sure whether this is not a bug
in fortran frontend -- I think some places in gcc assume t
--- Comment #10 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-02 12:28
---
Also lots of fortran testcases fail with the same ICE.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27144
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watc
[should we drop parisc-linux?]
John David Anglin writes:
> > Er, no; we're talking about official Debian packages here, and the
> > libstdc++.so.6 in Debian is now from gcc-4.1. The problem is precisely that
> > GMP *is* being built using gcc-4.0, but libstdc++ is from gcc-4.1, resulting
> > in t
. -Iada -I../../trunk/gcc/ada ../../trunk/gcc/ada/fname-uf.adb -o
ada/fname-uf.o
+===GNAT BUG DETECTED==+
| 4.2.0 20060502 (experimental) (x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu) GCC error: |
| in n_of_executions_at_least, at tree-ssa-loop-niter.c:1772
--- Comment #8 from martin at mpa-garching dot mpg dot de 2006-05-02 10:16
---
Hmm, I'm seeing a new ICE that could be related to your patch:
function rombint()
implicit none
real :: rombint
integer :: i, j
real :: g(6), g0, g1
10i=i+1
--- Comment #4 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-02 08:36 ---
Now, this is more like caused by cfg_cleanup. loop_optimizer_init () inserts a
basic block 11, so we have
(gdb) call debug_bb_n(6)
;; basic block 6, loop depth 0, count 0
;; prev block 5, next block 7
;; pred:
--- Comment #3 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-02 08:04 ---
VRP causes the definition for SMT.5_37 to vanish, but it doesn't update the
PHI node. After reassoc we have:
# SMT.5_26 = PHI ;
# bytes_left_22 = PHI ;
# seen_numbers_1 = PHI <0B(4), seen_num
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfi
--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-02 08:01 ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> Seems to occur quite frequently, here's another test case:
>
Can you file that into a different bug?
As it is a different issue.
Actually the orginal testcase here was not fixed by the p
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-02 07:56 ---
Janis, could you do a regression hunt on this one also, testcase from comment
#0 with -O2.
Thanks,
Pinski
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot
|
31 matches
Mail list logo
