On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 10:46:06AM +0200, Hendrik Tews wrote:
The code simply contains ridiculously deeply nested expressions (about
11000 opening braces), so the compiler runs out of stack. Use ulimit
-s unlimited if you really want to compile this.
OK, thanks for the hint!
tags 568398 + moreinfo
thanks
On Thu, Feb 04, 2010 at 10:10:00AM -0500, Camm Maguire wrote:
dd.c:
#include stdio.h
#include complex.h
int main(int argc,char * argv[]) {
double complex d=0;
long l;
sscanf(argv[1],%ld,l);
d=l;
printf(%d %d %d %d
tags 564274 + moreinfo
thanks
On Fri, Jan 08, 2010 at 10:40:07PM +0100, S??awomir Domaga??a wrote:
I can't make shorter source code, where is this error, thus I've got all
source code from my programme, but I've written which lines is the error.
Line from 156 to 161 in engine.cpp:
On Thu, Feb 04, 2010 at 09:55:42AM -0500, Camm Maguire wrote:
This test program will segfault at -O2 on the affected machines:
Can you please repost the attachment? It is not retrievable from the
BTS at http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=567695 ...
Falk
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE,
On Sun, Mar 01, 2009 at 04:04:07PM +0200, Kalle Olavi Niemitalo wrote:
Falk Hueffner f...@debian.org writes:
I can't imagine any sensible code whatsoever that triggers this
warning but does not have logical errors. Can you show how it is used?
Here are all the source lines from net-snmp
Phil Endecott [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I think I found a bug in gcc-4.2
int i, j;
printf(%d %d\n, j, (void *)(j));
This looks like a strict-aliasing issue to me; you're casting from an
int to a void*, which is undefined.
Casting from int to void* is not undefined, but implementation
Dirk Eddelbuettel [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, Sep 12, 2007 at 08:04:22PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
Dirk Eddelbuettel writes:
Please submit a full bug report,
with preprocessed source if appropriate.
please do so, does it build with gcc-snapshot?
Don't know as I don't have
Dirk Eddelbuettel [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
/bin/sh ../libtool --tag=CC --mode=compile gcc -DHAVE_CONFIG_H
-I. -I.. -I.. -I..-mieee -mfp-rounding-mode=d -Wall -pipe -fexceptions
-D_REENTRANT -g -O3 -mieee -c -o minmax.lo minmax.c
gcc -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I.. -I.. -I.. -mieee
Dirk Eddelbuettel [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
BTW do we still need this special case for Alpha:
# edd 29 Sep 2005 alpha needs -mieee with gcc 4.0
ifeq ($(arch),alpha)
CFLAGS+= -mieee
endif
No, -mieee is default on Alpha now. It's not default upstream though,
so you might want to
Nemui Ailin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Compiling xmlrpc-c CVS from URL:http://xmlrpc-c.sourceforge.net/
results in a broken xmlrpc library that fails to allocate memory for the
structs.
We have this call to realloc in src/method.c
static __inline__ void
reallocProduct(void **
tags 429657 + upstream
forwarded 429657 http://gcc.gnu.org/PR33142
thanks
Martin Michlmayr [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
* Falk Hueffner [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-06-19 17:03]:
I can confirm this on i386, but not amd64 or alpha. A shorter test
Falk, are you going to forward this upstream?
OK
forwarded 438791 http://gcc.gnu.org/PR6257
thanks
This is a well-known problem, and it might even turn out that gcc's
behavior is legalized in the next standard update.
--
Falk
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL
reassign 436491 nfs-utils
retitle 436491 uses FP math, yet turns with -mno-fp-regs on Alpha
thanks
static void
unpause(int sig)
{
double time_diff;
[...]
That just doesn't work with -mno-fp-regs. Admittedly, the error
message could be improved.
--
Falk
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
\Török Edvin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Package: gcc-snapshot
Version: 20070613-1
Severity: minor
--- Please enter the report below this line. ---
Using gcc-4.3 snapshot to compile with -O3:
$ time /usr/lib/gcc-snapshot/bin/gcc -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I.
-I../../../clamd -I.. -I../../..
retitle 430957 Exponential time usage in PRE at -O3
severity 430957 normal
tags 430957 + upstream
forwarded 430957 http://gcc.gnu.org/PR32540
thanks
Hi,
this is a problem with exponential time usage in PRE. I've filed a bug
report upstream.
--
Falk
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL
Jasen Betts [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Package: gcc-4.1
Version: 4.1.1-21
Severity: normal
abuse-sdl-0.7.0 has a gun aiming problem due to a mis-optimisation.
attached is a canned example.
(compile with -01 and -02 and compare the differences)
I can confirm this on i386, but not amd64
David Baron [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Package author posts:
Better compile using G++-4.0. 4.1 fails with an internal compiler
error compiling ToneStack.cc. I filed a bug for the debian G++-4.1
as instructed. G++-4.0 compiles fine.
Just edit the makefile and swap -O3 with -O2 in the OPTS
Martin Michlmayr [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
close 381717 4.1.2-4
thanks
This bug has been fixed in SVN on Sun Apr 22 02:30:31 2007, which means
it should be fixed in 4.1.2-4.
Falk, can you a) confirm this and b) tell those packages with
workarounds to remove them?
It's fixed, and I've
Martin Michlmayr [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
* Torsten Werner [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-04-20 13:31]:
* alpha:
Running the unit tests:
cd build/test/unit obj/gcc/so/stl_unit_test
/bin/sh: line 1: 7948 Segmentation fault obj/gcc/so/stl_unit_test
Maybe Falk can take a look.
With all this
Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
We would like to know which major upstream versions of gcc are
expected to be released in the next 24 months and how much time you
expect them to need to get stable enough for a Debian stable release.
gcc 4.2.0 will be released Real Soon Now
Diego Russo [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Package: gcc-4.1
Version: 4.1.1-21
Severity: serious
Justification: no longer builds from source
Sorry I don't speak english, this is the error:
[...]
The bug is not reproducible, so it is likely a hardware or OS problem.
This means it is actually
Sergei Trofimovich [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hello, debian GCC maintainers.
I've recently discovered strange gcc behavior:
Summary:
string ' // comment \ ' in C code performs line wrap.
Is it bug or feature?
It's a feature. You get a warning about this with -Wall.
--
Falk
Hi,
this looks like an aliasing violation to me. bb-list, which is of
type __u32*, is accessed via an lvalue of type void*, which is not
compatible. Does the problem go away with -fno-strict-aliasing?
--
Falk
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of
Theodore Tso [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, Nov 13, 2006 at 09:49:21AM +0100, Falk Hueffner wrote:
Hi,
this looks like an aliasing violation to me. bb-list, which is of
type __u32*, is accessed via an lvalue of type void*, which is not
compatible. Does the problem go away with -fno
Clint Adams [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
severity 370248 serious
tags 370248 + patch
quit
There is a patch listed at
http://gcc.gnu.org/PR27891
Did you test it? I'm not convinced it can be easily backported without
breaking anything. I'll ask the author.
--
Falk
--
To
Jochen Voss [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
one very useful feature of gcc is, that it warns you when you
produce unterminated strings by using too long initialisers.
Unfortunately the warning only kicks in, if the initialiser is at
least two bytes longer than the string buffer.
This is
Matthias Klose [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
see the attached patch, based on the one from the redhat 4.1
branch. Thiemo, Falk, Phil, please could you review the patch?
OK with me (although I also don't quite see it's a bug).
--
Falk
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with
Stephen R Marenka [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, Jul 17, 2006 at 09:08:42PM +0200, Falk Hueffner wrote:
Stephen R Marenka [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
So you're saying the only way is to compile, link, and test each of the
55 source files? Yikes, that's going to take a while.
No, you can
Patrick =?UTF-8?Q?Matth=C3=A4i?= [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
internal compiler error: Speicherzugriffsfehler
The bug is not reproducible, so it is likely a hardware or OS problem.
Well, there's not much we can do then... In case the message is wrong
and you can in fact reproduce this, please
reassign 375080 synfig
thanks
Paul Wise [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
When synfig is compiled with g++-4.1 from sid, it no longer renders
animation files correctly. I was able to get a user running etch to
confirm that the g++-4.1 version in etch also miscompiles synfig.
That does not suffice
reassign 372557 binutils
thanks
Compiling a binary file (which is not possible) cause ld to
segmentation fault.
ld is binutils' domain.
--
Falk
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi Matthias,
works for me.
Have you tried building it with prctl --unaligned=signal? This is not
the default on hppa, but it's used on the autobuilders because it
catches potentially costly programming errors.
FWIW, gij-4.1 also produces unaligned
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
retitle 369642 g++-4.0/alpha: -fvisibility-inlines-hidden segfaults on
reference to static method
thanks
Minimal test case attached, bug title updated accordingly. Build with g++
-c -fvisibility-inlines-hidden on alpha to see the fun.
Maybe
Aurelien Jarno [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On arm, ia64 and alpha the glibc fails to build with gcc-4.1.
On Alpha the problem is:
{standard input}: Assembler messages:
{standard input}:341: Error: macro requires $at register while noat in effect
{standard input}:374: Error: macro requires $at
Aurelien Jarno [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Falk Hueffner a écrit :
Aurelien Jarno [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On arm, ia64 and alpha the glibc fails to build with gcc-4.1.
On Alpha the problem is:
{standard input}: Assembler messages:
{standard input}:341: Error: macro requires $at register
Martin Michlmayr [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
* Petr Salinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-04-14 13:05]:
Does help to compile it with -fwrapv ?
No.
Are you sure? It does for me.
--
Falk
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL
Martin Michlmayr [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Yeah, I had an old file around that delta used instead. Below is a
new test case. Falk, do you see this segfault?
Nope...
--
Falk
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL
Martin Michlmayr [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
mn-sylpheed-mailbox-backend.c:301: internal compiler error: verify_ssa failed
It builds just fine with 4.1
Since verify_ssa isn't called in release versions, this doesn't mean a
lot...
--
Falk
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL
Martin Michlmayr [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
../src/basemath/trans2.c: In function 'mpbern':
../src/basemath/trans2.c:862: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault
I cannot reproduce this with 4.2.0 20060407 on
alphaev68-unknown-linux-gnu. So either it's target specific, or
already fixed.
--
reassign 360479 steghide
thanks
Ola Lundqvist [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
reassign 360479 g++
thanks
I have now looked over the code and can not possibly find out that
this is a fault in the code.
Uhm, reassining bugs to gcc if you don't understand the issue is not
the way to go. Please get
Jörg Sommer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I find this really, really confusing. What can I do to catch this
bug?
Make a stand-alone testcase.
--
Falk
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
tags 342245 + moreinfo
thanks
Hi,
can you please test this with a current gcc like 4.0 or 4.1?
--
Falk
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
tags 350989 + unreproducible
tags 350989 + moreinfo
thanks
So. Does the same happen with newer versions like 4.0 or 4.1? And how
can it be reproduced?
--
Falk
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
tags 322723 + moreinfo
tags 322723 + unreproducible
thanks
Hi,
is this still reproducible with current 4.0 or 4.1? If so, how?
--
Falk
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
tags 350778 + unreproducible
tags 350778 + moreinfo
thanks
Hi,
I cannot reproduce this. Can you still? Seems more likely to be some
kind of corruption of your system.
--
Falk
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL
Martin Michlmayr [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
reassign 358644 autoconf
thanks
* Martin Michlmayr [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-03-23 17:32]:
Can someone please comment whether this is a compiler bug (I think
so) or whether autoconf needs to be changed.
I talked to Andrew Pinski of GCC and he told
forwarded 356435 http://gcc.gnu.org/PR26755
thanks
Martin Michlmayr [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Falk, even without a minimal test case, do you think you can forward
this upstream.
It seems Matthias has already forwarded it as PR 26755.
I can also produce pregenerated code for xbsql (the
Michael Weitzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Package: g++-4.0
Version: 4.0.3-1
Severity: normal
g++ compiles the following wrong C++ code without complaining:
#include complex
class A {
public:
A() {}
};
int main()
{
std::complexdouble bla(bla);
A
Hi,
I can reproduce this with gcc-snapshot, but not with 4.2.0 20060304,
so it's probably fixed already, at least on mainline.
--
Falk
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Martin Michlmayr [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
* Falk Hueffner [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-03-19 22:44]:
I can reproduce this with gcc-snapshot, but not with 4.2.0 20060304,
so it's probably fixed already, at least on mainline.
If you can not reproduce it with 4.2.0, does this mean that a future
Martin Michlmayr [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
* Falk Hueffner [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-03-20 00:20]:
I mean 4.2 mainline. I don't know yet whether 4.1 mainline is fixed.
I'm pretty sure if it isn't already, it will get fixed.
FWIW, I'd feel more comfortable if you'd explicitly try to make sure
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Debian Bug Tracking System) writes:
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
reassign 356548 g++-4.1
If you understand what the problem is here, it would be nice if you
could create a useful test case instead of a 3 lines .ii file that
doesn't even compile on all
clone 356548 -1
reassign -1 par2cmdline
tags 356548 + upstream
forwarded 356548 http://gcc.gnu.org/PR26670
thanks
Ben Hutchings [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Martin Michlmayr wrote:
I don't understand the problem. Ben (CCed) made a suggestion, but
afaik he hasn't been able yet to come up with a
reassign 334339 mysql-client
thanks
The internal compiler error has been fixed long ago, so reassigning to
mysql-client.
--
Falk
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi,
I don't think these options are meaningful or should be documented.
Why would you want to use them?
--
Falk
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
tags 344041 + moreinfo
thanks
Hi Stephen,
in #344046, you mention upstream is working on this. Can you give more
details? Is there a PR? A fix?
--
Falk
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
tags 347697 + moreinfo
thanks
Hi,
the fact that your program crashes in glibc memory manangement makes
it quite unlikely that this is a compiler bug. Can you try valgrind?
Also, your test case is quite large, would it be possible to get
something smaller?
--
Falk
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE,
tags 323016 + moreinfo
thanks
Both tin and sharutils seem to build now on m68k. Is this fixed?
Otherwise, is there a test case?
--
Falk
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
reopen 338501
reassign 338501 octave
thanks
Timo Juhani Lindfors [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I just did apt-get update apt-get dist-upgrade and octave seems
to still die with illegal instruction
so shouldn't but 338501 be reopened and assigned back to octave?
Oh, right. Let's do it.
--
Chris Howie [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Falk Hueffner wrote:
the fact that your program crashes in glibc memory manangement makes
it quite unlikely that this is a compiler bug. Can you try valgrind?
Also, your test case is quite large, would it be possible to get
something smaller?
Then why
tags 348723 + moreinfo
thanks
Hi,
gcc-3.3 isn't supported upstream anymore. Can you please test with gcc
3.4?
--
Falk
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
reassign 348117 ncurses
severity 348117 normal
retitle 348117 Buffer overflow in example code c++/demo.cc
thanks
Thomas Dickey [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sun, 15 Jan 2006, Falk Hueffner wrote:
Thomas Dickey [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
char buf[5];
[...]
The buf variable contains
Cem Vedat ISIK [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi all,
I'm not really sure if here's the right place for this post, but I
have a problem compiling my CGI apps with gcc ( version 4.0.2 20050808
(prerelease) (Ubuntu 4.0.1-4ubuntu9) ) on Ubuntu. I've been using gcc
version 4.0.3 20051201 (prerelease)
Jurij Smakov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The latest upload of icon (9.4.2-2.4) has failed to build on arm with
the current gcc-4.0 in sid (4.0.2-5). After some investigation I've
found that this is gcc-4.0 fault, and the build failures start with
the version 4.0.1-7 (4.0.1-6 builds the same
reassign 342545 libgcc2 4.0.2-5
Bug#342545: qt-x11-free build fails
Warning: Unknown package '4.0.2-5'
Bug reassigned from package `4.0.2-5' to `libgcc2'.
Could you maybe summarize what the actual bug is and why it's
libgcc2's fault? The BTS trail is pretty convoluted.
--
Falk
--
Bill Allombert [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Package: g++-3.4
Version: 3.4.5-1
Severity: normal
Hello Debian GCC maintainers,
g++-3.4 incorrectly compiles the attached file at -O1 and up by causing
an infinite loop.
This reduces to:
__attribute__ ((pure)) inline long f(void) {
return 0;
Mathieu Malaterre [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Package: gcc-snapshot
Version: 20051124-1
Severity: important
/tmp/ccFywWsc.s:2650: Error: unknown pseudo-op: `.weakref'
Newer binutils is needed. 2.16.1cvs20051109-1 should do. Can you
please try that?
--
Falk
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE,
Mathieu Malaterre [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Thanks Falk, you can close the bug. Updating binutils from unstable
did the trick
Well, it shouldn't really be closed, but gcc-snapshot should depend on
that version.
--
Falk
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject
Vagner Pedrotti [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
When I compile the following simple code, gcc fails with:
/tmp/ccySlj9q.s: Assembler messages:
/tmp/ccySlj9q.s:56: Error: missing or invalid immediate expression `'
taken as 0
/tmp/ccySlj9q.s:56: Error: suffix or operands invalid for `call'
This
Justin Pryzby [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Please consider also warning on things like:
if (0==c 1==c)
How would this be different from -Wunreachable-code?
--
Falk
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Christian Hammers [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
sql_analyse.cc: In member function 'virtual void field_longlong::add()':
sql_analyse.cc:506: internal compiler error: in invert_exp_1, at jump.c:1719
Please provide the preprocessed source (.ii), as obtained by adding
-save-temps to the
Drew Parsons [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Current gcc is 4.0.2-1. Is the segfault in xprint -12 something you
might expect to occur, and would a rebuilt with gcc 4.0.2 be likely to
repair it?
Not very likely, but it should definitely be done before trying
anything else. Trying gcc-snapshot would
Hi,
Very likely, this is the same as PR 24514, which has a patch here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-11/msg00103.html
--
Falk
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Josh Triplett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The sentinel attribute tells GCC to ensure that the argument list of a
variadic function always ends with a final NULL argument. It should be
possible to use this attribute for a variadic function where the
sentinel is some constant other than NULL, as
Andrew Lenharth [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
When performing integer division, the following relocation is generated (to
the libc divide function)
jsr $23,($27),__divq!lituse_jsrdirect!79
the assembler does not understand this :
/tmp/ccFszcSs.s: Assembler messages:
Michael Meskes [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
dcopinterface_skel.cpp:51: internal compiler error: in cp_expr_size, at
cp/cp-objcp-common.c:101
Please submit a full bug report,
Please send the preprocessed source, as obtained by adding -save-temps.
--
Falk
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
tags 329836 + moreinfo
thanks
Justin Pryzby [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
cc -W -Wall -Winline -O6 -g -std=gnu99 -DPATH_SEP=\'/\' -Wl,-O6
usnoquery.c libastro.a -lm -L/usr/lib -lcurl -lidn -lssl -lcrypto -ldl
-lssl -lcrypto -ldl -lz -o usnoquery
usnoquery.c:514: warning: 'write_data'
reopen 322565
thanks
Ari Pollak [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Does gimp actually build fine on arm with gcc 4.0, or are you just
assuming that it builds fine because the buildd log said so? If you
look at the changelog for gimp, it is currently using gcc 3.3 to
build.
Oh, I missed that. Let's
Matthias Klose [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
retitle -1 [alpha] insane default of -mno-ieee instead of -mieee breaks
many apps
Bug#330826: inkscape does not start
Changed Bug title.
gcc-4.0 doesn't bootstrap with the patch making -mieee the
default. Falk, any news?
The patch gets weirdly
tags 330826 + patch
thanks
Hi,
actually, it wasn't patch's fault, but the problem was rather that the
patch was generated with -u2, which is as good as don't use any
context at all, since by default patch ignores up to 2 lines of
context, so the patch gets inserted at a random place. I've
reassign 328396 glibc
tags 328396 + moreinfo
thanks
Paul Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Package: libstdc++6 glibc
Version: Latest
Severity: important
Description: Even after all the calls (recursive) to
unlock a mutex pthread_rwlock_(rd/wr/un)lock() to
where the rwlock variable should
Max Vozeler [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb am 12.09.05 13:48:41:
On Mon, Sep 12, 2005 at 01:29:38PM +0200, Max Vozeler wrote:
I've been able to find a reduced testcase that shows the problem.
can find below the results using gcc-3.4 and gcc-4.0 with -O1/-O2 each.
The problem
Wesley W. Terpstra [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Package: gcc-4.0
Version: 4.0.1-6
Severity: important
When compiling the fesetround function (which controls the processor
rounding mode), gcc-4.0 incorrectly optimizes away the code!!!
Here's the C code in question:
__asm__ (fstd
tags 318865 + moreinfo
thanks
Hi,
can this problem be still reproduced with a newer gcc version such as
4.0? Is it possible to make a standalone test case?
--
Falk
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Frans Pop [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I've reassigned this bug from the kernel to gcc-4.0 as we feel that the
solution chosen in the kernel packaging is not really a fix, but a
workaround.
As tests have shown that the problem does not exist when the same kernel
is compiled with gcc-3.3, the
tags 320038 + moreinfo
thanks
Hi,
the gcc PR 23078 has been closed. Can you confirm the problem is gone
with a newer gcc snapshot?
--
Falk
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
tags 321415 + moreinfo
thanks
Hi,
the gcc PR 23080 has been closed. Can you confirm the problem is gone
with a newer gcc snapshot?
--
Falk
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Blars Blarson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Package: g++-4.0
Version: 4.0.1-2
Severity: important
mysql-dfsg-4.1 fails to build on sparc due to a g++ interinal compiler
error:
Please attach the preprocessed source as obtained by adding
-save-temps.
--
Falk
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email
Hi,
For me, this takes about 830M of memory and then goes into an infinite
loop. With 4.1, it takes about a minute and uses 148m, so it's
apparently fixed.
--
Falk
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
retitle 317455 [fixed in 4.1] ICE: in cp_expr_size, at cp/cp-objcp-common.c:101
tags 317455 + upstream fixed-upstream
forwarded 317455 http://gcc.gnu.org/PR21123
thanks
Christian T. Steigies [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
packagenameplugin.cpp:47: internal compiler error: in cp_expr_size, at
Brian May [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I am trying to compile gcc-4.0 on Ubuntu, so I can recompile the
latest openoffice.org2 package.
However, I get different errors each time.
This is nearly always a hardware problem. Can you reproduce it on a
different machine?
--
Falk
--
To
Pete de Zwart [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The kernel compile SEGV's at the same spot each time.
It is quite strange as this is the only linux server out of 10 that
has this behaviour, so I partly agree with your summation that it could be a
hardware error, if it was memory related,
tags 296997 + moreinfo
thanks
Hi,
according to Rene Engelhard, this works now with 2.6.12-rc6. Can you
still reproduce it, or can we close it?
--
Falk
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Jeroen N. Witmond [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Oops, my bad. In simplifying the testcase I removed an essential
part. In the new testcase (attached), the address of variable
'local' is taken in the thread. Unfortunately, this does not remove
the problem. The testcase still exits with 2 instead
tags 309193 + moreinfo
thanks
Hi,
the documentation says:
When the address-of operator is applied to a thread-local variable,
it is evaluated at run-time and returns the address of the current
thread's instance of that variable.
So all threads get the same instance of local in your test
Kevin B. McCarty [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Falk Hueffner wrote:
this seems to be the well-known exces precision problem of the
i386, so closing.
I (mildly) protest the closing of this bug. The bug is not in fact
fixed -- just well-known. Even though it is due to a CPU issue
rather than
tags 233208 + wontfix
thanks
Hi,
there will most likely be an alternative implementation in 4.1:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-05/msg01193.html
so I don't think we should add any external patches for now.
--
Falk
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a
tags 180486 + moreinfo
thanks
Hi,
is this still reproduceable? How about 3.4 or 4.0? Also, of course a
stand-alone testcase would be great, so we can further debug this...
--
Falk
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL
tags 268920 + moreinfo
thanks
Hi,
we need the source to reproduce this.
--
Falk
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
tags 272599 + moreinfo
thanks
Hi,
I cannot reproduce this with 3.4.3-13 (I get a bunch of errors instead
of a segfault). Can you still reproduce it?
--
Falk
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
1 - 100 of 208 matches
Mail list logo
