. I don't know whether gcc mail server
accepts attachments or not,
Oh. It does.
--- Ian Lance Taylor ian@airs.com wrote:
Sanjiv Kumar Gupta [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I am using gcc 3.3.1 release as my port, and looks
like I have hit a problem with greg.
You neglected to mention what
Yes; in fact 'main' is even superfluous. Just compile
int var;
with -S -O2 -g on gcc 3.4 and 4.0 and look at the resulting
assembler file, the difference is quite obvious ...
Maybe this is responsible for part of PR21828?
Paolo
This is correct. Note that this is only valid for objects, in
expressions intermediate values may lay outside the range of the type.
The question was about expressions, not objects, and I disagree with you:
intermediate values may not lay outside the range of the type. Gimplification
On 2005-05-30 16:12:07 -0400, Robert Dewar wrote:
Haren Visavadia wrote:
--- Robert Dewar wrote:
I would expect the seem behaviour for both cases.
why? You have some inaccurate model of computation,
which in the absence of switches, is not guaranteed.
Floating-point semantics are indeed
chris jefferson wrote:
I would like to say yes, I disagree that this should be true. By your
argument, why isn't sin(pow(2.0,90.0)+1) == sin(6.153104..)? Also, how
the heck do you intend to actually calculate that value? You can't just
keep subtracting multiples of 2*pi from pow(2.0, 90.0)
On 2005-05-30 22:18:14 +0200, Toon Moene wrote:
Vincent Lefevre wrote:
[...]
First there is a bug in GCC concerning casts and assignments
(see ISO/IEC 9899: 5.1.2.3#13, 6.3.1.5#2 and 6.3.1.8#2).
But even this were fixed, many users would still complain.
That's why I think that the Linux
Scott Robert Ladd writes:
chris jefferson wrote:
I would like to say yes, I disagree that this should be true. By your
argument, why isn't sin(pow(2.0,90.0)+1) == sin(6.153104..)? Also, how
the heck do you intend to actually calculate that value? You can't just
keep subtracting
Vincent Lefevre [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But as I said on my page, this isn't much a problem since users
who really need *extended* precision can still set the rounding
precision to extended precision; this isn't portable, but extended
precision isn't portable anyway.
What about LDBL_* from
On 2005-05-30 11:51:59 -0400, Scott Robert Ladd wrote:
The fact that trigonometric functions can extended beyond 2D geometry in
no way invalidates their use in their original domain. I've written many
2D and 3D applications over the years without need for a sine outside
the range [0, 2*PI] (or
On 2005-05-31 13:16:55 +0100, Andrew Haley wrote:
Vincent Lefevre writes:
According to 5.1.2.3#13, 6.3.1.5#2 and 6.3.1.8#2, the assert should
not fail (unless the division yields a NaN, but that would be a very
bad implementation anyway).
I have read the sections you mention, and I
On 2005-05-31 14:27:01 +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote:
Vincent Lefevre [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But as I said on my page, this isn't much a problem since users
who really need *extended* precision can still set the rounding
precision to extended precision; this isn't portable, but extended
Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Maybe this is responsible for part of PR21828?
I'd say this *is* PR21828: note that the variables whose
type is unknown are global variables in C code compiled
with -O2 ...
Bye,
Ulrich
--
Dr. Ulrich Weigand
Linux on zSeries Development
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 2005-05-31 13:16:55 +0100, Andrew Haley wrote:
Vincent Lefevre writes:
According to 5.1.2.3#13, 6.3.1.5#2 and 6.3.1.8#2, the assert should
not fail (unless the division yields a NaN, but that would be a very
bad implementation anyway).
I have read the sections you mention, and I
Vincent Lefevre [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 2005-05-31 14:27:01 +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote:
Vincent Lefevre [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But as I said on my page, this isn't much a problem since users
who really need *extended* precision can still set the rounding
precision to extended
Geoffrey == Geoffrey Keating [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Geoffrey Paul Koning [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
After some off-line exchanges with Dave Korn, it seems to me that
part of the problem is that the documentation for
-funsafe-math-optimizations is so vague as to have no discernable
On 2005-05-31 15:33:48 +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote:
Vincent Lefevre [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 2005-05-31 14:27:01 +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote:
Vincent Lefevre [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But as I said on my page, this isn't much a problem since users
who really need *extended*
I am doing a study about compilers. I have to monitor many existing
compilers and benchmark them. After I have to modify and optimize the
'back-end' part for multithreads models.
You should go look at Scott's site (http://www.coyotegulch.com/) as he
does a lot of benchmarking.
I have
At approximately 2pm EST, we will be upgrading mysql on sourceware from
version 3.x to version 4.x.
This will cause a short amount of downtime in gcc.gnu.org and
sources.redhat.com Bugzilla and GCC's wiki ( 30 minutes).
--Dan
Scott Robert Ladd [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Andreas Schwab wrote:
No, this is not portable,
Sure they are, since they are required since C89.
You can use float.h to find that out. That's what portability is
about.
Portability means different things to different people. There's a
I want to use gcc to compile program for windows,how
can i get it?
thank you!
__
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 08:58:14AM -0700, dk zhou wrote:
I want to use gcc to compile program for windows,how
can i get it?
http://www.google.com/search?hl=enlr=q=%22gcc+for+windows%22btnG=Search
you probably want MinGW
jon
Original Message
From: Russ Allbery
Sent: 31 May 2005 04:51
It's not the request for the e-mail address. It's that it's phrased as a
login screen and a button to create an account. I know that I definitely
pause and consider before I create an account at a web site. There are
many
On Tue, 2005-05-31 at 17:52 +0100, Dave Korn wrote:
Original Message
From: Russ Allbery
Sent: 31 May 2005 04:51
It's not the request for the e-mail address. It's that it's phrased as a
login screen and a button to create an account. I know that I definitely
pause and
Original Message
From: Jonathan Wakely
Sent: 31 May 2005 17:06
On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 08:58:14AM -0700, dk zhou wrote:
I want to use gcc to compile program for windows,how
can i get it?
http://www.google.com/search?hl=enlr=q=%22gcc+for+windows%22btnG=Search
you probably want
On Tuesday, May 31, 2005, at 06:43 AM, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
No, this is not portable, since if extended precision is necessary to
get correct results for some application, the same application run on
PowerPC, where there is no extended precision
? News to me! Ok, who removed it? Speak up
On Sun, 29 May 2005, Ross Smith wrote:
On Sunday, 29 May 2005 03:17, Uros Bizjak wrote:
There is no problem that Bugzilla is un-intuitive, it is far from
that. The users don't fill bugreports because they are afraid of
filling an invalid report or a duplicate.
I strongly suspect you're
Original Message
From: Daniel Berlin
Sent: 31 May 2005 18:00
On Tue, 2005-05-31 at 17:52 +0100, Dave Korn wrote:
Original Message
From: Russ Allbery
Sent: 31 May 2005 04:51
There are many on-line newspapers that I refuse to read articles from,
for example, because I don't
Original Message
From: Mike Stump
Sent: 31 May 2005 17:57
On Tuesday, May 31, 2005, at 06:43 AM, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
No, this is not portable, since if extended precision is necessary to
get correct results for some application, the same application run on
PowerPC, where there is
On 2005-05-31 16:07:53 +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote:
Vincent Lefevre [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 2005-05-31 15:33:48 +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote:
Vincent Lefevre [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 2005-05-31 14:27:01 +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote:
Vincent Lefevre [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 2005-05-31 10:30:52 -0400, Scott Robert Ladd wrote:
If you follow Standard C, you are guaranteed source code portability, in
the program compiles and produce the same results with any Standard C
compiler.
When we start talking about floating-point code, however, we enter the
realm of
On 2005-05-31 17:10:58 +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote:
Scott Robert Ladd [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Portability means different things to different people. There's a
difference between source code portability and result portability.
But making round to double the default makes it only worse in
On Tue, 2005-05-31 at 18:12 +0100, Dave Korn wrote:
Original Message
From: Daniel Berlin
Sent: 31 May 2005 18:00
On Tue, 2005-05-31 at 17:52 +0100, Dave Korn wrote:
Original Message
From: Russ Allbery
Sent: 31 May 2005 04:51
There are many on-line newspapers that
On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 07:20:49PM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
On 2005-05-31 17:10:58 +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote:
Scott Robert Ladd [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Portability means different things to different people. There's a
difference between source code portability and result
The Business Analyst position in Milwaukee, WI that you applied for was
only recently inactivated.
Please return to Dice and apply for a different position posted by
Genesis10, and we will immediately review your resume.
On May 31, 2005, at 10:25 AM, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
Well, there is no extended precision with GCC under Linux/PPC.
Hum, I do wonder about even that; why do:
2004-02-07 Alan Modra [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* config/rs6000/t-linux64 (LIB2FUNCS_EXTRA): Add darwin-
ldouble.c.
Vincent Lefevre [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The long double type is required, but it is not required to be
extended precision.
But it can be.
Once you change the rounding precision, this is no longer required,
since you are already working with an extension.
The use of long double is not an
On 31/05/2005, at 6:34 AM, Paul Koning wrote:
Geoffrey == Geoffrey Keating [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Geoffrey Paul Koning [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
After some off-line exchanges with Dave Korn, it seems to me that
part of the problem is that the documentation for
On 2005-05-31 21:16:19 +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote:
Vincent Lefevre [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The long double type is required, but it is not required to be
extended precision.
But it can be.
So what?
Once you change the rounding precision, this is no longer required,
since you are
On 2005-05-31 22:11:36 +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote:
Vincent Lefevre [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 2005-05-31 21:16:19 +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote:
Vincent Lefevre [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The long double type is required, but it is not required to be
extended precision.
But it can
Vincent Lefevre [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 2005-05-31 22:11:36 +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote:
Vincent Lefevre [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 2005-05-31 21:16:19 +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote:
Vincent Lefevre [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The long double type is required, but it is not required
Vincent Lefevre wrote:
Changing the rounding precision is. The C standard defines how you
can change the rounding direction, but not the rounding precision.
Back in the early 1990's, work on solving this inadequacy was being done
by the X3J11 Numerical C Extensions Group. Rex Jaeschke was the
Snapshot gcc-3.4-20050531 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/3.4-20050531/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 3.4 CVS branch
with the following options: -rgcc-ss-3_4-20050531
You'll find
On 2005-06-01 00:58:25 +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote:
You are mistaken.
No, I don't see any problem.
#include assert.h
#include float.h
long double one = 1.0;
long double one_plus_eps;
int
main (void)
{
long double one_plus_eps;
one_plus_eps = one + LDBL_EPSILON;
assert (one
and
see if the problem persists?
amd64-*-freebsd
=== gfortran Summary ===
# of expected passes7004
# of unexpected successes 8
# of expected failures 35
# of unsupported tests 16
obj41/gcc/testsuite/../gfortran version 4.1.0 20050531 (experimental
On 2005-05-31, at 19:14, Dave Korn wrote:
Speak up now, or we're going to send the firing squad.
Just don't let them use x87 intrinsics to calculate the line of
fire, or
we'd all better run!
Some remarkable time ago I was exposed to a 12 bit RISC CPU with
two banks
of 4k ferrite
I built the released gcc 4.0 C compiler on Mac OS X Tiger 10.4.1
(Darwin 8.1).
I did a make bootstrap of just the C language on a Power Macintosh G5
Dual 2 GHz machine and it built without incident.
% ./config.guess
powerpc-apple-darwin8.1.0
The compiler used to built 4.0 is the one
I tried doing bootstrap builds of GCC 3.3.6 and GCC 3.4.4 but these
builds fail due to the absence of the 'c++filt' tool. I noticed in
the libiberty Makefile that there is some comment about this tool
being moved to a different binutils package, which I have not
installed on my machine.
Hi,
* Are the FSF and GCC interested in mentoring students under Google's Summer of
Code?
* What projects would the GCC maintainers like to see done for Google's Summer
of Code? Anything at http://gcc.gnu.org/projects/ ? Or do you have specific
project suggestions?
Thanks,
-Jey Kottalam
--- Additional Comments From fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-31
07:38 ---
First thing: I can reproduce the timings differences on my i386-linux, with ext3
filesystem.
Second thing: Steve, your patch truncates files, which is not correct! Given the
following modified testcase:
--- Additional Comments From Ralf_Recker at gmx dot de 2005-05-31 07:50
---
Subject: Re: -ftree-dump-all-details hangs during *.c.t24.copyprop or
*.c.t38.copyprop2
--- Ursprüngliche Nachricht ---
Von: giovannibajo at libero dot it [EMAIL PROTECTED]
An: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Betreff:
the compilation of a curious recuring template fails if the base class for the
instantiation of the curious recuring template pattern (CRTP) is defined after
the template but before its instantiation.
The following code demonstrates the problem. If uncommenting the outcommented
section and
--- Additional Comments From milan at cmm dot ki dot si 2005-05-31 08:41
---
Great work! Thanks a million!
Somehow I also have a problem with the name of the option, since g77 has exactly
the same problem. When I compile with the g77 I get 8 byte headers on AMD64, so
the name g77
gcc-4.0.0, confiured with:
CFLAGS='-O3 -pipe -march=i486 -funroll-loops' \
CXXFLAGS='-O3 -pipe -march=i486 -funroll-loops' \
LIBCFLAGS='-O3 -pipe -march=i486 -funroll-loops' \
LIBCXXFLAGS='-O3 -pipe -march=i486 -funroll-loops' \
LDFLAGS='-Wl,-s -Wl,--stack=0x0080' \
--- Additional Comments From gerrit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-31
09:29 ---
Created an attachment (id=8997)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=8997action=view)
ctype.ii
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21836
--- Additional Comments From gerrit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-31
09:30 ---
Created an attachment (id=8998)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=8998action=view)
ctype.s
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21836
--- Additional Comments From gerrit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-31
09:40 ---
It compiles ok when using -O2 instead of -O3, i.e. it is the flag
-finline-functions
Gerrit
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21836
--- Additional Comments From dannysmith at users dot sourceforge dot net
2005-05-31 09:45 ---
Try changing --enable-shared to --disable-shared when configuring. Building
shared libgcj with libtool doesn't really work on windows targets. You could
try using Mohan Embars scripts to
--- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-31
10:08 ---
There are many known bugs in tree-ssa-pre.c as shipped with GCC 4.0.0,
see e.g. Bug 21173. Could you try a CVS snapshot from the GCC 4.0 release
branch instead of the GCC 4.0.0 release?
--
--- Additional Comments From stefaandr at hotmail dot com 2005-05-31 10:13
---
For the sake of completeness. the error produced with the new testcase:
Using built-in specs.
Target: i686-pc-linux-gnu
Configured with: /esat/alexandria1/sderoeck/src/gcc/main/configure
--- Additional Comments From gerrit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-31
10:31 ---
I applied the patch from http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21173
I'll reconfigure and rebuild now.
See you later,
Gerrit
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21836
C++ standard quote:
3.3.2, paragraph 4:
Names declared in the for-init-statement, and in the condition of if, while,
for, and switch statements are local to the if, while, for, or switch statement
(including the controlled statement), and shall not be re-declared in a
subsequent condition of that
--- Additional Comments From fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-31
10:46 ---
Additional info: disabling MMAP (#undefining HAVE_MMAP in unix.c) gives far
better performance (in fact, I can see no performance penatly at all).
Perhaps a survey of the cases where mmap induces
--- Additional Comments From schwab at suse dot de 2005-05-31 10:57 ---
Almost the complete set of predicate registers is live throughout most of
function writet1, this looks bogus.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21721
ahelm at gmx dot net [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| C++ standard quote:
|
| 3.3.2, paragraph 4:
| Names declared in the for-init-statement, and in the condition of if, while,
| for, and switch statements are local to the if, while, for, or switch
statement
| (including the controlled statement),
--- Additional Comments From gdr at integrable-solutions dot net
2005-05-31 11:16 ---
Subject: Re: New: C++/C99 standard violation in for loop
ahelm at gmx dot net [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| C++ standard quote:
|
| 3.3.2, paragraph 4:
| Names declared in the for-init-statement, and
--- Additional Comments From joseph at codesourcery dot com 2005-05-31
11:48 ---
Subject: Re: New: C++/C99 standard violation in for loop
On Tue, 31 May 2005, ahelm at gmx dot net wrote:
for(int i=2;i4;i++)
{
int j = i;
int i;
i = 555;
printf(%d %d\n, i, j);
--- Additional Comments From nagaraj_hayyal at satyam dot com 2005-05-31
12:21 ---
(In reply to comment #5)
Did you get any solution for this?
We are experiencing the same problem here.
Please let us know the solution if you have already found one.
mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Our project
--- Additional Comments From dir at lanl dot gov 2005-05-31 12:54 ---
It is 60,000 line program, including the 3 small libraries, that executes in two
steps - a bit long to post.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21787
void test(void)
{
__label__ test;
goto test;
test:
return;
}
- br.call.sptk.many b0 = __ia64_save_stack_nonlocal#
--
Summary: ia64 gcc (cross compiler at least) generates call to
__ia64_save_stack_nonlocal when __label__ is used
--- Additional Comments From bonzini at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-31
13:11 ---
Ulrich Weigand wrote:
When building with -funit-at-a-time (which is on by default with -O2), *no*
debug info for global variables appears to be emitted at all.
The problem appears to be this piece of code
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-31
13:15 ---
I don't see why, this is a bug.
--
What|Removed |Added
Component|c
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-31
13:16 ---
This is a dup of bug 2288. C99 allows this as mentioned multiple times.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 2288 ***
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-31
13:16 ---
*** Bug 21837 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From nathan at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-31
13:19 ---
I think this is from my binfo changes
--
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned
--
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Known to fail||3.4.0 3.3.3 3.0.4 2.95.3
Known to work|
--- Additional Comments From mike at navi dot cx 2005-05-31 13:23 ---
Reopening the bug, as Benjamin wishes to track it.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-31
13:37 ---
*** Bug 21836 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-31
13:37 ---
This is cygwin specific bug, see PR 21081 which this is a dup of.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 21081 ***
--
What|Removed |Added
Linux kernel 2.6.11.11
fs/ext3/ialloc.c: In function 'ext_new_inode':
fs/ext3/ialloc.c:423 error: Statement makes a memory store, but has no
V_MAY_DEFS nor V_MUST_DEFS
# VUSE D.14381_251;
fs/ext3/ialloc.c:423: internal compiler error: verify_ssa failed.
failed at:
struct inode
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-31
13:44 ---
Please give the needed information that is documented on
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs.html?
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-31
13:46 ---
This works fine in 4.0.0.
--
What|Removed |Added
Known to work|
--- Additional Comments From bangerth at dealii dot org 2005-05-31 13:49
---
The PR Andrew cites is essentially a duplicate of PR 8271, which has been
around for 2 1/2 years already. It is about the fact that gcc accepts a
pointer to a constant member function for an argument that
--- Additional Comments From bangerth at dealii dot org 2005-05-31 13:49
---
This is a duplicate of one of my rather older bugs, PR 8271...
W.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 8271 ***
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From bangerth at dealii dot org 2005-05-31 13:50
---
*** Bug 21801 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8271
--
Bug 21799 depends on bug 21801, which changed state.
Bug 21801 Summary: Accepts invalid for const member pointer functions
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21801
What|Old Value |New Value
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-31
14:04 ---
Again, we need the preprocessed source.
--
What|Removed |Added
CC|
--- Additional Comments From blime at cox dot net 2005-05-31 14:04 ---
Subject: Re: Unformatted record header is 4-bytes on
32-bit targets
I second the thanks a million, and also don't think g77 belongs in
the option name.
I have been using a very fast sort program for large files
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-31
14:13 ---
Fixed in 4.0.0.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
--- Additional Comments From mclinden at informed dot net 2005-05-31 14:19
---
Created an attachment (id=9001)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=9001action=view)
preprocessed ialloc.c
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21839
--- Additional Comments From Christopher dot Dawes at retail-logic dot com
2005-05-31 14:19 ---
Unfortunately it's nothing to do with compiling or linking, it's when it's then
trying to archive it however i've not managed to find the part of the Makefile
which calls ar.exe, if i could
--- Additional Comments From mclinden at informed dot net 2005-05-31 14:19
---
Output of gcc -v
Using built-in specs.
Target: i686-pc-linux-gnu
Configured with: ../gcc-4.1-20050528/configure --prefix=/usr --with-mpfr=/usr --
with-mpfr-dir=/usr/src/otai/mpfr-2.1.1 --with-gmp=/usr
The relevant code is here:
CONFIG_GRKERNSEC_PROC and
CONFIG_GRKERNSEC_PROC_MEMMAP)
are defined
static void k_spec(struct vc_data *vc, unsigned char value, char up_flag,
struct pt_regs *regs)
{
if (up_flag)
return;
if (value = ARRAY_SIZE(fn_handler))
--- Additional Comments From mclinden at informed dot net 2005-05-31 14:27
---
gcc: warning: -pipe ignored because -save-temps specified
Using built-in specs.
Target: i686-pc-linux-gnu
Configured with: ../gcc-4.1-20050528/configure --prefix=/usr --with-mpfr=/usr --
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-31
14:35 ---
Confirmed, reducing.
--
What|Removed |Added
Summary|fs/ext3/ialloc.c error:
--- Additional Comments From pluto at agmk dot net 2005-05-31 14:40 ---
[ PR21839, PR21840 ]
Sean, Do the sigsegvs occur in random places during kernel build?
If yes then You must check other RAM chips. Memtest86 is not enough
to be 100% sure. You should also try the parallel kernel
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-31
14:45 ---
Confirmed, reduced testcase:
typedef struct { } spinlock_t;
typedef struct {
unsigned sequence;
spinlock_t lock;
} seqlock_t;
void ext3_new_inode(seqlock_t *rsv_seqlock)
{
*rsv_seqlock = (seqlock_t) {
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-31
14:46 ---
The backtrace:
#0 0x083f1b29 in ix86_struct_value_rtx (type=0xb7c0657c, incoming=0) at
/home/peshtigo/pinskia/
src/gnu/gcc/src/gcc/config/i386/i386.c:3184
#1 0x081974c9 in expand_call (exp=0xb778e9d8,
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-31
14:57 ---
Confirmed, reduced testcase:
void fn_show_state(void);
typedef void (*fn_handler_fn)(void);
static fn_handler_fn fn_handler[1];
void k_spec(unsigned char value)
{
void *func = fn_handler[value];
if
--- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2005-05-31
14:59 ---
Sigh, the infamous empty structure extension...
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21839
--- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2005-05-31
15:01 ---
Compiles with -O2 -fno-tree-salias. Danny, salias is probably confused by empty
structures.
--
What|Removed |Added
1 - 100 of 230 matches
Mail list logo
