On Sat, Apr 15, 2006 at 09:46:24AM +0100, Dave Murphy wrote:
I had a look through gcc.c and noticed that standard_exec_prefix and
standard_libexec_prefix are constants which refer to the configured
install path. gcc_exec_prefix and gcc_libexec_prefix are the equivalent
paths adjusted for
Hello GCC's people,
What can you say me about this common WARNING
in GCC-3.4.6, GCC-4.1-20060414 and GCC-4.2-20060415?
--
GCC-3.4.6:
--
./genrecog ./config/i386/i386.md tmp-recog.c
I've now reviewed the open regressions against the GCC 4.1 branch.
There are 101 serious (P3 or higher) regressions against GCC 4.1, the
vast majority of which also apply to 4.2. Therefore, fixing these
regressions provides a double benefit: both the release branch and the
next release will be
The generator programs (e.g. build/genattrtab) output #line directives
before code which has been copied from the machine description files, so the
debugger will show you the correct file. But this then causes trouble when
single stepping through code which wasn't included from the .md files.
Hi Dave.
I hope you find and squash the relocation bug the right way,
but until then, perhaps you could use my cheezy program
that fixes embedded paths in gcc toolchains. It's at
http://kegel.com/crosstool/current/fix-embedded-paths.c
I haven't tested it on mingw toolchains, so some assembly may
On Sun, Apr 16, 2006 at 02:04:10PM -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote:
I've now reviewed the open regressions against the GCC 4.1 branch.
There are 101 serious (P3 or higher) regressions against GCC 4.1, the
vast majority of which also apply to 4.2. Therefore, fixing these
regressions provides a
Google is hosting Summer of Code again this year. This is a program
in which they sponsor students to work on open source projects. The
students work under the guidance of mentors on specific approved
projects. For each completed project, Google will pay the student
$4500 and the project $500.
--- Comment #26 from paolo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-16 09:06 ---
Subject: Bug 6702
Author: paolo
Date: Sun Apr 16 09:06:46 2006
New Revision: 112983
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=112983
Log:
2006-04-16 Paolo Carlini [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.1.1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6702
This is my first gcc bug, so please be kind...
I'm in the process of upgrading my company's toolchain from 3.4.4 to 4.1.0
(mostly because we want ARM EABI support...but that's not relevant, it turns
out this bug happens on both i686 and ARM targets).
I narrowed down a particular usage of Loki's
--- Comment #1 from nashpaulr at gmail dot com 2006-04-16 09:32 ---
Created an attachment (id=11280)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=11280action=view)
Condensed .cpp file.
Here's a repro scenario...I do not know exactly if every class in the
inheritance tree is
--- Comment #2 from nashpaulr at gmail dot com 2006-04-16 09:34 ---
Known to work on 3.4.4
--
nashpaulr at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
--- Comment #6 from uros at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-16 11:20 ---
Subject: Bug 27134
Author: uros
Date: Sun Apr 16 11:20:29 2006
New Revision: 112984
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=112984
Log:
PR middle-end/27134
* builtins.c
--- Comment #7 from uros at kss-loka dot si 2006-04-16 11:22 ---
Fixed.
--
uros at kss-loka dot si changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #6 from couriousous at mandriva dot org 2006-04-16 13:07
---
Here is an another testcase:
void bar (void)
{
if (0) {
static enum {a} foo;
switch (0)
{
default:
return;
}
}
}
Fail compiling with -O0 -g on x86_64 with gcc
Consider this piece of code:
template typename T class Alloc { };
template typename T, typename A = Alloc T class List { };
template template typename class class container;
typedef container List myotherlist;
This code compiles fine with gcc-3.x, gcc-4.0 and gcc-4.1 but with gcc-4.2.0
GCC fails to bootstrap on sparc64-*-freebsd6.1 when building libgomp:
/work/a/ports/lang/gcc42/work/build/./gcc/xgcc
-B/work/a/ports/lang/gcc42/work/build/./gcc/
-B/usr/local/sparc64-portbld-freebsd6.1/bin/
-B/usr/local/sparc64-portbld-freebsd6.1/lib/ -isystem
--- Comment #4 from rth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-16 16:53 ---
Fixed.
--
rth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-16 17:59 ---
IIRC this is because libgomp is decting your target has TLS support when in
fact it does not.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #7 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-16 18:12
---
Subject: Bug 26365
Author: mmitchel
Date: Sun Apr 16 18:12:41 2006
New Revision: 112986
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=112986
Log:
PR c++/26365
* typeck.c
--- Comment #5 from guillaume dot melquiond at ens-lyon dot fr 2006-04-16
18:15 ---
I have tried to look at why it fails. Here are my observations. The function
gcc/expr.c:emit_block_move tries to expand a movmem pattern. The backend
refuses, since a call to memcpy would be a lot more
--- Comment #8 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-16 18:17
---
Subject: Bug 26365
Author: mmitchel
Date: Sun Apr 16 18:17:38 2006
New Revision: 112987
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=112987
Log:
PR c++/26365
* typeck.c
--- Comment #9 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-16 18:21
---
Fixed in 4.1.1.
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-16 18:31
---
Testing a fix.
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #7 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-16 18:32
---
Although it would certainly be good to eliminate the spurious testsuite
failure, this is not release-critical.
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #22 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-16 18:35
---
It looks like there was a C testcase, which has now been fixed; is there still
an issue for languages other than Ada?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25737
--- Comment #13 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-16 18:37
---
Until/unless this is shown to be a problem on a primary/secondary platform, I'm
going to downgrade it to P5.
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-16 18:38
---
Basic, valid code that crashes the optimizers: P1.
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #31 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-16 18:39
---
Is there more to do? The end of the audit trail contains patches from Alan, so
it's unclear to me if the issue should remain open.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26459
--- Comment #3 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-16 18:40
---
Ada is not release-critical.
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from fang at csl dot cornell dot edu 2006-04-16 18:41
---
Hi, see first bullet under http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.2/changes.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27178
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26534
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26570
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26600
--- Comment #2 from fang at csl dot cornell dot edu 2006-04-16 18:51
---
I meant first bullet under C++, of course.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27178
--- Comment #5 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-16 18:58
---
I am glad that Neil agrees my oft-stated, but always-rejected, claim that only
the front ends should issue warnings. :-)
However, in this case, we can presumably fix the bug by setting TREE_NO_WARNING
on the
--- Comment #3 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-16 18:58
---
Ada is not release-critical.
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #14 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-16 19:00
---
Would some kind person please attempt a backport to 4.1?
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26685
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26719
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26729
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26757
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26789
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26818
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26821
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26826
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26865
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26869
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26881
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26884
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26885
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26912
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26917
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26944
--- Comment #16 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-16 19:14
---
OpenBSD is not a primary or secondary platform.
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26969
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27004
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27019
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27020
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27039
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27075
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27078
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27087
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27094
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27095
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27102
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27129
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27151
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27158
--- Comment #6 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-16 20:29 ---
Subject: Bug 26017
Author: tkoenig
Date: Sun Apr 16 20:29:24 2006
New Revision: 112988
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=112988
Log:
2006-04-16 Thomas Koenig [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR
--- Comment #3 from baldrick at free dot fr 2006-04-16 20:35 ---
Created an attachment (id=11281)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=11281action=view)
correct vrp_meet of VR_RANGEs
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23744
--- Comment #5 from pluto at agmk dot net 2006-04-16 20:43 ---
gcc-4.1.1 (rev. 112984) boostraped sucessfully on my
box with `-march=x86-64 -O2 -funroll-loops` now :)
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20586
--- Comment #4 from baldrick at free dot fr 2006-04-16 20:50 ---
Does this patch fix it for you? It looks more complicated
than it is (most of the patch is comment tweaks and white
space changes due to indentation change). The real change
is to remove the check
if
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-16 21:06 ---
Invalid as this is a documented change to be closer to the standard.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #7 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-16 21:15 ---
Subject: Bug 26769
Author: tkoenig
Date: Sun Apr 16 21:15:36 2006
New Revision: 112989
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=112989
Log:
2006-04-16 Thomas Koenig [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR
--- Comment #8 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-16 21:19 ---
The error is now fixed on trunk and 4.1.
What's left is to generate transpoe and reshape for the other
real functions.
Downgrading to enhancement and removing myself from this bug (for now).
--
tkoenig at gcc
--- Comment #6 from sayle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-16 21:47 ---
Subject: Bug 24076
Author: sayle
Date: Sun Apr 16 21:46:59 2006
New Revision: 112990
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=112990
Log:
2006-04-15 Roger Sayle [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Andrew
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-16 23:11 ---
*** Bug 27159 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-16 23:11 ---
Reduced testcase:
struct istreambuf_iterator
{
mutable int* _M_sbuf;
mutable int _M_c;
istreambuf_iterator(int __s) throw(){}
};
templatetypename _CharT, typename _InIter struct num_get
{
typedef
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-16 23:13 ---
Confirmed, reduced testcase:
template class T, class U
struct Conversion
{
static T a;
enum { exists = sizeof((U)(a)) };
};
templateclass T,class U
struct SuperSubclassStrict
{
enum { value =
--- Comment #2 from sayle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-16 23:33 ---
Subject: Bug 25474
Author: sayle
Date: Sun Apr 16 23:33:51 2006
New Revision: 112991
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=112991
Log:
PR middle-end/25474
* expr.c
--- Comment #32 from amodra at bigpond dot net dot au 2006-04-17 00:09
---
I've closed this bug incorrectly twice, the last time simply because I hadn't
committed a patch already in my tree. Edmar, please resolve this bug as fixed
if e500 is back in bootstrap land.
--
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-17 00:16 ---
Fixed, the Unnecessary register move is already recorded as PR 17381, in fact
this bug report was generated after I looked into that bug report a little bit
:).
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
--- Comment #7 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-17 00:43 ---
Confirmed.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
I have this function:
static inline int range_ptrinbuf(const void* buf,unsigned long len,const void*
ptr) {
register const char* c=(const char*)buf;
return (c c+lenc (const char*)ptr-clen);
}
I tested it with this test:
assert(range_ptrinbuf(buf,(unsigned long)-1,buf+1)==0);
With gcc
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-17 02:27 ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 26763 ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #15 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-17 02:27
---
*** Bug 27180 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #8 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-17 02:33
---
Subject: Bug 27138
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Mon Apr 17 02:33:51 2006
New Revision: 112999
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=112999
Log:
2006-04-14 Jerry DeLisle [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR
--- Comment #9 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-17 02:37
---
Subject: Bug 27138
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Mon Apr 17 02:37:15 2006
New Revision: 113000
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=113000
Log:
2006-04-16 Jerry DeLisle [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR
--- Comment #5 from sayle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-17 02:38 ---
Subject: Bug 26961
Author: sayle
Date: Mon Apr 17 02:38:50 2006
New Revision: 113001
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=113001
Log:
PR target/26961
* fold-const.c (fold_ternary):
--- Comment #7 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-17 04:31
---
Subject: Bug 26766
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Mon Apr 17 04:31:18 2006
New Revision: 113002
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=113002
Log:
2006-04-16 Jerry DeLisle [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR
--- Comment #8 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-17 04:34
---
Subject: Bug 26766
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Mon Apr 17 04:33:59 2006
New Revision: 113003
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=113003
Log:
2006-04-16 Jerry DeLisle [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR
--- Comment #9 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-17 04:38
---
Fixed on 4.1 and trunk
--
jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
93 matches
Mail list logo
