Dave Korn wrote:
On 12 November 2006 04:16, Howard Chu wrote:
Dave Korn wrote:
f = (struct foo *)(void *)buf;
That's good, but why is it safe?
Passing through void* means gcc has to assume it could alias anything,
IIUIC, as a result of the standard
Howard Chu [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
As I recall, we chose int[] for alignment reasons, figuring we'd have no
guarantees on the alignment of a char[].
Neither you have on int[].
Andreas.
--
Andreas Schwab, SuSE Labs, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
SuSE Linux Products GmbH, Maxfeldstraße 5, 90409
I see this on linux but not on cygwin:
make[3]: Leaving directory `/home/dk/gnu/obj'
Comparing stages 2 and 3
warning: ./cc1-checksum.o differs
warning: ./cc1plus-checksum.o differs
warning: ./cc1obj-checksum.o differs
Bootstrap comparison failure!
./cfg.o differs
./cfgloopanal.o differs
Gempar hari ini berikut sebilangan besar pegawai JPJ tak mempedulikan
apa yg berlaku sekarang, apabila
pihak JPJ tidak menghiraukan org ramai memasang stiker di kenderaan
berikutan pendapatan lumayan yang diperolehi hasil stiker yg ditampal
anda dan cuba juga?
cuma lengkap beberapa
Dave Korn writes:
Is it just me, or does anyone else get this? I objdump'd and diff'd the
stage2 and stage3 versions of cfg.o and it seems to have developed a habit of
inserting 'shrd'/'shld' opcodes:
It looks to me like the stage3 version with the shrd/shld is correct
and it's that stage2
I see this on linux but not on cygwin:
make[3]: Leaving directory `/home/dk/gnu/obj'
Comparing stages 2 and 3
warning: ./cc1-checksum.o differs
warning: ./cc1plus-checksum.o differs
warning: ./cc1obj-checksum.o differs
Bootstrap comparison failure!
./cfg.o differs
./cfgloopanal.o
On Sun, Nov 12, 2006 at 02:44:36PM -, Dave Korn wrote:
I see this on linux but not on cygwin:
make[3]: Leaving directory `/home/dk/gnu/obj'
Comparing stages 2 and 3
warning: ./cc1-checksum.o differs
warning: ./cc1plus-checksum.o differs
warning: ./cc1obj-checksum.o differs
Hi,
Is there any way to specify in the code the optimization value like
(-O2 or -O3) instead of on the command line.
I want
#include stdio.h
...
...
return 0
}
to be compiled with -O2 or -O3 or some better optimization than
standard gcc flags like gcc a.c .I have only 1 file. The problem is
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Mark Shinwell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My port, based on (GCC) 4.2.0 20061002 (experimental), is producing
incorrect code for the following test case:
[snip]
I've only had a very quick look at your code, but I have a feeling
thatthis is an
On Nov 11, 2006, at 7:56 PM, Howard Chu wrote:
You probably can't, in the case of a shared library, but you
probably could for a static library.
I think I agree, though, a JIT can peer past a shared boundary as
well. A non-JIT can as well, but it has to have some mechanism to
unpeer
Michael Eager wrote:
GCC 4.1.1 for PowerPC generates a 162K executable for a
minimal program int main() { return 0; }. GCC 3.4.1
generated a 7.2K executable. Mark Mitchell mentioned the
same problem for ARM and proposed a patch to remove the
reference to malloc in atexit
Sohail Somani wrote:
On Fri, 2006-11-10 at 19:46 -0800, Andrew Pinski wrote:
On Fri, 2006-11-10 at 15:23 -0800, Sohail Somani wrote:
Do you need new class types, or just an anonymous FUNCTION_DECL?
Hi Mark, thanks for your reply.
In general it would be a new class. If the lambda function
On 12 November 2006 16:50, H. J. Lu wrote:
On Sun, Nov 12, 2006 at 02:44:36PM -, Dave Korn wrote:
Comparing stages 2 and 3
warning: ./cc1-checksum.o differs
warning: ./cc1plus-checksum.o differs
warning: ./cc1obj-checksum.o differs
Bootstrap comparison failure!
./cfg.o differs
Don't post to both lists, if you want to work on the compiler, gcc is
fine, otherwise gcc-help.
On Nov 12, 2006, at 9:29 AM, Niklaus wrote:
Is there any way to specify in the code the optimization value like
(-O2 or -O3) instead of on the command line.
In Apple's branch, we've added support
On Nov 11, 2006, at 11:19 AM, Jack Howarth wrote:
Will any of the libraries in gcc now require gmp/mpfr such that
both 32-bit and 64-bit versions of gmp/mpfr must be installed? If
that is the case, will the multilib build look for both a lipo 32-
bit/64-bit combined shared library in
On Mon, 30 Oct 2006, Kaveh R. GHAZI wrote:
Do we have a GCC FAQ somewhere? Maybe we can add GMP/MPFR build problems
and solutions there. You can add your experiences to that collection.
http://gcc.gnu.org/faq.html, but I believe increasing the intelligence
of configure and documenting all
On Thu, 2 Nov 2006, Dave Korn wrote:
From a user perspective, how about
Current (4.1)
Previous (4.0)
Next (4.2)
Active development (4.3)
Let's be user-centric. Us developers can be expected to cope.
Okay. ;-) Nobody else chimed in, so I went ahead and committed the
patch below.
Mark Mitchell wrote:
Michael Eager wrote:
GCC 4.1.1 for PowerPC generates a 162K executable for a
minimal program int main() { return 0; }. GCC 3.4.1
generated a 7.2K executable. Mark Mitchell mentioned the
same problem for ARM and proposed a patch to remove the
reference to malloc in atexit
If I understood correctly, newer glibcs have added warn_unused_result
attribute to several functions when compiling with -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2.
I think this is a good idea in general, except there are some cases
where I really don't care if the call succeeds or not. Traditionally
it's been possible
On Sun, 2006-11-12 at 23:03 +0200, Timo Sirainen wrote:
If I understood correctly, newer glibcs have added warn_unused_result
attribute to several functions when compiling with -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2.
warn_unused_result means warn if the result is unused even with (void).
This warning is doing
Michael Eager wrote:
Preallocating space is a good thing, particularly if the size
can be computed at compile time. It's a little bit more awkward
if it has to be calculated at link time.
It's a bit awkward, but it's also one of the clever tricks ARM's
proprietary linker uses, and we should
On Fri, 10 Nov 2006, Nuno Lopes wrote:
On Fri, 10 Nov 2006, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
I kind of liked this idea:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-07/msg00797.html
but of course it was insane.
I still think a higher level state machine as described in the
followups
is how
Mark Mitchell wrote:
Generating __gxx_personality_v0 is suppressed with the -fno-exceptions
flag, but it would seem better if this symbol were only generated
when catch/throw was used. This happens in cxx_init_decl_processing(),
which is called before it's known whether or not EH is really
Michael Eager wrote:
Mark Mitchell wrote:
Generating __gxx_personality_v0 is suppressed with the -fno-exceptions
flag, but it would seem better if this symbol were only generated
when catch/throw was used. This happens in cxx_init_decl_processing(),
which is called before it's known whether
Mark Mitchell wrote:
Michael Eager wrote:
Why should the personality routine be included in all C++ programs?
Because all non-trivial, exceptions-enabled programs, may need to do
stack unwinding.
It would seem that the place to require the personality
routine would be in the routine which
On Sunday 12 November 2006 22:46, Michael Eager wrote:
Mark Mitchell wrote:
Michael Eager wrote:
Why should the personality routine be included in all C++ programs?
Because all non-trivial, exceptions-enabled programs, may need to do
stack unwinding.
It would seem that the place to
Michael Eager wrote:
Mark Mitchell wrote:
Michael Eager wrote:
Why should the personality routine be included in all C++ programs?
Because all non-trivial, exceptions-enabled programs, may need to do
stack unwinding.
It would seem that the place to require the personality
routine would
Can anyone confirm that the libffi shared libraries
are properly built in gcc 4.2 branch (or trunk) on
i386-apple-darwin8? I have had a report that the most
recent snapshot of gcc 4.2 doesn't build libffi on
Macintel boxes. This is rather disturbing since
I assumed that Sandro's patches were
Mark Mitchell wrote:
But, the way the ABI works requires a reference from each unit which may
cause unwinding. Even if you lose the personality routine, you will
still have the exception tables, which themselves are a significant
cost. If you don't want to pay for exceptions, you really have
Yes they can in fact. So the object can outlive the scope.
As I understand the lambda proposal, the lambda function may not refer
to things that have gone out of scope. It can use *references* that
have gone out of scope, but only if the referent is still in scope.
Since the way that
Of course, all this is silly if nested functions carry around their
lexical scope and can be returned. But I dont know that they do.
A simple test case that would not invoke UB with n1968 lambda functions:
#include stdio.h
typedef void (*fn_t)();
void doinvoke(fn_t f)
{
f();
}
fn_t
On Sun, Nov 12, 2006 at 11:17:14PM +, Paul Brook wrote:
The code being unwound through (ie. with frame data) needs to be able to
say I need routine X if __Unwind_Raise is used anywhere in this program.
I'm not aware of any way of doing this, other than trying it and starting
again if you
On Monday 13 November 2006 00:53, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
On Sun, Nov 12, 2006 at 11:17:14PM +, Paul Brook wrote:
The code being unwound through (ie. with frame data) needs to be able to
say I need routine X if __Unwind_Raise is used anywhere in this
program. I'm not aware of any way
Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
If you try what Michael's been saying, you'll notice that trivial
C++ files get the personality routine reference even if they don't
have anything with a destructor which would need cleaning up. We ought
to be able to emit (somewhat smaller) unwind information which
Mark Mitchell [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[...]
| Also, it appears to me that there is something missing from N1958: there
| is no discussion about what happens when you apply typeid to a lambda
| function, or otherwise use it in a context that requires type_info.
There still are some discussions
On Mon, Nov 13, 2006 at 01:03:10AM +, Paul Brook wrote:
C++ files get the personality routine reference even if they don't
have anything with a destructor which would need cleaning up. We ought
to be able to emit (somewhat smaller) unwind information which doesn't
reference the
On Sun, Nov 12, 2006 at 05:11:39PM -0800, Mark Mitchell wrote:
Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
If you try what Michael's been saying, you'll notice that trivial
C++ files get the personality routine reference even if they don't
have anything with a destructor which would need cleaning up. We
There still are some discussions going on (it is not alsways feasable
to reflect all the discussions), especially with respect to callback,
default policy and the like.
[...]
There is the discussion on callbacks.
Are these discussions public? Is there a way to get archives?
Thanks,
Sohail
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| There still are some discussions going on (it is not alsways feasable
| to reflect all the discussions), especially with respect to callback,
| default policy and the like.
|
| [...]
|
| There is the discussion on callbacks.
|
| Are these discussions public?
I am no longer subscribed to this list so please be sure to include
my email address in any replies.
I have been working on a set of class templates. Currently my
example is rather large and cumbersome.
I get the same results using g++ 4.0.1 on the Mac and g++ 4.0.2 on AIX.
The templates
I realize that it's been a long time since a GCC 4.1.x release.
I'd like to put together a GCC 4.1.2 release in the relatively near
future. (Then, there may or may not be a GCC 4.1.3 release at the same
time as 4.2.0, depending on where it seems like we are at that point.)
Since, in theory, the
First thanks very much for your thoughts
If those two instructions appear for the first time in the .greg dump
file, then they have been created by reload.
Yes they appear for the first time in .greg dump file.
1. What could be the reason for this behavior?
I'm really shooting in the
On 10 November 2006 22:31, 'Rask Ingemann Lambertsen' wrote:
On Fri, Nov 10, 2006 at 07:11:34PM -, Dave Korn wrote:
No, surely you don't want to do that! You really need a movdi pattern -
even more so if there are no natural DImode-sized registers, as gcse can
get terribly confused
On 11 November 2006 00:14, Brooks Moses wrote:
Dave Korn wrote:
On 10 November 2006 21:18, Brooks Moses wrote:
I think that for this one case we should just say that you have to supply
both forms -ffixed-line-length-none and -ffixed-line-length=none.
Which I would be glad to do, except
GCC 4.1.1 for PowerPC generates a 162K executable for a
minimal program int main() { return 0; }. GCC 3.4.1
generated a 7.2K executable. Mark Mitchell mentioned the
same problem for ARM and proposed a patch to remove the
reference to malloc in atexit
Hi All,
I think i am having trouble with the garbage collector deleting the
memory for tree nodes that i am still using.
In my code i gather all sorts of information from FUNCTION_DECL
nodes as they pass through the gimplify_function_tree() function. I
gather info about types and
Quoting Gabriel Dos Reis [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| There is the discussion on callbacks.
|
| Are these discussions public?
Most of them happened at the last C++ committee meetings in Berlin,
Germany and Portland, Oregon). There must be some record on the
EWG wiki, but I
Le Mon, Nov 13, 2006 at 06:47:40AM +, Brendon Costa écrivait/wrote:
Hi All,
I think i am having trouble with the garbage collector deleting the
memory for tree nodes that i am still using.
The wiki page
http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/Memory_management
might help you
I had a quick
--- Comment #23 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-12 08:07
---
I should be posting a patch for this next week.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25500
--- Comment #17 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-12 08:10
---
(In reply to comment #16)
(In reply to comment #15)
The patch fails bootstrap in stage2 for ppc (only).
This bootstraps just fine for me on the mainline with powerpc-darwin.
And there were no regressions.
--
--- Comment #5 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-12 08:20 ---
I am going to try to fix this, it blocks my other work on getting altivec
builtins marked as const/pure.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-12 08:35 ---
The only thing left from __task_rq_lock is a label.
If we look at that inlined function, we see:
static inline __attribute__((always_inline)) struct rq *__task_rq_lock(struct
task_struct *p)
{
struct rq *rq;
The following code (extracted from the Linux kernel) fails to compile with
optimization enabled:
static void load_fs(unsigned short sel)
{
asm(mov %0, %%fs : : g(sel));
}
int main(int argc, char **argv)
{
load_fs(0);
}
[EMAIL PROTECTED] arklinux]$ gcc test.c
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I get a segmentation fault with both stock gcc 4.1.1 and the 20061110 4.1.2
snapshot, when trying to build avifile-0.7.45. The error message is:
if i386-pc-linux-g++ -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I. -I../../include
-I/usr/lib/qt3/include -DQT_THREAD_SUPPORT -I/usr/X11R6/include -I../../libavqt
--- Comment #1 from chris_clayton at f1internet dot com 2006-11-12 09:35
---
Created an attachment (id=12596)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=12596action=view)
Preprocessed source
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29809
--- Comment #19 from irar at il dot ibm dot com 2006-11-12 09:52 ---
Janis,
Thanks a lot!
The range of the revisions is 110758 - 111615 (110758 passes bootstrap with
vectorization with the patch, 111615 fails with the error in comment #3).
I had to modify the patch and split it into
--- Comment #20 from irar at il dot ibm dot com 2006-11-12 09:55 ---
Created an attachment (id=12597)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=12597action=view)
The first part of the patch
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28752
--- Comment #21 from irar at il dot ibm dot com 2006-11-12 09:56 ---
Created an attachment (id=12598)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=12598action=view)
The second part of the patch
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28752
--- Comment #6 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2006-11-12 11:00 ---
mine, but please can you give me the correct output? i don't see the
regressions (comparing to a 4.1.2 compiler).
--
bonzini at gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #12 from news at derived-software dot ltd dot uk 2006-11-12
11:04 ---
From Aleksey Gurtovoy (co-author Boost.MPL):
[wrt to this bug]
Actually, no, enums in the bug's subject and reduced test case are a
red herring. For example, this still fails for me on 4.1.1:
template
--- Comment #1 from segher at kernel dot crashing dot org 2006-11-12 11:10
---
Not a bug in GCC but in your code; g says immediate values
are allowed, while this asm insn only takes registers (or 16-bit
memory).
--
segher at kernel dot crashing dot org changed:
What
--- Comment #7 from jpr at csc dot fi 2006-11-12 13:24 ---
Subject: Re: [4.3 Regression] -O2 gives wrong
results
In reply to comment #6)
mine, but please can you give me the correct output? i don't see the
regressions (comparing to a 4.1.2 compiler).
In the original testcase
--- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-12 13:26 ---
invalid
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-12 13:37 ---
With g++ 4.1.1-13 (g++ (GCC) 4.1.2 20061028 (prerelease) (Debian 4.1.1-19)) I
see
timertable.cpp: In member function void TimerTableItem::setTable(int,
QDateTime, QTime, QString, QString, int, int, QString):
--- Comment #3 from bero at arklinux dot org 2006-11-12 13:40 ---
If the code is invalid, the fact that it compiles with -O0 is probably a bug...
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29808
--- Comment #4 from segher at kernel dot crashing dot org 2006-11-12 14:01
---
If the code is invalid, the fact that it compiles with -O0 is probably a
bug...
No, GCC cannot in general detect whether your asm code is buggy.
The assembler however can detect many asm bugs, as it did
--- Comment #3 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-12 14:18 ---
Confirmed. Reduced testcase that fails with -O -finline-functions:
class QDate { };
class QTime {
public:
bool operator( const QTime d ) const { return ds d.ds; }
unsigned ds;
};
class QDateTime {
public:
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[4.1 RegressionSegmentation |[4.1 Regression]
|fault with 4.1.1 and 4.1-
--- Comment #4 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-12 14:46 ---
TREE_ADDRESSABLE is missing on D.1854 in
# start_dateD.1966_53 = V_MAY_DEF start_dateD.1966_31;
# SFT.44D.1986_54 = V_MAY_DEF SFT.44D.1986_12;
# SFT.45D.1987_55 = V_MAY_DEF SFT.45D.1987_13;
#
--- Comment #38 from timday at bottlenose dot demon dot co dot uk
2006-11-12 15:33 ---
Gah: just spent several hours trying to figure out why my malloced __v4sf
weren't 16 byte aligned before I stumbled on this thread. Would be nice if the
info gcc Using vector instructions through
This causes approximately 4400 failures in the gfortran testsuite. Here's
the first:
Executing on host: /mnt/gnu/gcc/objdir/gcc/testsuite/gfortran/../../gfortran
-B/
mnt/gnu/gcc/objdir/gcc/testsuite/gfortran/../../
/mnt/gnu/gcc/gcc/gcc/testsuite/
gfortran.dg/PR19754_2.f90 -O0
--- Comment #1 from danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-12 16:11 ---
This symbol is in _mod_r16.o. I guess this points to:
2006-11-05 Francois-Xavier Coudert [EMAIL PROTECTED],org
Paul Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR fortran/24518
* trans-intrinsic.c
--- Comment #2 from kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-12 16:22 ---
Just curious. Do you file bug reports with HP about the
lack of C99 long double libm functions?
You need to add a fmodl function to c99_functions.c.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29810
--- Comment #3 from kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-12 16:36 ---
Here's an untested patch.
Index: configure.ac
===
--- configure.ac(revision 118613)
+++ configure.ac(working copy)
@@ -235,6 +249,7 @@
--- Comment #13 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-12 16:43
---
(In reply to comment #12)
From Aleksey Gurtovoy (co-author Boost.MPL):
[wrt to this bug]
Actually, no, enums in the bug's subject and reduced test case are a
red herring. For example, this still fails for me
--- Comment #5 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-12 17:07 ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 28116 ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #10 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-12 17:07
---
*** Bug 29809 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from daney at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-12 17:12 ---
Subject: Bug 29805
Author: daney
Date: Sun Nov 12 17:12:13 2006
New Revision: 118724
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=118724
Log:
PR java/29805
* typeck.c (build_java_array_type):
--- Comment #5 from daney at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-12 17:15 ---
Subject: Bug 29805
Author: daney
Date: Sun Nov 12 17:14:52 2006
New Revision: 118725
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=118725
Log:
PR java/29805
* typeck.c (build_java_array_type):
--- Comment #5 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-12 17:15 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
If the code is invalid, the fact that it compiles with -O0 is probably a
bug...
No it is not really a bug that it compiles at -O0 either becuase g means
r+i so the register allocator in
--- Comment #6 from daney at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-12 17:19 ---
Fixed by the patch.
--
daney at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #36 from rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-12 17:33
---
(In reply to comment #19)
Created an attachment (id=12574)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=12574action=view) [edit]
A patch
This reverts the patch which triggers the problem and adds a
--
daney at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.2.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29805
--- Comment #4 from sayle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-12 18:41 ---
Subject: Bug 13827
Author: sayle
Date: Sun Nov 12 18:41:31 2006
New Revision: 118727
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=118727
Log:
PR tree-optimization/13827
* fold-const.c
--- Comment #4 from ubizjak at gmail dot com 2006-11-12 18:44 ---
Fixed.
--
ubizjak at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
--- Comment #5 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-12 18:51 ---
The difference between the 4.2 branch and the trunk is:
On the trunk:
# PARM_NOALIAS.12_38 = V_MAY_DEF PARM_NOALIAS.12_35;
(*D.1004_16)[0] = D.1010_27;
On the 4.2 branch:
# SMT.15_38 = V_MAY_DEF
--- Comment #5 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-12 18:53 ---
Fixed.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
--- Comment #4 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2006-11-12
19:38 ---
Subject: Re: ld: (Warning) Unsatisfied symbol fmodl in file
/mnt/gnu/gcc/objdir/hppa64-hp-hpux11.11/./libgfortran/.l
--- Comment #2 from kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-12 16:22 ---
Just
--- Comment #6 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-12 19:58 ---
This patch should fix the problem:
Index: config/rs6000/rs6000.c
===
--- config/rs6000/rs6000.c (revision 118728)
+++ config/rs6000/rs6000.c
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29727
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29728
--- Comment #4 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-12 20:38
---
From [temp.mem]:
A local class shall not have member templates.
Therefore, this is indeed invalid.
--
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=29730
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29731
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29732
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29733
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29734
--- Comment #5 from acme at mandriva dot com 2006-11-12 20:39 ---
(In reply to comment #4)
The only thing left from __task_rq_lock is a label.
SNIP
task_cpu were inlined and we constant proped the value of rq the first of the
way through the function which we inlined this to.
OK,
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29735
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29736
1 - 100 of 133 matches
Mail list logo
