I have been unable to build recent gcc versions on my i386 (AMD 64x2)
running Fedora 7 although I have no problems building them on other,
similar hosts running F7 and older Fedora releases and on both Intel
and AMD machines.
I have suspected my environment because I have noticed for the first
马骅 wrote:
I thought it may be a bug for gcc 4.1.2.
Please don't top-post.
On Nov 15, 2007 11:11 AM, Tim Prince [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
马骅 wrote:
hi,
I try to build toolchains using buildroot. but when compile the
busybox, an internel compiler error show.
If you have questions about the
Revital1 Eres/Haifa/IBM wrote on 14/11/2007 18:46:14:
When scheduling insn 58, we calculate a window of possible cycles
according
to already scheduled predecessors and successors. This window looks
like a
parallelogram in general rather than a rectangle: in the first cycle
there
may be
Ian Lance Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 13/11/2007 20:11:35:
Razya Ladelsky [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This patch adds documentation for fipa-cp and -fipa-matrix-reorg.
2007-11-12 Razya Ladelsky [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* doc/invoke.texi (fipa-cp, fipa-matrix-reorg): Add
Hi,
I am trying to fix this bug:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33962
The problem seems to that more_specialized_fn() doesn't seem to know
how to cope with deciding whether which function is more specialised
from two variadic functions.
I have narrowed the problem down to
Hello,
It's time for CRLibm developpers to step in this discussion.
We confirm that CRLibm is as fast as other portable libraries, or
faster, and that it keeps improving (some benchmarks below). When we are
slower, it is because we wanted cleaner code or smaller tables or we
tuned the code
On Thu, Nov 15, 2007 at 06:41:17AM -0800, Li Wang wrote:
I wonder how to let GCC produce flat assembly, say, just like the .com
file under the DOS, without function calls and complicate executable
file headers, only instructions. How to modify the machine description
file to achieve that?
Joe Buck wrote:
On Wed, Nov 07, 2007 at 09:20:21AM +0100, Emmanuel Fleury wrote:
Is there any progress in the gcc-plugin project ?
Non-technical holdups. RMS is worried that this will make it too easy
to integrate proprietary code directly with GCC.
I don't believe this is a strong
I don't believe this is a strong argument. My contention is, and has
always been, that GCC is _already_ trivial to integrate into a
proprietary compiler. There is at least one compiler I know that does this.
I believe that any such compiler would violate the GPL. But I also believe
it's
On Thu, Nov 15, 2007 at 02:34:38PM -0500, Diego Novillo wrote:
Joe Buck wrote:
On Wed, Nov 07, 2007 at 09:20:21AM +0100, Emmanuel Fleury wrote:
Is there any progress in the gcc-plugin project ?
Non-technical holdups. RMS is worried that this will make it too easy
to integrate proprietary
This is on i686-pc-linux-gnu:
$ ../../gcc/trunk/configure --prefix=$HOME --enable-languages=c,fortran
--enable-maintainer-mode make bootstrap
...
build/genmodes -h tmp-modes.h
/bin/sh: build/genmodes: No such file or directory
make[3]: *** [s-modes-h] Error 127
make[3]: Leaving directory
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Kenner) writes:
I don't believe this is a strong argument. My contention is, and has
always been, that GCC is _already_ trivial to integrate into a
proprietary compiler. There is at least one compiler I know that does this.
I believe that any such compiler
Richard Kenner wrote:
Therefore, I think it's important for us to make it as
technically hard as possible for people to do such a linkage by readin and
writing tree or communicating as different libraries or DLLs. I'm very
much against any sort of plug in precisely for this reason.
That's
In fact, it's easy. You have to write some code to translate from
tree to your proprietary IR, and then you have to plug that code
into passes.c.
Well first of all, that code becomes GPL so the IR isn't truely proprietary.
So this seems to me to be a very weak argument against plugins.
Richard Kenner wrote:
No, not in that case, but I don't see that as the only case. Another
case would be somebody who wanted to keep an optimizer proprietary by
making it a plug-in. My view is that because of the linkage with the
GCC IR, it can't be proprietary in that case, but that's the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Richard Kenner wrote:
I think it's quite important for gcc's long-term health to permit and
even encourage academic researchers and students to use it. And I see
plugins as directly supporting that goal.
I don't see that. Why is it that
Limited time and steep learning curves. Typically, researchers are
interested in rapid-prototyping to keep the paper mill going. Plug-ins
offers a simple method for avoiding the latencies of repeated bootstrap
cycles.
I don't follow. If you're developing an optimizer, you need to do the
It appears that portions of the LTO information are emitted in the usual
debugging sections, rather, information that would already be present there
is shared. This is great for reducing the size of object files that
contain both
LTO info and debugging info, but means that LTO breaks if 'strip
Richard Kenner wrote:
I don't follow. If you're developing an optimizer, you need to do the
bootstrap to test the optimizer no matter how it connects to the rest
of the compiler. All you save is that you do a smaller link, but that
time is measured in seconds on modern machines.
No, you
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Kenner) writes:
In fact, it's easy. You have to write some code to translate from
tree to your proprietary IR, and then you have to plug that code
into passes.c.
Well first of all, that code becomes GPL so the IR isn't truely proprietary.
I'm with you on
Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
I think it's quite important for gcc's long-term health to permit and
even encourage academic researchers and students to use it. And I see
plugins as directly supporting that goal. Note that I don't see any
problem with requiring (or attempting to require) that any
Jason Merrill wrote:
may_alias and target attributes are the problematic case. Most of these
just get added to the TYPE_ATTRIBUTES list, and
build_type_attribute_qual_variant creates a new TYPE_MAIN_VARIANT
without copying the fields, which is why things break.
A simple solution might be
Hi
There is again a problem i con not solve by my own. I tried to compile
LwIP and discovered following error.
tcp_in.c:1133: internal compiler error: in gen_reg_rtx, at emit-rtl.c:771
Please submit a full bug report,
A full output of all passes showed, that combine seems to make invalid
If a third party is willing to violate the GPL, the presence of a
plug-in infrastructure will _not_ make their job significantly easier.
The issue isn't the ease in which it violates the GPL, but the ease in
which you can show it *is* a violation! If there's no plug-in and you
link directly
Michael_fogel wrote:
(ior:SI (subreg:SI (mem/s:QI (reg/f:SI 1250) [0
variable.flags+0 S1 A32]) 0)
See register_operand and general_operand in recog.c. (SUBREG (MEM)) is
accepted by register_operand if INSN_SCHEDULING is not defined, for
historical reasons. This is something that
I don't follow. If you're developing an optimizer, you need to do the
bootstrap to test the optimizer no matter how it connects to the rest
of the compiler. All you save is that you do a smaller link, but that
time is measured in seconds on modern machines.
No, you don't. All you
Hi,
I may need explain this problem more clearly.For a backend which runs as
coprocessor to a host processor, such as GPU, which incoporates large
numbers of ALUS and processes only arithmetic operations and some other
simple operations, runs in VLIW pattern to accelerate the host
processor. Say,
Tom Browder wrote:
Attached is a log of my build attempt (and the config.log).
There is a config.log file in every directory that gets configured. It
looks like you attached the one from the top-level dir which is not
where the problem is occurring.
The make -j3 makes the output hard to
Andrew Haley [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
We can make it as technically hard as possible, but it's way too late
to make it technically hard. In fact, it's easy. You have to write
some code to translate from tree to your proprietary IR, and then you
have to plug that code into passes.c.
Ian Lance Taylor writes:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Kenner) writes:
I don't believe this is a strong argument. My contention is,
and has always been, that GCC is _already_ trivial to integrate
into a proprietary compiler. There is at least one compiler I
know that does this.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Kenner) writes:
Limited time and steep learning curves. Typically, researchers are
interested in rapid-prototyping to keep the paper mill going. Plug-ins
offers a simple method for avoiding the latencies of repeated bootstrap
cycles.
I don't follow. If
On Nov 15, 2007 6:24 PM, Jim Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tom Browder wrote:
Attached is a log of my build attempt (and the config.log).
...
These lines in the output are suspect:
/bin/sh: /usr/bin/true: Success
I don't have a /usr/bin/true on my F7 machines. There is a /bin/true.
The
Richard Kenner wrote:
No, I mean for *testing* you need to do a bootstrap. I'm not talking
about the minimum actually needed to build.
Nope, you don't. If you are doing static analysis, for instance, you
don't care nor need to bootstrap GCC. You just need to load your module
every time a
Li Wang wrote:
and execute it. If I want to let GCC produce assembly for it, how should
I code the machine description file? Should I first let cc1 produce a
elf assembly for it, and then let binutils trunate it to a flat
assembly? It seems ugly hacking. Thanks.
I don't know what a .com file
On Thu, Nov 15, 2007 at 04:20:49PM -0800, Li Wang wrote:
I may need explain this problem more clearly.
Yes, my earlier message directing you to gcc-help was because I thought
you didn't grasp what the compiler should do and what the linker should
do; sorry about that.
For a backend which runs
Hi,
I wonder how to let GCC produce flat assembly, say, just like the .com
file under the DOS, without function calls and complicate executable
file headers, only instructions. How to modify the machine description
file to achieve that? Thanks in advance.
Regards,
Li Wang
Thomas Koenig wrote:
build/genmodes -h tmp-modes.h
/bin/sh: build/genmodes: No such file or directory
Does the file build/genmodes exist? If the file isn't there, then you
need to figure out what happened to it.
If the file is there, then this might mean that the interpreter for the
binary
Subject: Modulo operation in C for -ve values
The Modulo operation as specified in
http://xenia.media.mit.edu/~bdenckla/thesis/texts/htthe/node13.html says that
for a fraction like n/k which can be expressed as n/k = i + j/k the C division
and mod operation should yeild
n div k = i (integer part)
On Fri, Nov 16, 2007 at 09:27:22AM +0530, Deepak Gaur wrote:
The Modulo operation as specified in
http://xenia.media.mit.edu/~bdenckla/thesis/texts/htthe/node13.html
This is not the C % operator. google ISO/IEC 9899:1999 for a clue.
--
Alan Modra
Australia Development Lab, IBM
Hi,
Thanks for your attention and response. I think I am still not very
accurate to describe what I want to do. I am too anxious to explain far
from clearly. Now permit me use a simple example, for the simple C
program below, compiled by cc1 targetting to x86 platform, the assembly
is as
Hi,
I was wondering if anyone could help me make sense of the
more_specialized_fn() function in pt.c (line 13281).
Specifically, I am trying to understand what each of the are:
tree decl1 = DECL_TEMPLATE_RESULT (pat1);
tree targs1 = make_tree_vec (DECL_NTPARMS (pat1));
tree tparms1 =
--
reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.3.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34103
The following invalid testcase triggers an ICE on mainline:
struct A {};
templatetypename struct B : virtual A {};
templatetypename...T struct C : BT {};
bug.cc:5: error:
--
reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.3.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34102
--- Comment #1 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-15 08:31 ---
Duplicate of PR 31124 ?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34092
--
reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.3.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34100
--- Comment #1 from rwgk at yahoo dot com 2007-11-15 06:56 ---
Created an attachment (id=14554)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=14554action=view)
reproducer
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34099
The following valid testcase triggers an ICE on mainline:
templatetypename struct A {};
templatetemplatetypename class... struct B {};
templatetemplatetypename class T void foo(const BT);
void bar()
{
foo(BA());
}
--
reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.3.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34101
For
#include vector
#include string
int main()
{
std::vectorstd::string x;
std::string s(hello);
return std::find(x.begin(), x.end(), s) - x.begin();
}
we now get interesting linker errors with trunk:
g++-4.3 -o t t.C
/tmp/cc3Vq2t8.o: In function `main':
t.C:(.text+0x65): undefined
#include memory
int main(int argc, char* argv[])
{
int* intptr;
std::auto_ptrint i;
i = std::auto_ptrint (intptr);
return 0;
}
- code above compiles but fails run
~/tests$ g++ -Wall auto_ptr.cpp
~/tests$ ./a.out
*** glibc detected *** ./a.out:
--- Comment #3 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-15 09:46 ---
The patch below fixes the reported bug. I am going to check to see what needs
to be done to extend this to generic interfaces and operators.
Paul
Index: gcc/fortran/module.c
--
singler at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |singler at gcc dot gnu dot
|dot org
In compatibility.h, there are a lot of compiler- and architecture dependent
switches. Relying on the GCC atomic operations would make this much cleaner.
--
Summary: [parallel mode] Atomic operations compatibility layer
needs cleanup
Product: gcc
--- Comment #8 from singler at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-15 10:10 ---
Closing this bug, the compatibility.h issues are tracked in PR 34106.
--
singler at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
singler at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |singler at gcc dot gnu dot
|dot org
--
singler at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33490
--- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-15 10:21 ---
Confirmed. Shorter testcase:
#include complex
#include iostream
typedef std::complexdouble NumType;
void
multiply(NumType a, NumType b, unsigned ac, NumType ab)
{
NumType s;
for (unsigned j=0; jac; j++)
I'm using the latest (precompiled) version of gfortran (GNU Fortran (GCC) 4.3.0
20071105 (experimental) [trunk revision 129892]). The following code:
program test
integer :: pid
character (len=10) :: chpid
pid=12345
write(chpid,'(i10)')pid
write(*,*)chpid is ,chpid
end program test
when
--- Comment #2 from terry at chem dot gu dot se 2007-11-15 10:19 ---
*** Bug 34092 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31124
--- Comment #2 from terry at chem dot gu dot se 2007-11-15 10:19 ---
(In reply to comment #1)
Duplicate of PR 31124 ?
Yar. I was misled the last time by the fact that PR 31129 also existed. The
parameter case has been fixed, but not the private case.
*** This bug has been marked
--- Comment #3 from terry at chem dot gu dot se 2007-11-15 10:27 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
*** Bug 34092 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
So, to summarise: Unused parameters have been fixed in general, but unused
private module entities remain undetected (as of
--
singler at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |singler at gcc dot gnu dot
|dot org
--- Comment #1 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-15 11:17 ---
Testing a fix.
--
jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-15 11:16 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
Bother, the patch causes some regressions (interface_[3-5].f90)...
Paul
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33541
--- Comment #3 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-15 11:58 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
-malign-double changes the ABI. You need to rebuild libgfortran with that
option.
Ah! Thanks, Richard. For that, I'll take a look at achar_4.f90 for you:)
Paul
--
--- Comment #1 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-11-15 11:59 ---
Note that the issue is unrelated to the header optimization work: is caused by
algorithmfwd.h, added in the occasion of the parallel STL work. I'm going to
look a bit into it, anyway, if a simple solution I have in mind
--- Comment #5 from eres at il dot ibm dot com 2007-11-15 12:04 ---
It seems that verify_flow_info complains about the following note,
which is generated in the partitioning phase:
(note 234 232 172 11 NOTE_INSN_SWITCH_TEXT_SECTIONS)
--
I use gfortran on cygwin.
% wget
http://quatramaran.ens.fr/~coudert/gfortran/gfortran-4.3-Cygwin-i686.tar.bz2
% tar fjx gfortran-4.3-Cygwin-i686.tar.bz2 -C /
I get a segmentation fault when compiling program contains a simple write
statement.
% cat zerolabel.f95
write(*,0)
%
--- Comment #1 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-15 10:54 ---
Jens,
I cannot reproduce this bug, even with the same flags that you are using, under
Cygwin_NT and last night's build. I will check on a Linux system tonight.
I have downrated the severity because critical refers
--- Comment #6 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-15 12:21 ---
I can't reproduce this on x86*.
Again, please attach the profile information and state the exact compiler
revision you used to generate this profile information.
--
--- Comment #7 from eres at il dot ibm dot com 2007-11-15 12:29 ---
(In reply to comment #6)
I can't reproduce this on x86*.
Again, please attach the profile information and state the exact compiler
revision you used to generate this profile information.
Sorry - I am working on
--- Comment #9 from patchapp at dberlin dot org 2007-11-15 12:35 ---
Subject: Bug number PR33917
A patch for this bug has been added to the patch tracker.
The mailing list url for the patch is
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-11/msg00842.html
--
--- Comment #5 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-11-15 13:10 ---
I meant bits/stl_algobase.h, of course.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34105
--- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-15 11:26 ---
-malign-double changes the ABI. You need to rebuild libgfortran with that
option.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-11-15 13:06 ---
Something like the attached (lightly tested) fixed the problem for normal mode,
the error becomes:
34105.cc: In function int main():
34105.cc:8: error: find is not a member of std
however, it doesn't for parallel
--- Comment #4 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-11-15 13:09 ---
By the way, while we are talking about those QoI issues, I think it's in any
case better not including something like algorithmfwd.h in algobase.h: it's
relatively big and we are doing our best to keep algobase.h, the core
--- Comment #18 from tom_francen at midtechcorp dot com 2007-11-15 13:46
---
Subject: Re: gcj seems not to pass the option to ld correctly
thank you wilson ... i just tried suggestion #6 ... and it WORKED!! thank you
very much!!
tjf
---
Thomas James Francen
Midwest
--- Comment #1 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-11-15 13:32 ---
intptr is not initialized: when i is destructed it calls delete on the owned
pointer, that is intptr, and anything can happen. Just initialize intptr to
zero or to a value returned by new.
--
pcarlini at suse dot de
--- Comment #8 from eres at il dot ibm dot com 2007-11-15 14:17 ---
When disabling rest_of_handle_reorder_blocks (bbro) the ICE disappears. (it
seems that it is not caused due to the partitioning - bbpart)
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34085
--- Comment #2 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-11-15 13:04 ---
Created an attachment (id=14555)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=14555action=view)
Draft patch for normal mode
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34105
--- Comment #9 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-15 14:49 ---
I mean the files you generate with -fprofile-generate.
I expect this to be fully blamable on the partitioning code, and I would like
to work in fixing this. But you have to attach the profile information you
have
--- Comment #11 from eres at il dot ibm dot com 2007-11-15 15:05 ---
Created an attachment (id=14556)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=14556action=view)
File generated by -fprofile-generate
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34085
--- Comment #3 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-15 14:56 ---
Uhm, this goes wrong in CCP. (w/o SRA the failure doesn't trigger though)
Before CCP we have:
void multiply(NumType, NumType, unsigned int, NumType) (a, b, ac, ab)
{
double s$_M_value$real;
double
--- Comment #5 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-15 15:19 ---
(In reply to comment #4)
(In reply to comment #3)
Bother, the patch causes some regressions (interface_[3-5].f90)...
Paul
These were easily fixed - also nested_modules_1.f90 was not standard compliant
in this
--- Comment #3 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-15 15:10 ---
See also:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2007-11/msg00074.html
and for the patch:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2007-11/msg00093.html
--
burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #4 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-15 15:08 ---
This looks like this old bug that evaluate_stmt() sets results to UNDEFINED.
As
we visit
D.26933_16 = __t_14 * D.26932_15;
the result should become VARYING, but we make it UNDEFINED. Because also
likely_value ()
--- Comment #8 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-15 15:39 ---
What happened to this patch?
--
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #11 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-15 15:18 ---
FIXED on the trunk (4.3.0) [is not part of any branch].
--
burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #5 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-15 15:40 ---
That is, a certain class of operations (like COMPLEX_EXPR) do not fulfil the
constraint that if one operand is UNDEFINED the result is UNDEFINED as well.
For example MIN_EXPR INT_MIN, UNDEFINED, or MAX_EXPR
--- Comment #7 from rguenther at suse dot de 2007-11-15 15:51 ---
Subject: Re: [4.3 Regression] optimizer problem
On Thu, 15 Nov 2007, ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
--- Comment #6 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-15 15:44
---
That is, a certain
--- Comment #4 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-15 14:57
---
There is a good chance that if you try to build the runtime library with
malign-double that you will break it. My recommendation is don't use
-malign-double for I/O related things.
--
--- Comment #4 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-15 15:53 ---
I cannot reproduce this problem with any of 4.1, 4.2 or 4.3. But the issues
raised look related the CCP problem in PR34099.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #10 from eres at il dot ibm dot com 2007-11-15 15:02 ---
(In reply to comment #9)
I mean the files you generate with -fprofile-generate.
I expect this to be fully blamable on the partitioning code, and I would like
to work in fixing this. But you have to attach the
--- Comment #8 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-15 16:04 ---
Which doesn't work :( Unassigning.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #9 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-15 16:06 ---
Created an attachment (id=14557)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=14557action=view)
broken patch
It miscompiles gengtype. I remember problems with changing likely_value in
similar ways back in
--- Comment #10 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-15 16:08
---
Created an attachment (id=14558)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=14558action=view)
new broken patch
Err, that was an old patch.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What
--- Comment #10 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-15 15:12 ---
Subject: Bug 33917
Author: burnus
Date: Thu Nov 15 15:12:03 2007
New Revision: 130202
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=130202
Log:
2007-11-15 Tobias Burnus [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR
--- Comment #6 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-15 15:44
---
That is, a certain class of operations (like COMPLEX_EXPR) do not fulfil the
constraint that if one operand is UNDEFINED the result is UNDEFINED as well.
Is the problem somehow related to PR middle-end/33088?
SVN head does not build due to a warning that is treated as error.
gcc.build.lnx/./prev-gcc/xgcc
-B/gcc-b98ac6987827a195a1492167a9a158bf/gcc.build.lnx/./prev-gcc/
-B/usr/i686-pc-linux-gnu/bin/ -c -g -O2 -fomit-frame-pointer -DIN_GCC -W
-Wall -Wwrite-strings -Wstrict-prototypes
1 - 100 of 167 matches
Mail list logo
