Hi Luke,
a-exexpr.adb:39:06: Ada.Exceptions.Exception_Propagation is not a
predefined library unit
it looks like you get this error when the compiler can't find a file that it
thinks forms part of the Ada library (this is determined by the name, eg: a
package Ada.XYZ is expected to be part of
On 14 October 2010 02:07, Paul Koning wrote:
Explicitly setting LD_LIBRARY_PATH seems to cure the problem. It would be
good to have that called out in the procedures (or, preferably, made not to
be necessary).
As Ian pointed out, it's documented under --with-mpc et al, although I
only
On Thu, 2010-10-14 at 09:31 +0200, Duncan Sands wrote:
Hi Luke,
a-exexpr.adb:39:06: Ada.Exceptions.Exception_Propagation is not a
predefined library unit
it looks like you get this error when the compiler can't find a file that it
thinks forms part of the Ada library (this is determined
Joakim Tjernlund/Transmode wrote on 2010/10/12 11:00:36:
Alan Modra amo...@gmail.com wrote on 2010/10/11 14:58:45:
On Sun, Oct 10, 2010 at 11:20:06AM +0200, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
Now I have had a closer look at this and it looks much like -fpic
on ppc32, you still use the GOT/TOC
Hi All,
What's the option for dumping the results of loop dependence checking?
such as dependence relations, direction vectors, etc.
Thanks,
Hongtao
Hello list,
When I compile this source with -flto:
extern int retval;
int func (void)
{
return retval;
}
... the LTO symbol table contains both symbols:
/gnu/binutils/git.repo/obj/ld/test/func.o: file format pe-i386
Contents of section .gnu.lto_.symtab.227b80e3:
On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 4:59 PM, Dave Korn dave.korn.cyg...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello list,
When I compile this source with -flto:
extern int retval;
int func (void)
{
return retval;
}
... the LTO symbol table contains both symbols:
/gnu/binutils/git.repo/obj/ld/test/func.o:
Hello Luke,
Luke A. Guest wrote:
Can anyone give me a pointer here? I'm totally new to this :/
a-exexpr.adb:39:06: Ada.Exceptions.Exception_Propagation is not a
predefined library unit
a-exexpr.adb:39:06: Ada.Exceptions (body) depends on
Ada.Exceptions.Exception_Propagation (body)
On 14/10/2010 15:44, Richard Guenther wrote:
On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 4:59 PM, Dave Korn dave.korn.cyg...@gmail.com wrote:
Nor indeed is there any sign of puts, which is what the generated ltrans0.s
file ends up optimising it to (as indeed does the native code in the original
.o file). I'm
On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 5:28 PM, Dave Korn dave.korn.cyg...@gmail.com wrote:
On 14/10/2010 15:44, Richard Guenther wrote:
On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 4:59 PM, Dave Korn dave.korn.cyg...@gmail.com
wrote:
Nor indeed is there any sign of puts, which is what the generated ltrans0.s
file ends up
Hi Art,
No luck with this mornings builds on both x86 and sparc.
My last successful i386-pc-solaris2.10 build was several weeks ago; all
the build attempts fail at this assertion in the function/file below:
{ ... snip ... }
I'm building mainline on Solaris 8 to 11 with both Sun as and gas
On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 2:46 PM, Art Haas ah...@impactweather.com wrote:
Hi.
The bootstrap problems I've been having on the x86 Solaris machine,
plus the reply from maintainer Rainer Orth that his builds have
been succeeding were the impetus to investigate how 'git bisect'
works. After a
On 14/10/2010 16:24, Richard Guenther wrote:
On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 5:28 PM, Dave Korn dave.korn.cyg...@gmail.com wrote:
On 14/10/2010 15:44, Richard Guenther wrote:
I have no idea about the linker-plugin side, but we could of course
avoid generating any calls that were not there before (by
On Oct 13, 2010, at 9:07 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
Paul Koning paul_kon...@dell.com writes:
My build system doesn't have LD_LIBRARY_PATH defined so whatever is
the Linux default would apply. Perhaps I should change that. But it
seems strange that configure finds the prerequisites and
Ralf Wildenhues ralf.wildenh...@gmx.de writes:
* Ian Lance Taylor wrote on Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 03:07:46AM CEST:
Paul Koning writes:
My build system doesn't have LD_LIBRARY_PATH defined so whatever is
the Linux default would apply. Perhaps I should change that. But it
seems strange that
Dave Korn dave.korn.cyg...@gmail.com writes:
The consequence of this is that either there are going to be undefined
symbols in the final executable, or the linker has to perform another round of
library scanning. It occurred to me that the semantics of this might even not
have been decided
* Ian Lance Taylor wrote on Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 06:56:27PM CEST:
Ralf Wildenhues writes:
Provide a configure switch --with-hardcoded-gccdeps that adds run path
entries for pre-installed support libraries?
I'm fine with that, but it just introduces another configure option for
people to
Ralf Wildenhues ralf.wildenh...@gmx.de writes:
* Ian Lance Taylor wrote on Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 06:56:27PM CEST:
Ralf Wildenhues writes:
Provide a configure switch --with-hardcoded-gccdeps that adds run path
entries for pre-installed support libraries?
I'm fine with that, but it just
* Ian Lance Taylor wrote on Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 08:43:51PM CEST:
Ralf Wildenhues writes:
OK. I won't argue my point further, but I am interested to learn why
shared libraries in nonstandard locations are seemingly frowned upon
here. Is that due to fragility of the libtool approach of
Ralf Wildenhues ralf.wildenh...@gmx.de writes:
2) If we did use libtool to build gcc, then, yes, I would be concerned
about the relinking issue.
Why? Because of 'make install' run as root? Any other reasons?
Any install process which is more complex than cp is a matter for
concern. It
On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 12:47:34PM -0700, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
It is not so unlikely that multiple instances of cc1, cc1plus, and f951
are running simultaneously. Granted, I haven't done any measurements.
Most projects are written in only one language. Sure, there may be
cases where
On Thu, 14 Oct 2010, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
Ralf Wildenhues ralf.wildenh...@gmx.de writes:
2) If we did use libtool to build gcc, then, yes, I would be concerned
about the relinking issue.
Why? Because of 'make install' run as root? Any other reasons?
Any install process which
On 10/14/2010 3:31 AM, Duncan Sands wrote:
Hi Luke,
a-exexpr.adb:39:06: Ada.Exceptions.Exception_Propagation is not a
predefined library unit
it looks like you get this error when the compiler can't find a file that it
thinks forms part of the Ada library (this is determined by the name, eg:
Snapshot gcc-4.5-20101014 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.5-20101014/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.5 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches
-Original Message-
From: Eric Botcazou [mailto:ebotca...@adacore.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2010 4:43 PM
To: sebastianspublicaddr...@googlemail.com
Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org; Joe Buck
Subject: Re: show size of stack needed by functions
We have had something along these lines
On 9/29/2010 3:53 PM, Richard Henderson wrote:
The test program in target-supports.exp is broken, since
it doesn't preclude the use of cleanups instead. Indeed,
the init/cleanup3.C seems to be essentially identical to
the target-supports test.
Why isn't the test program in
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45570
--- Comment #4 from Andrey Belevantsev abel at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-10-14
07:56:50 UTC ---
Author: abel
Date: Thu Oct 14 07:56:47 2010
New Revision: 165454
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=165454
Log:
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46010
--- Comment #4 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-10-14
08:09:04 UTC ---
Reduced test case:
--nml.dat---
namtoptrc
tracer(1) = 'Aa', .true.
tracer(2) = 'Bb', .true.
tracer(3) = 'Cc',
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45990
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46011
Summary: 256bit vectorizer failed on double-int
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
AssignedTo:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46011
--- Comment #1 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org hjl at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-10-14
08:33:13 UTC ---
Author: hjl
Date: Thu Oct 14 08:33:09 2010
New Revision: 165457
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=165457
Log:
Scan 256bit AVX
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46011
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46012
Summary: 256bit vectorizer failed on int-double
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46012
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45764
--- Comment #6 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org hjl at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-10-03
05:41:44 UTC ---
Author: hjl
Date: Sun Oct 3 05:39:32 2010
New Revision: 164914
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=164914
Log:
Disallow negative steps
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44913
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46013
Summary: crash when compiling
Product: gcc
Version: 4.4.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: critical
Priority: P3
Component: c++
AssignedTo: unassig...@gcc.gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46014
Summary: internal compiler error compiling clamav-0.96.3
Product: gcc
Version: 4.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: critical
Priority: P3
Component: c
AssignedTo:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46014
--- Comment #1 from mar...@htw-saarland.de 2010-10-14 10:46:01 UTC ---
Created attachment 22034
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22034
intermediate file of error producing source
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46014
--- Comment #2 from mar...@htw-saarland.de 2010-10-14 10:46:47 UTC ---
Created attachment 22035
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22035
Makefile with compiler flags
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45999
--- Comment #2 from Pawel Sikora pluto at agmk dot net 2010-10-14 10:53:03
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
Reduced
#include vector
int main()
{
std::vectorbool b(4);
b.push_back(1);
return 0;
}
There's no pretty
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46013
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-10-14
10:59:33 UTC ---
that preprocessed file refers to a precompiled header, student.h.gch, which
isn't included
can you reproduce it without using precompiled headers?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46014
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45690
--- Comment #3 from Pawel Sikora pluto at agmk dot net 2010-10-14 11:13:10
UTC ---
Created attachment 22036
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22036
my gcc build script.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45690
--- Comment #4 from Pawel Sikora pluto at agmk dot net 2010-10-14 11:17:55
UTC ---
attached gcc build script builds libstdc++.a with dwarf3 debuginfo
which works with testcase compiled with dwarf3 or dwarf4.
if you change CUSTOM_FLAGS in build
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45764
--- Comment #8 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-10-14
11:54:13 UTC ---
The snippet seems to work as far as to set SUB_DISTANCE to chrec_dont_know,
together with the suggested fix in comment #5 it fixes this PR.
Now, the hunk
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44561
--- Comment #8 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-10-14
11:59:50 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu Oct 14 11:59:47 2010
New Revision: 165462
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=165462
Log:
2010-10-14 Richard
...@gcc.gnu.org
ReportedBy: fo...@rmki.kfki.hu
/* test.c */
int f(int i)
{
static void* labs[2] =
{ lab1,
lab2
};
goto *(labs[i1]);
lab1: return 1;
lab2: return 2;
return 0;
}
/* test.c end */
GCC 4.6.0 20101014 -Wall prints the followiung warning:
test.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44561
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
4.6.0 20101014 (experimental) (GCC)
configure:3004: $? = 0
configure:2993: /home/amit/build/gcc/./gcc/xgcc -B/home/amit/build/gcc/./gcc/
-B/home/amit/install/gcc/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/bin/
-B/home/amit/install/gcc/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/lib/ -isystem
/home/amit/install/gcc/x86_64-unknown-linux
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46017
Summary: Reject ALLOCATE(a, a%b) as a%b depends on the
allocation status of a
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: diagnostic
Severity:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43601
--- Comment #33 from Loaden YC loaden at gmail dot com 2010-10-14 12:18:58
UTC ---
Because of this issue, I have been using GCC4.4.x, but do not want to upgrade
to 4.5.x.
Why this issue can not been confirmed?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45984
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46016
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46015
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46016
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-10-14
13:51:36 UTC ---
The docs for --with-mpc do mention this:
http://gcc.gnu.org/install/configure.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45570
Andrey Belevantsev abel at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43601
--- Comment #34 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-10-14
15:09:52 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #33)
Because of this issue, I have been using GCC4.4.x, but do not want to upgrade
to 4.5.x.
Why this issue can not been confirmed?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45957
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46014
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34207
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43601
--- Comment #35 from Vadim Zeitlin vz-gcc at zeitlins dot org 2010-10-14
15:24:57 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #34)
(In reply to comment #33)
Because of this issue, I have been using GCC4.4.x, but do not want to
upgrade
to 4.5.x.
Why
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46018
Summary: Bootstrap fails on i386-pc-solaris2.10
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: bootstrap
AssignedTo:
Guenther rguent...@suse.de
PR lto/45382
* g++.dg/lto/20101014-2_0.C: New testcase.
Added:
trunk/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/lto/20101014-2_0.C
Modified:
trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45382
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46018
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43601
--- Comment #36 from Dave Korn davek at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-10-14 15:37:34
UTC ---
Hi everyone, sorry I've been busy working on LTO stuff for a bit but I haven't
forgotten this.
Before this discussion gets too heated, could Vadim and/or Cesar
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43601
--- Comment #37 from Vadim Zeitlin vz-gcc at zeitlins dot org 2010-10-14
15:42:59 UTC ---
Created attachment 22037
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22037
appbase.cpp file from wxWidgets compiled with g++ 4.4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43601
--- Comment #38 from Vadim Zeitlin vz-gcc at zeitlins dot org 2010-10-14
15:44:23 UTC ---
Created attachment 22038
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22038
appbase.cpp file from wxWidgets compiled with g++ 4.5
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43601
Vadim Zeitlin vz-gcc at zeitlins dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #22037|0 |1
is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43601
--- Comment #40 from Vadim Zeitlin vz-gcc at zeitlins dot org 2010-10-14
15:47:36 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #36)
could Vadim and/or Cesar please add
some of the object files we've been discussing as attachments to this bug
report, so that
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45969
--- Comment #3 from Joseph S. Myers jsm28 at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-10-14
15:48:59 UTC ---
Author: jsm28
Date: Thu Oct 14 15:48:52 2010
New Revision: 165472
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=165472
Log:
PR c/45969
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43601
--- Comment #41 from Dave Korn davek at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-10-14 15:50:53
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #40)
(In reply to comment #36)
could Vadim and/or Cesar please add
some of the object files we've been discussing as attachments to this
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44913
--- Comment #4 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-10-14
15:51:22 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu Oct 14 15:51:15 2010
New Revision: 165473
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=165473
Log:
2010-10-14 Richard
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44913
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46018
H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46018
--- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com 2010-10-14 15:57:52
UTC ---
Please also show the full options passed to cc1.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45343
xunxun1982 xunxun1982 at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xunxun1982 at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43601
--- Comment #42 from Vadim Zeitlin vz-gcc at zeitlins dot org 2010-10-14
16:01:20 UTC ---
Created attachment 22040
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22040
appbase.cpp file from wxWidgets compiled with g++ 3.4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43601
--- Comment #43 from Vadim Zeitlin vz-gcc at zeitlins dot org 2010-10-14
16:01:55 UTC ---
Created attachment 22041
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22041
appbase.cpp file from wxWidgets compiled with MSVC 9 (a.k.a. 2008)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43601
Vadim Zeitlin vz-gcc at zeitlins dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #22041|0 |1
is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45642
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43601
--- Comment #45 from Vadim Zeitlin vz-gcc at zeitlins dot org 2010-10-14
16:12:00 UTC ---
Here are the files.
Notice that about half of the size of the MSVC object file is taken by debug
information (/Zi option was used when compiling it) while
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43129
Stephen Clarke stephen.clarke at st dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
On Thu, 2010-10-14 at 16:33 +, stephen.clarke at st dot com wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43129
Stephen Clarke stephen.clarke at st dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43129
--- Comment #9 from ramana.radhakrishnan at arm dot com ramana.radhakrishnan
at arm dot com 2010-10-14 16:39:26 UTC ---
On Thu, 2010-10-14 at 16:33 +, stephen.clarke at st dot com wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43129
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46019
Summary: [4.3/4.4/4.5/4.6 Regression] x / (0x2ULL y)
miscompilation with 32-bit HWI
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: wrong-code
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46019
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.3.6
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43129
--- Comment #10 from Stephen Clarke stephen.clarke at st dot com 2010-10-14
17:01:47 UTC ---
OK, I can see that the ARM ARM states for Rm == PC then its unpredictable.
But for Rn == PC, I can only see that its unpredictable if W is 1
or P is 0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46020
Summary: Improve error string for BIND(C) diagnostic for len1
character return type
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: diagnostic
Severity:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43601
--- Comment #46 from Vadim Zeitlin vz-gcc at zeitlins dot org 2010-10-14
17:09:05 UTC ---
Another data point after having a closer look at .drectve section in all of the
files: as previously noticed, 4.4 generates -export directives for 180
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43601
--- Comment #47 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-10-14
17:13:01 UTC ---
One should note that GCC's implementation of PCH is way different from MSVC's.
So comparing with PCH is not the correct thing to do really. PCH in GCC is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46020
--- Comment #1 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-10-14
17:14:45 UTC ---
Thinking of it again, one probably needs also NAGs error message as:
FUNCTION F_X(A) bind(c,name='F_X')
CHARACTER*(*) F_X
END FUNCTION
...
interface
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43601
--- Comment #48 from Vadim Zeitlin vz-gcc at zeitlins dot org 2010-10-14
17:29:46 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #47)
One should note that GCC's implementation of PCH is way different from
MSVC's.
So comparing with PCH is not the correct thing
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46021
Summary: 3 tree-ssa tests XPASS almost everywhere
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46022
Summary: [4.6 regression] gcc.dg/vect/vect-double-reduc-5.c
FAILs on Solaris 10/x86 with gas
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46023
Summary: gcc.dg/vect/pr43430-2.c FAILs on Solaris 8 and 9/x86
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46010
--- Comment #5 from Marco van Hulten marco at hulten dot org 2010-10-14
18:15:59 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
[...]
The issue is really the .true. (T,true, .false., F, false). If the
last item (in the namelist and in the derived type) is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46024
Summary: g++.dg/warn/miss-format-1.C FAILs on Solaris 8 and 9
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46025
Summary: [4.6 regression] gcc.target/i386/pr38240.c FAILs on
Solaris 8 and 9/x86
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
1 - 100 of 142 matches
Mail list logo
