[Bug target/19378] [4.0 Regression] ICE during bootstrap compiling __fixdfdi

2005-01-22 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-23 05:29 --- Fixed. -- What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED

[Bug c++/19583] [4.0 Regression] Incorrect diagnostic: control may reach end of non-void function '...' being inlined

2005-01-22 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-23 05:48 --- The problem is not related eh_spec_block as we are gimple at this point. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19583

[Bug c++/19583] [4.0 Regression] Incorrect diagnostic: control may reach end of non-void function '...' being inlined

2005-01-22 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-23 06:05 --- The problem is that block_may_fallthru does not handle try_catch_expr and eh_filter_expr. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19583

[Bug middle-end/19583] [4.0 Regression] Incorrect diagnostic: control may reach end of non-void function '...' being inlined

2005-01-22 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-23 06:14 --- Mine. I am testing a patch right now. -- What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|unassigned

[Bug tree-optimization/18706] [4.0 Regression] ACATS ce2208b ICE expected ssa_name, have var_decl in verify_ssa, at tree-ssa.c:637

2005-01-22 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-23 06:33 --- I think this is the same failure as the current bootstrap problem on ppc-darwin. For the bootstrap problem we have the following CONST_DECL: static struct gnat__strings__string_access C.828 =

[Bug tree-optimization/18706] [4.0 Regression] ACATS ce2208b ICE expected ssa_name, have var_decl in verify_ssa, at tree-ssa.c:637

2005-01-22 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-23 06:37 --- (In reply to comment #6) Notice how we take the address of a CONSTRUCTOR this is wrong and we should never do that. Which makes this a front-end bug. --

<    1   2