--- Additional Comments From saurabh dot verma at codito dot com
2005-06-10 08:50 ---
Posted the patch on gcc-patches:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-06/msg00951.html
Cannot commit/change bug status, since i don't have the required permissions
--
--- Additional Comments From reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-10
08:55 ---
It's DR 503.
--
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[4.0/4.1 regression] cv-|[DR
templatetypename T struct foo {};
struct bar: foobar{};
struct index;
struct index: fooindex {};
gets you:
~/ootbc/members/src$ g++ foo.cc
foo.cc:4: error: `index' was not declared in this scope
foo.cc:4: error: template argument 1 is invalid
--
Summary: rejects valid
);
+===GNAT BUG DETECTED==+
| 4.1.0 20050610 (experimental) (ia64-suse-linux-gnu) verify_stmts failed. |
| Error detected at a-ncelfu.ads:23:1 |
--
Summary: [4.1 regression] ICE: verify_stmts
--
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.1.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21994
--- Additional Comments From reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-10
09:58 ---
Actually gcc does instantiate the declarations.
It just doesn't check whether the non-type template arguments are
valid in this situation.
Adjusting the summary accordingly.
Patch posted.
--
PROGRAM ding
IMPLICIT NONE
PRINT*, SPREAD(1.0,1,4)
END PROGRAM ding
Running this program when compiled with gfortran goes off into an infinite loop,
or tries to allocate a large amount of memory, resulting it the process being
killed.
--
Summary: Problem using spread intrinsic
When running the testsuite with 4.0-20050609
(http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2005-06/msg00629.html)
I get the following testsuite failures:
FAIL: gcc.dg/format/ext-2.c bad use of I flag (test for warnings, line 72)
FAIL: gcc.dg/format/ext-2.c (test for excess errors)
FAIL:
--
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |saurabh dot verma at codito
|dot org |dot com
URL|
--- Additional Comments From matz at suse dot de 2005-06-10 11:50 ---
Thanks. Sorry, I couldn't revert as you suggested, as I became ill the day
after noticing the problem :-(
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19768
--- Additional Comments From bjoern dot haase at de dot bosch dot com
2005-06-10 12:10 ---
Hi,
here is the promised test case. I unfortunately had to use a number of asm
statements in order to reproduce the register contraint combination exposing
the bug. The test case compiles only
--
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |uros at kss-loka dot si
|dot org |
URL|
--- Additional Comments From joseph at codesourcery dot com 2005-06-10
12:16 ---
Subject: Re: New: [4.0 Regression] gcc.dg/format/ext-2.c
On Fri, 10 Jun 2005, themis_hv at yahoo dot co dot uk wrote:
When running the testsuite with 4.0-20050609
--- Additional Comments From ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-10 12:42
---
(In reply to comment #25)
Subject: Re: GCC should combine adjacent stdio
calls
On Fri, 10 Jun 2005, ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
POSIX defines how streams and file descriptors for the same file
--
What|Removed |Added
CC||matz at suse dot de
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21721
--- Additional Comments From ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-10 12:55
---
(In reply to comment #25)
Subject: Re: GCC should combine adjacent stdio
calls
On Fri, 10 Jun 2005, ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
Case (b) involves fmemopen, and I assume you refer to a case
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-10
13:11 ---
*** Bug 21993 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-10
13:11 ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 14432 ***
--
What|Removed |Added
--
What|Removed |Added
Component|fortran |libfortran
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21995
--- Additional Comments From dnovillo at redhat dot com 2005-06-10 13:15
---
Subject: Re: GCC should combine adjacent stdio calls
On Thu, Jun 09, 2005 at 07:52:42PM -, joseph at codesourcery dot com wrote:
extern char *s;
extern int i;
printf(%d, i);
printf(%.5s,
/configure --prefix=/esat/olympia/install
--program-suffix=-cvs --enable-languages=c,c++ --no-create --no-recursion
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.1.0 20050610 (experimental)
/esat/olympia/install/libexec/gcc/i686-pc-linux-gnu/4.1.0/cc1plus -quiet -v
-D_GNU_SOURCE vecttest.cpp -quiet -dumpbase
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-10
13:20 ---
I get the following on the mainline:
At line 4 of file t.f
Fortran runtime error: return rank too large in spread()
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21995
: (reconfigured)
/esat/alexandria1/sderoeck/src/gcc/main/configure --prefix=/esat/olympia/install
--program-suffix=-cvs --enable-languages=c,c++ --no-create --no-recursion
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.1.0 20050610 (experimental)
/esat/olympia/install/libexec/gcc/i686-pc-linux-gnu/4.1.0/cc1plus
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-10
13:26 ---
They are not equivalent to GCC, the first always stores, the second has a
conditional store.
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-10
13:30 ---
Since a == 0 is the canonical version of a?0:1, the vectorizer should
recognize it.
Confirmed.
--
What|Removed |Added
./configure gmake, in their entirety, produces this screen-odd-full before
stopping:
TARGET_CPU_DEFAULT= \
HEADERS=auto-host.h ansidecl.h DEFINES= \
/bin/bash ../gcc/mkconfig.sh config.h
TARGET_CPU_DEFAULT= \
HEADERS=config/rs6000/rs6000.h config/dbxelf.h config/elfos.h config/netbsd.h
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-10
13:36 ---
You configured/built in the gcc subdirectory. You need to configure/build in
the top level directory.
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From joseph at codesourcery dot com 2005-06-10
13:49 ---
Subject: Re: GCC should combine adjacent stdio
calls
On Fri, 10 Jun 2005, ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
With regards to %d followed by %.5s, I don't see any difference
regardless
of the
--- Additional Comments From dnovillo at redhat dot com 2005-06-10 13:56
---
Subject: Re: GCC should combine adjacent stdio calls
On Fri, Jun 10, 2005 at 01:49:54PM -, joseph at codesourcery dot com wrote:
Not that I really see the benefit of printf merging in any case; without
In the code below the read (int)ptr-b; gets optimized away.
It appears to be optimized away before the RTL stages, so I guess
it must be because of the tree optimalisation.
I think that the C standard says C that the name of variable
becomes an rvalue (the actual value) thus requires that the
--- Additional Comments From rpedersen at atmel dot com 2005-06-10 14:00
---
Created an attachment (id=9059)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=9059action=view)
Preprocessed testcase.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22000
Compiler info:
/home/newell/rtems/tools/b-gcc/gcc/xgcc -v
Using built-in specs.
Target: m68k-rtems
Configured with: ../gcc-4.0.0/configure --target=m68k-rtems --with-gnu-as
--with-gnu-ld --with-newlib --verbose --enable-threads --enable-languages=c
--prefix=/usr/rtems
Thread model: rtems
gcc
the following attached testcase triggers a compiler error on powerpc64 with
-funroll-loops only:
gcc -O2 -funroll-loops -c legendre_poly.i
legendre_poly.i: In function #8216;f#8217;:
legendre_poly.i:15: fatal error: internal consistency failure
compilation terminated.
it is
--- Additional Comments From marcus at jet dot franken dot de 2005-06-10
14:04 ---
Created an attachment (id=9060)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=9060action=view)
legendre_poly.i
gcc -O2 -funroll-loops -c legendre_poly.i
--
--
What|Removed |Added
CC||matz at suse dot de, aj at
||suse dot de
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-10
14:07 ---
This works on the mainline, it might work on the 4.0.x branch too but I did not
check yet.
--
What|Removed |Added
--
What|Removed |Added
Component|c |rtl-optimization
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
--
What|Removed |Added
Component|c |rtl-optimization
Keywords||build, ice-on-valid-code
--
What|Removed |Added
GCC target triplet||m68k-rtems
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22001
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-10
14:13 ---
Only happens in 4.0.x.
Works fine in 4.1.0. Testing the 4.0.x branch right now.
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-10
14:14 ---
Confirmed, still fails in 4.0.1.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-10
14:16 ---
Still fails in 4.0.1.
Confirmed.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
--- Additional Comments From schwab at suse dot de 2005-06-10 14:17 ---
Breaks Ada on ia64.
--
What|Removed |Added
CC||schwab at
--
What|Removed |Added
Bug 21994 depends on bug 20610, which changed state.
Bug 20610 Summary: Real by complex multiplications perform unnecessary
operations
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-10
14:20 ---
Yes it might break Ada, but since this is still fixed, I am going to keep this
as fixed unless it is reverted.
--
What|Removed |Added
--
Bug 21994 depends on bug 20610, which changed state.
Bug 20610 Summary: Real by complex multiplications perform unnecessary
operations
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20610
What|Old Value |New Value
--- Additional Comments From ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-10 14:22
---
(In reply to comment #30)
Subject: Re: GCC should combine adjacent stdio calls
On Fri, Jun 10, 2005 at 01:49:54PM -, joseph at codesourcery dot com
wrote:
Not that I really see the benefit of printf
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-10
14:22 ---
No feedback in 3 months.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING
--- Additional Comments From dnovillo at redhat dot com 2005-06-10 14:25
---
Subject: Re: GCC should combine adjacent stdio calls
On Fri, Jun 10, 2005 at 02:22:05PM -, ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
I have the cpu time, but it seems premature. Your patch as it
stands only
--- Additional Comments From joseph at codesourcery dot com 2005-06-10
14:28 ---
Subject: Re: GCC should combine adjacent stdio
calls
On Fri, 10 Jun 2005, ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
I have the cpu time, but it seems premature. Your patch as it stands only
optimizes two
--- Additional Comments From dnovillo at redhat dot com 2005-06-10 14:35
---
Subject: Re: GCC should combine adjacent stdio calls
On Fri, Jun 10, 2005 at 02:28:36PM -, joseph at codesourcery dot com wrote:
Since putc and puts are typically faster than printf (not needing to
--- Additional Comments From bdavis9659 at comcast dot net 2005-06-10
14:53 ---
the behavour of -fugly-logint changed between gcc3.2 and above. which version
are you using ?
--bud davis
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21931
--- Additional Comments From ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-10 15:05
---
(In reply to comment #33)
Subject: Re: GCC should combine adjacent stdio
calls
On Fri, 10 Jun 2005, ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
Since putc and puts are typically faster than printf (not needing
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-10
15:22 ---
Confirmed, here is a simple C++ program which shows the same issue:
_Complex float f(void);
_Complex float g(void) throw()
{
return f();
}
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From themis_hv at yahoo dot co dot uk 2005-06-10
15:35 ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 12096 ***
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From themis_hv at yahoo dot co dot uk 2005-06-10
15:35 ---
*** Bug 21996 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From tom at hukatronic dot cz 2005-06-10 15:58
---
This seems to be fixed in GCC 4.0.0. This is the code produced by GCC 4.0.0
with following command
line:
~/Projects/gcc_m68k/bin/m68k-bsd-elf-gcc -S -O3 -m68000 -msoft-float
-fno-exceptions -fno-
inline test.c
x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-g++ -ansi -march=athlon64 -O3 -g -pipe -funit-at-a-time
-fprefetch-loop-arrays -ftracer -fforce-addr -freorder-blocks-and-partition
-funroll-loops -fvisibility-inlines-hidden -fno-exceptions -fno-check-new
-fno-common -c /tmp/j1.cc
decoderpluginhandler.cpp: In member
--- Additional Comments From zlynx at acm dot org 2005-06-10 16:45 ---
Created an attachment (id=9062)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=9062action=view)
Preprocessed source code to reproduce ICE
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22003
CVS HEAD of today gives me a bunch of SSA errors and finally an ICE on this file
(taken from CLN) when optimization is turned on:
g++ -O1 -c cl_prin_globals.ii
bzip'ed file plus error output attached. Sorry for the suboptimal naming (don't
know what is happening here) and the large file size.
CVS HEAD of today gives me a bunch of SSA errors and finally an ICE on this file
(taken from CLN) when optimization is turned on:
g++ -O1 -c cl_prin_globals.ii
bzip'ed file plus error output attached. Sorry for the suboptimal naming (don't
know what is happening here) and the large file size.
--- Additional Comments From Ralf dot Wildenhues at gmx dot de 2005-06-10
16:54 ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 22005 ***
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From Ralf dot Wildenhues at gmx dot de 2005-06-10
16:54 ---
*** Bug 22004 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22005
--- Additional Comments From Ralf dot Wildenhues at gmx dot de 2005-06-10
16:55 ---
Created an attachment (id=9063)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=9063action=view)
preprocessed source that exposes this
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22005
--- Additional Comments From Ralf dot Wildenhues at gmx dot de 2005-06-10
16:56 ---
Created an attachment (id=9064)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=9064action=view)
g++ output
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22005
--- Additional Comments From schwab at suse dot de 2005-06-10 16:57 ---
hmm, I can't test the 4.1 bootstrap with -fwrapv due to xgcc error. Try this
to enable -fwrapv by default: --- misc.c 01 Jun 2005 10:00:47 +0200
1.102 +++ misc.c08 Jun 2005 14:58:25 +0200
--- Additional Comments From schwab at suse dot de 2005-06-10 16:59 ---
hmm, I can't test the 4.1 bootstrap with -fwrapv due to xgcc error.
Try this to enable -fwrapv by default:
--- misc.c 01 Jun 2005 10:00:47 +0200 1.102
+++ misc.c 08 Jun 2005 14:58:25 +0200
@@
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-10
17:04 ---
Subject: Bug 17961
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-06-10 17:04:09
Modified files:
gcc/config/rs6000: sysv4.h linux64.h
Added files:
--- Additional Comments From aldyh at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-10 17:06
---
Fixed in mainline. Waiting for 4.0 freeze to be lifted to commit there.
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-06/msg00959.html
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From ro at techfak dot uni-bielefeld dot de
2005-06-10 17:09 ---
Subject: Re: [3.4 Regression] New testsuite failure
g++.dg/warn/conversion-function-1.C
I've also observed this on mips-sgi-irix5.3 and mips-sgi-irix6.5, so this
may even be generic (at least not
--- Additional Comments From schwab at suse dot de 2005-06-10 17:32 ---
Triggered by the combination of these two patches:
2005-05-25 Ulrich Weigand [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* reload1.c (verify_initial_elim_offsets): Return boolean status
instead of aborting.
If switching from SGI as to GNU as 2.15, a couple of new testsuite failures
occur on the 3.4 branch as of 20050607:
+FAIL: gcc.dg/range-test-1.c (test for excess errors)
FAIL: gcc.dg/range-test-1.c (test for excess errors)
Excess errors:
/var/tmp//ccj9FSrW.s:1483: Warning: .space repeat count
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-10
17:35 ---
Subject: Bug 10611
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-06-10 17:35:37
Modified files:
gcc/cp : ChangeLog cvt.c typeck.c
Added
Between 20050113 and 20050609, there occured a new testsuite failure on the
4.0 branch on Tru64 UNIX V4.0F:
+FAIL: g++.dg/eh/cleanup1.C (test for excess errors)
FAIL: g++.dg/eh/cleanup1.C (test for excess errors)
Excess errors:
Stack overflow: pid 11784, proc cc1plus, addr 0x11fdfffe0, pc
The test was reduced from PlumHall test X_132p92:
$ cat x_132p92.cc
struct X_132p92
{
static int k; // [1]
X_132p92(const X_132p92 x);// [2]
};
void f_132p92(volatile X_132p92 x) // [3]
{
bool b = x.k = 1;
}
$ g++4 -c x_132p92.cc
x_132p92.cc: In function รข:
--- Additional Comments From magerman at rentec dot com 2005-06-10 18:29
---
On sun-sparc-solaris2.8:
Compiling with -fno-gcse eliminates the problem for both sample programs.
Compiling with -fno-gcse-las eliminates the problem for both sample programs.
Compiling with -fno-gcse-lm
--- Additional Comments From saurabh dot verma at codito dot com
2005-06-10 18:29 ---
Marking as waiting for feedback (See patch link above)
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2005-06-10
18:32 ---
No that's wrong. WAITING means waiting feedback *from submitter*.
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From saurabh dot verma at codito dot com
2005-06-10 18:32 ---
Patch waiting for feedback
Can we update the status for this bug as waiting for feedback
( I do not have the required permissions )
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2005-06-10
18:34 ---
No, that'd be wrong. The correct status for a bug with a pending patch is
ASSIGNED.
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-10
18:51 ---
-fno-tree-salias works around the ICE.
--
What|Removed |Added
CC|
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-10
18:52 ---
(In reply to comment #4)
as the thread said this is only a workaround.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21959
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-10
18:56 ---
Confirmed, reduced testcase:
struct a
{
static int k;
a(const a x);
};
void f(volatile a x) { x.k; }
--
What|Removed |Added
--
What|Removed |Added
CC||marcel at telka dot sk
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21745
--- Additional Comments From joseph at codesourcery dot com 2005-06-10
19:07 ---
Subject: Re: GCC should combine adjacent stdio
calls
On Fri, 10 Jun 2005, ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
--- Additional Comments From ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-10
15:05 ---
I think following test case is correct. But g++-4.0 produces a diagnostics. We
should be able to declare
a private member function of a class as a friend of another class in order for
the member function be
able to access private members of the befriended class.
class FriendTestTo;
class
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-10
19:24 ---
*** Bug 22009 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-10
19:24 ---
The code is invalid.
See DR 209 which was closed as not a defect.
http://anubis.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/cwg_closed.html#209
This is a dup of bug 7809 which changed the behavior of GCC to match the
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-10
19:49 ---
Note this code really contains some invalid inline-asm:
__asm__(jmp cl_module__cl_prin_globals__ctorend);
__asm__ (\n cl_module__ cl_prin_globals __dtorend :);
But that is not causing the ICE.
--
The following code (where input.dat is a file that does not
contain a debugging namelist entry) goes wrong:
MODULE debug
LOGICAL debug_area
NAMELIST/debugging/debug_area
END MODULE debug
PROGRAM ding
USE debug
IMPLICIT NONE
INTEGER :: ios
OPEN(unit=10, status='unknown',
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-10
20:22 ---
Confirmed, reduced testcase:
struct cl_string
{
union{ int i; };
cl_string ();
};
struct cl_print_univpoly_flags { cl_string univpoly_varname; };
struct cl_print_flags: cl_print_univpoly_flags {int
--- Additional Comments From aurelien at aurel32 dot net 2005-06-10 21:01
---
The problem is still there with gcc-4.0
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9463
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-10
21:02 ---
Confirmed, reduced testcase:
struct c1
{
virtual ~c1();
};
class c4;
struct c2
{
virtual c4* func();
};
struct c3 : c1, c2
{
c4* func();
};
c4* c3::func()
{
}
--
What
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-10
21:08 ---
Confirmed.
--
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal
--- Additional Comments From fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-10
21:10 ---
I'm attaching the new patch, please take a look
Attached patch does not apply cleanly on today's CVS. However, when failing
hunks are integrated manually, the source then builds cleanly (languages=c,f95
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-10
21:10 ---
Confirmed.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-10
21:11 ---
A backtrace would be nice.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22007
--
What|Removed |Added
Severity|critical|normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21965
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-10
21:18 ---
On the mainline we get a different ICE:
t.c: In function 'do_mid_forward':
t.c:5: internal compiler error: tree check: expected integer_cst, have
scev_not_known in int_cst_value, at
tree.c:6342
Please
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-10
21:20 ---
Fixed on the mainline.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
1 - 100 of 116 matches
Mail list logo
