--- Comment #7 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-16 06:01
---
Even better would be if gfortran recognized that the file was not a valid mod
at all and just states Module file invalid. Of course users have to know
they do not edit 'mod' files, only source files.
--
--- Comment #3 from falk at debian dot org 2005-10-16 08:43 ---
Created an attachment (id=10001)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10001action=view)
Reduced test case
This is an auto-reduced test case, can probably be reduced more.
--
--- Comment #1 from nathan at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-16 08:53 ---
doh!
--
nathan at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned
--- Comment #10 from nathan at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-16 09:02 ---
something is not quite right ...
--
nathan at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from falk at debian dot org 2005-10-16 09:07 ---
(In reply to comment #1)
Please read http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs.html. Also have a look at
bug 323 and its duplicates.
Well, brushing off equality of 5*10^4931 and 0 as rounding error is maybe
stretching it a bit ;-) This
--- Comment #5 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-16 10:41 ---
This was fixed on improved-aliasing-branch. It cannot happen on mainline,
closing as fixed (w/o a target milestone).
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
The filenumbers in the .debug_macinfo is wrong. They jump from 0xf to 0x11,
skipping 0x10, so the last filename has a number which isn't in the filename
table. This causes gdb to crash in the lookup table (see
http://sources.redhat.com/cgi-bin/gnatsweb.pl?cmd=viewpr=2009 )
It's easy to see if you
--- Comment #7 from indan at nul dot nu 2005-10-16 12:06 ---
Was the non-standard behaviour in 3.4 a bug or a feature? In any case, isn't it
reasonable to mention the -combine option in the error message? Something like:
fatal (cannot specify -o with -c or -S with multiple files. Try
--- Comment #19 from jaffe at broad dot mit dot edu 2005-10-16 12:20
---
Is further work planned on this? Thanks.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23835
I have a Fortran source code file that used to compile within a few minutes.
However, when I compile it with
gcc (GCC) 4.1.0 20051014 (experimental)
with the options
/Users/eschnett/gcc/bin/gfortran -mlongcall -ftrapv -fwrapv -fbounds-check -g3
-Wall -Wshadow -Wsurprising -c -o
--- Comment #1 from schnetter at aei dot mpg dot de 2005-10-16 13:50
---
Created an attachment (id=10002)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10002action=view)
Problematic source code
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24401
--- Comment #3 from cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-16 13:59
---
Subject: Bug 22273
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]2005-10-16 13:59:36
Modified files:
gcc/fortran: ChangeLog expr.c
gcc/testsuite :
--- Comment #4 from cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-16 14:10
---
Subject: Bug 22273
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Branch: gcc-4_0-branch
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]2005-10-16 14:10:13
Modified files:
gcc/fortran: ChangeLog
--- Comment #5 from tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-16 14:11 ---
Fixed by Erik's patch.
--
tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-16 14:19 ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 24070 ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #11 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-16 14:19
---
*** Bug 24400 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #8 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-16 14:32 ---
(In reply to comment #7)
Was the non-standard behaviour in 3.4 a bug or a feature? In any case, isn't
it
reasonable to mention the -combine option in the error message?
The behavior in 3.4 was a feature, IIRC
--- Comment #7 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-16 14:43 ---
Patch posted:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-10/msg00922.html
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-16 14:59 ---
This does not compile because of:
In file
/Users/eschnett/Calpha/arrangements/CactusEinstein/ADM/src/DoubleLeap.F:27
USE ADM_Scalars
--- Comment #3 from schnetter at aei dot mpg dot de 2005-10-16 15:19
---
Created an attachment (id=10003)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10003action=view)
Required module source code
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24401
--- Comment #5 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-16 16:18 ---
(In reply to comment #4)
Created an attachment (id=)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=action=view) [edit]
Patch which should fix it but needs testing
Note this patch does not work. We
--- Comment #9 from rep dot nop at aon dot at 2005-10-16 16:19 ---
(In reply to comment #8)
(In reply to comment #7)
Was the non-standard behaviour in 3.4 a bug or a feature? In any case,
isn't it
reasonable to mention the -combine option in the error message?
The behavior
--- Comment #10 from rep dot nop at aon dot at 2005-10-16 16:22 ---
Created an attachment (id=10004)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10004action=view)
fix w/ warning about mixed incompatible languages too
Changelog:
* gcc.c (have_c): New static variable.
(have_o):
--- Comment #11 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-16 16:23
---
(In reply to comment #9)
Also your patch had odd whitespace.
Do you mean tabs or something else?
tabs = 8 spaces in the GNU coding style.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22544
--- Comment #6 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-16 16:45 ---
(In reply to comment #5)
Note this patch does not work. We are trying to access an already free
block.
I have not looked into it yet but the short testcase is:
extern inline int f(void){}
I know why now,
--- Comment #7 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-16 17:01 ---
I have a new patch which I am testing right now. The only change between this
patch and the one attached is an additional static variable to make sure that
block is not GC'd. Once finish testing I will post it.
--- Comment #20 from mark at codesourcery dot com 2005-10-16 17:16 ---
Subject: Re: [DR 488] error: 'anonymous enum' is/uses anonymous
type'
jason at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
--- Comment #18 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-16 03:57
---
Created an attachment
--- Comment #2 from hp at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-16 17:26 ---
(This) test also fails on 32-bit archs, like cris-axis-{elf,linux-gnu}
(X from x86) and native powerpc-unknown-linux-gnu.
It also fails on mmix-knuth-mmixware and native x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu.
--
hp at gcc dot
--- Comment #3 from hp at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-16 17:31 ---
Marked as regression as the test passed with
LAST_UPDATED: Fri Oct 14 17:12:36 UTC 2005
(observations in comment #2 were of Sun Oct 16 01:33:18 UTC 2005).
and generalizing the ia64-specific description.
--
hp at gcc
--- Comment #6 from hp at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-16 17:57 ---
Oh my, I forgot to close this PR.
It was fixed by URL:http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-04/msg01501.html.
The Dwarf2 EH info is now bloated as a result (fixing the patch referred to is
still on the TODO-list), but
--- Comment #8 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-16 18:52 ---
The patch still does not work but here is the reduced testcase:
typedef long unsigned int size_t;
void * __wrap_malloc (size_t c) __attribute__ (( alias (malloc) ));
This on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, I will
--- Comment #3 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-16 19:01 ---
This failure has appeared on 4.0 branch, for hppa2.0w-hp-hpux11.11 and
hppa64-hp-hpux11.11, on 20051014.
This bug can be fixed as a testsuite problem without fixing bug 448: the test
doesn't intrinsically need the
--- Comment #3 from cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-16 19:39
---
Subject: Bug 22137
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]2005-10-16 19:38:57
Modified files:
gcc/cp : cp-tree.h init.c mangle.c parser.c pt.c
--- Comment #4 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-16 20:17
---
The patch attached here really applies to PR 22173.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22137
--- Comment #4 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-16 20:17
---
Fixed in 4.0.3; will not be fixed in earlier releases.
See PR 22137 for the patch, which had an incorrect ChangeLog entry.
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |mark at codesourcery dot com
|dot org
--- Comment #1 from dje at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-16 20:21 ---
Java is not supported on AIX. Don't do that.
--
dje at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Apparently CPPFLAGS is missing a -I for the newly built compiler's libstdc++
/usr/src/CVS/gcc41/tmp0/./gcc/xgcc -shared-libgcc
-B/usr/src/CVS/gcc41/tmp0/./gcc -nostdinc++
-L/usr/src/CVS/gcc41/tmp0/i686-pc-linux-gnu/libstdc++-v3/src
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-16 20:54 ---
This is known and will not be fixed until 4.2.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #8 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-16 21:12 ---
Fixed at least on the mainline, 4.0 branch version will be committed soon.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #9 from cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-16 21:13
---
Subject: Bug 23959
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-10-16 21:13:11
Modified files:
gcc/cp : ChangeLog decl.c
gcc/testsuite :
--- Comment #10 from cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-16 21:23
---
Subject: Bug 23959
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Branch: gcc-4_0-branch
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-10-16 21:23:26
Modified files:
gcc/cp : ChangeLog
--- Comment #11 from cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-16 21:24
---
Subject: Bug 23959
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Branch: gcc-4_0-branch
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-10-16 21:24:37
Added files:
gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/warn:
--- Comment #12 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-16 21:24
---
Fixed.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #6 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-16 21:42 ---
As described by Richard, this is not a regression so therefor not marking as
such.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |critical
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24295
--- Comment #23 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-16 21:47
---
Still fails:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2005-10/msg00590.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10353
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |critical
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24386
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |critical
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23775
--- Comment #6 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-16 21:51 ---
Any news on getting this fixed?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23775
--- Comment #5 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-16 21:52 ---
Confirmed.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #5 from cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-16 21:57
---
Subject: Bug 22173
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]2005-10-16 21:57:42
Modified files:
gcc/cp : ChangeLog
Log message:
PR c++/22173
--- Comment #6 from cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-16 21:58
---
Subject: Bug 22173
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]2005-10-16 21:58:08
Modified files:
gcc/cp : ChangeLog typeck.c
Log message:
PR
--- Comment #11 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-16 22:06
---
The new switch2.C test is failing for me. In fact, I'm not sure why we should
see overflow warnings on these expressions; isn't 0x8000 INT_MIN? In
that case, INT_MIN + 1 does not overflow, does it? The C
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |minor
GCC target triplet|i686-pc-linux-gnu |i?86-*-*
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot
|
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot
|
--- Comment #21 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-16 22:14
---
We really should turn on gcse-sm for 4.1 but then again maybe it is too late
for that.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |minor
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21488
--- Comment #10 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-16 22:17
---
This is so minor issue and does not come from any real code and I just made
this example when looking at code gen in general so moving to 4.2.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What
--- Comment #19 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-16 22:19
---
The code gen is back to 3.x so this is no longer a regression so removing the
target milestone and regression markers.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot
|
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-16 22:25 ---
This has been fixed in 4.1.0.
We no get:
.L4:
fldl(%edx,%eax,8)
faddl (%ebx,%eax,8)
fstpl (%edx,%eax,8)
incl%eax
cmpl%eax, %ecx
jne .L4
Likewise
--- Comment #9 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-16 22:31 ---
Fixed. I moved the remaining open ones to the 4.2 pending patches meta-bug.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |minor
GCC build triplet|i686-pc-linux-gnu |
GCC host
--- Comment #5 from wilson at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-16 22:45 ---
I believe this is fixed. I'm looking at 17356 now.
--
wilson at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from hp at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-16 22:46 ---
Fixed as per commit of
URL:http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-10/msg00907.html
--
hp at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.1.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23579
--- Comment #1 from cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-16 23:11
---
Subject: Bug 23424
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-10-16 23:11:50
Modified files:
gcc: ChangeLog
gcc/config/cris: cris.md
Log
--- Comment #7 from cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-16 23:16
---
Subject: Bug 24389
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]2005-10-16 23:16:28
Modified files:
gcc/cp : decl2.c init.c pt.c
Added files:
--- Comment #8 from cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-16 23:17
---
Subject: Bug 24389
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]2005-10-16 23:17:53
Modified files:
gcc/cp : ChangeLog
gcc/testsuite : ChangeLog
--- Comment #2 from hp at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-16 23:18 ---
Patches at URL:http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-10/msg00940.html
and URL:http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-10/msg00941.html
(the latter has been committed).
--
hp at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
--- Comment #9 from cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-16 23:19
---
Subject: Bug 24389
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Branch: gcc-4_0-branch
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]2005-10-16 23:19:00
Modified files:
gcc/cp : decl2.c init.c
--- Comment #10 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-16 23:19
---
Fixed in 4.0.3.
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #17 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-16 23:20 ---
On AMD64, I now get the following timings:
-O1 -O2
3.3 (profilebootstrapped) 46.64 46.90
4.1 (checking=release) 72.82 156.43
In 4.1, the Big Spenders are dominance frontiers
--- Comment #3 from hp at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-16 23:26 ---
For the there's more at the end of the PR description, see the first patch
of comment #2.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23424
--- Comment #9 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-17 00:41
---
Why is this marked as a C++ front-end bug? Isn't this a middle-end problem?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20681
--- Comment #10 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-17 00:45
---
Subject: Re: [4.0/4.1 Regression] wrong control reaches warning with
switches
--- Comment #9 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-17 00:41
---
Why is this marked as a C++ front-end
--- Comment #15 from wilson at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-17 02:00 ---
It is dying in rest_of_handle_flow2 - split_all_insns - verify_flow_info. We
have non-call insns with EDGE_ABNORMAL_CALL edges attached to them.
The insns are coming from post-reload call insn splits. Before
--- Comment #52 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-17 02:02
---
I would like to propose that this bug be closed. This is about as good as it
gets. We should set up some automatic regression testing on LAPACK from hence
forth.
With -O1 -march=pentium4:
csep.out: CST
--- Comment #16 from wilson at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-17 02:03 ---
Created an attachment (id=10005)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10005action=view)
patch to fix ia64-linux libada build failure
And here's the patch. It is simple enough that it should be safe.
--- Comment #28 from cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-17 02:28
---
Subject: Bug 22444
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-10-17 02:28:44
Modified files:
gcc: ChangeLog tree-ssa-alias.c
Added files:
--- Comment #29 from dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-17 02:29
---
Should be fixed now
--
dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
I noticed two things about the error messages for the attached code:
1) The error for line 6 is shown before the error for line 4. This strikes me
as odd, and it doesn't lend itself to easier error squashing.
2) The description for both errors are not very descriptive. Could something
like the
--- Comment #1 from denney at seas dot upenn dot edu 2005-10-17 02:43
---
Created an attachment (id=10006)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10006action=view)
test case that generates the errors
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24404
--- Comment #53 from david dot billinghurst at comalco dot riotinto dot com
dot au 2005-10-17 02:45 ---
Subject: RE: [g77 gfortran] Lapack regressions since g77 2.95.2
I agree. All but three of the failures are known LAPACK problems,
From memory the other three failures just miss
--- Comment #12 from cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-17 04:22
---
Subject: Bug 22544
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-10-17 04:22:03
Modified files:
gcc: ChangeLog gcc.c
Log message:
--- Comment #13 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-17 04:22
---
Fixed.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #14 from cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-17 04:22
---
Subject: Bug 22544
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Branch: gcc-4_0-branch
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-10-17 04:22:51
Modified files:
gcc: ChangeLog
--- Comment #11 from ian at airs dot com 2005-10-17 04:39 ---
For the record, this is the work-around in the C frontend:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-01/msg01452.html
A corresponding patch in the C++ frontend would be more complicated, in order
to continue to emit the
--- Comment #12 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-17 04:46
---
Subject: Re: [4.0/4.1 Regression] wrong control reaches warning with
switches
On Oct 17, 2005, at 12:39 AM, ian at airs dot com wrote:
Fixing this in the middle-end will require a version of
91 matches
Mail list logo
