--- Comment #14 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-24 08:51
---
Subject: Bug 23171
Author: mmitchel
Date: Sat Dec 24 08:51:05 2005
New Revision: 109035
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=109035
Log:
PR c++/23171
* varasm.c
--- Comment #15 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-24 08:56
---
Subject: Bug 23171
Author: mmitchel
Date: Sat Dec 24 08:56:10 2005
New Revision: 109036
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=109036
Log:
PR c++/23171
* varasm.c
--- Comment #16 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-24 09:41
---
We no longer get the ICE -- but gimplification does not honor TREE_STATIC on
the CONSTRUCTOR, so we get wrong code.
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #4 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-24 12:05 ---
Subject: Bug 25029
Author: pault
Date: Sat Dec 24 12:05:36 2005
New Revision: 109039
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=109039
Log:
2005-12-24 Paul Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR
--- Comment #5 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-24 12:05 ---
Subject: Bug 21256
Author: pault
Date: Sat Dec 24 12:05:36 2005
New Revision: 109039
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=109039
Log:
2005-12-24 Paul Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR
--- Comment #16 from tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-24 13:21 ---
Subject: Bug 18990
Author: tobi
Date: Sat Dec 24 13:20:56 2005
New Revision: 109040
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=109040
Log:
Backport r108946 from the trunk
fortran/
PR fortran/18990
*
--- Comment #17 from tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-24 13:23 ---
Fixed on 4.1 as well.
--
tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
$ cat test.cxx
#include iostream
using std::cerr;
using std::endl;
template typename X
struct test
{
static int const r = 0;
};
template typename X
struct testX
{
static int const r = 1;
};
template typename X
struct testX*
{
static int const r = 2;
};
int
main ()
{
int i;
int ri =
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-24 15:51 ---
Don't you mean strips reference? (there is a bug for that already).
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2
--- Comment #2 from boris at kolpackov dot net 2005-12-24 16:12 ---
Right, that should be references (thinking one thing typing the other).
--
boris at kolpackov dot net changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-24 16:13 ---
Then this is a dup of bug 10243.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 10243 ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #5 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-24 16:13 ---
*** Bug 2 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #6 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-24 16:15 ---
An ever better example comes from PR 2:
#include iostream
using std::cerr;
using std::endl;
template typename X
struct test
{
static int const r = 0;
};
template typename X
struct testX
{
static int const
--- Comment #6 from kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-24 17:42 ---
Fixed on 4.1 and 4.2.
--
kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #5 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-24 18:57 ---
Subject: Bug 18489
Author: ghazi
Date: Sat Dec 24 18:57:18 2005
New Revision: 109042
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=109042
Log:
Backport:
2005-02-09 Joseph S. Myers [EMAIL
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-24 20:15 ---
Hmm, actually this is not really valid to do except when -fwrapv is supplied as
(int)ABS_EXPR(long long) 0x8000 is defined to be 0 but ABS_EXPR
(int)0x8000 is undefined.
--
--- Comment #7 from giovannibajo at libero dot it 2005-12-24 21:53 ---
This is by design. It's out typeof() implementation works. It has pros and
cons. See this link (and followups) for papers about this.
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-01/msg01642.html
--
giovannibajo at libero dot
--- Comment #5 from barbieri at gmail dot com 2005-12-24 22:47 ---
any news on this front?
I'll present a tutorial in LinuxConf.au and need to know if front-end should
provide the information or middle-end should handle it.
In both cases I'll provide the patch to gcc, but I need to
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-25 00:55 ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 21081 ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #20 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-25 00:55
---
*** Bug 25549 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-25 00:58 ---
Confirmed in 3.4.x but already fixed in 4.0.0 by the gimplifier.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|error in g77 documentation |[g77 only] error in g77
|(all versions)
--- Comment #12 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-25 01:02
---
Confirmed, it really only effects i386/i486 code (maybe i586 also but I did not
try that).
The only thing I can think is to change MOVE_COST for those subtargets or just
have PR 14295 fixed.
--
pinskia at gcc
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-25 01:03 ---
Confirmed.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-25 01:03 ---
Confirmed.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-25 01:04 ---
Confirmed.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-25 01:05 ---
The documention should just reference the Intel intrinsics.
Confirmed.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-25 01:07 ---
The code is invalid as the undwinding of the stack also dlclose the shared
library which causes the typeinfo to go back.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-25 01:09 ---
there are other stuff which is missed by not having SFTs for complex types.
Confirmed, if I get sometime, I will see what I can do about adding them.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-25 01:10 ---
Confirmed.
--
pinskia 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=25516
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-25 01:13 ---
Confirmed.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |3.4.6
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25546
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-25 01:14 ---
Confirmed.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Last
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Last
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-25 01:20 ---
Confirmed, it also can be reproduced with normal C and using asm on the
function to change what the assembly name is.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-25 01:22 ---
This testcase should be skiped when supplying -fPIC as the symbol cars can be
overridden.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-25 01:24 ---
These testcases should be skiped for -fPIC/-fpic as the functions can be
overridden.
For an example in ipa-1.c, f and g can be overridden.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-25 01:25 ---
Just like PR 25444, this should be skiped or the const variable should be
marked as static.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-25 01:26 ---
I forgot to mention if cars was made static, it should just work.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25444
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-25 01:28 ---
This is an interaction between -fwhole-program and -fPIC and should be fixed in
the compiler and not the testsuite. GCC should find that large_function is
bound local as that is what whole program says.
--
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-25 01:30 ---
I have not looked enough into this one but IIRC -fPIC changes the number of
registers available to allocate with which causes different IV selection so the
it might be the testcase is wrong for -fPIC.
--
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-25 01:43 ---
Confirmed.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-25 01:45 ---
Confirmed.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-25 01:49 ---
Is there a reason why you are building GCC as a 64bit program?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25134
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24865
--- Comment #10 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-25 02:14
---
We're still speaking about
namespace X {
struct A {};
struct B {};
}
void foo(X::A);
template class T
void g(T t)
{
foo(t);
}
void foo(X::B);
void bar(X::B b)
{
g(b);
}
This is
--- Comment #21 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-25 02:14
---
*** Bug 24795 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-25 02:17 ---
Confirmed.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-25 02:26 ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 23101 ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #8 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-25 02:26 ---
*** Bug 25134 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #5 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-25 02:42 ---
struct-layout-1_generate.c is compiled with the host compiler and not with the
compiler which was just built.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18333
I cannot remember if I filed a bug about this or not but I noticed this while
looking at some Fortran code. Here is testcase which shows the issue:
void link_error(void);
int *t;
int g(int *a)
{
t = a;
*a = 2;
}
void f(int *a)
{
int b;
b = 1;
g(b);
b = 2;
*a = 1; --- a cannot
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-25 04:16 ---
Woops I had messed up the testcase, anyways the following line:
if (b == 2)
Should be replaced with:
if (b != 2)
This is already done on the RTL level.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-25 04:19 ---
CSE is the one which does this on the rtl level.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25558
--- Comment #11 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-25 04:29
---
This will also improve LAPACK too.
As what shows up there is:
CHARACTER a
LOGICAL b
a = 'a'
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12456
--- Comment #3 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-25 04:45 ---
Everything backported to 3.4.
--
ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-25 04:56 ---
What is interesting is that ICC does not even do this optimization.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25558
--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-25 05:04 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
What is interesting is that ICC does not even do this optimization.
Even LLVM does this optimization, I am starting to think ICC is not really a
good compiler.
--
--- Comment #5 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-25 05:30 ---
(In reply to comment #4)
(In reply to comment #3)
What is interesting is that ICC does not even do this optimization.
Even LLVM does this optimization, I am starting to think ICC is not really a
good
62 matches
Mail list logo
