--- Comment #17 from christian dot joensson at gmail dot com 2006-06-04
08:27 ---
just a ping here, is anyone here able to say anything about status of this bug?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26797
Trying to compile the espresso electronic structure package from pwscf.org with
gfortran 4.1.1 fails with an ICE:
make[1]: Entering directory `/home/donnie/espresso-3.1/Modules'
cpp -P -traditional -D__FFTW -I../include constraints_module.f90 -o
constraints_module.F90
gfortran -O3 -D__FFTW
--
steven at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|steven at gcc dot gnu dot |unassigned at gcc dot gnu
|org
--- Comment #6 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-04 09:32 ---
This should have a higher priority than P3 IMHO.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26251
--- Comment #3 from paolo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-04 09:33 ---
Subject: Bug 27867
Author: paolo
Date: Sun Jun 4 09:32:56 2006
New Revision: 114356
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=114356
Log:
2006-06-04 Paolo Carlini [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR
--- Comment #4 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2006-06-04 09:34 ---
Fixed.
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
--- Comment #6 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-04 09:34 ---
Would be fixed with fwprop due to not recursively calling fold_rtx.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27616
--
steven at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Last
--- Comment #1 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-04 09:38
---
g95 emits a hard error on this one, while Intel accept it.
$ g95 a.f90
In file a.f90:5
DATA (D(i)%I,i=1,4) /8*0/
1
Error: Array section not allowed in DATA statement at (1)
--
fxcoudert at gcc dot
--- Comment #6 from rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-04 09:47 ---
By the way, x-mingw32 contains:
# On MinGW, we use %IA64d to print 64-bit integers, and the format-checking
# code does not handle that, so we have to disable checking here.
WERROR_FLAGS += -Wno-format
This
--- Comment #1 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-04 09:52
---
By F2003: C561 (R528) In an array-element or a scalar-structure-component that
is a data-i-do-object , any subscript shall be an expression whose primaries
are either constants, subobjects of constants, or
DO
--- Comment #3 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-04 10:01
---
I marked it as ice-on-valid-code, but I'm not sure it's valid code. g95 emits
an error, but Intel and Sun compilers don't. Uttam, do you know if that code is
valid?
--
fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #4 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-04 10:04
---
It's been fixed:
$ gfortran a.f90
In file a.f90:6
b = b + a
12
Error: Shapes for operands at (1) and (2) are not conformable
--
fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What
--- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-04 10:04 ---
It's certainly a questionable use of 'register'. What is the expected effect
of this parameter declaration from perls point of view?
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #9 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-04 10:18
---
I agree with Steve's comment that a maximal number of errors should be allowed,
after which the compiler should bail out.
--
fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #3 from tbm at cyrius dot com 2006-06-04 10:24 ---
I don't know why Perl uses it, I simply noticed that lots of packages in Debian
now fail to build because its part of a Perl header... they do this:
extern C SV* Perl_Gsv_placeholder_ptr(register PerlInterpreter *my_perl
--- Comment #3 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-04 10:30
---
This is fixed on mainline.
--
fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk 2006-06-04 10:42 ---
(In reply to comment #1)
.. and
each operation shall be intrinsic
Now, MODULO is found under 13.5 (Standard generic intrinsic procedures)
But MODULO is not an intrinsic operation (these are defined in 7.1.2)
--
--- Comment #4 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-04 10:48 ---
I agree that the code is valid from a standards perspective. Just not very
clever ;)
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #5 from tbm at cyrius dot com 2006-06-04 10:52 ---
OK, I'll let the Perl people know. It would be nice though to revert this
error before 4.1.2/4.2.0 come out.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27884
--- Comment #7 from dannysmith at users dot sourceforge dot net 2006-06-04
11:02 ---
In my local tree (and in the 3.4.x mingw tree), I have added a modification and
extension of this patch:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2004-11/msg02296.html
I plan to follow up in stage 1 of 4.3
Now that I can build libgcj again on HEAD, I found that it pollutes the
common namespace by installing $PREFIX/lib/logging.properties.
This break the installation of several versions of GCC into the same $PREFIX
using --program-suffix=.
--
Summary: [4.2 regression]
ICE on Alpha in tree_split_edge, at tree-cfg.c:3107. Works with gcc 3.4 and
current gcc 4.2, fails with 4.0 and 4.1.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/delta/bin$ g++-4.1 -c -O1 mini.c
mini.c: In function 'int domisc(const char*)':
mini.c:27: internal compiler error: in tree_split_edge, at tree-cfg.c:3107
--- Comment #1 from tbm at cyrius dot com 2006-06-04 11:14 ---
Created an attachment (id=11593)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=11593action=view)
test case
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27891
--- Comment #1 from gerald at pfeifer dot com 2006-06-04 11:15 ---
Also, does a configuration file, in text format, like this really belong
under /lib?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27890
--- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-04 11:17 ---
Also it should be beyond /usr/share, as it is not arch dependent. Same problem
for /usr/lib/security/classpath.security and
/usr/lib64/security/libgcj.security.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
--- Comment #1 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-04 11:24
---
I can reproduce this on i686-linux and reduced it to this minimal testcase:
COMPLEX z
CONTAINS
SUBROUTINE foo
z = z + cmplx(1.0,0.0)
z = z + z
END SUBROUTINE foo
--- Comment #2 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-04 11:49
---
I now also have a slightly different testcase that fails on 4.1.1 and current
4.1 branch, on i686-linux, at optimization levels -O1 or higher:
MODULE constraints_module
REAL target
CONTAINS
SUBROUTINE
--- Comment #2 from falk at debian dot org 2006-06-04 12:51 ---
Here is a cleaned-up testcase:
int firstkey();
void DBM_error(int);
void domisc() {
int i = 0;
try {
try {
firstkey();
while (1) {
i++;
firstkey();
--- Comment #13 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-04 12:59
---
Subject: Bug 27039
Author: rguenth
Date: Sun Jun 4 12:59:40 2006
New Revision: 114357
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=114357
Log:
2006-06-04 Richard Guenther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR
--- Comment #14 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-04 13:16
---
Fixed on the mainline.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-04 14:38
---
I examined the different tree dumps for
COMPLEX z
CONTAINS
SUBROUTINE foo
z = z + z
END SUBROUTINE foo
END
and the last non-empty one before the error message:
complex.f90:
/mnt/gnu/gcc-3.3/objdir/./gcc/xgcc -shared-libgcc
-B/mnt/gnu/gcc-3.3/objdir/./gc
c -nostdinc++ -L/mnt/gnu/gcc-3.3/objdir/hppa2.0w-hp-hpux11.11/libstdc++-v3/src
-
L/mnt/gnu/gcc-3.3/objdir/hppa2.0w-hp-hpux11.11/libstdc++-v3/src/.libs
-B/opt/gnu
/gcc/gcc-4.2.0/hppa2.0w-hp-hpux11.11/bin/
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Last
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-04 15:16 ---
*** Bug 27889 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 2006-06-04 15:16 ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 27478 ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #6 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-04 15:35 ---
Confirmed. Breaking perl is not nice.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #11 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-04 16:49 ---
Testing a fix.
--
jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-04 16:50 ---
Testing a fix.
--
jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
int a;
void f(void) { int b[(__SIZE_TYPE__)a]; }
yields
t.c: In function 'f':
t.c:2: internal compiler error: in tree_low_cst, at tree.c:4413
Please submit a full bug report,
with preprocessed source if appropriate.
See URL:http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs.html for instructions.
Likewise if the size is
--- Comment #5 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-04 17:00 ---
Fixed for 4.2.
--
jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
--- Comment #8 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-04 17:01 ---
Fixed for 4.2.
--
jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
--- Comment #5 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-04 17:03 ---
Fixed for 4.2.
--
jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
Hi,
I'm writing a program, which executes gcc for
compiling a C proram. Now, I need the returned code of
gcc after compiling.
Can you help me?
Thanks!
__
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
On Jun 4, 2006, at 10:12 AM, Vu Quang Cao wrote:
Hi,
I'm writing a program, which executes gcc for
compiling a C proram. Now, I need the returned code of
gcc after compiling.
This is offtopic of this channel. Also it depends on
what OS you are using?
From an unix shell script you can use
--- Comment #8 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-04 17:16 ---
The patch in comment#2 is OK for 4.1 and mainline with the change to comparing
expr2 == error_mark_node, provided the testcases from this bug and bug 27490
are added to the testsuite.
Regarding that referenced in
--- Comment #28 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-04 17:19
---
Joseph --
Would you please summarize the current state of this bug, and whether or not
you intend to do any more work on it? I'm trying to figure out how to
prioritize it for 4.2.
Thanks,
-- Mark
--
--- Comment #5 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-04 17:19
---
Not release-critical.
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #6 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-04 17:22
---
Not release-critical.
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #8 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-04 17:26
---
This is a show-stopper; an installation problem like this would be embarassing.
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26146
--- Comment #3 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-04 17:33
---
Yes, there should at least be a reference to online information about OpenMP in
our manual. At this is one of the major new features in 4.2, it should
definitely be documented. Diego, would you be able to put a
--- Comment #29 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2006-06-04 17:35
---
Subject: Re: [4.2 Regression] Build failure: undefined
symbol __floatunsitf
On Sun, 4 Jun 2006, mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
--- Comment #28 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-04
--- Comment #4 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-04 17:36
---
i386-freebsd is a primary platform, so we should ensure that we can build
there.
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #5 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-04 17:35
---
Yes, this is a critical problem. OpenMP is a major feature in 4.2. It would
be embarassing for it to break builds for users. We should fix the configury
so as not to build the library on unsupported systems.
--- Comment #17 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-04 17:40
---
Has anyone tested Dorit's patch? (IIUC, Dorit is on maternity leave.)
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #7 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-04 17:41 ---
Subject: Bug 26740
Author: pinskia
Date: Sun Jun 4 17:40:51 2006
New Revision: 114360
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=114360
Log:
2006-06-01 Andrew Pinski [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR
--- Comment #7 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-04 17:41 ---
Subject: Bug 26740
Author: pinskia
Date: Sun Jun 4 17:40:51 2006
New Revision: 114360
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=114360
Log:
2006-06-01 Andrew Pinski [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26244
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26251
--- Comment #4 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-04 17:44
---
OSF is not release-critical.
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #5 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-04 17:47
---
This patch is OK.
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-04 17:47
---
m68k is not a primary or secondary platform.
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26449
--- Comment #3 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-04 17:50
---
Like 26175, this should be considered a high-priority fix.
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P2 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23541
--- Comment #4 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-04 17:52
---
Isn't this just a duplicate of 23541? We have it marked as depending on 23541,
but why keep both open?
On it's own, I'd call this a P2, but 23541 is a P1 for sure.
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
--- Comment #15 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-04 17:55
---
This is a P1 -- but WAITING for a testcase.
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26556
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|WAITING
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26507
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26507
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26528
--- Comment #2 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-04 17:56
---
Reverting accidental change to WAITING state.
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26559
--- Comment #3 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-04 17:57
---
Java is not release critical.
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-04 17:59
---
A very low-priority problem...
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
steven at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|steven at gcc dot gnu dot |unassigned at gcc dot gnu
|org
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26573
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26577
--- Comment #4 from dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-04 18:03
---
(In reply to comment #3)
Diego, would you be able to put a pointer in the manual?
There are two references to the OpenMP API already. One in the documentation
of -fopenmp, the other with the documentation of
--- Comment #4 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-04 18:04
---
Daniel --
Are you going to have time to do the surgery mentioned in Comment #1?
Thanks,
-- Mark
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26655
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26693
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26696
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26671
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26727
--- Comment #5 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-04 18:12
---
Isn't this just a duplicate of 23541? We have it marked as depending on
23541,
but why keep both open?
It essentially is, but this one is much more severe since there is no
workaround.
On it's own, I'd
--- Comment #5 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-04 18:16
---
The idea of this patch seems OK, but let's find a way to avoid duplicating the
declare_tmp_vars code, perhaps by making another small routine to find the
outermost BIND_EXPR in a function?
--
mmitchel at gcc
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26792
--- Comment #18 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-04 18:17
---
Ada is not release-critical.
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #6 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-04 18:18
---
Will this go away with the changes to make the scheduler not extend regions by
default?
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26847
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26938
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26957
--- Comment #6 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-04 18:21
---
Does this have to do with Aldy's patches to make sure that we emit debug
information for types used in casts?
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26983
--- Comment #10 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-04 18:22
---
Fortran is not release-critical.
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26999
--- Comment #4 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-04 18:24
---
Is there a DWARF expert who could check to see whether the debug information
generated is wrong, or whether GDB is unable to handle the information we
generate?
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27115
1 - 100 of 278 matches
Mail list logo
