--- Comment #9 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2006-06-08 06:10 ---
Created an attachment (id=11630)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=11630action=view)
a supposedly correct patch
No, the patch was wrong. Also the original proposed patch was right that some
messages
--- Comment #10 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2006-06-08 06:20 ---
Created an attachment (id=11631)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=11631action=view)
really a different patch
Sorry, I attached the wrong patch again.
--
--- Comment #6 from agner at agner dot org 2006-06-08 06:27 ---
Comment #5 From hjl confirms my point: The error can occur in an optimized part
of the program that uses XMM registers when some other, noncritical, part of
the program is compiled with -Os
We need a comment from the ABI
--- Comment #16 from guillaume dot melquiond at ens-lyon dot fr 2006-06-08
06:35 ---
Sorry if I'm misunderstanding your patch (I didn't try it), but it seems to me
that GCC will still generate wrong code if the testcase is compiled with
-fwrapv -fno-trapv.
--
--- Comment #7 from paul dot richard dot thomas at cea dot fr 2006-06-08
06:54 ---
Where did this one go to? Can we close it?
Paul
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22210
--- Comment #17 from vincent at vinc17 dot org 2006-06-08 07:18 ---
The patch looks strange to me too: is there any reason why the optimization
would be correct under wrapping? i.e. I don't understand why -fwrapv can fix
the problem (as said in comment #1).
--
Since this revision:
2006-06-04 Eric Christopher [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* stor-layout.c (start_record_layout): Initialize
remaining_in_alignment.
(debug_rli): Output value for remaining_in_alignment.
(update_alignment_for_field): Unconditionalize
ms_bitfield_layout_p
--- Comment #2 from charlet at adacore dot com 2006-06-08 07:57 ---
Subject: Re: s-taprop.adb:66:06: warning: redundant with clause in body
Probably introduced by the following change:
And/or by a new GNAT warning.
Anyway, the fix should be trivial: simply follow GNAT's advice and
--- Comment #3 from charlet at adacore dot com 2006-06-08 08:03 ---
Subject: Re: New: gnatbind fails to link on Tru64 UNIX
Add ada/s-purexc.o to ada/Make-lang.in (GNATBIND_OBJS).
If this is considered the correct fix, I'll submit a proper patch.
This shouldn't be needed at first
--- Comment #8 from rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-08 08:17 ---
Subject: Bug 26449
Author: rakdver
Date: Thu Jun 8 08:17:05 2006
New Revision: 114481
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=114481
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/26449
* loop-invariant.c
--- Comment #4 from rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-08 08:20 ---
Subject: Bug 27872
Author: rakdver
Date: Thu Jun 8 08:19:50 2006
New Revision: 114482
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=114482
Log:
PR tree-optimization/27872
*
--- Comment #8 from patchapp at dberlin dot org 2006-06-08 08:26 ---
Subject: Bug number PR27830
A patch for this bug has been added to the patch tracker.
The mailing list url for the patch is
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-06/msg00385.html
--
--- Comment #18 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-08 08:31
---
The transformation -~a to a + 1 is valid with -fwrapv, but with -fwrapv, the
further transformation of the division will not happen, because that in turn is
not safe for -fwrapv.
--
--- Comment #11 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2006-06-08 08:36 ---
I would note, however, that Pentium Pro also means Pentium 2/3/M, Core, etc.
In practice every Intel chip after the Pentium Pro, except the P4 and Nocona,
is based on that pipeline.
--
--- Comment #19 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-08 08:42
---
Well, ok, with the testcase in comment #1 we hit another problem in
negate_expr(_p) which I pointed out before. I'll prepare a followup patch.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27116
--- Comment #20 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-08 08:49
---
Subject: Bug 27116
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu Jun 8 08:49:19 2006
New Revision: 114483
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=114483
Log:
2006-06-08 Richard Guenther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR
--- Comment #4 from mkuvyrkov at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-08 08:51
---
Subject: Bug 27863
Author: mkuvyrkov
Date: Thu Jun 8 08:51:13 2006
New Revision: 114484
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=114484
Log:
2006-06-08 Maxim Kuvyrkov [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR
--- Comment #5 from mkuvyrkov at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-08 08:56
---
Fixed.
--
mkuvyrkov at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-08 09:01
---
I'm writing a patch to add substring bounds checking. I hope to post it in the
next few days.
--
fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #5 from mkuvyrkov at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-08 09:11
---
(In reply to comment #3)
Only the testcase is failing and only due to the scheduler changes (which was
said not to effect other targets besides ia64 which looks like it was wrong).
As extended regions by
--- Comment #9 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-08 09:13 ---
This now blocks a fix for the wrong-code PR27116, comment #1. The fix for that
part of that PR is to not allow negate_expr negate INT_MIN if -fwrapv is not in
effect. Now this simple fix breaks bootstrap in the
--- Comment #10 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-08 09:39
---
Testcase:
int decCompareOp (int result)
{
if (result != (int)0x8000)
{
result = -result;
return (result 0);
}
}
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26998
if /usr/local/4.2/bin/gcc4.2.0 -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I. -I.. -I../include
-I../VEX/pub -DVGA_x86=1 -DVGO_linux=1 -DVGP_x86_linux=1 -m32
-mpreferred-stack-boundary=2 -O -g -Wmissing-prototypes -Winline -Wall -Wshadow
-Wpointer-arith -Wstrict-prototypes -Wmissing-declarations -O2 -Wno-long-long
--- Comment #11 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-08 09:47
---
This one:
/* Apply the operation to each end of the range and see what we end
up with. */
if (code == NEGATE_EXPR
!TYPE_UNSIGNED (TREE_TYPE (expr)))
{
/* NEGATE_EXPR flips the range
--- Comment #6 from martin at mpa-garching dot mpg dot de 2006-06-08 09:51
---
I have now reproduced the problem on two different x86_64 systems. Could you
please reopen the PR?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26165
--- Comment #12 from patchapp at dberlin dot org 2006-06-08 10:10 ---
Subject: Bug number PR target/27421
A patch for this bug has been added to the patch tracker.
The mailing list url for the patch is
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-06/msg00387.html
--
The following invalid code snippet triggers an ICE in the C++ frontend since
GCC 4.0.0:
==
void foo()
{
int i;
union { int i; };
}
==
bug.cc: In function 'void foo()':
bug.cc:4: error: redeclaration of 'int i'
--- Comment #1 from patchapp at dberlin dot org 2006-06-08 10:20 ---
Subject: Bug number PR c++/27951
A patch for this bug has been added to the patch tracker.
The mailing list url for the patch is
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-06/msg00388.html
--
--
reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.0.4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27951
--- Comment #13 from reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-08 10:23
---
We do have the same problem with unions.
See patch in comment #12.
--
reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|2006-05-07 03:13:58 |2006-06-08
--- Comment #3 from dannysmith at users dot sourceforge dot net 2006-06-08
10:29 ---
Patch here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-06/msg00389.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27789
The following testcase with invalid virtual inheritance ICEs since GCC 4.0.0:
==
struct A
{
virtual ~A() {}
};
struct B : A, virtual A {};
struct C : A, B {};
C c;
==
bug.cc:6: error: duplicate base type 'A' invalid
bug.cc:8:
The following invalid code snippet triggers an ICE in the C frontend since
at least GCC 2.95.3:
=
void foo(struct A a) {}
void foo() {}
=
bug.c:1: warning: 'struct A' declared inside parameter list
bug.c:1: warning: its scope is only this
The following invalid code snippet causes an ICE since GCC 4.0.0:
==
subroutine FOO
character*20 X 0
data X /'A'/0
end subroutine FOO
==
In file bug.f:4
data X /'A'/0
--- Comment #1 from gcc at pdoerfler dot com 2006-06-08 11:00 ---
Created an attachment (id=11633)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=11633action=view)
preprocessed source
Preprocessed source of the file that contains declaration of hacky_auxmaps.
Probably, this is not
I've encoutered a problem with a friend function embedded into a class
declaration AND with the optimisation flag -O2. I have discovered that two
successive identical call to coutvalue; in the main program do not yield the
same value!!! removing the function definition from the declaration solve
--- Comment #15 from mkuvyrkov at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-08 11:49
---
haifa_sched.c: check_cfg () ICEs because a block with the conditional jump at
the end has only 1 successor (the jump is to the next instruction). I thought
that this is invalid, but now I see that
--- Comment #10 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2006-06-08 12:08 ---
Reduced testcase:
long foo(long zz)
{
return zz * 15238614669586151335;
}
takes ridiculously long with -O2 -mdisable-fpregs.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27733
--- Comment #11 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2006-06-08 12:24 ---
OUCH! The number is stored as a unsigned int in the cache, which means that
numbers 2^32 never hit the cache!
Besides that, it's wise to enlarge the cache for 64-bit hosts, because there
every EXACT_DIV_EXPR will call
--- Comment #12 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2006-06-08 12:26 ---
Created an attachment (id=11634)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=11634action=view)
proposed patch
--
bonzini at gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #7 from charles at kde dot org 2006-06-08 13:04 ---
Created an attachment (id=11635)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=11635action=view)
compiles on 4.0
just #include cstddef
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27935
The following code is legal, but segfaults at runtime when compiled with
gfortran:
$ cat a.f90
character(len=10) :: s
s = abcdefghij
s(6:5) = s(7:5)
print *, s
end
$ ifort a.f90 -check all ./a.out
abcdefghij
$ gfortran a.f90 ./a.out
zsh: segmentation fault ./a.out
--
--
fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Last
The testcase I'll attach is miscompiled on s390x with -m64 -O2 -mtune=z990
or -m64 -O2 -mtune=z9-109.
The test function needs a base reg (so %r13 is loaded early and during flow2
the %r13 references actually make it into the assembler). But, during reload
a TImode pseudo is reloaded into TI %r12
--- Comment #1 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-08 13:33 ---
Created an attachment (id=11638)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=11638action=view)
pr27959.c
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27959
--- Comment #17 from tbm at cyrius dot com 2006-06-08 13:54 ---
This segfault also shows up when compiling the Linux kernel (compiling file
net/tipc/net.c).
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27882
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c |middle-end
Keywords||ABI,
--- Comment #19 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-08 14:17
---
Fixed.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot
|
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-08 14:23 ---
reinterpret_castunsigned int(t) = 1077936128; //binary float
reinterpret_castunsigned int(t) = 1077936128; //binary float value
You are violating C/C++ aliasing rules as you are accessing a
--- Comment #99 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-08 14:23
---
*** Bug 27955 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 2006-06-08 14:32 ---
Works in 4.2.0 20060507 and 4.1.0 20060208 and 4.1.2 20060529.
And works as of today in 4.1.2 20060608 so this is still invalid.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27935
--- Comment #6 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-08 14:36 ---
Don't know how I got assigned, anyways this is fixed by the patch for PR 27793.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-08 14:42 ---
Related to PR 27657, though this is not an unused variable as far as I can
tell.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
|dot org
--- Comment #39 from falk at debian dot org 2006-06-08 15:02 ---
I'm not actually working on this at the moment
--
falk at debian dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #13 from sje at cup dot hp dot com 2006-06-08 15:11 ---
The proposed patch does fix the compilation time problem on hppa64-hp-hpux11.11
but I am confused about how the cache works. Without the patch, the compile
takes 15 to 20 minutes but I do wind up generating a sequence
--- Comment #6 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-08 15:24 ---
(In reply to comment #5)
As extended regions by default are disabled now, can, please, someone
reconfirm
this bug.
Yes this is fixed now.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What
The following testcase causes an ICE on the 4.1 branch and mainline:
struct A
{
templateint void foo(X);
};
bug.cc:7: error: 'X' was not declared in this scope
bug.cc:7: error: variable or field 'foo' declared void
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot
|
--- Comment #5 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-08 15:31 ---
Fixed.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #9 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-08 15:32 ---
Fixed.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
The following testcase causes an ICE on the 4.1 branch and mainline:
templateint struct A
{
templatetypename void foo();
};
template templatestruct T void A0::foo() {}
bug.cc:6:
--- Comment #14 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2006-06-08 15:37 ---
Well, it shouldn't. My guess could be that we are hitting the case where the
logic is flawed. The we fill the cache with the algorithm for say 0x10085
(but then we only write 0x84 in the cache), and then use it for
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |minor
Target Milestone|--- |4.1.2
--- Comment #15 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2006-06-08 15:40 ---
Subject: Bug 27733
Author: bonzini
Date: Thu Jun 8 15:40:48 2006
New Revision: 114488
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=114488
Log:
2006-06-08 Paolo Bonzini [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR
--- Comment #40 from mueller at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-08 15:50
---
I've a patch, which is currently blocked by -fivopts bug
--
mueller at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #16 from sje at cup dot hp dot com 2006-06-08 15:50 ---
Bizarre, I could swear that when I first tried your fix I got a call to
__muldi3, but I just updated expmed.c, reran the test case and I got the same
inlined sequence that I got before the patch. I think in the first
--- Comment #12 from law at redhat dot com 2006-06-08 16:38 ---
Subject: Re: bootstrap failure building libdecnumber,
ICE in compare_values, tree-vrp.c:432
On Thu, 2006-06-08 at 09:47 +, rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
--- Comment #11 from rguenth at gcc dot
--- Comment #4 from ro at techfak dot uni-bielefeld dot de 2006-06-08
17:24 ---
Subject: Re: [4.2 Regression] gnatbind fails to link on Tru64 UNIX
charlet at adacore dot com writes:
Subject: Re: New: gnatbind fails to link on Tru64 UNIX
Add ada/s-purexc.o to ada/Make-lang.in
--- Comment #11 from bangerth at dealii dot org 2006-06-08 17:26 ---
(In reply to comment #8)
Bangerth, why did you change the Priority? That is the job of the Release
manager.
Actually, as a remark, I believe this isn't true. Bugmasters have always
adjusted initial priorities of
--- Comment #6 from sje at cup dot hp dot com 2006-06-08 17:47 ---
Created an attachment (id=11639)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=11639action=view)
Cut-down test case
Here is a cutdown test case that fails on hppa1.1-hp-hpux11.11. It does not
fail on
--- Comment #1 from echristo at apple dot com 2006-06-08 18:11 ---
Can you get me the size of that structure according to MS VC?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27948
--- Comment #4 from echristo at apple dot com 2006-06-08 18:14 ---
Well, I suppose the question is whether or not I'm doing something wrong here.
The alignment should be added unilaterally (as far as I can tell from the
documents that I included in the documentation). Part of the
Trying to bootstrap mainline on IRIX 6.5 with java included failed since
boehm-gc (which is required for libjava) isn't built:
In file included from /vol/gcc/src/gcc-dist/libjava/include/jvm.h:25,
from /vol/gcc/src/gcc-dist/libjava/include/java-interp.h:14,
from
--- Comment #1 from ro at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-08 18:59 ---
David, your patch caused this regression, so please have a look.
--
ro at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Output lines on Windows are incorrectly terminated.
Example:
program le
integer i
do i = 1,6
print *, 'Line ', i
end do
end
The output looks ok on the windows console. However, if you redirect output to
a file, and examine with a hexadecimal viewer, you will see that each line is
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-08 19:11 ---
Maybe it is better to not to disable libjava completely for IRIX. It seems
like --disable-libjava is out of date and wrong in general now (maybe even has
been for a long time).
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #1 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-08 19:14
---
FX, if you want this one, let me know, otherwise I will look into it.
--
jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from ro at techfak dot uni-bielefeld dot de 2006-06-08
19:15 ---
Subject: Re: [4.2 Regression] libjava fails to build if it isn't built by
default
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org writes:
Maybe it is better to not to disable libjava completely for IRIX. It seems
But
) 4.2.0 20060608 (experimental).
---cut--
program test
implicit none
real(8) :: rftp(4)
rftp = 42.0_8
call xcifc(n=4,rho=rftp)
contains
subroutine xcifc(n,rho)
implicit none
integer, optional, intent(in) :: n
real(8), optional, intent(in) :: rho(*)
if(present(n
--- Comment #1 from tobias dot burnus at physik dot fu-berlin dot de
2006-06-08 19:53 ---
This could be the same as gfortran.fortran-torture/execute/assumed_size.f90,
I'm not completely sure, though.
--
tobias dot burnus at physik dot fu-berlin dot de changed:
What
--- Comment #4 from ayers at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-08 20:18 ---
Hello,
I followed the advice given here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-05/msg00886.html
I believe noconfigdir is supposed to mean not supported so in this case the
correct patch would be to remove
--- Comment #5 from ro at techfak dot uni-bielefeld dot de 2006-06-08
20:23 ---
Subject: Re: [4.2 Regression] libjava fails to build if it isn't built by
default
ayers at gcc dot gnu dot org writes:
I followed the advice given here:
--- Comment #7 from sje at cup dot hp dot com 2006-06-08 20:34 ---
Created an attachment (id=11642)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=11642action=view)
Proposed patch
I am going to test the attached patch and will submit it to gcc-patches if
there are no regressions.
--- Comment #14 from reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-08 20:50
---
Subject: Bug 27421
Author: reichelt
Date: Thu Jun 8 20:50:24 2006
New Revision: 114494
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=114494
Log:
PR target/27421
* config/i386/i386.c
--- Comment #15 from reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-08 20:53
---
The problem with unions is now also fixed on mainline.
Will commit to 4.1 and 4.0 branch in a couple of days.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27421
--- Comment #3 from langton at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-08 21:01 ---
Subject: Bug 27786
Author: langton
Date: Thu Jun 8 21:00:26 2006
New Revision: 114495
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=114495
Log:
* cray_pointers_2.f90: Add -fbounds-check compile
--- Comment #4 from langton at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-08 21:03 ---
I've committed a patch that should fix this bug.
--
langton at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #35 from echristo at apple dot com 2006-06-08 21:06 ---
I'm unlikely to work on this...
--
echristo at apple dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #8 from sje at cup dot hp dot com 2006-06-08 21:12 ---
I do not think my patch is correct. The variable causing the problem is
created in gimplify_parameters by a call to create_tmp_var. This local
variable is only created on systems that pass structures by pointers and
Hayashi Eisuke wrote:
100: 400 (-1077752048)
2092728: Segmentatioin error (core dumped)
The process is dying because you are exceeding unix process stack space
limits. You probably have an 8MB per process limit, and the number you
are using is a tad less than 2MB.
If you are using
--- Comment #2 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-08 21:26
---
No, go ahead if you have time (I'm buried deep into bounds-checking). I confirm
this bug on MinGW, I think the problem might not appear on cygwin.
--
fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What
--- Comment #2 from echristo at apple dot com 2006-06-08 21:40 ---
Submitted patch.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27542
--- Comment #1 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-08 21:48
---
Subject: Bug 27958
Author: fxcoudert
Date: Thu Jun 8 21:48:05 2006
New Revision: 114496
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=114496
Log:
PR fortran/27958
* trans-expr.c
--- Comment #5 from kkojima at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-08 22:17 ---
I also couldn't find any document refering to it. My patch is just
a guess from the behavior for nonzero-size bitfield with the packed
attribute appeared in the last 3 lines of my patch. I'd like to
send my patch
--- Comment #16 from mrs at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-08 22:23 ---
Subject: Bug 26427
Author: mrs
Date: Thu Jun 8 22:23:17 2006
New Revision: 114498
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=114498
Log:
PR target/26427
* config/darwin.c
--- Comment #6 from echristo at apple dot com 2006-06-08 22:23 ---
Sure. Sounds good. As I said, the ABI stuff I've seen (and helped write) don't
take packed into account anywhere :)
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27942
--- Comment #5 from sje at cup dot hp dot com 2006-06-08 22:25 ---
I think using configure to detect whether or not _Unwind_GetIPInfo exists may
be difficult. The libstdc++ configure script seems to go out of its way to not
link programs or to use and/or look at libgcc in anyway.
1 - 100 of 128 matches
Mail list logo
