$cat a.f
program main
write(*,*) 3horz
end
$gcc -std=legacy a.f
a.f: In function 'MAIN__':
a.f:2: internal compiler error: Bad IO basetype (9)
Please submit a full bug report,
with preprocessed source if appropriate.
See URL:http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs.html for instructions.
I don't
--- Comment #6 from schwab at suse dot de 2006-07-01 07:01 ---
The bug is much older, I was able to get it fail using the sources at the 3.4
branch point. That 3.4.6 does not fail is probably just coincidence.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28181
When compiling wxGTK-2.6.3 with gcc (GCC) 4.1.2 20060628 prerelease (NetBSD
nb1 20060602), it fails with:
./bk-make-pch .pch/wxprec_basedll/wx/wxprec.h.gch wx/wxprec.h c++
-I.pch/wxprec_
basedll -D__WXGTK__ -I./src/regex -DwxUSE_GUI=0
-DWXMAKINGDLL_BASE
-DwxUSE_BASE=1 -fPIC -DPIC
--- Comment #1 from tk at giga dot or dot at 2006-07-01 10:41 ---
[EMAIL PROTECTED] says it's a NetBSD problem, because NetBSD does not use the
normal checksum stuff. Sorry for the bogus report.
--
tk at giga dot or dot at changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #4 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-01 11:18 ---
Mark, this bug concerns a C++ standard question, perhaps you could give your
interpretation...
--
steven at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-01 15:03 ---
Subject: Bug 19259
Author: tobi
Date: Sat Jul 1 15:03:30 2006
New Revision: 115115
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=115115
Log:
2006-07-01 Tobias Schlueter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
fortran/
PR
--- Comment #7 from sayle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-01 16:32 ---
Subject: Bug 27428
Author: sayle
Date: Sat Jul 1 16:32:00 2006
New Revision: 115116
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=115116
Log:
PR middle-end/27428
* c-lex.c (c_lex_with_flags)
The arm-none-eabi compiler gets a segmentation fault while building libstdc++.
A back-trace shows that the fault is in determine_visibility() where we are
dereferencing a null pointer.
#0 determine_visibility (decl=0xbca2e280)
at /home/rearnsha/gnusrc/gcc-cross/trunk/gcc/cp/decl2.c:1753
#1
--- Comment #1 from rearnsha at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-01 18:04
---
Created an attachment (id=11787)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=11787action=view)
gziped attachment of failing source file (pre-processed)
cc1plus fstream-inst.ii -quiet -dumpbase
When the Ada compiler prints an error/warning message some parts of it are
displayed out of order.
/tmp/cvs/gcc-20060701/Build/./gcc/xgcc -B/tmp/cvs/gcc-20060701/Build/./gcc/
-B/tmp/cvs/gcc-20060701/Build/root/ia64-suse-linux/bin/
-B/tmp/cvs/gcc-20060701/Build/root/ia64-suse-linux/lib/ -isystem
/tmp/cvs/gcc-20060701/Build/./gcc/xgcc -shared-libgcc
-B/tmp/cvs/gcc-20060701/Build/./gcc -nostdinc++
-L/tmp/cvs/gcc-20060701/Build/ia64-suse-linux/libstdc++-v3/src
-L/tmp/cvs/gcc-20060701/Build/ia64-suse-linux/libstdc++-v3/src/.libs
-B/tmp/cvs/gcc-20060701/Build/root/ia64-suse-linux/bin/
-B/tmp
--- Comment #2 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-01 22:01 ---
Subject: Bug 28215
Author: jason
Date: Sat Jul 1 22:01:18 2006
New Revision: 115118
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=115118
Log:
PR c++/28215
* method.c (make_thunk): Unset
--
schwab at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.2.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28217
--
schwab at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.2.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28216
--- Comment #5 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-01 22:09
---
This code is not invalid, and G++ is correct to accept it.
DR68 permits this grammatical production and typedef-names for classes are
class-names.
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-02 01:26 ---
This problem existed in 4.1.0 also and with Fortran as well, I think there is
already a bug about the mangled warning message.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-02 01:28 ---
PR 25923 is about the fortran issue but I think they are really the same issue
and nothing to do with Fortran or Ada and just the pretty print is doing
something wrong.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-02 02:36 ---
Fixed.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #22 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-02 02:41
---
I still say if the definition was not marked as having a visibility, then the
code is wrong as someone could mark stuff weirdly.
Now does the other question (since I cannot remember when looking at the elf
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.2.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27000
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-02 02:53 ---
Fixed.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #23 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-02 04:30 ---
(In reply to comment #22)
I still say if the definition was not marked as having a visibility, then the
code is wrong as someone could mark stuff weirdly.
Yes, if someone's code marks a function as hidden in a
22 matches
Mail list logo
