--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-24 07:33 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
Reduced testcase for that ICE:
extern __inline double
strtod (void)
{
}
strtol (void)
{
return strtod ();
}
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #6 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-24 07:24 ---
Remove the dead code and it works.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30564
--- Comment #5 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-24 07:20 ---
Reduced testcase:
static int RawOrEnc = 0;
static inline void addpair(int fp, int un)
{
if (RawOrEnc == 0 && fp != un)
RawOrEnc = 1;
}
int f(int un0, char *a, unsigned int __s2_len)
{
addpair(un0, un0);
__s
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-24 06:57 ---
This works for me with "4.2.0 20061204" and "4.3.0 20070122":
[EMAIL PROTECTED] pr30567]$ ~/gcc-4.2/bin/g++ -O3 -fPIC dbg.cpp
[EMAIL PROTECTED] pr30567]$ !./
./a.out
1
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-24 06:54 ---
Part of the problem here is that darwin turns on no math-errno by default which
turns the builtin functions into pure functions and since we don't use the
result, we DCE it.
pure functions are not allowed to trap II
--
echristo at apple dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |echristo at apple dot com
|dot org |
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-24 06:35 ---
libgcc_s.1.dylib has the correct install name as far as I can tell (otool -L
output):
libgcc_s.1.dylib:
/Users/pinskia/gcc-trunk-java/lib/libgcc_s.1.dylib (compatibility
version 1.0.0, current version 1.0.0)
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.3.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30572
I don't know when this broke but this has been here between
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2007-01/msg00121.html (rev 120402)
and
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2007-01/msg00134.html (rev 120429)
For some reason I think this was caused by the toplevel libgcc which was
introduced inb
--- Comment #11 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-24 06:06
---
Subject: Bug 27438
Author: pinskia
Date: Wed Jan 24 06:06:29 2007
New Revision: 121104
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=121104
Log:
2007-01-23 Andrew Pinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR
--- Comment #11 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-24 06:06
---
Subject: Bug 27438
Author: pinskia
Date: Wed Jan 24 06:06:29 2007
New Revision: 121104
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=121104
Log:
2007-01-23 Andrew Pinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR
--- Comment #10 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-24 06:06
---
Subject: Bug 27438
Author: pinskia
Date: Wed Jan 24 06:06:07 2007
New Revision: 121103
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=121103
Log:
2007-01-23 Andrew Pinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR
--- Comment #9 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-24 06:01 ---
Subject: Bug 27438
Author: pinskia
Date: Wed Jan 24 06:01:09 2007
New Revision: 121102
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=121102
Log:
2007-01-23 Andrew Pinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR ob
--- Comment #17 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-24 05:46
---
Subject: Bug 30454
Author: pinskia
Date: Wed Jan 24 05:46:09 2007
New Revision: 121101
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=121101
Log:
2007-01-23 Andrew Pinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR
--- Comment #16 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-24 05:46
---
Fixed finally.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status
--- Comment #2 from doug dot gregor at gmail dot com 2007-01-24 04:36
---
(In reply to comment #1)
> This is the normal problem adding a keyword in any language, I don't see why
> C++0x 's static_assert not use a keyword in the already reserved identifier
> namespace?
The C++ committee
--- Comment #4 from rob1weld at aol dot com 2007-01-24 04:26 ---
The newest test results for building according to these instructions are here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2007-01/msg00811.html
Most tests are completed with a dozen (or less) errors - that is not too bad
with _
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-24 04:23 ---
This is the normal problem adding a keyword in any language, I don't see why
C++0x 's static_assert not use a keyword in the already reserved identifier
namespace?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-24 04:19 ---
DEBUG is NOT in the reserved identifier namespace so it should be ok, so I am
thinking this is either a cygwin header bug or a wind32 header bug.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Re
--- Comment #22 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-24 04:17
---
(In reply to comment #21)
> So, can we publish builds that yield reasonable compile times? I.e., gcc
> configured with --disable-checking.
The builds on gcc.gnu.org/wiki are not published by the FSF. The FSF does
The headers in ext/pb_ds use the identifier `static_assert' as the name of a
class (which emulates static assertions). The class itself is declared in
libstdc++-v3/include/ext/pb_ds/detail/type_utils.hpp
and is used from a handful of other headers. This means that these facilities
cannot be used wi
I don't know if the severity might be a "blocker" but since I have a fix (which
is not so good - but works for me) I did not want to elevate the level and take
anyone away from something more important.
I'm getting an error during "make bootstrap" that halts the build.
In file included from
/cyg
--- Comment #21 from Bil dot Kleb at NASA dot gov 2007-01-24 03:50 ---
So, can we publish builds that yield reasonable compile times? I.e., gcc
configured with --disable-checking.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30367
--- Comment #20 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-24 03:41
---
I should mention that the extra compile time spend with a --enable-checking
build is internal checking in the compiler can be expensive at some points
causing these compile time explosions. For an example, a check
--- Comment #19 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-24 03:35
---
I think we can declare this as invalid then, as all compile times for the files
are under 3 seconds.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #18 from Bil dot Kleb at NASA dot gov 2007-01-24 03:18 ---
Created an attachment (id=12946)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=12946&action=view)
A make log with --disable-checking gfortran
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30367
--- Comment #17 from Bil dot Kleb at NASA dot gov 2007-01-24 03:16 ---
I managed to compile from SVN source with --disable-checking, and now the
compilation times for the offending routines are on the order of a second!
I will attach the new make log in case you'd like to compare with t
--- Comment #2 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2007-01-24 02:37 ---
Subject: Re: New: -ftrapping-math should prevent
folding/dead code stripping of some builtins
On Wed, 24 Jan 2007, geoffk at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> when compiled with -ftrapping-math, should show that some
--- Comment #16 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-24 02:21
---
The build scripts are automated and I don't think I have access to tweak those
so I sent a note to FX to see if he can do so
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30367
ginclude/float.h has:
/* Addition rounds to 0: zero, 1: nearest, 2: +inf, 3: -inf, -1: unknown. */
/* ??? This is supposed to change with calls to fesetround in . */
#undef FLT_ROUNDS
#define FLT_ROUNDS 1
GCC should have a builtin which returns the correct value for FLT_ROUNDS at any
time, and
--- Comment #1 from geoffk at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-24 02:11 ---
Other builtins where this can apply are pow() and lround().
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30568
This program:
#include
#include
#include
main()
{
unsigned flags;
feclearexcept(FE_ALL_EXCEPT);
(void)acos(1.1);
flags = fetestexcept(FE_ALL_EXCEPT);
printf("(void)acos( %e ) gives flags 0x%8x\n", 1.1, flags & FE_ALL_EXCEPT);
}
when compiled with -ftrapping-math, should show that some flags
--- Comment #6 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-24 02:03
---
Subject: Bug 30532
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Wed Jan 24 02:02:52 2007
New Revision: 121100
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=121100
Log:
2007-01-23 Jerry DeLisle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Comment #5 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-24 02:03
---
Subject: Bug 30481
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Wed Jan 24 02:02:52 2007
New Revision: 121100
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=121100
Log:
2007-01-23 Jerry DeLisle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Comment #5 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-24 01:57
---
Subject: Bug 30532
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Wed Jan 24 01:56:55 2007
New Revision: 121099
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=121099
Log:
2007-01-23 Jerry DeLisle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Comment #4 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-24 01:57
---
Subject: Bug 30481
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Wed Jan 24 01:56:55 2007
New Revision: 121099
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=121099
Log:
2007-01-23 Jerry DeLisle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Comment #5 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-24 01:31 ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> I think we want to fix the test cases, but I don't want to sign up to fix them
> myself.
>
"I think" is not enough. It would be nice to be able tell to whoever takes the
burden of implementi
--- Comment #3 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-24 01:15 ---
I agree with most of what you say but, unfortunately, unless someone that can
approve a patch for this also agrees, it is pointless even to think about how
to implement it. Also, bugzilla is not closely followed by GCC
--- Comment #4 from sje at cup dot hp dot com 2007-01-24 00:34 ---
I think we want to fix the test cases, but I don't want to sign up to fix them
myself.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29018
--- Comment #1 from rwgk at yahoo dot com 2007-01-24 00:10 ---
Created an attachment (id=12945)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=12945&action=view)
standalone reproducer
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30567
Platform:
Fedora Core release 4 (Stentz)
Linux sharptail.lbl.gov 2.6.11-1.1369_FC4smp #1 SMP Thu Jun 2 23:08:39 EDT
2005 i686 i686 i386 GNU/Linux
% g++ -v
Using built-in specs.
Target: i686-pc-linux-gnu
Configured with: /net/rosie/scratch2/rwgk/gcc-4_2-branch/configure
--prefix=/net/cci-filer1
--- Comment #5 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-23 23:46 ---
Confirmed.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCON
--- Comment #4 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-23 23:43 ---
Created an attachment (id=12944)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=12944&action=view)
reduced testcase
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30558
--- Comment #3 from astrange at ithinksw dot com 2007-01-23 23:36 ---
> If they are the same size (and there is no speed impact), there is actually no
> point to expect that they should compile to the same thing.
Of course; I meant that they're the same size at the moment. The optimal
v
--- Comment #2 from drab at kepler dot fjfi dot cvut dot cz 2007-01-23
23:34 ---
(In reply to comment #0)
>
> gcc -O1 -ftree-pre -ftree-loop-linear -funroll-loops -c psycho_n1.c -o
> psycho_n1.o
>
...
> Removal of any of
The following program:
void f( int x )
{
class InnerClass
{
public:
static void g( int x )
{
// empty
}
};
}
produces a warning:
t.cc: In static member function
--- Comment #14 from drab at kepler dot fjfi dot cvut dot cz 2007-01-23
23:19 ---
I've tested my original testcase for this bug and it seems to work for me on
i686 and gcc version 4.3.0 20070121 (experimental). So, it seems to be fixed.
Can anyone confirm, please?
--
http://gcc.gnu
--- Comment #1 from drab at kepler dot fjfi dot cvut dot cz 2007-01-23
23:08 ---
Created an attachment (id=12943)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=12943&action=view)
Triggers the bug.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30565
Hi,
the attached code, when compiled with the following gcc:
$ gcc -v
Using built-in specs.
Target: i686-pc-linux-gnu
Configured with: ../../../gcc-SVN-20070121/gcc-SVN-20070121/configure
--prefix=/usr/local/MDLinux/opt/gcc-4.3
--exec-prefix=/usr/local/MDLinux/opt
--
andreast at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |andreast at gcc dot gnu dot
|dot org
--- Comment #5 from simartin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-23 22:34
---
Subject: Bug 27492
Author: simartin
Date: Tue Jan 23 22:33:51 2007
New Revision: 121089
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=121089
Log:
2007-01-23 Simon Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR
--- Comment #9 from andreast at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-23 22:10
---
Here is what I get when I add -ansi to the CXX flags:
gnu/java/nio/channels/natFileChannelImpl.cc: In member function 'void
gnu::java::nio::channels::FileChannelImpl::implTruncate(jlong)':
gnu/java/nio/channels/na
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c |tree-optimization
Keywords||ice
--- Comment #4 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-23 21:56 ---
Created an attachment (id=12942)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=12942&action=view)
somewhat reduced testcase
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30564
--- Comment #3 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-23 21:55 ---
Honza, we're not folding the comparison on inlining and later ICE in tree-vrp
because of this (from the einline dump):
# fp1_5 = PHI
:;
i_30 = fp0_6;
goto ();
:;
D.1689_35 = unicount[i_3];
D.1690_36 = D
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c |tree-optimization
Keywords||ice
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-23 21:36 ---
This is most likely a dup of bug 30537.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-23 21:29 ---
Nice one.
(gdb) up
#1 0x085aa055 in extract_range_from_assert (vr_p=0xbf806324, expr=0xb7ba1ee8)
at /home/richard/src/trunk/gcc/tree-vrp.c:845
845 gcc_assert (limit != var);
(gdb) call debug_generic_expr
--- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-23 21:27 ---
I get
./cc1 -quiet t.i -O -fno-unit-at-a-time t.i: In function atof:
t.i:1156: internal compiler error: in optimize_inline_calls, at
tree-inline.c:2674
Please submit a full bug report,
with preprocessed source if
--- Comment #3 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-23 21:19 ---
reducing.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30558
--- Comment #36 from rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-23 21:19
---
Patch for 4.2: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-01/msg01941.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29516
--- Comment #1 from dcb314 at hotmail dot com 2007-01-23 21:00 ---
Created an attachment (id=12941)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=12941&action=view)
C source code
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30564
I just tried to compile Suse Linux package lynx-2.8.6_rel2-23
with the GNU C compiler version 4.3 snapshot 20070119.
The compiler said
gcc -DLINUX -D_GNU_SOURCE -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I../.. -I../../src
-I../../src/chrtrans -I../../WWW/Library/Implementation -I../../ -O3
-fmessage-length=0 -D_FORTIF
--- Comment #1 from dcb314 at hotmail dot com 2007-01-23 20:57 ---
Created an attachment (id=12940)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=12940&action=view)
C source code
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30563
I just tried to compile Suse Linux package lsvpd-0.16.0-35
with the GNU C compiler version 4.3 snapshot 20070119.
The compiler said
cc -O2 -g -fmessage-length=0 -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fno-unit-at-a-time -I../lib
-c -o node_handler.o node_handler.c
node_handler.c:213: error: inlined_to pointer is
--- Comment #2 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-23 20:56 ---
Some more debug information:
The error occurs when the symbol "hessian" is written.
The error is gone if one removes the ": only ENERGY_CONSTRAINT" or the "use
atoms" from the POTENTIAL_ENERGY module (if you have {at
--- Comment #1 from dcb314 at hotmail dot com 2007-01-23 20:55 ---
Created an attachment (id=12939)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=12939&action=view)
C++ source code
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30562
I just tried to compile Suse Linux package limal-ca-mgm-1.2.9-14
with the GNU C++ compiler version 4.3 snapshot 20070119.
The compiler said
/usr/include/blocxx/List.hpp: In member function 'void
blocxx4::List::push_back(const T&) [with T = blocxx4::String]':
/usr/include/blocxx/List.hpp:362: inte
--
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 #3 from pluto at agmk dot net 2007-01-23 20:15 ---
*** Bug 29694 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
pluto at agmk dot net changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #7 from pluto at agmk dot net 2007-01-23 20:15 ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> Subject: Re: missed warnings about comparisons which are always true/false.
>
> "manu at gcc dot gnu dot org" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> | Wextra warns for this, what is the bug?
>
> I beli
--- Comment #3 from hjl at lucon dot org 2007-01-23 20:08 ---
Fixed.
--
hjl at lucon dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |
--- Comment #2 from hjl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-23 20:01 ---
Subject: Bug 30550
Author: hjl
Date: Tue Jan 23 20:01:40 2007
New Revision: 121086
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=121086
Log:
2007-01-23 H.J. Lu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR libgcj/30550
--- Comment #22 from patchapp at dberlin dot org 2007-01-23 19:45 ---
Subject: Bug number PR7651
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/2007-01/msg01933.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/sh
Here's a test case for the problem I point out in c++std-lib-17897. It shows
that operator>>(int&) behaves differently (and, I claim, incorrectly) from
operator>>(long&) or any other extractor except the one for short (which is
affected for the same reason).
$ cat t.cpp && g++ t.cpp -static && ./a
--
fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Last recon
--
tbm at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
GCC build triplet
--- Comment #1 from tbm at cyrius dot com 2007-01-23 17:51 ---
My backtrace looks slightly different but I can confirm this bug for
arm-linux-gnueabi. Lennert Buytenhek reported on debian-arm that fortran fails
to bootstrap when building natively and I verified that the testcase also
se
--- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-23 17:27 ---
Subject: Bug 30560
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Jan 23 17:27:22 2007
New Revision: 121083
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=121083
Log:
2007-01-23 Richard Guenther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR
--- Comment #2 from supermar at gmx dot de 2007-01-23 17:22 ---
The uncompressed preprocessed source is 1,7MB (unless I'm doing something wrong
here, it's just the -E flag to the usual compiler call, right?).
I uploaded it to http://data.marssoft.de/attachment-bug-30558.bz2
Thanks.
-
--- Comment #14 from hjl at lucon dot org 2007-01-23 17:22 ---
With revision 121082, I still got
cc1: warning/export/build/gnu/gcc/build-ia64-linux/./prev-gcc/xgcc
-B/export/build/gnu/gcc/build-ia64-linux/./prev-gcc/
-B/usr/gcc-4.3/ia64-unknown-linux-gnu/bin/ -c -DUSE_LIBUNWIND_EXCEP
--- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-23 17:09 ---
The testsuite is fixed by the following which should be safe because we're
adding the path of $host_gnat* to PATH first.
Index: run_acats
===
--- run_a
I have
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 12 Jan 22 14:54 /usr/bin/gnatchop -> gnatchop-4.1
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 285224 Nov 25 12:24 /usr/bin/gnatchop-4.1
calling
> gnatchop x.adb
works as expected, calling
> gnatchop-4.1 x.adb
does not (PR29127), and
> /usr/bin/gnatchop x.adb
doesn't work either
--- Comment #13 from martin at mpa-garching dot mpg dot de 2007-01-23
16:53 ---
Could this be an enable-checking issue?
I'm only seeing the problem when configuring with "--enable-checking=release",
otherwise the compiler bootstraps fine.
This is on i686-pc-linux-gnu.
(I also have
exp
--- Comment #14 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-23 16:37
---
Subject: Bug 30541
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Jan 23 16:37:09 2007
New Revision: 121082
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=121082
Log:
2007-01-23 Richard Guenther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-23 16:27 ---
Can you attach the preprocessed source?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30558
--- Comment #5 from mueller at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-23 16:26 ---
fortran seems to bootstrap now.
--
mueller at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-23 16:25 ---
This should be fixed with
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-01/msg01728.html I think.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30559
--- Comment #1 from dcb314 at hotmail dot com 2007-01-23 16:13 ---
Created an attachment (id=12938)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=12938&action=view)
C source code
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30559
I just tried to compile Suse Linux package libnasl-2.2.6-40
with the new GNU C compiler version 4.3 snapshot 20070119.
I used compiler flag -O3. The compiler appeared to hang
for more than 30 minutes when compiling source code file regex.c.
I tried compiling the same file with the same compiler a
--- Comment #5 from charlet at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-23 16:10 ---
<<
Is the file placed in srcdir? If not, it's *right* to generate the file on
every stage.
>>
Fair enough. Then there's nothing to fix or improve here.
Arno
--
charlet at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
--- Comment #12 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-23 16:06
---
Two, I don't see any warning from cp/parser.c at all.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #11 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-23 16:04
---
For one your resolve.c patch is incorrect, see PR 30549.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #10 from hjl at lucon dot org 2007-01-23 16:02 ---
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-01/msg01882.html
works for me with revision 121081.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30510
--- Comment #4 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2007-01-23 16:02 ---
Is the file placed in srcdir? If not, it's *right* to generate the file on
every stage.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30556
--- Comment #9 from hjl at lucon dot org 2007-01-23 16:00 ---
-r121081 fails here too.
--
hjl at lucon dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED
The following small program gives an segmentation fault when compiled like
this:
extgccsrc> g++ -Wall -fopenmp -O2 -I$POLDEST/ext/include -L$POLDEST/ext/lib
-otest test.cc -lblitz -lgomp -lm
test2.cc: In function int main():
test2.cc:7: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault
When removing t
--- Comment #8 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-23 15:57 ---
(In reply to comment #7)
>
> * PR 12242
> * PR 27975
> * PR 12242
This should have been:
* PR 12242
* PR 27975
* PR 30357
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28236
--- Comment #7 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-23 15:55 ---
(In reply to comment #6)
>
> an assignment of int to enum produces an error,
> so how ( in defined non-hax0r way ) enum can be any integer?
> if it can be, then what's difference between enum and int?
Undefined behavi
--- Comment #8 from pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu 2007-01-23 15:50
---
Subject: Re: [4.3 Regression] Gcc failed to bootstrap
>
>
>
> --- Comment #7 from mueller at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-23 15:47
> ---
> which revision is that? -r121081 fails here
revision 12105
1 - 100 of 140 matches
Mail list logo