--- Comment #7 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-26 08:52 ---
am not convinced the if
(done) is needed at line 2579 though. Have to think some more. Maybe try
taking the condition away and see what happens.
I don't think it's needed. I am currently testing a version
--- Comment #23 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-26 08:31 ---
Fixed on the trunk.
--
jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to
--- Comment #1 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-26 09:00
---
Index: libgfortran/generated/shape_i4.c
===
--- libgfortran/generated/shape_i4.c(revision 131856)
+++ libgfortran/generated/shape_i4.c
--- Comment #6 from Christoph_vW at reactos dot org 2008-01-26 09:51
---
I changed -Fno-strict-aliasing to -fno-strict-aliasing and the warning
disappeared.
But shouldn't -Wno-strict-aliasing suppress the warning?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34973
--- Comment #10 from dannysmith at users dot sourceforge dot net
2008-01-26 09:41 ---
Fixed.
--
dannysmith at users dot sourceforge dot net changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #9 from dannysmith at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-26 09:32
---
Subject: Bug 34970
Author: dannysmith
Date: Sat Jan 26 09:31:30 2008
New Revision: 131859
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=131859
Log:
PR target/34970
gcc
* config/i386/cygming.h
--- Comment #2 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-26 10:22
---
Subject: Bug 34981
Author: rsandifo
Date: Sat Jan 26 10:22:14 2008
New Revision: 131860
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=131860
Log:
gcc/
PR target/34981
*
--- Comment #3 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-26 10:26
---
Fixed on mainline.
--
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known
--- Comment #1 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-26 10:14
---
Mine.
--
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
bar()'s lazy-binding stub can be called twice for the following testcase
when compiled at -O2 on mips64-linux-gnu:
void bar (void);
void
foo (int n)
{
while (n--)
{
bar ();
bar ();
}
}
--
Summary: [4.2/4.3 Regression] Lazily-bound function called twice
--- Comment #6 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2008-01-26 10:09 ---
Patch at: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2008-01/msg01195.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28743
--- Comment #8 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-26 11:27 ---
Fixed for 4.3.0.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #9 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-26 11:27 ---
Subject: Bug 34235
Author: rguenth
Date: Sat Jan 26 11:26:36 2008
New Revision: 131862
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=131862
Log:
2008-01-26 Richard Guenther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Last
--- Comment #1 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-26 11:35
---
Subject: Bug 34959
Author: rsandifo
Date: Sat Jan 26 11:34:41 2008
New Revision: 131863
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=131863
Log:
gcc/
PR rtl-optimization/34959
* optabs.c
--- Comment #2 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-26 11:36
---
Patch applied.
--
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-26 11:36 ---
As usual.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|
--- Comment #7 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-26 11:37 ---
Well, yes. Which is why a testcase would be nice (like preprocessed source of
one file you see this error).
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34973
--- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-26 11:40 ---
Confirmed. Caused by the patch for PR27177. Dup of PR27177 which I will
re-open.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 27177 ***
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What
--- Comment #24 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-26 11:40
---
*** Bug 34978 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #25 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-26 11:41
---
The g++.dg/expr/cast7.C failure re-appeared with the last patch. Re-opening
the regression against 4.3.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #18 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-26 11:49 ---
(In reply to comment #17)
Cleaned up patch:
Jerry,
I found the equivalent:
if (n loop-temp_dim !integer_zerop (loop-from[n]))
loop-from[n] = gfc_index_zero_node;
This also bootstraps and regtests
--- Comment #13 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-26 11:54
---
Closing as this issue came to a halt.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-26 11:55 ---
No feedback.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #18 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-26 11:58 ---
(In reply to comment #17)
Probable patch posted in 31610
See my remark there - if we can understand it, I would feel reassured but, if
not, lets go with your version of the patch and keep this PR open as an
--- Comment #4 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-26 11:58 ---
Declaring as fixed, there have been recend valgrindings on trunk which obsolete
this issue.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #6 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-26 12:02 ---
Works for me with 4.1.3.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #7 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-26 12:03 ---
4.0.x is no longer maintained.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #10 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-26 11:56
---
Closed as fixed as of the last comment.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marcus at jet dot franken
|
--- Comment #5 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-26 12:24 ---
Created an attachment (id=15025)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=15025action=view)
unincluded, slightly reduced testcase
g++-4.3 -S t.1.cpp
t.1.cpp: In function int main():
t.1.cpp:648: error:
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
Status|WAITING |NEW
--- Comment #12 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-26 12:27
---
How is the status here?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26415
--- Comment #8 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-26 12:31 ---
We cannot help here. Please re-open if you have a testcase that we can use
to reproduce the problem and after trying the latest releases, 4.1.2 or 4.2.2.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
--- Comment #6 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-26 12:33 ---
There is not a canonical interpretation of non-optimizing within gcc. If there
is interest in such, proposals are welcome.
Closing as WONTFIX until there is consensus what should be done at -O0 and what
not.
--
--- Comment #10 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-26 12:04
---
Fixed.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #8 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-26 12:11 ---
(In reply to comment #6)
But shouldn't -Wno-strict-aliasing suppress the warning?
Yes if you actually have -Wno-strict-aliasing after -Wall.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34973
--- Comment #7 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-26 12:35 ---
Not a regression, fixed for 4.2.0.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #5 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-26 12:37 ---
I think this benchmark is dubious, it likely depends on the library and
whatnot.
Also the benchmarks are out-of-date. Closing as invalid.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-26 12:51 ---
Can you add -save-temps and attach the resulting .ii file ?
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #7 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-26 13:03 ---
Created an attachment (id=15026)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=15026action=view)
testcase scalable with cpp
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28233
--- Comment #3 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-26 13:25 ---
(In reply to comment #1)
Created an attachment (id=15024)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=15024action=view) [edit]
Test files (tar.gz). Use make
Uggghhh!
If the ONLY's i test.f90 are removed, it
--- Comment #10 from fgccbz1 at greynode dot net 2008-01-26 13:29 ---
My thanks for the fix.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34235
--
reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail|4.2.0 4.2.2 4.3.0 |4.2.0 4.2.2
Known to work||4.3.0
--- Comment #44 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-26 13:46
---
Fixed for 4.3. WONTFIX for the branches.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.3.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30209
--
reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot
|
--- Comment #6 from reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-26 14:07
---
The 4.2 branch is now also back to accepts-invalid.
This is due to the fix for PR 33959.
--
reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-26 14:08
---
The 4.2 branch is now also back to accepts-invalid.
This is due to the fix for PR 33959.
--
reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-26 14:28 ---
From the *.original dump:
atmp.2.dtype = 265;
atmp.2.dim[0].stride = 1;
atmp.2.dim[0].lbound = 0;
atmp.2.dim[0].ubound = -1;
atmp.2.data = 0B;
It is probably better to check for this
--- Comment #14 from reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-26 14:32
---
But now we accept the IMHO invalid version:
file1.c:
void foo() {}
file2.c:
void foo() {}
GCC 4.0.x used to produce an error:
file2.c:1: error: redefinition of 'foo'
file1.c:1: error: previous definition
--- Comment #15 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-26 14:35
---
Yep, a frontend problem.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #16 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-26 14:37
---
Bah, you should have opened a new PR. Anyway, this is now this new one.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #19 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2008-01-26 14:41 ---
I confirm that the ICEs are gone, however the original test case and the one in
comment #3 ouput garbage: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]@^@@[EMAIL PROTECTED]@[EMAIL
PROTECTED]@[EMAIL PROTECTED]@[EMAIL PROTECTED]@' for the
--- Comment #8 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-26 15:23 ---
Subject: Bug 34887
Author: tkoenig
Date: Sat Jan 26 15:22:59 2008
New Revision: 131864
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=131864
Log:
2008-01-26 Thomas Koenig [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR
--- Comment #9 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-26 15:24 ---
Fixed on trunk.
Closing.
--
tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-26 16:22
---
The problem first occurs at the 8192 boundary at which point we do not write
b
program main
write (10,'(t8193,a,t1,a)') 'b', 'a'
end
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34974
--- Comment #3 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-26 16:23
---
Confirming
--
jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #12 from dje at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-26 16:27 ---
Subject: Bug 34794
Author: dje
Date: Sat Jan 26 16:26:27 2008
New Revision: 131865
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=131865
Log:
PR target/34794
* config.gcc: Separate AIX 5.3 from
--- Comment #13 from dje at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-26 16:28 ---
Subject: Bug 34794
Author: dje
Date: Sat Jan 26 16:28:03 2008
New Revision: 131866
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=131866
Log:
PR target/34794
* config/os/aix/os_defines.h: Define
--- Comment #20 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-26 16:37
---
Reply to comment #18:
The shape of 1 is a zero size array.
The shape of [1] is [1]
Maybe in the simplifying of the expression for ([1] + 1) the shape of 1 is
being assigned to [1] or the final simplified
--- Comment #1 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-26 17:05 ---
Subject: Bug 34965
Author: jakub
Date: Sat Jan 26 17:04:54 2008
New Revision: 131868
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=131868
Log:
PR c++/34965
* c-pretty-print.c
--- Comment #2 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-26 17:07 ---
Fixed on the trunk.
--
jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-26 17:15 ---
Also related to PR28879
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34962
--- Comment #5 from bergner at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-26 17:19 ---
Subject: Bug 34814
Author: bergner
Date: Sat Jan 26 17:18:35 2008
New Revision: 131869
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=131869
Log:
PR target/34814
* doc/tm.texi
The following (admittedly ugly) piece of code works on older gccs, and
segfaults on 4.3:
#include assert.h
#include string.h
static void something();
int main(int argc, char **argv) {
something(test);
}
static void something(const char *whatever) {
assert(!strcmp(whatever,
--- Comment #3 from reid dot madsen at tektronix dot com 2008-01-26 17:29
---
Subject: RE: GCC 3.4.6 link fails with undefined reference to .hidden symbol
__floatdidf (libgcc.a)
I now understand what was going on...
The configure script for REXX was incorrectly linking the regina.so
--- Comment #6 from bergner at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-26 17:31 ---
This is now fixed in mainline.
--
bergner at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
bergner at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.3.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34814
That error was produced while building pixie 2.2.1-1ubuntu1 on the Ubuntu build
machine iridium (https://launchpad.net/+builds/iridium). Here you can find the
complete build log.
http://launchpadlibrarian.net/11439976/buildlog_ubuntu-hardy-i386.pixie_2.2.1-1ubuntu1_FAILEDTOBUILD.txt.gz
--
With revision 131864, on Linux/Intel64, I got
Executing on host:
/export/build/gnu/gcc/build-x86_64-linux/gcc/testsuite/g++/../../g++
-B/export/build/gnu/gcc/build-x86_64-linux/gcc/testsuite/g++/../../
/export/gnu/src/gcc/gcc/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/expr/cast7.C -nostdinc++
--- Comment #1 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2008-01-26 18:02 ---
Revision 131827 is OK.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34984
--- Comment #2 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2008-01-26 18:07 ---
Revision 131849 is OK and revision 131855 is bad. It looks like revision
131855:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2008-01/msg00616.html
may be the cause.
--
hjl dot tools at gmail dot com changed:
--- Comment #26 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-26 18:38
---
*** Bug 34984 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-26 18:38 ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 27177 ***
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-26 18:40 ---
We need a preprocessed testcase and information on how you invoked gcc. Also
try a newer version than 4.2.0.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-26 18:50 ---
We seem to use local calling conventions for emitting the body of something,
but
at the call site we pass arguments via the stack.
P1 until we know more about this.
Reduced testcase:
extern void abort (void);
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-26 18:57 ---
Oh and how much memory you have too?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34983
--- Comment #17 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-26 18:59
---
That is PR 23104.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31529
--- Comment #21 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-26 19:01
---
Subject: Bug 31610
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Sat Jan 26 19:01:07 2008
New Revision: 131873
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=131873
Log:
2008-01-26 Jerry DeLisle [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR
--- Comment #18 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-26 19:04
---
Changing this back to the bug about the ICE.
But now we accept the IMHO invalid version:
This is PR 23104.
Closing this bug as fixed as the original bug was fixed and the accepts invalid
has been around for a
--- Comment #22 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-26 19:06
---
Subject: Bug 31610
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Sat Jan 26 19:05:15 2008
New Revision: 131874
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=131874
Log:
2008-01-26 Jerry DeLisle [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR
--- Comment #3 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-26 19:09 ---
Janis, can you hunt this? Thanks.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #19 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-26 19:13
---
Fixed, see PR 31610
--
jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Hello, vote for Your Country at http://thevotenation.com !
-
If you do not want to receive further mails: Write an email with the subject
\unsubscribe\ to the address: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- Comment #4 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-26 19:23 ---
So we use the local info before it is available and thus the following will
ICE:
Index: config/i386/i386.c
===
--- config/i386/i386.c (revision
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.3.0 |4.2.3
Version|4.3.0 |4.1.0
--
hjl dot tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail|4.1.0 4.2.0 |4.1.0 4.2.0 4.3.0
Target Milestone|4.1.3
--- Comment #23 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-26 19:11
---
Fixed on trunk. Leaving open for further investigation. See TODO comment in
code
--
jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-26 19:07 ---
The first time we ask, cgraph_local_info ()-local is zero, the second time it
is one.
Honza, Uros?
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #6 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-26 19:34 ---
Files still missing, from generated/*:
cshift1_*.c
eoshift1_*.c
eoshift3_*.c
matmul_*.c
reshape_*.c
shape_*.c
transpose_*.c
From intrinsic/*.c:
cshift0.c
eoshift0.c
eoshift2.c
reshape_generic.c
--- Comment #4 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-26 19:43 ---
This one is tricky.
The problem occurs because of buffering. When tabbing to
8193 in Jerry's example, we come to the end of the
buffer and flush it.
When the record is longer than the buffer length, we'll
need to
--- Comment #4 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-26 19:36 ---
This is currently bootstrapping.
$ svn diff
Index: shape.m4
===
--- shape.m4(revision 131874)
+++ shape.m4(working copy)
@@ -49,6 +49,9 @@
Exact gcc version (Fedora 8): gcc (GCC) 4.1.2 20070925 (Red Hat 4.1.2-33)
Following small code snippet:
static void remove_one(void);
static void __attribute__((__used__)) remove_one(void)
{
}
build with:
gcc -c -Wall test.c
produces following warning:
test.c:4: warning: remove_one defined
--- Comment #9 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-26 20:06 ---
The following does no longer fix PR34868 but it seems to have no regressions.
e is the expression holding the actual argument; if it is NULL it means the
argument is absent. (This is handled before, including passing
--- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-26 20:09 ---
Confirmed. Not a regression.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #13 from debian-gcc at lists dot debian dot org 2008-01-26
20:15 ---
we had successful builds for gcc-4.2 from the branch; no testresults / build
logs for gcc-4.3 yet.
Matthias
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26415
--- Comment #5 from hubicka at ucw dot cz 2008-01-26 20:19 ---
Subject: Re: [4.3 regression] calling a function with undefined parameters
causes segmentation fault at -O1 or higher
and if it is just not available (i == NULL) might give inconsistent
answers.
I will look into this.
--- Comment #10 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-26 20:45 ---
Subject: Bug 34848
Author: burnus
Date: Sat Jan 26 20:44:49 2008
New Revision: 131876
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=131876
Log:
2008-01-26 Tobias Burnus [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR
--- Comment #11 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-26 20:47 ---
FIXED on the trunk (4.3.0).
Hooray - we managed to fix this before 4.3.0 was released :-)
Thanks for the bug report!
--
burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
1 - 100 of 131 matches
Mail list logo
