--- Comment #6 from spop at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-11 19:49 ---
Fixed.
--
spop at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #6 from spop at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-11 19:50 ---
Fixed.
--
spop at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #5 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-11 19:52 ---
Fixed.
--
jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #4 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-11 19:53 ---
Fixed.
--
jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-11 19:55 ---
I think it's not specific to that project though.
It is specific to that project as mingw32ce target does not exist in the
mainline of GCC. Unless you are reproduce the failure in the arm-wince-pe
target.
--
--- Comment #8 from spop at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-11 20:04 ---
Fixed.
--
spop at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #3 from tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-11 20:15 ---
This is a C bug, not a preprocessor bug, so I'm reassigning.
I suppose that it is really a documentation bug, but I didn't see a
category for that.
--
tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What
--- Comment #17 from tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-11 20:18 ---
It would be really great if someone would update the sourceware.org
bugzilla at the same time, so we could run a single version on the machine.
--
tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What
--- Comment #18 from LpSolit at netscape dot net 2010-02-11 20:23 ---
(In reply to comment #17)
It would be really great if someone would update the sourceware.org
bugzilla at the same time, so we could run a single version on the machine.
Wow, http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/ runs
--- Comment #7 from matt at use dot net 2010-02-11 20:36 ---
Should this fix also be backported to 4.4? I'll test your fix this weekend.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42930
--- Comment #19 from dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-11 20:44
---
Subject: Re: Upgrade gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla to Bugzilla 3.4.5
It has the security patch ;)
None of this would have been a big deal if it hadn't taken bugzilla 10
years to decide on custom fields ;)
THe main
--- Comment #2 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-11 20:45 ---
If you cannot reproduce this problem on a target that exist in the official
FSF GCC release, please close this PR as INVALID and contact the people you got
your compiler from (and while at it -- please ask them to
--- Comment #8 from spop at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-11 20:56 ---
I wouldn't recommend to backport this to 4.4, as Graphite in 4.4 has a
completely different structure.
Sebastian
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42930
--- Comment #2 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-11 20:57 ---
Should be fixed by
http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=156720
on the trunk and
http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=156721
on the 4.4 branch.
--
jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
--- Comment #20 from LpSolit at netscape dot net 2010-02-11 20:58 ---
(In reply to comment #19)
None of this would have been a big deal if it hadn't taken bugzilla 10
years to decide on custom fields ;)
No comment! :-D
THe main changes in both bugzilla is to remove the
--- Comment #21 from LpSolit at netscape dot net 2010-02-11 21:03 ---
About merging both Bugzilla installations into a single one, the problem is
about bug IDs. They would conflict.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43011
--- Comment #22 from tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-11 21:05 ---
Yes, I think we should not merge the databases.
All I meant was that we should have a single version of the code running.
And, when upgrading, upgrade both instances at the same time.
--
--- Comment #23 from LpSolit at netscape dot net 2010-02-11 21:08 ---
(In reply to comment #22)
All I meant was that we should have a single version of the code running.
That's doable, see
http://www.bugzilla.org/docs/tip/en/html/multiple-bz-dbs.html.
Can someone confirm this bug? :)
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Last
--- Comment #9 from lucabon at interfree dot it 2010-02-11 21:14 ---
I fully compiled ecj1 with:
gcj --main=org.eclipse.jdt.internal.compiler.batch.GCCMain -o ecj1 ecj.jar
and now it works fine (and very quickly!)
So, the problem seems to be in 64bit gij (java bytecode interpreter),
--- Comment #3 from danny dot backx at scarlet dot be 2010-02-11 21:43
---
I'm one of the arm-mingw32ce maintainers.
I'll try to reproduce in arm-wince-pe if that makes you feel better.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43047
--- Comment #2 from schaub-johannes at web dot de 2010-02-11 23:28 ---
I also think the code is valid. In this case though, there is the complication
that no hiding takes place: The qualified name lookup of X::m for namespace
members says in 3.4.3.2/2: using-directives are ignored in
--- Comment #3 from schaub-johannes at web dot de 2010-02-11 23:39 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
I also think the code is valid. In this case though, there is the complication
that no hiding takes place [...]
Wasn't aware that this is also a case of hiding, but 3.3.10 about hiding
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-11 23:44 ---
It does not hang for me but it is definitely much slower with -g:
variable tracking : 57.85 (77%) usr 0.69 (39%) sys 58.60 (77%) wall
22951 kB ( 6%) ggc
Note this with checking enabled. So I don't know
--- Comment #5 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-02-11 23:52
---
Feedback not forthcoming. If you have a self-contained reproducer for gcc4.4.x,
please re-open, thanks.
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #30 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-02-11 23:54
---
I'm looking for an update on its status: how do we stand? What is still
missing? Thanks in advance.
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #31 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2010-02-11 23:56 ---
I think it's fixed?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36101
--- Comment #32 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-02-12 00:03
---
Yes, that was also my guess. If somebody disagrees please explain and re-open,
thanks a lot.
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #9 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-02-12 00:08
---
Gaby, any chance you can give me some guidance about this issue? What do you
think should we do now? The PR remained in limbo for way too much time, in my
opinion. Thanks in advance.
--
paolo dot carlini
--- Comment #10 from gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2010-02-12 00:20
---
Subject: Re: Strange behaviour of valarray::apply method
On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 6:08 PM, paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com
gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org wrote:
--- Comment #9 from paolo dot carlini at
--- Comment #11 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-02-12 00:22
---
Thanks. Thus, would you support closing this as WONTFIX?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9679
--- Comment #10 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2010-02-12 01:18
---
It failed at run-time on Linux/ia32:
FAIL: gcc.dg/graphite/pr43012.c execution test
--
hjl dot tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-12 05:07
---
Might as well confirm this one.
--
jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
101 - 133 of 133 matches
Mail list logo
