http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49359
Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49297
--- Comment #5 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-06-10
06:10:10 UTC ---
*** Bug 49359 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49360
Summary: generate wrong logic code
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: critical
Priority: P3
Component: c
AssignedTo: unassig...@gcc.gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49360
Wu Xingbo wuxb45 at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||mipsel-gnu-linux
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49360
Wu Xingbo wuxb45 at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49318
--- Comment #4 from irar at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-06-10 07:19:31 UTC ---
Author: irar
Date: Fri Jun 10 07:19:28 2011
New Revision: 174891
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=174891
Log:
PR tree-optimization/49318
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48459
--- Comment #10 from Anitha Boyapati anitha.boyapati at atmel dot com
2011-06-10 07:37:19 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #9)
(In reply to comment #8)
I agree. But this does not fully solve the problem either.
INCOMING_RETURN_ADDR_RTX is being
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49344
--- Comment #8 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr 2011-06-10
08:32:37 UTC ---
With the patch in comment #3 applied on top of revision 174846 I have been able
to update powerpc-apple-darwin9 (long update, but not a full
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49324
--- Comment #6 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-06-10
08:35:02 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
The following should partially help
It does - but it also leads to two test suite failures:
gfortran.dg/alloc_comp_assign_5.f90 -
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42621
Jaak Ristioja jaak at ristioja dot ee changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jaak at ristioja
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42621
--- Comment #13 from Jaak Ristioja jaak at ristioja dot ee 2011-06-10
08:52:47 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #12)
PPS: As noted by other, this bug is likely a duplicate to bug 39284 and bug
43868.
As noted by others, this bug is likely a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43686
--- Comment #3 from Jaak Ristioja jaak at ristioja dot ee 2011-06-10 09:19:49
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
Duplicate of PR42621?
And probably a duplicate of bug 39284 also.
(In reply to comment #2)
yes. It's definitely the same issue.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49358
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49357
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.7.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49355
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49354
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49352
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49350
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49330
--- Comment #7 from Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-06-10
09:50:28 UTC ---
The alias.c machinery is clearly based on the fundamental assumption of pointer
arithmetics, i.e. that you aren't allowed to compute a difference unless
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49330
--- Comment #8 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-06-10
09:59:06 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
The alias.c machinery is clearly based on the fundamental assumption of
pointer
arithmetics, i.e. that you aren't allowed to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49355
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-06-10
10:00:00 UTC ---
it's only valid in C++0x
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49351
--- Comment #2 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-06-10
10:00:58 UTC ---
Needs quite some more memory for me ... (doesn't fit in my 3GB box).
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48660
--- Comment #3 from Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se 2011-06-10
10:04:52 UTC ---
Created attachment 24484
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24484
reduced test case
With the massively reduced test case and r154736 built as
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47599
--- Comment #8 from Bastien ROUCARIES roucaries.bastien+bugs at gmail dot com
2011-06-10 10:14:06 UTC ---
Any news of this bug ?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41209
Bastien ROUCARIES roucaries.bastien+bugs at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35827
Bastien ROUCARIES roucaries.bastien+bugs at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49352
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49351
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-06-10
10:39:58 UTC ---
you're gonna need a bigger boat
compiles ok on a 64-bit box, physical memory usage nears 4GB
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49330
--- Comment #9 from Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-06-10
10:55:53 UTC ---
Creating that pointer is perfectly valid - you are allowed to cast a
pointer to an uintptr_t and back, which is what the code does (in some
obfuscated
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49361
Summary: [4.7 Regression] Huge 470.lbm regression
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49361
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.7.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49344
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49330
--- Comment #10 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-06-10
11:13:53 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #9)
Creating that pointer is perfectly valid - you are allowed to cast a
pointer to an uintptr_t and back, which is what the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49361
--- Comment #1 from William J. Schmidt wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-06-10
11:23:16 UTC ---
OK, I'll clean this up.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49343
--- Comment #3 from Martin Jambor jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-06-10
11:23:32 UTC ---
Apparently build_ref_for_model has to calculate offsets of
COMPONENT_REFs with component_ref_field_offset just like
get_ref_base_and_extent does in order to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49361
--- Comment #2 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de
2011-06-10 11:31:07 UTC ---
On Fri, 10 Jun 2011, wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49361
--- Comment #1 from William J.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49362
Summary: Arm Neon intrinsic types not correctly interpreted by
compiler.
Product: gcc
Version: 4.4.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49362
--- Comment #1 from mark.pupilli at dyson dot com 2011-06-10 11:38:40 UTC ---
There is a typo -
'treats uint32_t as a single register and not an array of 4 x uint32_t'
should read:
'treats uint32x4_t as a single register and not an array of 4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49361
--- Comment #3 from William J. Schmidt wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-06-10
11:41:15 UTC ---
OK, I won't clean this up. ;)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49352
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-06-10
11:44:03 UTC ---
Created attachment 24486
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24486
gcc47-pr49352.patch
Rough patch I've been playing with. There is no point
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49363
Summary: [feature request] multiple target attribute (and
runtime dispatching based on cpuid)
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49349
Alexander Monakov amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49361
--- Comment #4 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-06-10
12:19:32 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri Jun 10 12:19:30 2011
New Revision: 174903
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=174903
Log:
2011-06-10 Richard
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49344
--- Comment #10 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-06-10
12:18:59 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri Jun 10 12:18:55 2011
New Revision: 174902
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=174902
Log:
2011-06-10 Richard
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49352
Ira Rosen irar at il dot ibm.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||irar at il dot ibm.com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49344
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49363
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49324
--- Comment #7 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-06-10
12:45:13 UTC ---
Submitted patch, which fixes - except of RESHAPE - the issue of comment 0 and
comment 3:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2011-06/msg00095.html
TODO: See
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49322
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49352
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #24486|0 |1
is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49352
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-06-10
13:08:13 UTC ---
Actually, should vect_is_slp_reduction be called at all if check_reduction
is false? I think without check_reduction e.g. nothing ensures that code is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49352
--- Comment #7 from Ira Rosen irar at il dot ibm.com 2011-06-10 13:30:52 UTC
---
(In reply to comment #6)
Actually, should vect_is_slp_reduction be called at all if check_reduction
is false? I think without check_reduction e.g. nothing ensures
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49351
--- Comment #4 from Mike Jarvis michael at jarvis dot net 2011-06-10 14:02:45
UTC ---
That's a bit odd. The final function in the .ii file consists of two function
calls. If I delete either one of these, the compile succeeds and only uses
about
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49351
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-06-10
14:06:19 UTC ---
a single 32-bit process won't be able to use that much
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49364
Summary: [4.7 regressions] Empty .debug_abbrev sections confuse
SGI nm
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49364
--- Comment #1 from Rainer Orth ro at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-06-10 14:14:40 UTC
---
Created attachment 24488
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24488
gcc 4.6.0 assembler output
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49364
--- Comment #2 from Rainer Orth ro at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-06-10 14:15:12 UTC
---
Created attachment 24489
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24489
gcc 4.7.0 assembler output
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49364
Rainer Orth ro at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.7.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48454
Ramana Radhakrishnan ramana at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49365
Summary: 436.cactusADM performance regression
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49365
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hjl at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49365
H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|hjl at gcc dot gnu.org |hjl.tools at gmail
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49302
--- Comment #11 from William J. Schmidt wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-06-10 15:28:52 UTC ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Fri Jun 10 15:28:46 2011
New Revision: 174912
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=174912
Log:
2011-06-10 Bill
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49302
--- Comment #12 from William J. Schmidt wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-06-10 15:33:53 UTC ---
Fixed.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49365
--- Comment #3 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-06-10
15:36:49 UTC ---
I'm trying to get my hands on it. Most code differences betweeen good and
bad rev. appear in loop array prefetching. Before aprefetch dumps differ only
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49366
Summary: pointer-to-member-function not given value in
DW_TAG_template_value_param
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41736
--- Comment #9 from Tom Tromey tromey at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-06-10 16:09:38
UTC ---
See PR 49366 as well.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48906
--- Comment #33 from Jerry DeLisle jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-06-10
16:16:19 UTC ---
The last test case I am working is fmt_g0_6.f08.
The apparent failing case is:
print (rc,g15.2), 0.995000_8
Which is resulting in 0.99 and we
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48906
--- Comment #34 from Jerry DeLisle jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-06-10
16:22:20 UTC ---
Additional note: The standard states:
Let N be the magnitude of the internal value
The internal value is to be used to determine the conversion to F
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48459
--- Comment #11 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-06-10
16:24:12 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #10)
I don't think initial_return_save() is called now. It passes the compilation
there but gets struck in other places. I think it is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48906
--- Comment #35 from Thomas Henlich thenlich at users dot sourceforge.net
2011-06-10 16:56:02 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #33)
The last test case I am working is fmt_g0_6.f08.
The apparent failing case is:
print (rc,g15.2),
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48906
--- Comment #36 from Thomas Henlich thenlich at users dot sourceforge.net
2011-06-10 17:01:34 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #34)
Additional note: The standard states:
Let N be the magnitude of the internal value
The internal value is to be
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49367
Summary: missed optimization with __restrict field
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity: trivial
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39415
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48906
--- Comment #37 from Jerry DeLisle jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-06-10
17:29:54 UTC ---
Updated patch posted for approval:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2011-06/msg00097.html
Thomas, thanks for working the Standard issues and your testing.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39684
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41769
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41138
--- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor msebor at gmail dot com 2011-06-10 17:44:47
UTC ---
Here's another test case, one that does involve slicing and where a consistent
but differently phrased warning would, IMO, be useful. Perhaps something like:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49368
Summary: __builtin_constant_p is unable to determine if a union
is constant
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49347
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49348
--- Comment #3 from Dodji Seketeli dodji at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-06-10
18:47:46 UTC ---
Candidate patch posted to
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-06/msg00873.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49366
Dodji Seketeli dodji at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49369
Summary: typeof() strips const from member when used in const
method
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49030
Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikpe at it dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49369
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-06-10
19:22:43 UTC ---
can you use typeof(this-B::member) instead?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41769
--- Comment #2 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org paolo at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-06-10 19:31:03 UTC ---
Author: paolo
Date: Fri Jun 10 19:31:00 2011
New Revision: 174927
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=174927
Log:
/cp
2011-06-10
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41769
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43088
Georg-Johann Lay gjl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49369
--- Comment #2 from shawn.bohrer at gmail dot com 2011-06-10 20:20:11 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
can you use typeof(this-B::member) instead?
Yes this works for my application, thanks for the suggestion. Surely this is
still a bug though
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26882
Georg-Johann Lay gjl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gjl at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49370
Summary: flags implemented in the specs file but undocumented
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: other
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49107
--- Comment #20 from Marc Glisse marc.glisse at normalesup dot org 2011-06-10
20:39:59 UTC ---
The patch fixes the example (thanks), but I still have trouble with the
following (and I also get a different type of failure elsewhere that I'll
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48835
--- Comment #7 from Thorsten Glaser tg at mirbsd dot org 2011-06-10 20:54:58
UTC ---
OK, so the fix is that the System.Address type must be changed in GNAT
to be handled as pointer in the GCC middle-/back-end. Is any GCC/GNAT
developer please
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49351
--- Comment #6 from Mike Jarvis michael at jarvis dot net 2011-06-10 21:04:59
UTC ---
I figured out how to install a 64 bit version of g++ on my machine, and I also
booted up the machine with 6 and 4 held down to get the 64 bit kernel.
And
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49351
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-06-10
21:10:16 UTC ---
does 'ulimit -a' show any limit on memory size?
obviously it would be good if gcc didn't use so much memory, but I did verify
that given a sufficiently beefy
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49369
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49351
--- Comment #8 from Mike Jarvis michael at jarvis dot net 2011-06-10 21:26:59
UTC ---
$ ulimit -a
core file size (blocks, -c) 0
data seg size (kbytes, -d) unlimited
file size (blocks, -f) unlimited
max locked
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49351
--- Comment #9 from Mike Jarvis michael at jarvis dot net 2011-06-10 21:47:37
UTC ---
That worked. So I guess g++ is exceeding the stack limit and crashing, not the
heap memory.
$ ulimit -aH
core file size (blocks, -c) 0
data seg size
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49369
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
99 matches
Mail list logo