--- Comment #1 from tbm at cyrius dot com 2006-11-10 08:24 ---
Created an attachment (id=12586)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=12586action=view)
preprocessed source
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29794
--- Comment #2 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-10 08:25 ---
(In reply to comment #1)
14.6.3.3 Association of scalar data objects
...snip...
A storage unit shall not be explicitly initialized more than once in a program.
Explicit initialization overrides default initialization,
--- Comment #6 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2006-11-10 08:29 ---
I'm going to commit this to 4.2 after regtesting.
--
bonzini at gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from uros at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-10 08:46 ---
Subject: Bug 29777
Author: uros
Date: Fri Nov 10 08:45:47 2006
New Revision: 118649
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=118649
Log:
PR target/29777
* config/i386/sse.md
--- Comment #46 from christian dot joensson at gmail dot com 2006-11-10
09:08 ---
(In reply to comment #45)
Created an attachment (id=12575)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=12575action=view) [edit]
Linker fix for !HAVE_COMDAT_GROUP breakage
Successfully tested
--- Comment #3 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-10 09:21 ---
I suppose we should look at RTL loop invariant motion to hoist the shift
because we should have more precise information there.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #2 from franke dot daniel at gmail dot com 2006-11-10 09:46
---
Proposed patch, including a testcase:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2006-11/msg00293.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29759
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot
|
The german translation reads:
virtuelle Deklaration einer äußeren Klasse
Which is virtual declaration of an outer class
in english. The german message should read
Schlüsselwort 'virtual' ausserhalb einer Klassendeklaration
(eng. Keyword 'virtual' outside a class declaration).
--
--- Comment #7 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-10 10:40 ---
4.0.3 works.
VN in set_value_handle sets a TREE_ANN_COMMON on the CONST_DECL of C.1346.
With
-fno-tree-pre -fno-tree-fre we get a different ICE:
Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault.
--- Comment #2 from ubizjak at gmail dot com 2006-11-10 10:54 ---
(In reply to comment #0)
The Test instruction applied to the rCX register followed by a Jump if Zero
with an 8-bit displacement can be replaced by a single JCXZ/JECXZ/JRCXZ
The problem is in with an 8-bit displacement.
jecxz .L4
.space 128
callabort
.L4:
leave
ret
.size blah, .-blah
.ident GCC: (GNU) 4.3.0 20061110 (experimental)
.section.note.GNU-stack,,@progbits
You can try to assemble this...
--
ubizjak at gmail dot com changed
extern C void abort(void);
unsigned bar(void) { return 32768;}
void foobar (unsigned u) { if (u != (32768 | 65536)) abort (); }
const char *name (void) { return QPopupMenu; }
int main()
{
unsigned nStyle = bar ();
const char *pClassName = name ();
if (__builtin_strcmp (QPopupMenu,
--- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-10 13:01 ---
SVN head r117970 fails as well as current 4.1 head.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-10 13:10 ---
Shorter testcase for gcc.c-torture/execute:
extern void abort(void);
unsigned int bar(void) { return 32768; }
int main()
{
unsigned int nStyle = bar ();
if (nStyle 32768)
nStyle |= 65536;
if (nStyle !=
--- Comment #3 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-10 13:28 ---
combine combines
(insn 10 8 11 2 (parallel [
(set (reg:SI 121)
(and:SI (reg/v:SI 119 [ nStyle ])
(const_int 32768 [0x8000])))
(clobber (scratch:CC))
--- Comment #7 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2006-11-10 13:44 ---
Subject: Bug 29726
Author: bonzini
Date: Fri Nov 10 13:44:40 2006
New Revision: 118653
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=118653
Log:
gcc:
2006-11-09 Serge Belyshev [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR
--- Comment #8 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2006-11-10 13:45 ---
committed to all affected branches
--
bonzini at gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Hi,
-O2 gives wrong results. Assingment to a variable (rho) directly affects
value of another (oldrho). Look at the code at the end of the message (it's
modified from the *.102t.final_cleanup of a fortran code, in case you wonder).
gcc-version:
Using built-in specs.
Target: i686-pc-linux-gnu
--- Comment #4 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-10 14:35 ---
/* Optimize away if (x C) x |= C and similar bit manipulation
transformations. */
static int
noce_try_bitop (struct noce_if_info *if_info)
{
...
/* ??? We could also handle AND here. */
if (GET_CODE
--- Comment #5 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-10 15:01
---
In case someone is still doubtful. :-)
--
ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #13 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2006-11-10
15:20 ---
Subject: Re: jc1: out of memory allocating 4072 bytes after a total of
708630224 bytes
Subject: Re: jc1: out of memory allocating 4072 bytes after a total of
708630224 bytes
Can you try the
--- Comment #47 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2006-11-10
15:23 ---
Subject: Re: [4.3 regression] ext/bitmap_allocator/check_allocate_max_size.cc
execution test
Things are still broken on hppa-linux.
I have a fix (in the linker) for the !HAVE_COMDAT_GROUP breakage
--- Comment #6 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-10 15:45 ---
Note that we still cannot do this transformation on the tree-level. There were
some patches for that though:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-08/msg00390.html
--
--- Comment #7 from matz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-10 15:47 ---
Just from looking at various places which handle ZERO_EXTRACT this seems to
by used highly inconsistent. E.g.:
rtlanal:nonzero_bits1: Doesn't look at BITS_BIG_ENDIAN or BYTES_BIG_ENDIAN at
all, but does use the
--- Comment #14 from amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-10 15:48
---
Created an attachment (id=12587)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=12587action=view)
testsuite patch
This patch is needed additionally for the patch from #11.
--
--- Comment #8 from matz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-10 15:51 ---
At least this patch fixes the bug at hand, but I'm sceptical if by chance or
for real:
Index: ifcvt.c
===
--- ifcvt.c (revision 118648)
+++ ifcvt.c
--- Comment #2 from fche at redhat dot com 2006-11-10 16:04 ---
As shown by MUDFLAP_OPTIONS=-viol-gdb, the deallocation is occurring
during the pthread exit process, and relates to dlopen's thread-local
variables.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28578
--- Comment #9 from schwab at suse dot de 2006-11-10 16:27 ---
(In reply to comment #7)
combine.c:find_split_point: When the destination is a zero_extract, it does
adjust the bitpos when BITS_BIG_ENDIAN, but it doesn't look at
BYTES_BIT_ENDIAN at all.
I think this is ok, because
--- Comment #19 from p dot van-hoof at qub dot ac dot uk 2006-11-10 16:33
---
The reduced testcases listed previously in this thread indeed work correctly on
the mainline, but a real C++ program that I tested still spewed thousands of
violations, although valgrind could not find
--- Comment #20 from p dot van-hoof at qub dot ac dot uk 2006-11-10 16:35
---
Created an attachment (id=12588)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=12588action=view)
test case mentioned in Comment #19
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19319
--- Comment #10 from matz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-10 16:48 ---
Yes, I think all uses in combine.c are okay. In addition also the occurrence
in rtlanal.c is okay, as it doesn't use the bitpos, but the width in bits
to generate the mask, I just misread that part. I now looked at
--- Comment #4 from patchapp at dberlin dot org 2006-11-10 17:04 ---
Subject: Bug number PR29066
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/2006-11/msg00103.html
--
--- Comment #7 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-10 17:08 ---
Subject: Bug 29539
Author: pault
Date: Fri Nov 10 17:08:11 2006
New Revision: 118658
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=118658
Log:
2006-11-10 Paul Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR
--- Comment #5 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-10 17:08 ---
Subject: Bug 29634
Author: pault
Date: Fri Nov 10 17:08:11 2006
New Revision: 118658
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=118658
Log:
2006-11-10 Paul Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR
--- Comment #5 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-10 17:13 ---
Fixed on trunk and 4.2.
It will be fixed on 4.1 just as soon as I catch up with myself.
Paul
--
pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #8 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-10 17:14 ---
Fixed on trunk and 4.2.
It will be fixed on 4.1 just as soon as I catch up with myself.
Paul
--
pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #6 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-10 17:15 ---
Fixed on trunk and 4.2.
It will be fixed on 4.1 just as soon as I catch up with myself.
Paul
--
pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #5 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-10 17:15 ---
Fixed on trunk and 4.2.
It will be fixed on 4.1 just as soon as I catch up with myself.
Paul
--
pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #6 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-10 17:22 ---
Subject: Bug 29315
Author: pault
Date: Fri Nov 10 17:21:57 2006
New Revision: 118659
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=118659
Log:
2006-11-10 Paul Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR fortran/29315
Currently
use foo
use bar
produces:
call foo
1
Error: Name 'foo' at (1) is an ambiguous reference to 'foo' from module 'm_foo'
Expected as NAG f95:
Error: Symbol FOO found both in module M_FOO and in M_BAR detected at CALL FOO.
--
Summary: More informative message if a
--
burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |burnus at gcc dot gnu dot
|dot org
--- Comment #15 from amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-10 17:26
---
Created an attachment (id=12589)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=12589action=view)
current softfp patch
I've been able to reproduce the 'does not satisfy contraint' ICE using
-O2 xxx.i -w
--- Comment #11 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-10 17:28
---
This is a regression because I know that code is new, Roger added it
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #12 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-10 17:31
---
PR 9814.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
--- Comment #12 from aldot at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-10 17:34 ---
untake it since Brooks was faster in testing it.
See http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2006-11/msg00221.html
that added -fmax-errors
--
aldot at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #3 from fche at redhat dot com 2006-11-10 17:43 ---
Some more details.
The data value in question comes from an allocation due to dlerror(),
performed during __mf_init()'s lookup of inteposed dynamic symbols.
Since mudflap is still in __mf_starting_p state, dlerror's
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-10 17:46 ---
You should report this to the translation team rather than here.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29796
--- Comment #1 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-10 18:16 ---
Subject: Bug 29454
Author: burnus
Date: Fri Nov 10 18:15:39 2006
New Revision: 118661
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=118661
Log:
2006-11-10 Tobias Burnus [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR
--- Comment #9 from roger at eyesopen dot com 2006-11-10 18:33 ---
Thanks Paolo! Your machine must be faster than mine. My bootstrap and
regression test against the 4.2 branch has only just finished. :-)
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29726
--- Comment #4 from fche at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-10 18:42 ---
Subject: Bug 28578
Author: fche
Date: Fri Nov 10 18:42:28 2006
New Revision: 118662
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=118662
Log:
2006-11-10 Frank Ch. Eigler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR
--- Comment #5 from fche at redhat dot com 2006-11-10 18:43 ---
The committed patch appears to work around this problem.
--
fche at redhat dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from Andreas dot Schallenberg at Eurobild dot com
2006-11-10 19:03 ---
I haven't found a bug database or mailing list for
a translation team. Could you point me there?
Any URL to go ahead?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29796
--- Comment #1 from laurent at guerby dot net 2006-11-10 19:21 ---
Confirmed on 4.1.1, 4.1.2 and 4.0.3:
$ gcc -c -O3 -gnatVa iterate_moves.adb
+===GNAT BUG DETECTED==+
| 4.1.1 (x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu) GCC error:
--- Comment #1 from laurent at guerby dot net 2006-11-10 19:26 ---
Hi, your code gets a proper error message with GCC 4.0 and above:
$ gcc -c permutations.adb
permutations.adb:68:59: invalid index constraint
So I suggest updating your compiler (lots of work is put in better error
--- Comment #5 from laurent at guerby dot net 2006-11-10 19:32 ---
Confirmed with gcc version 4.2.0 20061020 (experimental) on x86_64-linux
$ H=.../gcc/ada
$ gcc -c -fprefetch-loop-arrays -gnatpg -gnata -g0 -O1 -fno-inline -I$H
$H/a-except.adb
raised STORAGE_ERROR : stack overflow
--- Comment #13 from roger at eyesopen dot com 2006-11-10 19:41 ---
Grr. Yep, Michael's BITS_BIG_ENDIAN test looks to be the correct thing. The
effect of BITS_BIG_ENDIAN on sign_extract and zero_extract is documented in
rtl.texi. Is anyone bootstrapping and regression testing this
--- Comment #6 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-10 20:46 ---
The latest patch is at:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-10/msg01030.html
Problems:
- variable name missing
- line number is off-by-one
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27588
--- Comment #2 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-10 21:06 ---
Subject: Bug 29758
Author: pault
Date: Fri Nov 10 21:06:42 2006
New Revision: 118664
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=118664
Log:
2006-11-10 Paul Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR fortran/29758
*
--- Comment #5 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-10 21:52 ---
Subject: Bug 29392
Author: pault
Date: Fri Nov 10 21:52:00 2006
New Revision: 118666
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=118666
Log:
2006-11-10 Paul Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Backport from
--- Comment #12 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-10 21:52 ---
Subject: Bug 29216
Author: pault
Date: Fri Nov 10 21:52:00 2006
New Revision: 118666
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=118666
Log:
2006-11-10 Paul Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Backport from
--- Comment #5 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-10 21:52 ---
Subject: Bug 29641
Author: pault
Date: Fri Nov 10 21:52:00 2006
New Revision: 118666
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=118666
Log:
2006-11-10 Paul Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Backport from
--- Comment #3 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-10 21:52 ---
Subject: Bug 29314
Author: pault
Date: Fri Nov 10 21:52:00 2006
New Revision: 118666
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=118666
Log:
2006-11-10 Paul Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Backport from
--- Comment #6 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-10 21:52 ---
Subject: Bug 29371
Author: pault
Date: Fri Nov 10 21:52:00 2006
New Revision: 118666
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=118666
Log:
2006-11-10 Paul Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Backport from
--- Comment #8 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-10 21:52 ---
Subject: Bug 29387
Author: pault
Date: Fri Nov 10 21:52:00 2006
New Revision: 118666
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=118666
Log:
2006-11-10 Paul Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Backport from
--- Comment #22 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-10 21:52 ---
Subject: Bug 24518
Author: pault
Date: Fri Nov 10 21:52:00 2006
New Revision: 118666
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=118666
Log:
2006-11-10 Paul Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Backport from
--- Comment #11 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-10 21:52 ---
Subject: Bug 29565
Author: pault
Date: Fri Nov 10 21:52:00 2006
New Revision: 118666
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=118666
Log:
2006-11-10 Paul Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Backport from
--- Comment #8 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-10 21:52 ---
Subject: Bug 29490
Author: pault
Date: Fri Nov 10 21:52:00 2006
New Revision: 118666
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=118666
Log:
2006-11-10 Paul Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Backport from
--- Comment #3 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-10 22:38 ---
As FX wrote in an email, a more-detailed error message can not be given with
the current method: at present the error string is constructed at compile time
via asprintf, but then the extend of the array might not be
--- Comment #7 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-10 22:41 ---
Mine.
--
burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|fxcoudert
Currently one gets for
Var(1)%Array(k) = k
the error:
out of bounds for array 'var'
sunf95 writes:
Subscript number 1 has value 11 in array 'ARRAY'
I think the output of SUN is more correct; best would be of cause:
'var%array'
Test case: bnd11 of
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-10 22:59 ---
Mine.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #21 from ppluzhnikov at charter dot net 2006-11-10 23:00
---
I was going to say the same thing, but p.van-hoof beat me to it.
Here is another trivial test case that shows 1 violation:
// Reduced from ex02-04.cpp from STL Tutorial and Reference Guide
#include string
using
--- Comment #22 from ppluzhnikov at charter dot net 2006-11-10 23:30
---
I missed '#include map' in comment 21 above (sorry for cut/paste error).
As I said in comment 16, this problem isn't limited to C++ code either.
Instrument gmake-3.81, and you'll get 100,000+ violations
--
--- Comment #2 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-10 23:58 ---
Subject: Bug 29454
Author: burnus
Date: Fri Nov 10 23:58:04 2006
New Revision: 118671
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=118671
Log:
2006-11-11 Tobias Burnus [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR
--- Comment #3 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-11 00:00 ---
Fixed in 4.3/trunk and in 4.2/branch.
If it should also be fixed in 4.1, please reopen.
--
burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-11 00:32 ---
Actually I think this bug was caused by:
2006-10-23 Rafael Avila de Espindola [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* tree.c (local_define_builtin): Replace calls to
lang_hooks.builtin_function with
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-11 00:34 ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 29779 ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-11 00:34 ---
*** Bug 29617 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-11 00:36 ---
I am going to look into this, this weekend and see why that patch caused a
difference.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29779
compile the attached testcase with -Os on arm-eabi (maybe others). Generates
the following ICE:
testcase5.i: In function 'ext3_free_blocks':
testcase5.i:22: internal compiler error: in set_lattice_value, at
tree-ssa-ccp.c:421
Please submit a full bug report,
with preprocessed source if
--- Comment #1 from rearnsha at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-11 00:43
---
Created an attachment (id=12590)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=12590action=view)
reduced test case
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29801
--
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=29801
--- Comment #8 from patchapp at dberlin dot org 2006-11-11 01:25 ---
Subject: Bug number PR27588
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/2006-11/msg00694.html
--
--- Comment #14 from debian-gcc at lists dot debian dot org 2006-11-11
02:11 ---
the PR28651 testcase fails on the gcc-4.1-branch 20061110 on powerpc-linux and
amd64-linux.
FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/pr28651.c execution, -O0
FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/pr28651.c execution, -O1
--- Comment #15 from debian-gcc at lists dot debian dot org 2006-11-11
02:12 ---
a regression compared to 4.1 20061028
Matthias
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28651
--- Comment #16 from roger at eyesopen dot com 2006-11-11 02:19 ---
A patch was posted by Jason, here
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-10/msg00566.html
--
roger at eyesopen dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from howarth at nitro dot med dot uc dot edu 2006-11-11
05:45 ---
I noticed this issue tonight while doing a make check on a build of
powerpc64-apple-darwin8 in the libgomp testsuite. A typical set of failures
include...
FAIL: libgomp.c++/ctor-1.C -O0 (test for excess
88 matches
Mail list logo
