--- Comment #3 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-29 06:03 ---
Subject: Bug 32483
Author: burnus
Date: Fri Jun 29 06:03:05 2007
New Revision: 126107
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=126107
Log:
2007-06-29 Tobias Burnus [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR
--- Comment #4 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-29 06:04 ---
What was status on this? I think the patch was OK.
I somehow expected that you would send also an email to the list besides the
OK in the IRC channel.
FIXED in GCC 4.3.x
--
burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #7 from patchapp at dberlin dot org 2007-06-29 06:15 ---
Subject: Bug number PR32456
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/2007-06/msg02095.html
--
--- Comment #3 from jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk 2007-06-29 07:13 ---
I'm wondering if it is still required to turn fortran testcases in the
equivalent C testcase in order to mark this kind of bugs as P1. This does seem
a bit of a waste of time... and just think about the engineers using
--prefix=/data03/vondele/gcc_4_1_branch/build --with-gmp=/data03/vondele/
--with-mpfr=/data03/vondele/ --enable-languages=c,fortran
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.1.3 20070629 (prerelease)
--
jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk changed:
What|Removed |Added
In gcc:profile.c, the variable total_num_edges_instrumented used is initialized
to 0, but never increased. Hence end_branch_prob (which gets called when one
dumps the intermediate *.profile file via the -fdump-tree-all option) always
prints Total number of instrumented edges: 0 The following
--- Comment #5 from jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk 2007-06-29 08:06 ---
works correctly with 4.0.4, so it is a regression:
gfortran -v
Using built-in specs.
Target: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
Configured with: /data03/vondele/gcc_4_0_branch/gcc/configure
--- Comment #1 from bero at arklinux dot org 2007-06-29 08:16 ---
Created an attachment (id=13804)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=13804action=view)
Preprocessed source, bzip2-ed
Attaching preprocessed source of r300_state.c
--
Mesa's r300 DRI driver produces incorrect output (garbles the display) if
r300_state.c is compiled with -ftree-vrp (-O2 -fno-tree-vrp works fine; all
files except r300_state.c can be compiled with normal -O2).
--
Summary: gcc 4.2.1 miscompiles Mesa's r300 DRI driver with -
--- Comment #16 from ubizjak at gmail dot com 2007-06-29 08:53 ---
(In reply to comment #15)
Just for the record, the only remaining x86 conversion (sse 4) is vectorized
BUILT_IN_LRINT that uses cvtpd2dq. The problem here is that n_in n_out, so
we
probably need to apply narrowing
--- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-29 08:46 ---
Can you narrow it down to a specific function?
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Example:
read '(i0)', i
1
Warning: Positive width required in format string at (1)
[2007-06-24 23:19:31] jerryd I would use gfc_notify_std instead of gfc_error
at line 849 of io.c
Turning gfc_warning into gfc_error did not work as it should. We need to do
some investagation why it
--- Comment #5 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-29 10:05 ---
Subject: Bug 32483
Author: burnus
Date: Fri Jun 29 10:05:11 2007
New Revision: 126110
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=126110
Log:
(forgot svn add in the previous commit)
2007-06-29 Tobias
--- Comment #17 from uros at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-29 10:30 ---
Subject: Bug 24659
Author: uros
Date: Fri Jun 29 10:30:06 2007
New Revision: 126111
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=126111
Log:
PR tree-optimization/24659
* tree-vect-transform.c
--- Comment #18 from ubizjak at gmail dot com 2007-06-29 10:38 ---
Fully implemented in mainline.
(BTW: A PPC maintainer should implement missing patterns for altivec as
outlined in Comment #14.)
--
ubizjak at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #14 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-29 11:25 ---
Are you planing to fix this in 4.1? Or can alternatively this PR be closed?
As no one wants to backport it and it is no regression with regards to gfortran
(4.0/4.1) and there is a released compiler (4.2.0) which
--- Comment #4 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-29 11:23 ---
The branch is open, can this be now be committed?
* PING *
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31823
--- Comment #5 from jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk 2007-06-29 11:34 ---
is this patch still OK ?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31202
--- Comment #3 from jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk 2007-06-29 11:38 ---
still failing with today's trunk
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31211
--- Comment #6 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-29 11:45
---
(In reply to comment #5)
is this patch still OK ?
The lround patch should be OK on C99 targets, but it would probably break
things on non-C99 targets, which is why I didn't submit it for formal review. I
should
I got the 'below array bounds' warning in some code and could reduce it to the
following testcase (which results in the 'above array bounds' warning). The
warning occurs with optimization level -O2 and above.
gcc version 4.3.0 20070622 (experimental)
g++-4.3 -c -W -Wall -O2 asiaab.cpp
--- Comment #10 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-29 13:43
---
Subject: Bug 32493
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri Jun 29 13:43:10 2007
New Revision: 126113
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=126113
Log:
2006-06-29 Richard Guenther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR
--- Comment #11 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-29 13:43
---
Fixed.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
--- Comment #3 from bero at arklinux dot org 2007-06-29 14:17 ---
r300SetupPixelShader()
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32544
All gnat.dg tasking tests FAIL on IRIX 5.3 since the platform lacks thread
support:
failed run-time assertion : Tasking not implemented on this configuration
FAIL: gnat.dg/curr_task.adb execution test
Instead of failing, the tests should be marked UNSUPPORTED as is done for
ACATS.
Environment:
When running the gnat.dg tests on multilib-targets (like
sparc-sun-solaris2*, i386-pc-solaris2*, or mips-sgi-irix6*), most tests for
a non-default multilib fail with confusing error messages:
Running /vol/gcc/src/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gnat.dg/dg.exp ...
Executing on host:
--- Comment #7 from kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-29 16:10 ---
(In reply to comment #6)
(In reply to comment #5)
is this patch still OK ?
The lround patch should be OK on C99 targets, but it would probably break
things on non-C99 targets, which is why I didn't submit it
--- Comment #1 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-29 16:00 ---
Note: The test cases should then be updated as well.
(Though dg-error and dg-warning are treated alike - PR30612, PR29882.)
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32545
--- Comment #19 from dorit at il dot ibm dot com 2007-06-29 16:46 ---
testing this patch for Altivec:
Index: config/rs6000/altivec.md
===
*** config/rs6000/altivec.md(revision 126053)
--- config/rs6000/altivec.md
There seems to be something inconsistent in the g++ template
instantiation.
When a template is instantiated with an argument of the same
name in two object files in which the argument type is different
(unlike their names). It appears that even though that those
instances should have been
--- Comment #5 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-29 17:48
---
Geoff, would you please look at this?
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30194
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30905
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30930
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30840
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30795
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30731
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30572
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30564
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P5
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30453
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30394
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30392
--- Comment #6 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-29 17:47
---
If the fix for this has been checked in, can we close this PR?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30058
--- Comment #1 from opichals at seznam dot cz 2007-06-29 17:45 ---
Created an attachment (id=13805)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=13805action=view)
Reproduction code and Makefile printing out results of the test
The log files gcc-4.1.0.make.log and
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29731
--- Comment #16 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-29 17:46
---
If this can no longer be reproduced, let's close the bug.
(I believe the assertion in question is important. If the gimplifier is ever
making copies of classes with assignment operators/copy constructors, we
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30058
--- Comment #7 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-29 17:52
---
A patch has been checked in; can this be closed now?
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #8 from hjl at lucon dot org 2007-06-29 17:57 ---
(In reply to comment #7)
A patch has been checked in; can this be closed now?
See
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31090#c16
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30735
--- Comment #16 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-29 18:00
---
This problem is reported fixed; may we close this PR?
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #5 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-29 18:01
---
Now that the patch has been checked in, can this PR be closed?
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31037
--- Comment #2 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-29 18:05
---
Nick, would you be able to look into this?
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #5 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-29 18:14
---
This patch is OK. Steve, please commit.
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from awgreynolds at earthlink dot net 2007-06-29 18:17
---
Created an attachment (id=13806)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=13806action=view)
2 include files and 1 f90
gfortran -c utility.f90
utility.f90:0: internal compiler error: Bus error
Not sure
--- Comment #11 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-29 18:17
---
I think this approach:
SET_TYPE_STRUCTURAL_EQUALITY (fulltype)
is fine in this case. Doug, would you please check that in?
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31651
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31507
--- Comment #17 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-06-29 18:09 ---
Great, let's close it, then.
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31439
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31081
--- Comment #9 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-29 17:59
---
This is reported fixed; can we close this PR?
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31434
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31441
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31625
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31674
--- Comment #2 from ro at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-29 18:26 ---
Correction: this is a regression in 4.3.
--
ro at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31780
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32032
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32121
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32125
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32126
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32127
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32135
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32183
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P5
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32230
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P5
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32238
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32295
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32296
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32300
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32303
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32384
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32385
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32398
--- Comment #2 from patchapp at dberlin dot org 2007-06-29 18:50 ---
Subject: Bug number PR31580
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/2007-06/msg02115.html
--
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P5
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32431
--- Comment #6 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-29 18:52
---
There is nothing wrong with langhooks per se.
The problem is langhooks that influence the interpretation of the IR, not
langhooks that are used to *create* the IR.
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32522
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P5
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32527
Description:
This test case tries to show that
the following statement found in the OpenMP API Version 2.5 May 2005 on p.29
lines 21-24 is true:
When a thread executing inside an active parallel region encounters a parallel
construct, the new team which is created will consist of only the
--- Comment #9 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-29 18:49
---
Andrew, do you want to convert to sizetype or to ptrdiff_t? Does it matter?
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32372
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32337
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32252
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32251
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32241
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32128
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32113
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32106
1 - 100 of 182 matches
Mail list logo
