--
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Last reconfirmed|2005-04-23 16:47:32 |2005-07-23 06:01:08
date|
--- Additional Comments From tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-23
06:31 ---
I don't experience the libgfortran failure on i686-pc-linux-gnu.
The latest ChangeLog entry for the gcc subdirectory on my machine is:
2005-07-22 Mark Mitchell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR debug/21828
--- Additional Comments From tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-23
07:06 ---
The dump of the .optimzed contains a lot of statements like
Invalid sum of incoming frequencies 2731, should be 9500
L28:;
if (ABS_EXPR rp[1] - 1.0e+0 9.9974737875163555145263671875e-6) goto L
18;
--- Additional Comments From pluto at agmk dot net 2005-07-23 07:32 ---
with `-march=i486 -O2` bootstrap with all languages works fine.
finally (-march):
i486, athlon - works
i586 - not tested
i686 - fails (wrong code?)
--
gcc-bugs,hello.
i use GCC 4.1.0 20050721 to build software
http://learn.tsinghua.edu.cn/homepage/2002012946/bbs.tar.gz
regular.c: In function do_term():
regular.c:99: internal compiler error: in check_loop_closed_ssa_use, at
tree-ssa-loop-manip.c:398
Please submit a full bug report,
with
--- Additional Comments From pluto at agmk dot net 2005-07-23 07:59 ---
with current mainline i can't trig the ix86 bug.
testing ppc...
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22533
--- Additional Comments From phython at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-23
08:25 ---
Created an attachment (id=9336)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=9336action=view)
Updated patch
This should also fix:
/* { dg-do run } */
/* { dg-options -O1 -ftree-vrp } */
extern void
--- Additional Comments From belyshev at depni dot sinp dot msu dot ru
2005-07-23 09:40 ---
Confirmed, appeared between 2005-06-09 00:20 UTC and 2005-06-10 00:20 UTC
--
What|Removed |Added
CVS 20050723
./xgcc -B./ -B/usr/lib/gcc-snapshot/hppa-linux-gnu/bin/ -isystem
/usr/lib/gcc-snapshot/hppa-linux-gnu/include -isystem
/usr/lib/gcc-snapshot/hppa-linux-gnu/sys-include
-L/scratch/packages/gcc/snap/gcc-snapshot-20050723/build/gcc/../ld -O2 -DIN_GCC
-W -Wall -Wwrite-strings -Wstrict
gcc-4.1-20050722T2023UTC
(...)
../../../libgfortran/generated/trig_c4.c: In function 'ctanf':
../../../libgfortran/generated/trig_c4.c:75: warning: 'n' is used uninitialized
in this function
../../../libgfortran/generated/trig_c4.c:76: warning: 'd' is used uninitialized
in this function
With -m128bit-long-double, the C type long double is stored in 16 bytes.
This is on my i386 the only floating point datatype that is stored in 16
bytes. I would like to access this type from Fortran as real*16. Currently
it is available as real*10.
--
Summary: Would like to
--- Additional Comments From joseph at codesourcery dot com 2005-07-23
13:17 ---
Subject: Re: New: [4.1 regression, hppa] bootstrap error
On Sat, 23 Jul 2005, debian-gcc at lists dot debian dot org wrote:
../../src/gcc/crtstuff.c:489: internal compiler error: tree check: expected
--- Additional Comments From pluto at agmk dot net 2005-07-23 13:27 ---
(In reply to comment #4)
with current mainline i can't trig the ix86 bug.
testing ppc...
ppc still fails with the same error.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22533
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-23
15:23 ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 22577 ***
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-23
15:23 ---
*** Bug 22627 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-23
15:24 ---
Confirmed, patch here then:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-07/msg01327.html.
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-23
15:25 ---
*** Bug 22628 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-23
15:25 ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 22623 ***
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-23
15:30 ---
The patch which I thought caused this when I filed it is the most obvious one
now:
+2005-06-09 Richard Henderson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
+
+ PR tree-opt/20610
+ * tree.h
--- Additional Comments From pluto at agmk dot net 2005-07-23 15:42 ---
(In reply to comment #10)
(In reply to comment #6)
with this patch I get an ice on amd64 bootstrap:
In file included from ../../gcc/unwind-dw2.c:256:
../../gcc/config/i386/linux-unwind.h:
--- Additional Comments From janis at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-23 15:51
---
A regression hunt on powerpc-linux using the test case from comment #5 with the
options from comment #7 identified the following patch from rth:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2004-06/msg00641.html
--
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-23
15:54 ---
Thanks Janis.
--
What|Removed |Added
CC||rth at
--- Additional Comments From squell at alumina dot nl 2005-07-23 16:26
---
(In reply to comment #6)
In your example, ptr is a type not an object. operator- isn't applicable
to types, only to objects.
ptr _is_ an object. Please re-read the declaration carefully. All gcc versions
// C testcase, compile with -O2
// reduced from mozilla crashes in javascript library
void abort (void);
int j;
void bla (int *r)
{
int *p, *q;
p = q = r;
if (!p)
p = j;
if (p != q)
j = 1;
}
int main (void)
{
bla (0);
if (!j)
abort ();
return 0;
}
--
--- Additional Comments From belyshev at depni dot sinp dot msu dot ru
2005-07-23 16:35 ---
started to fail between 2005-06-02 00:20 UTC and 2005-06-03 00:20 UTC
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22630
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-23
16:36 ---
Confirmed.
For some reason we fold:
Folding predicate p_1 != r_2 to 0
Folded statement: if (p_1 != r_2) goto L2; else goto L3;
into: if (0) goto L2; else goto L3;
p_1: ~[0B, 0B] EQUIVALENCES:
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-23
16:38 ---
Caused almost likely by:
+2005-06-01 Diego Novillo [EMAIL PROTECTED]
+
+ PR 14341, PR 21332, PR 20701, PR 21029, PR 21086, PR 21090
+ PR 21289, PR 21348, PR 21367, PR 21368, PR 21458.
--
--- Additional Comments From pluto at agmk dot net 2005-07-23 17:07 ---
current mainline bootstrap still fails.
(...)
./xgcc -B./ -B/usr/x86_64-pld-linux/bin/
-isystem /usr/x86_64-pld-linux/include
-isystem /usr/x86_64-pld-linux/sys-include
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-23
17:23 ---
I can reproduce the reduced testcase on both i686-pc-linux-gnu and
powerpc-darwin. The ppc-
darwin build of cc1 and cc1plus where both built at -O0 so I know we are not
miscompiling GCC.
--
==+
| 4.1.0 20050723 (experimental) (x86_64-pld-linux-gnu) GCC error: |
| in gimple_add_tmp_var, at gimplify.c:557 |
| Error detected at a-exexda.adb:240:8
--
Summary: ICE / ada / error in gimple_add_tmp_var
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-23
17:49 ---
Is this with my patch:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-07/msg01327.html?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22631
--- Additional Comments From dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-23
17:49 ---
I believe something is actually wrong in the field layout for the minimized
testcase.
We have fields that overlap.
Adding mark mitchell.
Mark, if you use the attached aliashelp.diff, and
--- Additional Comments From pluto at agmk dot net 2005-07-23 17:54 ---
(In reply to comment #1)
Is this with my patch:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-07/msg01327.html?
yes.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22631
--- Additional Comments From laurent at guerby dot net 2005-07-23 18:01
---
FYI I successfully bootstraped on x86_64-linux with Andrew's patch:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2005-07/msg01241.html
LAST_UPDATED: Sat Jul 23 10:44:53 UTC 2005
I'm updating and reboostraping. I also
--- Additional Comments From laurent at guerby dot net 2005-07-23 18:02
---
Silly me, it's part of Andrew's patch.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22631
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-23
19:00 ---
Confirmed.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
When building with all warnings enabled, GCC can fail to warn when an
assignment operator can't be
generated.
Steps:
Use the compiler arguments:
-g -Wall -ansi -pedantic -c
to compile the following C++ code:
#include functional
class SetValue : public std::unary_functionint, void
{
public:
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-23
19:10 ---
I don't see what is wrong with this code. The opator= does not get produced
until used as required by
the C++ standard.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22632
--- Additional Comments From laurent at guerby dot net 2005-07-23 19:16
---
Bootstraped completed on x86_64-linux for
LAST_UPDATED Sat Jul 23 17:57:57 UTC 2005
with Andrew's patch.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22631
Using built-in specs.
Target: powerpc-linux-gnu
Configured with: ../src/configure -v
--enable-languages=c,c++,java,f95,objc,ada,treelang --prefix=/usr
--enable-shared --with-system-zlib --libexecdir=/usr/lib --enable-nls
--without-included-gettext --enable-threads=posix --program-suffix=-4.0
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-23
19:30 ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 1046 ***
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-23
19:30 ---
*** Bug 22633 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-23 19:50
---
Bug 22633 has been marked duplicate of this, but that is a bit of strech.
However, the stituation has elvolved since 2.95.2 and GCC is now able to
detected some forms ofrecursion as real loops. What this bug
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-23
19:59 ---
(In reply to comment #11)
Bug 22633 has been marked duplicate of this, but that is a bit of strech.
If you had read comment #7 and #8, you will notice that this is the same bug
and really still an
--- Additional Comments From bangerth at dealii dot org 2005-07-23 20:04
---
I think we should accept this as an enhancement request.
W.
--
What|Removed |Added
Say, we're running std::partial_sum, where the output type is 'wider' than
the input. E.g,
char in_array[4] = { 96, 96, 96, 96 };
int out_array[4];
partial_sum(in_array, in_array+4, out_array);
This should be:
int out_array[4] = { 96, 96+96, 96+96+96, 96+96+96+96 };
This is a
--- Additional Comments From squell at alumina dot nl 2005-07-23 20:08
---
Created an attachment (id=9338)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=9338action=view)
See the original post
There is an issue here that this routine assumes that the result of the
operation is
--- Additional Comments From bangerth at dealii dot org 2005-07-23 20:09
---
I only get lots of warnings and errors with a 4.0.1 snapshot from 2005-05-31.
Can you report back whether you still get this error you saw back then?
Thanks
Wolfgang
--
What
--- Additional Comments From pluto at agmk dot net 2005-07-23 20:10 ---
(In reply to comment #5)
Bootstraped completed on x86_64-linux for
LAST_UPDATED Sat Jul 23 17:57:57 UTC 2005
with Andrew's patch.
have You done a full `make bootstrap` ?
on my snapshot (20050723T1611UTC) i
--- Additional Comments From bangerth at dealii dot org 2005-07-23 20:13
---
This is best handled by piping the output through a filter script. It will
be very hard to fix this in all generality inside the compiler itself.
W.
--
What|Removed
I noticed this when looking at compile time / memory usage of PR 8361 and I
noticed that OVERLOAD is
currently a link list and we only use about 2 of the fields in the tree which
seems like a waste for a full
tree. I started to change it to be a VEC but ran into problems as it looks
like we
--- Additional Comments From bangerth at dealii dot org 2005-07-23 20:32
---
This is already fixed since 3.4.
W.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
--- Additional Comments From bangerth at dealii dot org 2005-07-23 20:56
---
You can't specialize an inner template without specializing its outer
template as well.
As per /18:
18In an explicit specialization declaration for a member of a class
template or a member
--- Additional Comments From bangerth at dealii dot org 2005-07-23 20:59
---
FWIW, icc also errors out. I believe this code is invalid, but I don't
have evidence to substantiate this claim.
W.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21413
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-23
20:59 ---
Can you give the backtrace?
Also all the options you used to bootstrap/configure?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22631
--- Additional Comments From bangerth at dealii dot org 2005-07-23 21:01
---
This code is unreadable -- can you come up with something shorter?
Thanks
Wolfgang
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From bangerth at dealii dot org 2005-07-23 21:04
---
That's how C++ works (arguably a spot where many believe the standard to
be deficient): you can't partially specialize a template class member
function.
W.
--
What|Removed
--- Additional Comments From phython at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-23
21:05 ---
The condition around fold-const:9302 can be generalized to deal with this case.
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From bangerth at dealii dot org 2005-07-23 21:07
---
Just as Andrew says -- you can't do this. No conversions are applied.
W.
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From bangerth at dealii dot org 2005-07-23 21:10
---
This is related to PR 22618.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22149
--- Additional Comments From bangerth at dealii dot org 2005-07-23 21:11
---
This is related to PR 22149.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22618
--- Additional Comments From bangerth at dealii dot org 2005-07-23 21:15
---
No, the standard says that the result for an iterator 'i' in the output
range is
((...(*first + *(first + 1)) + ...) + *(first + (i - result)))
So arithmetic is done with the data type of the input
--- Additional Comments From bangerth at dealii dot org 2005-07-23 21:27
---
gcc is actually correct. Per the using declaration in main(), you
introduce N::foo into the scope of foo(), and when foo(enum1) is called
we find the name foo inside namespace N and then stop to search, so
--- Additional Comments From bangerth at dealii dot org 2005-07-23 21:29
---
There is another PR about exactly this problem somewhere.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20308
--- Additional Comments From bangerth at dealii dot org 2005-07-23 21:33
---
Here's what we get with present mainline and icc:
g/x /home/bangerth/bin/gcc-4.1-pre/bin/c++ -c x.cc
x.cc:4: error: too few template-parameter-lists
g/x icc -Xc -ansi -c x.cc
x.cc(4): error #838:
--- Additional Comments From bangerth at dealii dot org 2005-07-23 21:36
---
This works in 4.0.1 and mainline. It ICEd since at least 2.95, so is not a
regression and won't be fixed on the 3.4 branch.
W.
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-23
21:36 ---
Subject: Bug 22577
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-07-23 21:36:40
Modified files:
gcc: ChangeLog
gcc/config/pa :
--- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2005-07-23
21:37 ---
Thanks Steve!
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-23
21:50 ---
Subject: Bug 22623
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-07-23 21:50:14
Modified files:
gcc: ChangeLog tree-complex.c
Log
--- Additional Comments From pluto at agmk dot net 2005-07-23 21:53 ---
(In reply to comment #7)
Can you give the backtrace?
(gdb) r
Starting
program:
/home/users/pluto/rpm/BUILD/gcc-4.1-20050723T1611UTC/obj-x86_64-pld-linux/gcc/stage1/gnat1
-I- -I. -Iada -I../../gcc/ada
--- Additional Comments From pluto at agmk dot net 2005-07-23 21:53 ---
Created an attachment (id=9339)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=9339action=view)
buildlog.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22631
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-23
21:58 ---
We have regressioned since the last time someone reported on this one:
-O0 -O1 -O2 -O3
11.1 41.7 55.6 65.9
For -O3, the following passes stand out for compile time:
tree PTA :
--
What|Removed |Added
OtherBugsDependingO||12850
nThis||
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22635
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-23
22:14 ---
cp/tree.c:827 (ovl_cons) 11464712: 3.2% 0:
0.0% 660240: 1.4%1732136:
5.2% 433034
Hmm OVERLOAD tree takes 3% of the Garbage which seems like too big, though
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-23
22:32 ---
I added some stats to when chaining to the ovl and got the following
interesting result for PR 12850:
average OVL length: 57.498998
So we have an average length of 57 which is long and shows that we are
--- Additional Comments From bangerth at dealii dot org 2005-07-23 22:32
---
Benjamin, what's the status on this now?
W.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14500
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-23
22:35 ---
8361 also have simular interesting results:
average OVL length: 44.709989
But I think my counting is wrong as we can have DECL in the chain.
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From pluto at agmk dot net 2005-07-23 22:42 ---
Breakpoint 3, gimple_add_tmp_var (tmp=0x2b3176e0)
at ../../gcc/gimplify.c:557
557 gcc_assert (!TREE_CHAIN (tmp) !DECL_SEEN_IN_BIND_EXPR_P (tmp));
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22631
--- Additional Comments From pluto at agmk dot net 2005-07-23 22:42 ---
Created an attachment (id=9340)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=9340action=view)
tmp var dump.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22631
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-23
22:44 ---
Though fixing that still gives the same number.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22635
--- Additional Comments From pluto at agmk dot net 2005-07-23 22:45 ---
detailed backtrace:
(gdb) bt
#0 gimple_add_tmp_var (tmp=0x2b3176e0) at ../../gcc/gimplify.c:557
#1 0x00724261 in create_tmp_var (type=0x2af93c60, prefix=0x0) #2
0x0072496c in
--- Additional Comments From pluto at agmk dot net 2005-07-23 22:45
---
detailed backtrace:
(gdb) bt
#0 gimple_add_tmp_var (tmp=0x2b3176e0) at ../../gcc/gimplify.c:557
#1 0x00724261 in create_tmp_var (type=0x2af93c60, prefix=0x0) #2
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu 2005-07-23
22:54 ---
Subject: Re: ICE / ada / error in gimple_add_tmp_var, at gimplify.c:557
--- Additional Comments From pluto at agmk dot net 2005-07-23 22:45
---
detailed backtrace:
(gdb) bt
#0
--- Additional Comments From squell at alumina dot nl 2005-07-23 23:20
---
(In reply to comment #2)
((...(*first + *(first + 1)) + ...) + *(first + (i - result)))
So arithmetic is done with the data type of the input range. That may be
undesirable on occasion, but that's what
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-23
23:50 ---
For -O0 on the mainline on powerpc-darwin, we have:
parser: 17.61 (14%) usr 11.85 (22%) sys 31.13 (16%) wall
342512 kB (29%) ggc
name lookup : 14.05 (11%) usr 22.61 (42%)
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-23
23:54 ---
Subject: Bug 21875
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-07-23 23:54:50
Modified files:
gcc/testsuite : ChangeLog
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-24
00:04 ---
Most of the time is spent checking for avoiding duplicates in
tree-ssa-alias.c:1625-1627.
Again maybe a hash table or something to mark it as being aliased already.
--
--- Additional Comments From bangerth at dealii dot org 2005-07-24 00:14
---
Well, let's have the libstdc++ people comment then :-)
W.
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From igodard at pacbell dot net 2005-07-24 00:22
---
Yes, the code is invalid; there should be a diagnostic. The problem is that you
get the wrong diagnostic. Please read the original report.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21413
--- Additional Comments From igodard at pacbell dot net 2005-07-24 00:26
---
Speaking as a mere user, I find the ICC diagnostic more informative.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20118
--- Additional Comments From igodard at pacbell dot net 2005-07-24 00:29
---
Sorry, I'll try to be more original in my PRs :-)
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20308
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-24
00:52 ---
Subject: Bug 21875
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Branch: gcc-4_0-branch
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-07-24 00:52:36
Modified files:
gcc/testsuite :
--- Additional Comments From squell at alumina dot nl 2005-07-24 00:56
---
(In reply to comment #4)
bar ptr-f a; // ERROR: `-' cannot appear in constant expression
bar ptr-f b; // ERROR: '' missing in template argument
No, both of those are invalid as - cannot be in constant
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-24
00:59 ---
at -O1 on the mainline on powerpc-darwin, we now take over 800M which seems
very high. I could not
finish the build of this source as it was just taking too long.
--
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-24
01:00 ---
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-06/msg02025.html
--
What|Removed |Added
Last
--- Additional Comments From igodard at pacbell dot net 2005-07-24 01:03
---
I poked at it a little but the simplifications make the problem go away.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21909
jrw# cd /usr/ports/www/mozilla/work/mozilla/xpcom/reflect/xptinfo/src
jrw# gcc -v -save-temps xptiMisc.cpp
Using built-in specs.
Configured with: FreeBSD/i386 system compiler
Thread model: posix
gcc version 3.4.2 [FreeBSD] 20040728
/usr/libexec/cc1plus -E -quiet -v -D_LONGLONG
--- Additional Comments From squell at alumina dot nl 2005-07-24 02:31
---
To clarify a bit; the comments dealing with the lines that read;
ValueType value ( *first ); // copy construct!
Should be ignored. I wrote them out of fear for situations where
T obj(initializer); works
--- Additional Comments From gdr at integrable-solutions dot net
2005-07-24 03:01 ---
Subject: Re: gcc less efficient than jdk for recursion!
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| --- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-23
19:59
--- Additional Comments From gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-24 03:01
---
.
--
What|Removed |Added
Severity|enhancement |minor
1 - 100 of 108 matches
Mail list logo
