When -fopenmp is enabled, SAVE attribute causes an ICE when the entity is
referenced in a FIRSTPRIVATE or LASTPRIVATE clause, e.g.:
PROGRAM p
IMPLICIT NONE
! This can be SAVE :: K and gfortran will ICE too
SAVE
INTEGER :: K, I
K = 3
! These two can be replaced with
! !$OMP
--- Comment #4 from andreas at florath dot net 2005-12-02 08:15 ---
The file argp-help.i I uploaded is 82400 bytes, and also when I download the
file, it's again 82400 bytes (and also the same file). [One thing that confuses
me, is that the size in the attachment table is just 15.49
--- Comment #1 from rofi at ya dot com 2005-12-02 08:19 ---
Sorry, I got wrong when working with my test files.
With !$OMP PARALLEL DO LASTPRIVATE(K) it does not ICE.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25219
--- Comment #2 from rofi at ya dot com 2005-12-02 08:21 ---
Created an attachment (id=10388)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10388action=view)
Small testcase that ICEs
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25219
--- Comment #5 from amodra at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-02 08:54 ---
Subject: Bug 21017
Author: amodra
Date: Fri Dec 2 08:53:56 2005
New Revision: 107878
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=107878
Log:
PR target/21017
* gcc.target/powerpc/rotate.c:
--- Comment #6 from amodra at bigpond dot net dot au 2005-12-02 08:54
---
Fixed
--
amodra at bigpond dot net dot au changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from pluto at agmk dot net 2005-12-02 09:21 ---
gcc-4.2.0-20051201 rev. 107828 fails too.
--
pluto at agmk dot net changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known
Linker complains about undefined reference to `symbol'
during build of the folowing code:
struct A {
int const static a0 = 0;
int const static a1 = 1;
};
int
main ( int argc, char ** ) {
int a = argc ? A::a0 : A::a1;
return ( a );
}
--
Summary: [g++] (in class) static
--- Comment #5 from reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-02 12:38
---
Subject: Bug 24103
Author: reichelt
Date: Fri Dec 2 12:38:30 2005
New Revision: 107888
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=107888
Log:
PR c++/24103
Backport:
2002-08-22
--
amodra at bigpond dot net dot au changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |amodra at bigpond dot net
|dot org
--- Comment #6 from reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-02 12:42
---
Fixed on the 3.4 branch.
Will add the testcase to mainline, 4.0 branch, and 4.1 branch.
--
reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from giovannibajo at libero dot it 2005-12-02 12:43 ---
This is a FAQ. You need the accompanying definition for static member
variables, irrespective of the use of an initialization on the declaration.
--
giovannibajo at libero dot it changed:
What
--- Comment #7 from reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-02 12:48
---
Subject: Bug 24103
Author: reichelt
Date: Fri Dec 2 12:48:06 2005
New Revision: 107889
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=107889
Log:
PR c++/24103
* g++.dg/other/default1.C: New
--
jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-
|
--- Comment #1 from eedelman at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-02 13:05
---
Confirmed.
--
eedelman at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
/* { dg-options -O2 -m32 -march=i386 }
/* { dg-do compile } */
typedef struct
{
void *A;
void *B;
void *C;
unsigned long D;
} S;
void
foo (S *x)
{
unsigned long long *c = x-C;
unsigned long long *a = x-A;
unsigned long long *b = x-B;
unsigned long d = x-D;
for (; d = 2; d -=
--- Comment #3 from gcc at microbizz dot nl 2005-12-02 13:59 ---
The bug is solved by recently proposed Darwin x86 fixes
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-11/msg02158.html.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22099
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.2.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21017
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[Regression 4.0/4.1] ICE : |[4.0/4.1/4.2 Regression] ICE
|in compensate_edge,
--- Comment #7 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-02 14:05 ---
Subject: Bug 25158
Author: ghazi
Date: Fri Dec 2 14:05:09 2005
New Revision: 107891
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=107891
Log:
2005-11-30 Kaveh R. Ghazi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR
--- Comment #7 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-02 14:05 ---
Subject: Bug 25022
Author: ghazi
Date: Fri Dec 2 14:05:09 2005
New Revision: 107891
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=107891
Log:
2005-11-30 Kaveh R. Ghazi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-02 14:12 ---
Note this looks to be a dup of a semi old bug, PR 11203.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25221
//
templateint i
class A
{
public:
static double const VAL = 0.5;
enum
{
COS = (int)(A::VAL)
};
};
int main()
{
A5::COS;
return 0;
}
//
This returns following error:
pom.cpp:
--- Comment #1 from pkgm at o2 dot pl 2005-12-02 14:19 ---
Created an attachment (id=10389)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10389action=view)
source code
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25222
--- Comment #8 from reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-02 14:33
---
Subject: Bug 24103
Author: reichelt
Date: Fri Dec 2 14:33:23 2005
New Revision: 107892
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=107892
Log:
PR c++/24103
* g++.dg/other/default1.C: New
--- Comment #7 from danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-02 14:34 ---
The test isn't failing anymore on at least 4.2. However, I doubt
that it's actually fixed.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23954
--- Comment #9 from reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-02 14:34
---
Subject: Bug 24103
Author: reichelt
Date: Fri Dec 2 14:34:34 2005
New Revision: 107893
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=107893
Log:
PR c++/24103
* g++.dg/other/default1.C: New
Executing on host: /xxx/gnu/gcc-3.3/objdir/gcc/testsuite/../g++
-B/xxx/gnu/gcc-3
.3/objdir/gcc/testsuite/../
/xxx/gnu/gcc-3.3/gcc/gcc/testsuite/g++.old-deja/g++.
abi/vtable2.C -nostdinc++
-I/xxx/gnu/gcc-3.3/objdir/hppa1.1-hp-hpux10.20/libstd
c++-v3/include/hppa1.1-hp-hpux10.20
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-02 15:17 ---
Fixed in 4.0.3.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Testcase, compile with -O2 -funswitch-loops:
static float rgam;
extern void *jmp(void *);
void drotmg(float d1) {
void *labels[] = { L170, L180, 0 };
for(;;) {
goto *jmp(labels);
if (d1 = rgam)
goto L170;
L170:
if (d1 = rgam)
goto L170;
}
L180:
goto L170;
}
--
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.1.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25224
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-02 15:26 ---
There are two different bugs here. The first one is only a 4.0 regresssion and
that is a target bug as -O2 on 4.0.3 fails but it does not for 4.1.0.
The second one how ever is 4.1/4.2 regression and is a generic
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-02 15:28 ---
I really mean, -O3 -m32 -fno-unswitch-loops -fno-tree-dominator-opts fails in
4.0.3 but passes in 4.1.0 or 4.2.0.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25218
--- Comment #6 from brad dot king at kitware dot com 2005-12-02 15:31
---
Thanks for the pointer. I think I found the message to which you refer. For
the archive here it is:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-10/msg01052.html
--
--- Comment #18 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-02 15:35
---
Subject: Bug 24919
Author: fxcoudert
Date: Fri Dec 2 15:35:47 2005
New Revision: 107895
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=107895
Log:
PR libfortran/24919
* io/list_read.c
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-02 15:42 ---
Looks to be caused by:
2005-06-16 Jan Hubicka [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* cfg.c: Include hashtab.h and alloc-pool.h
(bb_original, bb_copy, original_copy_bb_pool): New static vars.
--- Comment #19 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-02 15:47
---
Backported to 4.1. Will not fix on 4.0 since 4.1.0 will be released soon and
mingw does not intend to use gcc-4.0.x
--
fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #4 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-02 15:50
---
Subject: Bug 23912
Author: fxcoudert
Date: Fri Dec 2 15:50:30 2005
New Revision: 107897
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=107897
Log:
PR fortran/23912
* iresolve.c
--- Comment #5 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-02 15:51 ---
I think this is related to PR 23541. I wonder if we are printing out a warning
(or an error) while preprocessing which gives the ICE.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25200
--- Comment #5 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-02 15:55
---
Fixed on 4.1 and mainline.
--
fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-02 15:56 ---
Looks related to PR 20256.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-02 15:58 ---
Confirmed also on i686-pc-linux-gnu.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #8 from cvs-commit at developer dot classpath dot org
2005-12-02 16:37 ---
Subject: Bug 25207
CVSROOT:/cvsroot/classpath
Module name:classpath
Branch:
Changes by: Anthony Green [EMAIL PROTECTED] 05/12/02 13:57:44
Modified files:
.
--- Comment #10 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-02 16:46
---
Subject: Bug 25116
Author: fxcoudert
Date: Fri Dec 2 16:46:49 2005
New Revision: 107900
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=107900
Log:
PR libfortran/25116
* io/transfer.c
The following test program generates extra use of a temporary register for the
return value. I have narrowed the cause of the poor code generation to the
addition of the pos = file-f_pos; line -- removing it causes the extra
temporary register to disappear (and saves several unnecessary mov
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
$ gcc dsputil_mmx.i -O2 -fomit-frame-pointer -fPIC
(...)
i386/h264dsp_mmx.c: In function #8216;h264_h_loop_filter_luma_mmx2#8217;:
i386/dsputil_mmx.c:618: error: can't find a register in class
#8216;GENERAL_REGS#8217;
while reloading
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
--- Comment #1 from pluto at agmk dot net 2005-12-02 17:39 ---
Created an attachment (id=10390)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10390action=view)
testcase
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25226
--- Comment #3 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2005-12-02 17:40 ---
Created an attachment (id=10391)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10391action=view)
Trivial testcase
Hi. I'm attaching a trivial testcase (*). In fact, I consider this bug pretty
serious! Howard, any
--- Comment #24 from aph at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-02 17:43 ---
This is great, but an additional test case for dynamic method invocation is
needed.
We need to be able to continue if a class T that contains a method that refers
to a missing class M is initialized. At that time,
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-02 17:44 ---
This is a dup of bug 11203, This is not really a bug. You are trying to use 8
registers but there are not 8 register there.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 11203 ***
*** This bug has been marked as
--- Comment #31 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-02 17:44
---
*** Bug 25226 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #16 from rth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-02 17:45 ---
Subject: Bug 22480
Author: rth
Date: Fri Dec 2 17:45:02 2005
New Revision: 107910
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=107910
Log:
2005-09-14 Uros Bizjak [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR
--- Comment #32 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-02 17:46
---
*** Bug 25221 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-02 17:46 ---
This is a dup of bug 11203.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 11203 ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2005-12-02 17:50 ---
Sorry. Actually the testcase is not correct stand-alone, fails at line 13. I'm
currently checking whether is correct when the testsuite support (memory
limits) is present.
--
--- Comment #5 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2005-12-02 17:51 ---
... possibly using a real memory allocation, touching all the involved pages.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24025
--- Comment #6 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2005-12-02 18:02 ---
Created an attachment (id=10392)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10392action=view)
Puzzling testcase...
Humm, strange. The new testcase *passes*... Still, the original analysis makes
a lot of sense to
--- Comment #7 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2005-12-02 18:07 ---
Ah! Now I see, it's because of Benjamin and Ulrich recent changes, involving
thread local storage. Therefore my amended testcase proposal should be fine on
platforms not defining _GLIBCXX_HAVE_TLS. We should check that.
--- Comment #11 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-02 18:08
---
Commited to mainline, waiting a bit before committing to 4.1.
--
fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-02 18:12 ---
ok, I have a fix without rewritting some of fold_binary. I just needed to
added a check for BIT_XOR_EXPR comming back, like invert_expr does.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23673
--- Comment #8 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2005-12-02 18:13 ---
If my analysis is correct, this PR is still valid *only* for targets not
defining _GLIBCXX_HAVE_TLS. Otherwise, fixed by:
2005-11-21 Benjamin Kosnik [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ulrich Drepper [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The following test program spills res onto the stack when the value res.result,
which is already in a register, should be passed in a register to
foo();
/* compile with: gcc -fomit-frame-pointer -S */
struct rw_res {
long result;
long pos_update;
};
struct file {
long
--- Comment #10 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-02 18:14
---
Testing patch:
2005-12-02 Jan Hubicka [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR target/24969
* i386.c (classify_argument): Properly adjust offset of bitfield for
substructures.
Index: config/i386/i386.c
--- Comment #2 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-02 18:21 ---
testing patch:
2005-12-02 Jan Hubicka [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* tree-ssa-loop-unswitch.c (tree_unswitch_single_loop): Free copy
tables.
Index: tree-ssa-loop-unswitch.c
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25227
--
fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot|unassigned at gcc dot gnu
|org
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-02 18:41 ---
Confirmed.
local allocate does:
Register 58 used 6 times across 12 insns; set 2 times; user var; dies in 2
places; pref AREG, else GENERAL_REGS.
Which says that reg 58 prefers (r)ax.
And then global allocate
--- Comment #2 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-02 18:59 ---
We are trying to keep the libstc++ code as clean and representative of
standards-conforming C++ code as possible, and have avoided __try, __catch,
etc. or other uglification in favor of the actual C++ terms, ie try,
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-02 19:01 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
We are trying to keep the libstc++ code as clean and representative of
standards-conforming C++ code as possible, and have avoided __try, __catch,
etc. or other uglification in favor of
--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-02 19:04 ---
Confirmed. This also causes problems in normal C++ code which does:
#include string
int f(void);
int main(void)
{
try {
f();
}catch (a) {}
}
Without the include, you get an error but with the include, you
--- Comment #5 from hhinnant at apple dot com 2005-12-02 19:07 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
I'd rather you work around this in objective-c or objective c++.
How? I'm open to suggestions.
-Howard
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25191
--- Comment #6 from wilson at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-02 19:16 ---
Oops. That patch should have a | PROP_AUTOINC in the new update_life_info
call. That would explain why I was seeing some unexpected de-optimizations
with the patch.
--
--- Comment #7 from gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2005-12-02 19:23
---
Subject: Re: exception_defines.h #defines try/catch
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| Confirmed. This also causes problems in normal C++ code which does:
|
| #include string
|
|
--- Comment #6 from gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2005-12-02 19:18
---
Subject: Re: exception_defines.h #defines try/catch
I agree with Benjamin.
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| I personally would like this fixed in libstdc++ as it is changing
|
--- Comment #1 from eedelman at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-02 19:28
---
Confirmed.
--
eedelman at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
--- Comment #8 from gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2005-12-02 19:29
---
Subject: Re: exception_defines.h #defines try/catch
hhinnant at apple dot com [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| --- Comment #5 from hhinnant at apple dot com 2005-12-02 19:07 ---
| (In reply to comment
--
Summary: __sync_add_and_fetch cannot use condition flags from
subl
Product: gcc
Version: 4.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc
--
Summary: __sync_add_and_fetch cannot use condition flags from
subl
Product: gcc
Version: 4.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-02 20:05 ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 25228 ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-02 20:05 ---
*** Bug 25229 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25228
--- Comment #2 from bcrl at kvack dot org 2005-12-02 20:06 ---
The attached program should generate code that looks something like:
fput:
addl $-1,(%rdi)
jne .L4
jmp release
.L4:
ret
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25229
The program below should generate code that looks something like:
fput:
addl $-1,(%rdi)
jne .L4
jmp release
.L4:
ret
But instead generates:
fput:
movl$-1, %eax
lock
xaddl %eax, (%rdi)
decl%eax
jne .L4
jmp release
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-02 20:10 ---
I forgot one more thing, from local allocate:
;; Register 61 in 5.
;; Register 64 in 0.
;; Register 65 in 2.
Why are we putting reg 64 in ax, it says:
Register 64 used 2 times across 4 insns in block 3; set 1 time;
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-02 20:10 ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 25230 ***
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 25230 ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-02 20:10 ---
*** Bug 25228 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25230
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-02 20:44 ---
Actually it should generate code like:
lock; addl $-1,(%rdi)
jne .L4
jmp release
.L4:
ret
---
The lock is fully needed for correct behavior.
Confirmed.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
The following code fails to compile because the copy constructor has a non
const argument - it works if the const qualifier is added to the input:
class t1 {
public:
t1(t1 tr);
t1 dosomething(const t1 v) const;
t1 dosamethingagain(const t1 v) const { return dosomething(v); }
t1
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-02 20:53 ---
This is expected and how C++ works.
t1(t1 tr);
is a copy constructor which only takes references which means it only takes
lvalues.
t1 dosomething(const t1 v) const;
That means it returns a variable and calling that
--- Comment #9 from hhinnant at apple dot com 2005-12-02 21:00 ---
(In reply to comment #8)
Subject: Re: exception_defines.h #defines try/catch
hhinnant at apple dot com [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| --- Comment #5 from hhinnant at apple dot com 2005-12-02 19:07 ---
|
--- Comment #10 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-02 21:06
---
(In reply to comment #9)
Not being someone with a lot of FE experience, I have more hesitation about
this latter approach.
That solution still does not solve my issue of the diagnostic issue.
We really
--- Comment #2 from richard at rggibbs dot com 2005-12-02 21:11 ---
I really don't think that the reply addresses the question. If a function
returns an object it has to call a copy constructor. This code compiles if the
copy constructor is declared as
t1(const t1 tr);
but fails if
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-02 21:14 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
I really don't think that the reply addresses the question. If a function
returns an object it has to call a copy constructor. This code compiles if the
copy constructor is declared as
libgcc-std.ver includes __unordsf2 and __unorddf2. It should also include
__unordxf2 and __unordtf2 (in an appropriate version for when they get added -
GCC_4.2.0 if added mainline only, GCC_4.1.0 or GCC_4.0.3 or GCC_3.4.6 if also
added to a release branch, not GCC_3.3.4 alongside __unordsf2 and
--- Comment #11 from hhinnant at apple dot com 2005-12-02 21:21 ---
(In reply to comment #10)
(In reply to comment #9)
Not being someone with a lot of FE experience, I have more hesitation about
this latter approach.
That solution still does not solve my issue of the diagnostic
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25225
--- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-02 21:33 ---
It looks like not a single RTL optimizer triggering. It's bad from expand on,
and I guess having all mems around from the start is not making it easy.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25227
--- Comment #17 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-02 21:53
---
Oh, and another case where we can get the parallel is for returning 128bit
structs on x86_64.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24823
--
jason at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |jason at gcc dot gnu dot org
|dot org
--- Comment #11 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-02 22:55 ---
Subject: Bug 25199
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Dec 2 22:55:35 2005
New Revision: 107955
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=107955
Log:
PR target/25199
* config/i386/i386.md (movqi_1):
--- Comment #12 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-02 22:57 ---
Subject: Bug 25199
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Dec 2 22:57:03 2005
New Revision: 107956
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=107956
Log:
PR target/25199
* config/i386/i386.md (movqi_1):
1 - 100 of 142 matches
Mail list logo
