--- Comment #14 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-13 06:26
---
Thomas, could you backport your patch to 4.1? (when you have some time, of
course)
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27715
libjava fails to cross-build because the Makefile includes an -I/usr/include.
Removing that makes it work. I've seen this a number of times now, i386 to
alpha-linux, i386 to m68-linux, etc. The problem is this in the Makefile:
X_CFLAGS = -I/usr/include
and X_CFLAGS is part of AM_CXXFLAGS which
--- Comment #1 from tbm at cyrius dot com 2006-06-13 07:13 ---
Created an attachment (id=11658)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=11658action=view)
alpha-linux-gnu/libjava/config.log
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28009
--- Comment #2 from tbm at cyrius dot com 2006-06-13 07:17 ---
Created an attachment (id=11659)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=11659action=view)
command line causing problem
Here's a sample command line showing the problem. Removing the -I/usr/include
makes it
--- Comment #9 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-13 07:22 ---
Subject: Bug 27830
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Jun 13 07:22:04 2006
New Revision: 114600
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=114600
Log:
2006-06-13 Richard Guenther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR
--- Comment #14 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-13 07:24
---
Subject: Bug 27536
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Jun 13 07:23:59 2006
New Revision: 114601
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=114601
Log:
2006-06-13 Richard Guenther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR
--- Comment #15 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-13 07:24
---
Fixed.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
--- Comment #5 from uros at kss-loka dot si 2006-06-13 07:44 ---
Similar problem was solved for gcc-4.1 in PR target/22480.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28007
--- Comment #6 from mkuvyrkov at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-13 08:51
---
Subject: Bug 27863
Author: mkuvyrkov
Date: Tue Jun 13 08:50:53 2006
New Revision: 114604
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=114604
Log:
2006-06-13 Maxim Kuvyrkov [EMAIL PROTECTED]
*
--- Comment #7 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-13 08:55
---
Subject: Bug 26754
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Tue Jun 13 08:55:40 2006
New Revision: 114605
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=114605
Log:
PR debug/26754
* gimplify.c
--- Comment #8 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-13 08:56
---
Fixed on mainline.
--
ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #16 from mkuvyrkov at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-13 09:01
---
Subject: Bug 26807
Author: mkuvyrkov
Date: Tue Jun 13 09:00:52 2006
New Revision: 114606
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=114606
Log:
2006-06-13 Maxim Kuvyrkov [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- Comment #17 from mkuvyrkov at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-13 09:03
---
I tested this fix on a cross from i386-pc-linux-gnu and it did well on those
three tests. Can, please, someone check if the regressions gone on hppa?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26807
--- Comment #20 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-13 09:21 ---
Subject: Bug 27793
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Jun 13 09:21:30 2006
New Revision: 114607
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=114607
Log:
PR middle-end/27793
* cp-tree.h
--- Comment #28 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-13 09:21 ---
Subject: Bug 26757
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Jun 13 09:21:30 2006
New Revision: 114607
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=114607
Log:
PR middle-end/27793
* cp-tree.h
--- Comment #7 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-13 09:21 ---
Subject: Bug 27894
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Jun 13 09:21:30 2006
New Revision: 114607
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=114607
Log:
PR middle-end/27793
* cp-tree.h
typedef struct
{
unsigned int addr;
unsigned int next;
unsigned int prev;
} list;
static inline list *
shift (list * l, unsigned na)
{
return (list *) ((char *) l + na);
}
static inline int
is_valid (list * l)
{
return shift (l, l-prev)-next == (l-addr);
}
static inline int
not_empty
g++ generates wrong code, if '-fno-exceptions' and '-O' options are specified.
I did following tests. In the case of 1, wrong code was generated.
1. sh4-linux-g++ -S -O -fno-exceptions testcase.cc
2. sh4-linux-g++ -S -O2 -fno-exceptions testcase.cc
Source code is as follows but I will attach the
--- Comment #1 from saito at densan dot co dot jp 2006-06-13 10:43 ---
Created an attachment (id=11660)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=11660action=view)
testcase
This testcase is very large because this file already includes header files and
this came from firefox's
--- Comment #1 from reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-13 11:53
---
Confirmed.
Shorter testcase (crashes with or without -m32):
struct A
{
char c;
__SIZE_TYPE__ i, j;
};
int foo(struct A* p)
{
if ((char*)p != (char*)p + p-i)
--- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-13 11:53 ---
The inliner needs this temporary appearantly. Otherwise you'll get
bar ()
{
int D.1524;
bb 2:
if (D.1524 != 0) goto L0; else goto L1;
L0:;
abort ();
L1:;
return;
}
out of
inline int foo () { return
--- Comment #7 from aph at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-13 12:44 ---
Subject: Bug 1305
Author: aph
Date: Tue Jun 13 12:43:56 2006
New Revision: 114609
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=114609
Log:
2006-06-09 Andrew Haley [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR java/1305
--- Comment #14 from aph at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-13 12:44 ---
Subject: Bug 27908
Author: aph
Date: Tue Jun 13 12:43:56 2006
New Revision: 114609
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=114609
Log:
2006-06-09 Andrew Haley [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR java/1305
--- Comment #8 from aph at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-13 12:52 ---
Note that this patch has some problems. In particular, it doesn't work with
BC-compiled code. Also, on x86 it doesn't insert memory barrier instructions,
but this is arguably a bug in __sync_synchronize() rather than
--- Comment #18 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2006-06-13 13:05 ---
Subject: Bug 27733
Author: bonzini
Date: Tue Jun 13 13:05:39 2006
New Revision: 114610
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=114610
Log:
2006-06-13 Paolo Bonzini [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR
--- Comment #19 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2006-06-13 13:06 ---
Fixed, but we may want the patch on 4.0 too.
--
bonzini at gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-13 13:11
---
Confirmed.
Shorter testcase (should return 0, but returns 1):
struct A
{
int i, j[9];
A() : i(1) {
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-13 04:41
---
Hmm, we get after dce, just:
reduced_cell_two_folds[26] = {};
And DCE removes:
this_616 = reduced_cell_two_folds[26].u;
# SMT.68_1055 = V_MAY_DEF
--- Comment #4 from dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-13 13:29 ---
Subject: Re: [4.2 Regression] optimizer bug
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-13 04:41
---
Hmm, we get after dce, just:
--- Comment #6 from mirko dot bruzzone at primeur dot com 2006-06-13 13:59
---
(In reply to comment #5)
Subject: Re: Problem: gcc 4.0.3 on Unix_SV
mirko dot bruzzone at primeur dot com wrote:
gt-c-pragma.h:46: parse error before `__attribute__'
gt-c-pragma.h uses attribute
--- Comment #2 from rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-13 14:09 ---
(In reply to comment #1)
Hmm, it should have produced G.3, G.n, at least I would have thought.
No, we intentionally use the same variable for the lexically identical
expressions, see
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-13 14:14 ---
Looking at the reduced testcase here, it looks even more the same as PR 27616.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from dann at godzilla dot ics dot uci dot edu 2006-06-13
14:18 ---
Add Diego to the CC list as per his request.
--
dann at godzilla dot ics dot uci dot edu changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from dann at godzilla dot ics dot uci dot edu 2006-06-13
14:22 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
(In reply to comment #1)
Hmm, it should have produced G.3, G.n, at least I would have thought.
No, we intentionally use the same variable for the lexically identical
--- Comment #5 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-13 14:26 ---
(In reply to comment #4)
The only thing i can think of is that SMT.68 is not marked global.
Is it?
Some how I missed that before:
SMT.68, UID 2839, struct reduced_cell_two_fold_info, is aliased, is addressable
--- Comment #4 from dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-13 14:26 ---
gimplification is almost certainly the wrong place to be doing the kind of
dataflow we'd need to determine where we could insert load/save pairs of
globals.
Really.
--
--- Comment #4 from bernds at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-13 14:39 ---
Subject: Bug 22541
Author: bernds
Date: Tue Jun 13 14:39:42 2006
New Revision: 114611
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=114611
Log:
PR bootstrap/22541
From Dan Kegel [EMAIL
--- Comment #3 from dann at godzilla dot ics dot uci dot edu 2006-06-13
14:42 ---
One of the issues with this PR and also 27800, 27809 and 27810 is that this
extra work/memory allocation done for a number of functions that are never
used: like all the inline functions present in the
--- Comment #4 from dnovillo at redhat dot com 2006-06-13 14:49 ---
Subject: Re: gimplifying return CONSTANT creates
unneeded temporaties
dann at godzilla dot ics dot uci dot edu wrote on 06/13/06 10:42:
--- Comment #3 from dann at godzilla dot ics dot uci dot edu 2006-06-13
--- Comment #5 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-13 14:54 ---
Fixed in 4.1.2 and the mainline.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
sh-elf has space optimized division functions for -m4 / -m4-single, which are
provided in a separate library, which is used when statically linking with -Os
.
However, libgcc itself constains some references to the divide functions. If
these functions have not been used by something else earlier,
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail|4.1.2 4.2.0 |4.1.2
Known to work|4.1.0 |4.1.0 4.2.0
--- Comment #1 from amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-13 15:21 ---
Created an attachment (id=11661)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=11661action=view)
test case
This testcase goes in testsuite/g++.dg/eh .
--
amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
--- Comment #13 from dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-13 15:22
---
Some year we'll have to use the control dependence graph to see if all the
conditions are the same :)
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5035
--- Comment #20 from soete dot joel at tiscali dot be 2006-06-13 15:43
---
(In reply to comment #19)
Fixed, but we may want the patch on 4.0 too.
Curious I didn't notice this pb gcc-4.0?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27733
Greetings:
I am trying to compile an application and I am getting error massages like the
following one. Obviously the previous definition doesn't point to the first
definition of struct timespec but to the redundant definition. This is
therefore pretty useless:
/usr/include/time.h:119: error:
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-13 16:37 ---
I cannot reproduce this with a simple:
struct timespec {};
#include time.h
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28015
--- Comment #4 from howarth at nitro dot med dot uc dot edu 2006-06-13
16:44 ---
Geoff,
Does any other os, that uses gcc, version libgcc_s in the manner that Apple
does?
Simply not setting MACOSX_DEPLOYMENT_TARGET during the build of gcc 4.2 doesn't
make the problem go away. The
--- Comment #6 from sje at cup dot hp dot com 2006-06-13 16:54 ---
The new _Pragma1.C and _Pragma6.c tests are failing on ia64-hp-hpux11.23
because that platform does not define HANDLE_PRAGMA_PACK_PUSH_POP. Presumably
there are other platforms that also do not define this and will also
--- Comment #6 from dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-13 17:15 ---
So it should have been marked global, and should alias the global var, but
apparently the global var doesn't pop into it's alias set
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28003
--
pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |pault at gcc dot gnu dot org
|dot org
--
pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |pault at gcc dot gnu dot org
|dot org
--- Comment #2 from amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-13 17:45 ---
Subject: Bug 28014
Author: amylaar
Date: Tue Jun 13 17:44:56 2006
New Revision: 114616
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=114616
Log:
PR target/28014:
gcc:
*
--- Comment #3 from amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-13 18:05 ---
Fixed.
--
amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #10 from sayle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-13 18:06 ---
Subject: Bug 21210
Author: sayle
Date: Tue Jun 13 18:06:00 2006
New Revision: 114618
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=114618
Log:
PR c++/21210
* typeck2.c
I have some software that uses the BOOST matrix library UBLAS (1.33.1). This
software compiles and links with GCC 4.1.1 (Debian Linux system - GNU ld) but
gives linking errors with GCC 4.2:
substitution.o:(.data+0x0): multiple definition of
--- Comment #1 from bredelin at ucla dot edu 2006-06-13 18:30 ---
Here is some source code that exhibits the problem:
begin a.C -
templateclass T1, class T2
struct scalar_divides_assign {
static const bool computed ;
};
templateclass T1, class T2
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-13 18:49 ---
Confirmed.
(In reply to comment #1)
templateclass T1, class T2
const bool scalar_divides_assignT1,T2::computed = true;
For this case above, nothing should be emitted.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-13 18:52 ---
It is only static const variables which are miss handled.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28016
--- Comment #8 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-13 18:55 ---
(In reply to comment #7)
Where did this one go to? Can we close it?
It is still funny looking code. I might take a look this weekend or on June 27
when I am traveling to the GCC summit.
--
I was passed a test case consisting of two translation units:
// test.h
#include iostream
class A
{
public:
A()
{
mString = new char[2];
std::cout new: mString has value (void*) mString std::endl;
}
~A()
{
std::cout delete: mString has value
I get the following error in the test suite:
FAIL: g++.dg/ext/complit1.C (internal compiler error)
FAIL: g++.dg/ext/complit1.C (test for excess errors)
This is fairly new. 20060530 worked. The error is:
/home/tbm/x.c: In constructor 'Foo::Foo(int, int)':
/home/tbm/x.c:14: error: ISO C++
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-13 19:14 ---
This works on x86-linux-gnu on the mainline.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28017
--- Comment #3 from patchapp at dberlin dot org 2006-06-13 19:15 ---
Subject: Bug number PR 27980
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/2006-06/msg00708.html
--
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-13 19:15 ---
(In reply to comment #1)
This works on x86-linux-gnu on the mainline.
Oh and in 3.3.3.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28017
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-13 19:18 ---
|| DECL_ONE_ONLY (decl) || DECL_WEAK (decl) \
Actually those looks should include what is defined for Darwin.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-13 19:19 ---
Confirmed, I reported this in the bug report which changed this testcase.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from tbm at cyrius dot com 2006-06-13 19:25 ---
(In reply to comment #1)
Confirmed, I reported this in the bug report which changed this testcase.
Which PR is that? I searched and couldn't find anything, and neither did 'svn
log' show a recent change to the test case.
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-13 19:28 ---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20103#c56
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28018
--- Comment #1 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-13 19:33 ---
Tobias,
Thanks for the recent batch of reports; this one, in particular, which is not
at all good!
I am heavily committed with a few other bugs; I'll see if FX or Thomas have the
time. Otherwise I'll drop
--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-13 19:37 ---
For Darwin we do not want explicit instantiations to be
linkonce. */
This is why this testcase fails on darwin.
We should instead of just adding DECL_EXPLICIT_INSTANTIATION, check
Scheduler hoists an x86 IMUL (clobbers %eax) ahead of the first reference to a
parameter passed in %eax.
% /Volumes/sandbox/stuart/gcc.fsf.pure.debug.obj/gcc/cc1 reduce.c -quiet
-mtune=generic -O2 -fschedule-insns
reduce.c: In function '_perfInitPerfTable':
reduce.c:43: error: unable to find a
--- Comment #1 from stuart at apple dot com 2006-06-13 19:44 ---
Created an attachment (id=11663)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=11663action=view)
Testcase
Attaching (same) testcase.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28019
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-13 19:45 ---
Yes, yes we know, this is the nth bug about this issue.
This looks like PR 9085.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-13 19:45 ---
Tobias,
I presented a patch for this problem and for detected unassigned r-values that
was rejected. I don't know what to say; I think that it's a bug, in principle,
but the standard does not require it.
Paul
--
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #2 from philippe at fornux dot com 2006-06-13 20:17 ---
I was compiling a big project and I ended up with this error message. I just
tried to compile the same file by preprocessing it first (-E) and I don't have
the error anymore.
Actually I think some dependent file got
A number of obj-c++ test cases fail with an ICE now (this didn't happen with
20060530):
FAIL: obj-c++.dg/comp-types-10.mm (internal compiler error)
...
FAIL: obj-c++.dg/try-catch-9.mm (internal compiler error)
(sid)955:[EMAIL PROTECTED]: ..atch/gcc-snapshot-20060613] ./build/gcc/g++ -c -O2
src
--- Comment #3 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-13 20:26 ---
The solution is don't do -fschedule-insns on x86.
Unless you first add heuristics in the scheduler to keep a better eye on
register pressure, and fix the many known bugs in scheduling for x86.
--
steven at gcc
--- Comment #1 from tbm at cyrius dot com 2006-06-13 20:30 ---
Actually, this shows up with 20060530. It was introduced some time between
20060218 and 20051124. Unfortunately I don't have any compiler version
inbetween these dates around so I cannot narrow it down further.
--
--- Comment #5 from hhinnant at apple dot com 2006-06-13 21:23 ---
(In reply to comment #4)
For Darwin we do not want explicit instantiations to be
linkonce. */
This is why this testcase fails on darwin.
We should instead of just adding DECL_EXPLICIT_INSTANTIATION, check
#define NEEDS_GUARD_P(decl) (TREE_PUBLIC (decl) (DECL_COMMON (decl) \
|| DECL_ONE_ONLY (decl) \
|| DECL_WEAK (decl) \
||
--- Comment #6 from pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu 2006-06-13 21:24
---
Subject: Re: lack of guard variables for explicitly instantiated template
static data
#define NEEDS_GUARD_P(decl) (TREE_PUBLIC (decl) (DECL_COMMON (decl) \
--- Comment #7 from hhinnant at apple dot com 2006-06-13 21:41 ---
(In reply to comment #6)
Subject: Re: lack of guard variables for explicitly instantiated template
static data
#define NEEDS_GUARD_P(decl) (TREE_PUBLIC (decl) (DECL_COMMON (decl)
\
--- Comment #7 from hhinnant at apple dot com 2006-06-13 21:41 ---
(In reply to comment #6)
Subject: Re: lack of guard variables for explicitly instantiated template
static data
#define NEEDS_GUARD_P(decl) (TREE_PUBLIC (decl) (DECL_COMMON (decl)
\
--- Comment #8 from pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu 2006-06-13 21:47
---
Subject: Re: lack of guard variables for explicitly instantiated template
static data
--- Comment #7 from hhinnant at apple dot com 2006-06-13 21:41 ---
(In reply to comment #6)
Subject: Re:
--- Comment #9 from hhinnant at apple dot com 2006-06-13 22:02 ---
(In reply to comment #8)
Thanks. That not only makes sense to me now, but it passes the test. :-)
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28017
--- Comment #8 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-13 23:28 ---
Either 20218 is a bug or this is. It seems to me that 20218 is the bug.
If you declare a function to be hidden, you are asserting that it will be
defined in the current DSO. From the GCC documentation:
Two
--- Comment #3 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-14 00:32
---
My XP box died. I can't do much with this now.
--
jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-14 00:59 ---
Patch here: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-06/msg00717.html.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27254
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |mark at codesourcery dot com
|dot org
--- Comment #8 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-14 02:16
---
Diego --
Your last comment was cut off.
However, no, COMPLETE_TYPE_P does not imply that we know the size of the type,
and it can't ever imply that, in C++. For a type with virtual bases, we don't
know what
--- Comment #14 from whaley at cs dot utsa dot edu 2006-06-14 02:40 ---
OK, I got access to some older machines, and it appears that Core is the only
architecture that likes gcc 4's code. More precisely, I have confirmed that
the following architectures run significantly slower using
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |mark at codesourcery dot com
|dot org
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-14 04:19 ---
Actually this has been failing since the testcase was added and Objective-C++
was added.
This is a dup of bug 23716.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 23716 ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #5 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-14 04:19 ---
*** Bug 28020 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work|3.4.0 4.2.0 |3.4.0 4.2.0 4.1.2
Summary|[4.0/4.1 Regression]
--- Comment #11 from sayle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-14 04:35 ---
Subject: Bug 21210
Author: sayle
Date: Wed Jun 14 04:35:29 2006
New Revision: 114634
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=114634
Log:
PR c++/21210
* typeck2.c
--- Comment #12 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-14 05:28 ---
.
--
steven at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
99 matches
Mail list logo
