--
reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.3.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34103
The following invalid testcase triggers an ICE on mainline:
struct A {};
templatetypename struct B : virtual A {};
templatetypename...T struct C : BT {};
bug.cc:5: error:
--
reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.3.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34102
--- Comment #1 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-15 08:31 ---
Duplicate of PR 31124 ?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34092
--
reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.3.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34100
--- Comment #1 from rwgk at yahoo dot com 2007-11-15 06:56 ---
Created an attachment (id=14554)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=14554action=view)
reproducer
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34099
The following valid testcase triggers an ICE on mainline:
templatetypename struct A {};
templatetemplatetypename class... struct B {};
templatetemplatetypename class T void foo(const BT);
void bar()
{
foo(BA());
}
--
reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.3.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34101
For
#include vector
#include string
int main()
{
std::vectorstd::string x;
std::string s(hello);
return std::find(x.begin(), x.end(), s) - x.begin();
}
we now get interesting linker errors with trunk:
g++-4.3 -o t t.C
/tmp/cc3Vq2t8.o: In function `main':
t.C:(.text+0x65): undefined
#include memory
int main(int argc, char* argv[])
{
int* intptr;
std::auto_ptrint i;
i = std::auto_ptrint (intptr);
return 0;
}
- code above compiles but fails run
~/tests$ g++ -Wall auto_ptr.cpp
~/tests$ ./a.out
*** glibc detected *** ./a.out:
--- Comment #3 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-15 09:46 ---
The patch below fixes the reported bug. I am going to check to see what needs
to be done to extend this to generic interfaces and operators.
Paul
Index: gcc/fortran/module.c
--
singler at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |singler at gcc dot gnu dot
|dot org
In compatibility.h, there are a lot of compiler- and architecture dependent
switches. Relying on the GCC atomic operations would make this much cleaner.
--
Summary: [parallel mode] Atomic operations compatibility layer
needs cleanup
Product: gcc
--- Comment #8 from singler at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-15 10:10 ---
Closing this bug, the compatibility.h issues are tracked in PR 34106.
--
singler at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
singler at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |singler at gcc dot gnu dot
|dot org
--
singler at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33490
--- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-15 10:21 ---
Confirmed. Shorter testcase:
#include complex
#include iostream
typedef std::complexdouble NumType;
void
multiply(NumType a, NumType b, unsigned ac, NumType ab)
{
NumType s;
for (unsigned j=0; jac; j++)
I'm using the latest (precompiled) version of gfortran (GNU Fortran (GCC) 4.3.0
20071105 (experimental) [trunk revision 129892]). The following code:
program test
integer :: pid
character (len=10) :: chpid
pid=12345
write(chpid,'(i10)')pid
write(*,*)chpid is ,chpid
end program test
when
--- Comment #2 from terry at chem dot gu dot se 2007-11-15 10:19 ---
*** Bug 34092 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31124
--- Comment #2 from terry at chem dot gu dot se 2007-11-15 10:19 ---
(In reply to comment #1)
Duplicate of PR 31124 ?
Yar. I was misled the last time by the fact that PR 31129 also existed. The
parameter case has been fixed, but not the private case.
*** This bug has been marked
--- Comment #3 from terry at chem dot gu dot se 2007-11-15 10:27 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
*** Bug 34092 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
So, to summarise: Unused parameters have been fixed in general, but unused
private module entities remain undetected (as of
--
singler at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |singler at gcc dot gnu dot
|dot org
--- Comment #1 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-15 11:17 ---
Testing a fix.
--
jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-15 11:16 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
Bother, the patch causes some regressions (interface_[3-5].f90)...
Paul
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33541
--- Comment #3 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-15 11:58 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
-malign-double changes the ABI. You need to rebuild libgfortran with that
option.
Ah! Thanks, Richard. For that, I'll take a look at achar_4.f90 for you:)
Paul
--
--- Comment #1 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-11-15 11:59 ---
Note that the issue is unrelated to the header optimization work: is caused by
algorithmfwd.h, added in the occasion of the parallel STL work. I'm going to
look a bit into it, anyway, if a simple solution I have in mind
--- Comment #5 from eres at il dot ibm dot com 2007-11-15 12:04 ---
It seems that verify_flow_info complains about the following note,
which is generated in the partitioning phase:
(note 234 232 172 11 NOTE_INSN_SWITCH_TEXT_SECTIONS)
--
I use gfortran on cygwin.
% wget
http://quatramaran.ens.fr/~coudert/gfortran/gfortran-4.3-Cygwin-i686.tar.bz2
% tar fjx gfortran-4.3-Cygwin-i686.tar.bz2 -C /
I get a segmentation fault when compiling program contains a simple write
statement.
% cat zerolabel.f95
write(*,0)
%
--- Comment #1 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-15 10:54 ---
Jens,
I cannot reproduce this bug, even with the same flags that you are using, under
Cygwin_NT and last night's build. I will check on a Linux system tonight.
I have downrated the severity because critical refers
--- Comment #6 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-15 12:21 ---
I can't reproduce this on x86*.
Again, please attach the profile information and state the exact compiler
revision you used to generate this profile information.
--
--- Comment #7 from eres at il dot ibm dot com 2007-11-15 12:29 ---
(In reply to comment #6)
I can't reproduce this on x86*.
Again, please attach the profile information and state the exact compiler
revision you used to generate this profile information.
Sorry - I am working on
--- Comment #9 from patchapp at dberlin dot org 2007-11-15 12:35 ---
Subject: Bug number PR33917
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/2007-11/msg00842.html
--
--- Comment #5 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-11-15 13:10 ---
I meant bits/stl_algobase.h, of course.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34105
--- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-15 11:26 ---
-malign-double changes the ABI. You need to rebuild libgfortran with that
option.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-11-15 13:06 ---
Something like the attached (lightly tested) fixed the problem for normal mode,
the error becomes:
34105.cc: In function int main():
34105.cc:8: error: find is not a member of std
however, it doesn't for parallel
--- Comment #4 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-11-15 13:09 ---
By the way, while we are talking about those QoI issues, I think it's in any
case better not including something like algorithmfwd.h in algobase.h: it's
relatively big and we are doing our best to keep algobase.h, the core
--- Comment #18 from tom_francen at midtechcorp dot com 2007-11-15 13:46
---
Subject: Re: gcj seems not to pass the option to ld correctly
thank you wilson ... i just tried suggestion #6 ... and it WORKED!! thank you
very much!!
tjf
---
Thomas James Francen
Midwest
--- Comment #1 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-11-15 13:32 ---
intptr is not initialized: when i is destructed it calls delete on the owned
pointer, that is intptr, and anything can happen. Just initialize intptr to
zero or to a value returned by new.
--
pcarlini at suse dot de
--- Comment #8 from eres at il dot ibm dot com 2007-11-15 14:17 ---
When disabling rest_of_handle_reorder_blocks (bbro) the ICE disappears. (it
seems that it is not caused due to the partitioning - bbpart)
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34085
--- Comment #2 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-11-15 13:04 ---
Created an attachment (id=14555)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=14555action=view)
Draft patch for normal mode
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34105
--- Comment #9 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-15 14:49 ---
I mean the files you generate with -fprofile-generate.
I expect this to be fully blamable on the partitioning code, and I would like
to work in fixing this. But you have to attach the profile information you
have
--- Comment #11 from eres at il dot ibm dot com 2007-11-15 15:05 ---
Created an attachment (id=14556)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=14556action=view)
File generated by -fprofile-generate
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34085
--- Comment #3 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-15 14:56 ---
Uhm, this goes wrong in CCP. (w/o SRA the failure doesn't trigger though)
Before CCP we have:
void multiply(NumType, NumType, unsigned int, NumType) (a, b, ac, ab)
{
double s$_M_value$real;
double
--- Comment #5 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-15 15:19 ---
(In reply to comment #4)
(In reply to comment #3)
Bother, the patch causes some regressions (interface_[3-5].f90)...
Paul
These were easily fixed - also nested_modules_1.f90 was not standard compliant
in this
--- Comment #3 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-15 15:10 ---
See also:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2007-11/msg00074.html
and for the patch:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2007-11/msg00093.html
--
burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #4 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-15 15:08 ---
This looks like this old bug that evaluate_stmt() sets results to UNDEFINED.
As
we visit
D.26933_16 = __t_14 * D.26932_15;
the result should become VARYING, but we make it UNDEFINED. Because also
likely_value ()
--- Comment #8 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-15 15:39 ---
What happened to this patch?
--
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #11 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-15 15:18 ---
FIXED on the trunk (4.3.0) [is not part of any branch].
--
burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #5 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-15 15:40 ---
That is, a certain class of operations (like COMPLEX_EXPR) do not fulfil the
constraint that if one operand is UNDEFINED the result is UNDEFINED as well.
For example MIN_EXPR INT_MIN, UNDEFINED, or MAX_EXPR
--- Comment #7 from rguenther at suse dot de 2007-11-15 15:51 ---
Subject: Re: [4.3 Regression] optimizer problem
On Thu, 15 Nov 2007, ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
--- Comment #6 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-15 15:44
---
That is, a certain
--- Comment #4 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-15 14:57
---
There is a good chance that if you try to build the runtime library with
malign-double that you will break it. My recommendation is don't use
-malign-double for I/O related things.
--
--- Comment #4 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-15 15:53 ---
I cannot reproduce this problem with any of 4.1, 4.2 or 4.3. But the issues
raised look related the CCP problem in PR34099.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #10 from eres at il dot ibm dot com 2007-11-15 15:02 ---
(In reply to comment #9)
I mean the files you generate with -fprofile-generate.
I expect this to be fully blamable on the partitioning code, and I would like
to work in fixing this. But you have to attach the
--- Comment #8 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-15 16:04 ---
Which doesn't work :( Unassigning.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #9 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-15 16:06 ---
Created an attachment (id=14557)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=14557action=view)
broken patch
It miscompiles gengtype. I remember problems with changing likely_value in
similar ways back in
--- Comment #10 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-15 16:08
---
Created an attachment (id=14558)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=14558action=view)
new broken patch
Err, that was an old patch.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What
--- Comment #10 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-15 15:12 ---
Subject: Bug 33917
Author: burnus
Date: Thu Nov 15 15:12:03 2007
New Revision: 130202
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=130202
Log:
2007-11-15 Tobias Burnus [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR
--- Comment #6 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-15 15:44
---
That is, a certain class of operations (like COMPLEX_EXPR) do not fulfil the
constraint that if one operand is UNDEFINED the result is UNDEFINED as well.
Is the problem somehow related to PR middle-end/33088?
SVN head does not build due to a warning that is treated as error.
gcc.build.lnx/./prev-gcc/xgcc
-B/gcc-b98ac6987827a195a1492167a9a158bf/gcc.build.lnx/./prev-gcc/
-B/usr/i686-pc-linux-gnu/bin/ -c -g -O2 -fomit-frame-pointer -DIN_GCC -W
-Wall -Wwrite-strings -Wstrict-prototypes
--- Comment #5 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-15 16:19 ---
Is this still a valid bug?
--
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
In the following code, the tail call in g() is compiled incorrectly on ARM with
-O2 or higher (and -fno-inline):
#include stdio.h
struct s {
int x, y, z;
};
int f(int a, int b, int c, struct s d, int e) {
printf(%d %d %d\n, d.x, d.y, d.z);
return 0;
}
int g(int a, int b, int c, int
--- Comment #3 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-15 16:39 ---
It also works in GCC 4.3.0.
If you still experience this issue, please, don't hesitate to reopen the bug.
--
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-15 16:30 ---
So, is this a bug or not? Do we know how icc resolves the ambiguity?
--
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #11 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-15 16:38
---
Oh, trivial error. Looking again tomorrow.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
this used to work a few days ago still:
--
Summary: new oveload resolution error
Product: gcc
Version: 4.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: rejects-valid
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
--- Comment #1 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-15 17:16 ---
Confirmed. Probably some issue with the default specs.
--
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #13 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-15 17:17
---
I think this has been caused by the fix for PR29738.
Author: rakdver
Date: Thu Nov 9 00:09:43 2006
New Revision: 118602
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=118602
Log:
PR
--- Comment #2 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-15 16:45 ---
Closing then.
(The link you gave is broken. A more stable link is
http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gccint/Storage-Layout.html
)
--
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #3 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-15 17:03 ---
I think it is odd that if you call subr(i,0), it doesn't crash, that is (p-a)
does not actually dereferences p. Nonetheless, I agree that the behaviour seems
inconsistent. A nice little project for someone. As they
--- Comment #2 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-15 17:05 ---
This is confirmed.
--
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Hi,
When I compile my program without optimization (-O2 or -O3), it works
normally. However when I compile the code with -O2 or -O3 (GCC version
4.1), my program output wrong data. In addition, I did not see this
problem when I used GCC 3.4.6.
Information regarding my GCC:
OS: Centos 5 (a clone
--- Comment #1 from mueller at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-15 16:55 ---
Created an attachment (id=14559)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=14559action=view)
the preprocessed source
.ii file
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34111
--- Comment #4 from patchapp at dberlin dot org 2007-11-15 15:10 ---
Subject: Bug number PR34079
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/2007-11/msg00851.html
--
--- Comment #11 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-15 17:42 ---
Testing a patch which addresses the simple pointer va_list targets (i386,
non-v4-abi ppc{,64}, etc.).
--
jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-15 16:40
---
Confirmed on x86_64-linux, where it triggers (with valgrind):
==2841== Conditional jump or move depends on uninitialised value(s)
==2841==at 0x43550B: next_char (io.c:141)
==2841==by 0x435616:
--- Comment #5 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-15 17:41 ---
*** Bug 26168 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-15 17:41 ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 19180 ***
--
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-15 17:35 ---
This patch is just a guess but it seems to fix this:
Index: gcc/gcc.c
===
--- gcc/gcc.c (revision 130174)
+++ gcc/gcc.c (working copy)
@@ -841,9
--- Comment #1 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-15 19:25 ---
For stdcall and @n decoration, see also PR 31073.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34112
while compiling xorg-server-1.4 with GCC trunk rev 130172.
x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-gcc -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I../include -DHAVE_DIX_CONFIG_H
-Wall -Wpointer-arith -Wstrict-prototypes -Wmissing-prototypes
-Wmissing-declarations -Wnested-externs -fno-strict-aliasing -D_BSD_SOURCE
-DHAS_FCHOWN
--- Comment #8 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-11-15 19:07 ---
Fixed.
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #1 from mueller at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-15 18:21 ---
temp_stack.reg[i_90] is the access, compare_for_stack_reg is the function,
and i_90 has the VRP determined range [-1, 2147483646].
it shouldn't warn for that. I'll work on a patch.
--
mueller at gcc dot gnu
32bit Windows uses a different calling convention (called procedure pops the
stack, not caller) with a symbol name _name@n, where n is the number of bytes
to pop off.
See also:
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.fortran/browse_thread/thread/19d77dfc75f8be58
--- Comment #1 from dirtyepic at gentoo dot org 2007-11-15 19:34 ---
Created an attachment (id=14560)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=14560action=view)
access-min.i
preprocessed source reduced by delta.
# gcc -v -O2 access-min.i
Using built-in specs.
Target:
--- Comment #12 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-15 17:10
---
Trivial testcase we get wrong with the current scheme:
int foo (int b, int c)
{
int x;
if (b)
return x c;
else
return 1;
}
extern void abort (void);
int main()
{
if (foo(1, 0) != 0)
abort ();
--- Comment #5 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-15 17:43 ---
This is either a bug or not. I think that if it is not mere constant folding
and it takes some effort, we should not do it. So let's decide so we can either
confirm it or close it as invalid.
--
manu at gcc dot gnu
--- Comment #4 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-15 17:40 ---
From bug 26168:
gcc/gcc.c has a comment at the top that's a guide to adding a command line
option. It's incomplete: it should say to add the new option to c.opt and
rebuild the compiler, and then describe how the
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-15 18:53 ---
I think this is already fixed in 4.3.0.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #7 from paolo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-15 19:05 ---
Subject: Bug 34105
Author: paolo
Date: Thu Nov 15 19:05:17 2007
New Revision: 130207
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=130207
Log:
2007-11-15 Paolo Carlini [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR
--- Comment #6 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-15 19:37 ---
Fixed on the trunk.
--
jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
As far as I can see the loop in the function f() always terminates without the
loop counter overflowing, but GCC cannot tell that it does.
$ g++-4.3-20070907 -v
Using built-in specs.
Target: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
Configured with: ../gcc-4.3-20070907/configure --program-suffix=-4.3-20070907
--- Comment #2 from dirtyepic at gentoo dot org 2007-11-15 20:06 ---
Created an attachment (id=14561)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=14561action=view)
access-mini.i
further reduced.
--
dirtyepic at gentoo dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #6 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-11-15 18:14 ---
I'm finishing testing a complete patch.
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|ICE in |[4.3 Regression] ICE in
--- Comment #3 from simon_baldwin at yahoo dot com 2007-11-15 19:55 ---
The definition's really there in 4.2.1, absent in 4.1.1:
$ 4.2.1/g++ -S ns1.cc c++filt ns1.s | grep B::x
movl$0, (anonymous namespace)::B::x
.local (anonymous namespace)::B::x
.comm
--- Comment #6 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-15 20:52
---
Fixed on mainline, and not appropriate for backporting.
--
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #5 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-15 19:03 ---
Subject: Bug 23848
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Nov 15 19:02:54 2007
New Revision: 130206
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=130206
Log:
PR middle-end/23848
* tree-ssa-ccp.c
--- Comment #8 from patchapp at dberlin dot org 2007-11-15 20:05 ---
Subject: Bug number PR c++/5310
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/2007-11/msg00865.html
--
--- Comment #9 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-15 21:54 ---
Awesome. Looks good.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34105
Linking fails for the program below, with the error:
undefined reference to `___sync_val_compare_and_swap_4'
// gcc -Wall atomic.c
int main() {
int *a, b, c;
return __sync_val_compare_and_swap(a, b, c);
}
According to the atomic builtins docs (), Not all operations are supported by
all
1 - 100 of 126 matches
Mail list logo
