--- Comment #8 from ubizjak at gmail dot com 2008-05-12 06:47 ---
This also fixes sse3-* failures with -fpic at
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2008-05/msg01014.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36111
--- Comment #2 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-12 07:55
---
There's only one place -frepack-arrays has an effect on, and it's easy enough
to change:
Index: trans-decl.c
===
--- trans-decl.c(revision
--- Comment #1 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-12 08:00
---
Can you run it under gdb and provide a backtrace? To do this, follow these
steps:
1. Run gdb -args ./libexec/gcc/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/4.4.0/f951 o.f90
where o.f90 is your source file and
--- Comment #1 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-12 08:00
---
Can you run it under gdb and provide a backtrace? To do this, follow these
steps:
1. Run gdb -args ./libexec/gcc/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/4.4.0/f951 o.f90
where o.f90 is your source file and
--- Comment #6 from razya at il dot ibm dot com 2008-05-12 09:13 ---
(In reply to comment #0)
/* { dg-do compile } */
/* { dg-options -O3 -ftree-parallelize-loops=4 } */
struct T
{
int t;
struct { short s1, s2, s3, s4 } *s;
};
void
foo (int *a, int *b, int *c, int *d,
--- Comment #7 from razya at il dot ibm dot com 2008-05-12 09:42 ---
(In reply to comment #6)
I'm getting the same ICE (with r134722) when running spec2006/gobmk on power6.
The same failure appears also for other benchmarks from spec2006:
h264ref, gromacs, calculix, tonto, wrf
--
//---//
configuration:
CFLAGS=-O2 $DEPACK_DIR/gcc-4.2-20080507/configure --target=mips64vrel-elf \
--prefix=$PREFIX_DIR --enable-languages=c,c++ --disable-__cxa_atexit \
--with-gnu-as --with-gnu-ld --with-newlib \
--- Comment #1 from aph at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-12 10:27 ---
What on earth is this asm supposed to do?
The compiler is quite entitled to complain about this: the memory
at char x[10] is being used as an ouput operand, but it is not in scope.
The text in the gcc texinfo refers
--
aaronavay62 at aaronwl dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|major |critical
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36207
--
aaronavay62 at aaronwl dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|major |critical
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36215
Several files in libgcj will cause jc1.exe to exhaust its stack space
allocation.
This can be worked around by compiling jc1.exe with -Wl,--stack,0x200,
which can be accomplished by including it in LDFLAGS when compiling. (This
exact size is arbitrary; it's big enough to work, but perhaps
--- Comment #1 from aaronavay62 at aaronwl dot com 2008-05-12 11:03 ---
cipher.o at least fails for this reason.
I'm not sure when this last worked, but it at least worked sometime around
2004.
--
aaronavay62 at aaronwl dot com changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #10 from jb at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-12 11:27 ---
Time for a what we want to fix with the new array descriptor
meta-PR?
I started a wiki page for this, with a few issues from the top of my head:
http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/ArrayDescriptorUpdate
--
--- Comment #2 from michael dot a dot richmond at nasa dot gov 2008-05-12
11:41 ---
$ gdb -args irun/libexec/gcc/i386-unknown-freebsd7.0/4.4.0/f951 m1.f90
GNU gdb 6.1.1 [FreeBSD]
Copyright 2004 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
GDB is free software, covered by the GNU General Public
--- Comment #2 from michael dot a dot richmond at nasa dot gov 2008-05-12
12:06 ---
I would like to make a clarification. Program kmci produces a segfault:
f951: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault
Please submit a full bug report,
with preprocessed source if appropriate.
See
--- Comment #1 from sam at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-12 12:11 ---
Could you post the disassembly of the previous stage get_target_char_size
from targtyps.o? (objdump --source targtyps.o)
On i686-pc-linux-gnu, I get:
Pos
get_target_char_size (void)
{
14: 55
--- Comment #14 from irar at il dot ibm dot com 2008-05-12 12:17 ---
Fixed.
--
irar at il dot ibm dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
--- Comment #2 from sam at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-12 12:18 ---
The beginning of objdump --disassemble-all -r ttypes.o should be interesting
as well:
ttypes___elabs:
0: 55 push %ebp
1: 89 e5 mov%esp,%ebp
3: 83 ec
--- Comment #9 from ubizjak at gmail dot com 2008-05-12 13:12 ---
(In reply to comment #6)
This patch works for me:
Index: recog.c
This is not a good solution, since the problem is in
if (SWAPPABLE_OPERANDS_P (x))
section, a couple of lines down the code. The patch and an
--- Comment #3 from sam at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-12 14:12 ---
What compilation option did you use? I cannot reproduce this with Debian's 4.3
compiler or with current SVN trunk.
--
sam at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2008-05-12 14:20
---
On it.
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from paolo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-12 15:19 ---
Subject: Bug 35331
Author: paolo
Date: Mon May 12 15:18:52 2008
New Revision: 135216
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=135216
Log:
/cp
2008-05-12 Paolo Carlini [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR
--- Comment #4 from anhvofrcaus at gmail dot com 2008-05-12 15:19 ---
Sam,
If you look at my comment on 21 January 2008. This problem was fixed starting
with gcc-4.3-20080118. That is why you did not see the problem existed. In
summary, this PR should be closed around that time.
--
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|pcarlini at suse dot de |unassigned at gcc dot gnu
|
--- Comment #12 from jules at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-12 15:27 ---
I think this was probably fixed by one of Andrew Jenner's patches in
gfortran-armel-updates:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-gcc/2008/04/msg00351.html
(The Unshare RTX earlier... one). Andrew and I actually did
[EMAIL PROTECTED] sse-1]$ cat d.c
#include emmintrin.h
__m128i
foo2 (int x1, int x2, int x3, int x4)
{
return _mm_set_epi32 (x1, x2, x3, x4);
}
[EMAIL PROTECTED] sse-1]$ make d.s
/export/build/gnu/gcc-stack-internal/build-x86_64-linux/gcc/xgcc
--- Comment #35 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2008-05-12 15:50 ---
so you prefer to leave my fix (possibly amended in 4.4+)?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36090
--- Comment #1 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-12 15:52
---
Subject: Bug 36176
Author: fxcoudert
Date: Mon May 12 15:51:27 2008
New Revision: 135219
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=135219
Log:
PR fortran/36176
* target-memory.c
--- Comment #1 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2008-05-12 15:57 ---
Also do we need movq%xmm1, %xmm2?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36222
--- Comment #1 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2008-05-12 16:25 ---
Subject: Bug 36001
Author: bonzini
Date: Mon May 12 16:25:07 2008
New Revision: 135220
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=135220
Log:
2008-05-12 Samuel Tardieu [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Paolo
--- Comment #2 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2008-05-12 16:27 ---
thanks, fixed!
--
bonzini at gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #36 from dje at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-12 16:32 ---
Yes, I suggest keeping the simplify_plus_minus change with the CONST wrapper
removed.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36090
--- Comment #9 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-12 16:42
---
Testcase for mainline to be attached, same underlying problem.
--
ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #10 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-12 16:43
---
Created an attachment (id=15630)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=15630action=view)
New reduced Ada testcase.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/build/gcc/native32 gcc/xgcc -Bgcc -S p.adb -I gcc/ada/rts
--- Comment #11 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-12 16:44
---
I'll do something in Gigi.
--
ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #37 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2008-05-12 16:48 ---
Ok, I started a bootstrap of the obvious patch on i686-pc-linux-gnu. But I
think the obvious patch is not enough if we go this way. The comments in
simplify_plus_minus are already not up-to-date, and removing CONST is
--- Comment #38 from dje at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-12 16:51 ---
I did update the comment when I applied the patch.
I will work on this more when I return from travel next week.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36090
--- Comment #39 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2008-05-12 16:54 ---
Ah, only on 4.3 branch. Ok, I'll go on from here.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36090
--- Comment #10 from uros at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-12 16:56 ---
Subject: Bug 36111
Author: uros
Date: Mon May 12 16:55:43 2008
New Revision: 135221
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=135221
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/36111
* recog.c
--- Comment #11 from ubizjak at gmail dot com 2008-05-12 16:58 ---
Fixed.
--
ubizjak at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #3 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-12 17:11
---
It's a regression from earlier versions (probably before toplevel bootstrap).
Is the fix safe enough as to be backported to the 4.3 branch?
--
ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What
--- Comment #2 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-12 17:21
---
Though -fnon-call-exceptions really is only heavily used in java and java does
not use complex types.
It is heavily used in Ada as well, but Ada doesn't use complex types either.
--
ebotcazou at gcc dot
--- Comment #4 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-12 17:44
---
It's not an issue limited to SCAN, it can happen to all functions (intrinsics
or not). Reduced testcase, showing the failure even without
-fdefault-integer-8:
program main
implicit none
print *,
--
fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot
|dot org
--- Comment #7 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-12 18:02
---
Patch committed, fixed on mainline.
--
fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot|unassigned at gcc dot gnu
|org
--
fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot
|dot org
This is a missed-optimization bug. The following reduced test case illustrates
the problem. It doesn't do anything useful, but just compile it with
mipsisa32r2-elfoabi-gcc -S -mtune=24kc -G4096 -O2 example4.c
#define N 511
#define M 9
long A[N];
long B[N];
long AA[N];
long BB[N];
long tA;
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
Keywords|
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-12 19:02 ---
This sounds more like an IV issue rather than a PRE issue.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36223
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-12 19:09 ---
Actually this is an IV-opt issue rather than a RA/PRE issue.
For GCC 4.1.1 targeting an internal PPC port, I get the following on the tree
level at the end:
L1:;
D.2011 = (long int *) ivtmp.92;
MEM[base: AA,
--- Comment #3 from sandra at codesourcery dot com 2008-05-12 19:10 ---
One other tidbit: the MIPS SDE 3.4.4-based toolchain produced the desired code
for this test case. It's really a 4.* regression, not an enhancement.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36223
--- Comment #2 from ubizjak at gmail dot com 2008-05-12 19:23 ---
(In reply to comment #1)
Also do we need movq%xmm1, %xmm2?
We can help RA a bit by emitting RTL sequence that requires less pseudos.
Index: i386.c
===
The vec_widen_smult_{hi,lo}_v4si functions are incorrect, in that they generate
the pmuludq instruction, which does a 32x32-64 unsigned multiply. For
example, multiplying -13 * 15 = gives 64424509245 with the current code, when
it should give -195.
The sse5 instructions pmacsdqh and pmacsdql
--- Comment #1 from gnu at the-meissners dot org 2008-05-12 20:00 ---
Created an attachment (id=15631)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=15631action=view)
Test case for bug 36224
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36224
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-12 20:41 ---
I saw this too.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-12 20:41 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
I saw this too.
On cygwin.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[4.4 Regression] struct-|[4.3/4.4 Regression] struct-
|layout-1_generate.c
--- Comment #2 from sam at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-12 21:06 ---
This has been fixed in SVN trunk (135230).
--
sam at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
MS compiler mangles fastcall function names. For
void foo (int i):
In C++, it is mangled as
1. Wth fastcall: ?foo@@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
^ This an additional I.
2. Without fastcall: ?foo@@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
In C, it is mangled as
1. With fastcall: @[EMAIL PROTECTED]
2.
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-12 21:16 ---
GCC does mangle it for win32 based targets, just not gnu/linux. Do you want
the mangling for GNU/Linux also?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36225
--- Comment #4 from sam at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-12 21:21 ---
The fix is probably safe, but someone should apply Ralf's patch as well on this
branch and check that it builds fine with and without an Ada compiler around
(I'm not volunteering).
--
--- Comment #5 from sam at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-12 21:24 ---
Indeed, I missed the not in your message :)
This is great news. Closing.
--
sam at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from charlet at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-12 21:54 ---
Lowering severity
--
charlet at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot
|dot org
--- Comment #1 from charlet at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-12 22:05 ---
This is not accessibility level which is computed here, but dynamic task
master level, in case your interface is a synchronized interface.
You can already use pragma Restrictions (No_Task_Hierarchy) if you do not
--- Comment #20 from charlet at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-12 22:19
---
This PR is puzzling and confused: the original issue (tests failing on some
platform) has been addressed.
The new issue which seem the be keeping this PR opened is the ability to
run ACATS tests using expect to
--- Comment #3 from charlet at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-12 22:26 ---
You do not need to build/install asis to use some of these commands, but
that does not make gnatcmd.adb wrong here.
In other words, you are assuming that gnatcmd.adb should only refer to
tools that come with GCC,
--- Comment #3 from charlet at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-12 22:31 ---
I'd suggest updating your patch to latest sources, and submit it to
gcc-patches, that's the standard procedure.
Also, it would be useful to have some kind of commitment from either
someone or from soem identified
--- Comment #1 from charlet at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-12 22:34 ---
Well, I must be blind, but I do not see a bad location here: GNAT complains
at line 3 that the full declaration defined at line 4 must be tagged,
showing indeed the line where type T is declared as tagged.
Looks
--- Comment #2 from charlet at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-12 22:35 ---
No information, not even a GCC version, so closing.
Please reopen once you have more info to feed.
Arno
--
charlet at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from charlet at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-12 22:38 ---
Right, this is really as intended, to avoid too many false positives.
The warning circuitry is not prepared to handle more complex cases,
which would require really a different kind of tool, so is out of the scope
--- Comment #2 from charlet at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-12 22:40 ---
No feedback. Note that I suspect GCC 4.3/4.4 build current polyorb fine,
so closing this PR.
--
charlet at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #39 from charlet at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-12 22:43
---
Fixed on trunk.
Patch pre-approved on active branches if deemed necessary.
--
charlet at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from sam at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-12 22:43 ---
I expect the error message to point at the full declaration itself, not the
partial view, as the partial view had been analyzed correctly and had no error
so far. When it says full declaration of type T declared at XXX,
When using a volatile function pointer and compiling with -O2 optimization, the
resulting program will not correctly return from the function pointer but will
instead jump to another point of the program. I have been able to reproduce
this behavior with gcc 3.4.6, 4.0.2 and the x86 locally hosted
--- Comment #4 from charlet at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-12 22:47 ---
There are really not enough info to guess what is going wrong for sure.
It is indeed likely the same as PR29127, so closing on that grounds.
Please give me info if you think this is a different issue, thanks.
Arno
--- Comment #6 from charlet at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-12 22:47 ---
*** Bug 33820 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
charlet at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from mbenedict at aclaratech dot com 2008-05-12 22:48
---
Created an attachment (id=15632)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=15632action=view)
File that reproduces the problem
Note also that when optimizing (-O2) the assembly comment # XXX - This
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-12 22:49 ---
volatile here means no return and no standard C meaning IIRC.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36226
--- Comment #2 from charlet at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-12 22:49 ---
it's a testsuite/infrastructure issue rather than an Ada issue per se.
Arno
--
charlet at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from charlet at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-12 22:54 ---
OK, classifying as an enhancement request, since there's no bug here, the error
message is correct.
--
charlet at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from sam at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-12 23:01 ---
Given that this happens when currently analyzing Id (and not Prev), posting
the error message on Prev instead of Id may be an historical typo
(inversion between both parameters in the call to Error_Msg_NE).
For
--- Comment #11 from charlet at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-12 23:11
---
This PR seems to be addressed at this point.
--
charlet at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-12 23:15
---
Well, that one is subtle, but I think I found it: it's a TRUNC_DIV_EXPR that
should be a FLOOR_DIV_EXPR in gfc_conv_loop_setup(). That simple fix makes all
testcases in this PR run, except when -fbounds-check is
--- Comment #1 from charlet at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-12 23:23 ---
It will install it only if it was built (there's an explicit test), and it
won't
build it for e.g. non vxworks, so things are fine here.
Arno
--
charlet at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What
--- Comment #2 from charlet at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-12 23:26 ---
This is fixed on mainline, where a similar patch has been applied.
Arno
--
charlet at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #16 from charlet at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-12 23:35
---
After reviewing this ticket, I am coming to the conclusion that things
are working as expected now: due to major changes in the gcc directory
structure and makefiles, when you do a make, GCC will always build
--- Comment #2 from sam at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-12 23:41 ---
it won't build it for e.g. non vxworks, so things are fine here.
Are you sure of that? Because it has been built in my April 29 build of a
cross-compiler targetting sh4-unknown-linux-gnu (from i686-pc-linux-gnu).
--
--- Comment #7 from charlet at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-12 23:42 ---
Turns out that this PR is the same as PR864
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 864 ***
--
charlet at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #7 from charlet at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-12 23:42 ---
*** Bug 29127 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
charlet at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2008-05-12 23:48 ---
(In reply to comment #1)
GCC does mangle it for win32 based targets, just not gnu/linux. Do you want
the mangling for GNU/Linux also?
Since gcc doesn't mangle regparm, I don't know if gcc should mangle
fastcall.
--- Comment #3 from charlet at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-12 23:58 ---
Subject: Bug 31808
Author: charlet
Date: Mon May 12 23:58:11 2008
New Revision: 135239
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=135239
Log:
PR ada/31808
* Makefile.in (gnattools-cross): Do not build
--- Comment #4 from charlet at adacore dot com 2008-05-13 00:01 ---
Subject: Re: cross-built gnattools installs vxaddr2line
regardless of target triplet
Are you sure of that? Because it has been built in my April 29 build of a
cross-compiler targetting sh4-unknown-linux-gnu
--- Comment #2 from dannysmith at users dot sourceforge dot net 2008-05-13
03:52 ---
(In reply to comment #0)
What negative consequences does increasing the default [stack]
allocation have?
Minimal really, for a single threaded program like jc1.exe. We are just
reserving address
--- Comment #12 from linuxl4 at sohu dot com 2008-05-13 05:39 ---
I compiled openmpi 1.2.6 today,
gcc 20080512 works fine.
thanks!
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36111
96 matches
Mail list logo
