--- Comment #13 from dannysmith at users dot sourceforge dot net
2009-03-28 07:24 ---
(In reply to comment #12)
Both the dg-error clauses now fail; previously (4.3.2), only the second one
failed. Reverting the patch causes the first dg-error (line 21) to pass again
by restoring the
--- Comment #4 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-03-28 08:03
---
I think consensus was reached this is not a desirable feature for now, so
closing. Please reopen if the situation changes.
--
fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #3 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-03-28 08:28
---
This is work that Daniel Kraft and I did (well, I think he did the hard work
and I gave some loose sort of guidance). I seem to remember it was intentional
(it may have been discussed on the list around summer of
--- Comment #11 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-03-28 08:44
---
The x86_64 FPE code in libgfortran works fine, as evidenced by the fact that it
works with some glibcs (RedHat's glibc-2.5 for example) and on Mac OS 10.5.6
(which uses the same FPE setter). Closing as INVALID,
--- Comment #4 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-03-28 08:55
---
The solution to this issue would be to detect a broken strtod() (or strtof() or
strtold()) in libgfortran configury, and write a wrapper checking for
infinities and nans before calling the system's strtod().
--- Comment #3 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-03-28 09:34
---
Closing. Please reopen with requested information if the bug is still present.
--
fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #7 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-03-28 09:35
---
Closing for now. Please reopen with additional information if you still have
issues building gfortran.
--
fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-03-28 09:38
---
Closing this report for now. Please reopen it with additional information if
the bug is still there for you after the advice given by Tobias in comment #2.
--
fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
--- Comment #15 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-03-28 09:41
---
(In reply to comment #14)
Patch submitted:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2008-12/msg01221.html
Just a note: the patch was reviewed and okayed by Tobias. You can apply to
trunk.
--
fxcoudert at gcc dot
--- Comment #5 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-03-28 09:54 ---
Another fix is to #undef TARGET_C99_FUNCTIONS as obviously netbsd is another
OS without a clue ...
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39570
--- Comment #7 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-03-28 10:02 ---
Subject: Bug 37795
Author: rguenth
Date: Sat Mar 28 10:01:56 2009
New Revision: 145170
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=145170
Log:
2009-03-28 Richard Guenther rguent...@suse.de
PR
--- Comment #8 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-03-28 10:02 ---
Fixed.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #11 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-03-28 10:05
---
Subject: Bug 38968
Author: rguenth
Date: Sat Mar 28 10:05:24 2009
New Revision: 145171
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=145171
Log:
2009-03-28 Richard Guenther rguent...@suse.de
PR
--- Comment #12 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-03-28 10:06
---
Fixed.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #8 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-03-28 10:11 ---
Subject: Bug 38513
Author: rguenth
Date: Sat Mar 28 10:11:14 2009
New Revision: 145172
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=145172
Log:
2009-03-28 Richard Guenther rguent...@suse.de
PR
--- Comment #9 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-03-28 10:12 ---
Fixed.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal
--- Comment #7 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-03-28 12:07
---
This is a reduced test case, confirmed the ICE on x86_64-linux, both -m32 and
-m64 with gfortran 4.3.2:
module m
integer :: n
contains
subroutine AC_reorder
integer :: p
!$OMP PARALLEL
--- Comment #6 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-03-28 12:07
---
*** Bug 37644 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
GCC host
--
fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
GCC build
--- Comment #12 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-03-28 12:23 ---
On #gcc it was confirmed to give a SIGFPE on gentoo with glibc 2.9 on x86-64. I
think it is one of the @amd.com patches for x86-64 which fixes some performance
problems but has the side effect that it doesn't honour
--- Comment #3 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-03-28 12:35
---
The warning has disappeared in 4.3.2, the 4.4 branch and trunk, at least on
x64_64-linux; because I doubt it's cygwin-related, I close this report for now,
please feel free to reopen it with any additional info
--- Comment #8 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-03-28 12:52 ---
Subject: Bug 38180
Author: rguenth
Date: Sat Mar 28 12:52:13 2009
New Revision: 145184
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=145184
Log:
2009-03-28 Richard Guenther rguent...@suse.de
PR
--- Comment #9 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-03-28 12:52 ---
Fixed.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #5 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-03-28 12:55 ---
Fixed.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal
--- Comment #2 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-03-28 13:01
---
Created an attachment (id=17554)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=17554action=view)
Tentative patch
Can you tell me if the patch attached fixes the issue?
--
--- Comment #6 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-03-28 13:06
---
(In reply to comment #5)
I can't get a very usable backtrace on this.
Maybe valgind will give us a hint on Linux box.
With current trunk, valgrind on x86_64-linux reports nothing (tried both -m32
and -m64).
--- Comment #3 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-03-28 13:06 ---
Subject: Bug 38432
Author: burnus
Date: Sat Mar 28 13:06:30 2009
New Revision: 145186
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=145186
Log:
2009-03-28 Tobias Burnus bur...@net-b.de
PR
--- Comment #6 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-03-28 13:09
---
Switch component to target, as this is target-specific behaviour not specific
to fortran (you'd have the same thing with C if you use __builtin_cabs() and
__builtin_cabsf().
--
fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot
--- Comment #4 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-03-28 12:54 ---
Subject: Bug 38458
Author: rguenth
Date: Sat Mar 28 12:54:14 2009
New Revision: 145185
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=145185
Log:
2009-03-28 Richard Guenther rguent...@suse.de
PR
--- Comment #4 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-03-28 13:20 ---
FIXED on the trunk (4.5).
Example:
do i = 1, -3, 1
1
Warning: DO loop at (1) will be executed zero times
--
burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #10 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-03-28 13:21
---
I think this is glibc issue, which can be worked around (as Jerry demonstrated)
e.g. by using -ffast-math or by using a differently math library. Thus, I'm
closing this PR.
--
fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot
--- Comment #3 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-03-28 13:37
---
(In reply to comment #2)
It is not allowed in F2003.
8.4 STOP statement
R849 stop-stmt is STOP [ stop-code ]
R850 stop-code is scalar-char-constant
or digit [ digit [ digit [
--
fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
--- Comment #2 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-03-28 13:39
---
It's indeed a duplicate of 27120.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 27120 ***
--
fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-03-28 13:39
---
*** Bug 35234 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-03-28 13:45
---
I second Steve's opinion that we shouldn't add that legacy feature to gfortran.
A Google codesearch for
lang:fortran complex function *16 -complex*16 function
returned only 1 use of this syntax!
Let's
--
fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Last
--- Comment #10 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-03-28 13:59
---
4.2 branch is now closing.
--
fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-03-28 14:04 ---
Subject: Bug 32626
Author: burnus
Date: Sat Mar 28 14:04:14 2009
New Revision: 145188
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=145188
Log:
2009-03-28 Tobias Burnus bur...@net-b.de
PR
--- Comment #4 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-03-28 14:08 ---
Fixed on the trunk (4.5):
At line 22 of file recursive_check_7.f90
Fortran runtime error: Recursive call to nonrecursive procedure 'invalid'
--
burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
The Target x86_64-unknown-openbsd4.5 is not supported in Trunk.
# uname -a
OpenBSD openbsd.localdomain 4.5 GENERIC#5 amd64
The file ../gcc_trunk/gcc/config.gcc supports both x86_64-*-freebsd*
and x86_64-*-netbsd* but NOT x86_64-*-openbsd*.
The file ../gcc_trunk/gcc/config.gcc does support
--
fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Last
--- Comment #3 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-03-28 14:12
---
Closing for now, please reopen with additional information if you can reproduce
this failure in an out-of-source-tree build.
--
fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #3 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2009-03-28 15:23 ---
A patch is posted at
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-02/msg00251.html
--
hjl dot tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Last
--- Comment #4 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-03-28 15:31
---
Created an attachment (id=17555)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=17555action=view)
Proposed patch to fix the main issue
Here's the patch I propose to fix this issue and a few similar ones that
--
fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |burnus at gcc dot gnu dot
|dot org
--- Comment #1 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-03-28 15:40
---
Confirmed. I think both the rationale and the proposed actions are clear and
sound.
--
fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Linking in debugging mode is fine:
$ make CNF=gcc MODE=debug
scons -j 2 CNF=gcc MODE=debug BACKEND=
scons: Reading SConscript files ...
scons: done reading SConscript files.
scons: Building targets ...
g++ -o main.o -c -pipe -I. -Wall -g -fopenmp main.cpp
g++ -o tinystr.o -c -pipe -I. -Wall -g
--
fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Last
--
fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Last
--
fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Last
--- Comment #1 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-03-28 16:33
---
This is not a Fortran issue, it should be done in the middle-end. On platforms
that have a defined value for __builtin_clz(0), the conditional in the function
below should be optimized out:
int foo (int i)
{
--- Comment #4 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-03-28 16:39
---
The Fortran front-end diagnostic strings have a specific format, that is an
extension of the C printf format. It is not the same as the
gcc-internal-format. Thus, if you want it to be supported, it first needs to
--- Comment #5 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-03-28 17:08 ---
Subject: Bug 36703
Author: pault
Date: Sat Mar 28 17:08:25 2009
New Revision: 145196
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=145196
Log:
2009-02-13 Paul Thomas pa...@gcc.gnu.org
PR
--
fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
--- Comment #4 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-03-28 16:46 ---
Fixed on the trunk.
--
jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-03-28 17:18 ---
Fixed.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #5 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-03-28 17:18 ---
Subject: Bug 38723
Author: rguenth
Date: Sat Mar 28 17:17:57 2009
New Revision: 145197
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=145197
Log:
2009-03-28 Richard Guenther rguent...@suse.de
PR
--- Comment #5 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-03-28 17:18
---
I'm not sure I like the idea of a warning enabled by -Wall. The code is legal,
and I don't find it too surprising if you think of it. Confirming the bug and
marking as enhancement, though; if others feel like me,
--- Comment #5 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-03-28 17:23 ---
Subject: Bug 39554
Author: jakub
Date: Sat Mar 28 17:23:08 2009
New Revision: 145198
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=145198
Log:
PR c++/39554
* opts.c
--- Comment #6 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-03-28 17:29 ---
Subject: Bug 39554
Author: jakub
Date: Sat Mar 28 17:28:45 2009
New Revision: 145200
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=145200
Log:
PR c++/39554
* opts.c
--- Comment #5 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-03-28 17:39 ---
(In reply to comment #4)
Not so - this was the wrong message for another commit. This fix is on the
way.
Paul
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36528
--- Comment #7 from aran at 100acres dot us 2009-03-28 18:13 ---
(In reply to comment #5)
Another fix is to #undef TARGET_C99_FUNCTIONS as obviously netbsd is another
OS without a clue ...
Please explain how an OS with a clue would handle this problem. Older binaries
that use the
--- Comment #5 from goeran at uddeborg dot se 2009-03-28 18:27 ---
I see. I've sent an enhancement suggestion to the gettext project.
https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/index.php?26040
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36161
--- Comment #8 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-03-28 18:30 ---
Symbol versioning, obviously.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39570
--- Comment #2 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2009-03-28 18:29 ---
I got
g++: Internal error: Killed (program cc1plus)^M
Please submit a full bug report.^M
See http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs.html for instructions.^M
FAIL: ext/pb_ds/example/basic_set.cc (test for excess errors)
My
--- Comment #5 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2009-03-28
18:57 ---
Subject: Re: HP-UX 10 has broken strtod
On Sat, 28 Mar 2009, fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
--- Comment #4 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-03-28 08:55
---
The
--- Comment #3 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2009-03-28 18:53 ---
(In reply to comment #1)
FAIL: ext/pb_ds/example/basic_set.cc (test for excess errors)
FAIL: ext/pb_ds/example/basic_set.cc (test for excess errors)
what are the excess errors?
This is introduced between
--- Comment #9 from aran at 100acres dot us 2009-03-28 19:38 ---
(In reply to comment #8)
Symbol versioning, obviously.
Yep, that would have worked. Thanks for the clue.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39570
--- Comment #1 from reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-03-28 20:14
---
Confirmed (also by Paolo in PR29727).
This is rejected since at least GCC 2.95.3.
--
reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #11 from reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-03-28 20:19
---
Shouldn't this be closed as fixed?
No, because the fix was reverted the bug remains unfixed.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26693
--- Comment #8 from reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-03-28 20:34
---
The bug disappeared on the trunk between 2009-03-15 and 2009-03-20.
Hopefully it doesn't reappear again.
--
reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-03-28 20:49
---
Fixed on the trunk between 2009-03-15 and 2009-03-20, most likely by Jason's
patch
2009-03-17 Jason Merrill ja...@redhat.com
* decl.c (grokfndecl): Set DECL_CONTEXT on parms.
(duplicate_decls):
--- Comment #6 from reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-03-28 20:54
---
Fixed by Jason's patch
2009-03-17 Jason Merrill ja...@redhat.com
* decl.c (grokfndecl): Set DECL_CONTEXT on parms.
(duplicate_decls): Adjust DECL_CONTEXT of newdecl's parms.
* pt.c
--- Comment #16 from danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-03-28 21:16
---
Subject: Bug 33595
Author: danglin
Date: Sat Mar 28 21:15:45 2009
New Revision: 145209
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=145209
Log:
PR fortran/33595
*
--- Comment #8 from reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-03-28 21:20
---
The mangling problem has been fixed on the trunk by Jason's patch:
2009-03-17 Jason Merrill ja...@redhat.com
* decl.c (grokfndecl): Set DECL_CONTEXT on parms.
(duplicate_decls): Adjust
--- Comment #2 from reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-03-28 21:28
---
Fixed on the trunk by Jason's patch
2009-03-17 Jason Merrill ja...@redhat.com
* decl.c (grokfndecl): Set DECL_CONTEXT on parms.
(duplicate_decls): Adjust DECL_CONTEXT of newdecl's parms.
--- Comment #4 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-03-28 21:31 ---
I still do not see this (my machine also has 4gb ram).
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39574
declaration:
int f (void) { extern int var; return var; }
c DW_AT_producer: (indirect string, offset: 0x0): GNU C 4.5.0
20090328 (experimental)
12d: Abbrev Number: 2 (DW_TAG_subprogram)
2f DW_AT_name: f
[...]
250: Abbrev Number: 3 (DW_TAG_variable)
51
--- Comment #5 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-03-28 21:39 ---
Subject: Bug 34656
Author: burnus
Date: Sat Mar 28 21:39:26 2009
New Revision: 145210
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=145210
Log:
2009-03-28 Tobias Burnus bur...@net-b.de
PR
--- Comment #6 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-03-28 21:40 ---
FIXED on the trunk (4.5):
$ gfortran -fcheck=do test.f90
$ ./a.out
At line 4 of file test.f90
Fortran runtime error: Loop variable has been modified
The error location is not the best but it works reliably and
--- Comment #6 from reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-03-28 21:40
---
The bug reappeared on the trunk and the 4.3 branch.
This was caused by
2009-03-18 H.J. Lu hongjiu...@intel.com
PR c++/39425
* parser.c (cp_parser_explicit_specialization): Don't skip the
--- Comment #7 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2009-03-28 21:56 ---
Even if a bug is fixed by another patch for a different bug,
the testcase should be added to gcc.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28301
--- Comment #5 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2009-03-28 21:59 ---
All fixed as of revision 145202:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2009-03/msg02877.html
--
hjl dot tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #7 from aran at 100acres dot us 2009-03-28 23:19 ---
NetBSD seems to be using jemalloc. which is the memory allocator
from FreeBSD. Perhaps, your memory is defective.
Where would this be? I can't find jemalloc in the fortran directory.
--
--- Comment #7 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2009-03-28 23:23 ---
It shouldn't be closed without a testcase.
--
hjl dot tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2009-03-28 23:25 ---
It shouldn't be closed without a testcase.
--
hjl dot tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #9 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2009-03-28 23:26 ---
(In reply to comment #8)
The bug disappeared on the trunk between 2009-03-15 and 2009-03-20.
Hopefully it doesn't reappear again.
We need to check in a testcase to ensure it won't reappear again.
--
hjl dot
--- Comment #5 from bje at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-03-28 23:27 ---
Subject: Bug 30451
Author: bje
Date: Sat Mar 28 23:27:14 2009
New Revision: 145213
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=145213
Log:
PR target/30451
* config/rs6000/rs6000.md
--- Comment #3 from bje at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-03-28 23:31 ---
Subject: Bug 32542
Author: bje
Date: Sat Mar 28 23:31:35 2009
New Revision: 145214
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=145214
Log:
PR target/32542
* sysv4.opt (msdata): Improve comment.
--- Comment #8 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-03-28 23:32 ---
*NetBSD* seems to be using jemalloc, i.e. jemalloc is your system's malloc()
and it is the same as FreeBSD where the test case *does* work.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39571
--- Comment #4 from bje at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-03-28 23:53 ---
Fixed on mainline.
--
bje at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #6 from bje at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-03-28 23:55 ---
Fixed on mainline.
--
bje at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #9 from kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-03-29 00:14 ---
(In reply to comment #7)
NetBSD seems to be using jemalloc. which is the memory allocator
from FreeBSD. Perhaps, your memory is defective.
Where would this be? I can't find jemalloc in the fortran
--- Comment #9 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-03-29 00:30
---
Subject: Bug 39528
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Sun Mar 29 00:30:17 2009
New Revision: 145221
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=145221
Log:
2009-03-28 Jerry DeLisle jvdeli...@gcc.gnu.org
--- Comment #10 from aran at 100acres dot us 2009-03-29 00:50 ---
(In reply to comment #9)
What happens when you compile the following:
#include stdio.h
#include gmp.h
int main(void) {
unsigned int u = 268435472u;
mpz_t x;
mpz_init(x);
--- Comment #10 from sebpop at gmail dot com 2009-03-29 02:15 ---
Subject: Re: ICE with -fcheck-data-deps
The bug disappeared on the trunk between 2009-03-15 and 2009-03-20.
This bug might have been fixed by PR39500.
Sebastian
--
-checking=release
--with-gmp=/usr/local --with-mpfr=/usr/local
Thread model: single
gcc version 4.5.0 20090328 (experimental) [trunk revision 145157] (GCC)
Thanks,
Rob
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36545
1 - 100 of 101 matches
Mail list logo
