--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-20
09:18 ---
Subject: Bug 20474
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Branch: gcc-4_0-branch
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-03-20 09:17:57
Modified files:
gcc:
--- Additional Comments From pcarlini at suse dot de 2005-03-20 09:51
---
The problem persists!
What can I do?
As I replied privately, please clean-up your paths to the standard ones and
re-install (completely, core, c++, library) you system compiler.
Sorry, but I will not be able
--- Additional Comments From belyshev at depni dot sinp dot msu dot ru
2005-03-20 10:37 ---
Confirmed, reduced testcase (compile with -O2):
--
struct s
{
int a, b;
};
static int foo (struct s *u)
{
if (u-b
--- Additional Comments From belyshev at depni dot sinp dot msu dot ru
2005-03-20 11:25 ---
This is with today's (Mar 17, 2005) CVS, with Richard's Guenther's patch to
modify inlining heuristics.
which one? please add references to all patches you installed or, better, try to
reproduce
--- Additional Comments From dorit at il dot ibm dot com 2005-03-20 12:26
---
Thanks.
This patch should fix the problem (the message Alignment of access forced
using peeling should not be printed when we're not going to vectorize the loop
due to unsupported unaligned access. this
In gcov/g++ 3.3, if I compile with g++ test.cc -ftest-coverage -fprofile-arcs,
and then run gcov test.cc, test.cc.gcov contains 2 lines of preamble, and
then 1 line for each line of test.cc
in gcov/g++ 4.1, Extra lines are added. I can't seem to disable these, and I'm
not positive why they are
--- Additional Comments From chris at bubblescope dot net 2005-03-20 12:45
---
As soon as I've submitted this bug, I've found the documentation notes this
change.. I would still ask is there a way to get back the earlier behaviour?
--
In gcov/g++ 3.3, if I compile with g++ test.cc -ftest-coverage -fprofile-arcs,
and then run gcov test.cc, test.cc.gcov contains 2 lines of preamble, and
then 1 line for each line of test.cc
in gcov/g++ 4.1, Extra lines are added. I can't seem to disable these, and I'm
not positive why they are
In gcov/g++ 3.3, if I compile with g++ test.cc -ftest-coverage -fprofile-arcs,
and then run gcov test.cc, test.cc.gcov contains 2 lines of preamble, and
then 1 line for each line of test.cc
in gcov/g++ 4.1, Extra lines are added. I can't seem to disable these, and I'm
not positive why they are
--- Additional Comments From chris at bubblescope dot net 2005-03-20 13:02
---
Stupid webbrowser ¬_¬
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 20564 ***
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From chris at bubblescope dot net 2005-03-20 13:02
---
*** Bug 20565 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20564
--- Additional Comments From chris at bubblescope dot net 2005-03-20 13:03
---
Stupid webbrowser ¬_¬
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 20564 ***
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From chris at bubblescope dot net 2005-03-20 13:03
---
*** Bug 20566 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20564
Some tests in gcc.c-torture use dg-options inappropriately.
gcc.c-torture/execute ignores dg-options settings, but pr7284-1.c and
wchar_t-1.c use them. I think the proper fix would be to make that directory
honour dg-options. If it is made to use the dg harness it might also be
possible to get
--
What|Removed |Added
Component|other |testsuite
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19802
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-20
13:55 ---
gcov output is suposed to be human readable and not machine readable.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20564
--- Additional Comments From lerdsuwa at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-20
13:55 ---
Here is the relevant section of the standard (TC1,
section 9.4.2, paragraph 4):
If a 'static' data member is of 'const' integral or 'const' enumeral type,
its declaration in the class definition can
--- Additional Comments From lerdsuwa at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-20
14:00 ---
Here is the error message:
pr20549.C: In function 'void popSlot()':
pr20549.C:12: internal compiler error: in resolve_overloaded_unification, at
cp/pt.c:9579
Please submit a full bug report,
with
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-20
14:54 ---
Fixed for 4.0.0 by:
2005-03-17 Richard Henderson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* doc/extend.texi (Weak Pragmas): New section.
(attribute alias): Clarify that target must be in the same
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-20
14:58 ---
Isn't this fixed now by:
2005-03-10 Steven Bosscher [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* expr.c (expand_expr_real_1): If possible, use a conditional
move for expanding MIN_EXPR and MAX_EXPR.
Use
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-20
15:00 ---
I get this now:
Fail!
lbound = 1, ubound = 2
Which is only partly more correct but still wrong.
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From nathan at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-20
15:11 ---
whilst gcov output is primarily human readable, it should be machine
processable.
I do not consider this a regression, because the additional lines are all tagged
as line 0. filter scripts should be
--
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |nathan at gcc dot gnu dot
|dot org |org
Status|UNCONFIRMED
--- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-20
15:12 ---
Yes it is.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
--- Additional Comments From bredelin at ucla dot edu 2005-03-20 15:57
---
Subject: Re: ICE in cgraph.C with C++
belyshev at depni dot sinp dot msu dot ru wrote:
--- Additional Comments From belyshev at depni dot sinp dot msu dot ru
2005-03-20 11:25 ---
This is with
--
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.1.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19069
--- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-20
16:07 ---
Actually the original plan was to write define_expands for x86*, but easier
solution was to write a new generic expander in expr.c. As a positive side
effect, other targets also profit from that patch.
--- Additional Comments From roger at eyesopen dot com 2005-03-20 16:47
---
Patch here http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-03/msg01871.html
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-20
16:50 ---
Patch here: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-03/msg01830.html.
--
What|Removed |Added
The following 4 PCH testcase failure on the 4.0 branch/mainline:
native gcc.sum gcc.dg/pch/save-temps-1.c
native gcc.sum gcc.dg/pch/static-1.c
native gcc.sum gcc.dg/pch/static-2.c
native gcc.sum gcc.dg/pch/static-3.c
Patch here: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-03/msg01762.html
--
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed||1
Last reconfirmed|-00-00 00:00:00
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-20
17:01 ---
But, that's too complicated for Stage 3. Your patch is OK.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19980
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-20
17:29 ---
Patch here: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-03/msg01879.html.
--
What|Removed |Added
Configured with: ./gcc-3.4.3/configure --prefix=/usr --enable-shared
--enable-threads --enable-languages=c,c++ --program-suffix=3.4.3
--enable-version-specific-runtime-libs
Thread model: posix
gcc version 3.4.3
binutils 2.15
linux 2.6.11 on pentium-m
---
when building glibc-2.3.4, with
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-20
17:30 ---
Patch here: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-03/msg01875.html.
--
What|Removed |Added
--
What|Removed |Added
Component|c |target
Keywords||wrong-code
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-20
17:37 ---
We need a testcase.
The last time this was reported, there was no testcase, see PR 16466.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20569
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-20
17:39 ---
(In reply to comment #12)
Patch here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-03/msg01377.html
Note for fixinclude patches, Bruce Korb likes to be CCed on them.
--
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20569
The warning:
t.cc:2: warning: `class A' has virtual functions but non-virtual destructor
when compiling this code with -Wall
struct A
{
virtual void test() = 0;
protected:
~A() {}
};
is superfluous:
Yes, A is obviously intended as base class for polymorphic usage since it has
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-20
17:45 ---
Confirmed as fixed:
(gdb) ptype xss
type = struct ss {
char *ptr;
}
(gdb) ptype xssc
type = struct ssc {
char * const ptr;
}
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-20
17:47 ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 7302 ***
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-20
17:47 ---
*** Bug 20570 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-20
17:48 ---
Confirmed.
--
What|Removed |Added
CC||pinskia
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-20
17:50 ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 12963 ***
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-20
17:50 ---
*** Bug 20550 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-20 18:08
---
This only allowed after TR15581 which is unimplemented so far in gfortran.
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-20 18:14
---
real,allocatable:: a(:),b(:)
real::x
a(1)=2*b(1) + x
end
This only gives an uninitialized warning for x, but not for a or b:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] tests]$ gfortran -O -Wuninitialized pr20521.f90
pr20521.f90: In
--- Additional Comments From tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-20 18:19
---
This happens when libgfortran is reconfigured in a directory where it's already
built.
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From aoliva at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-20
18:34 ---
Subject: [PR rtl-optimization/20290] loop body doesn't run in every iteration
if exit test is the loop entry point
Tree loop optimizations transform the second loop in main() in the
attached testcase in a
--- Additional Comments From qrczak at knm dot org dot pl 2005-03-20 19:10
---
Better than that the availability of something like
#pragma expected-warning line WARNING-NAME
might remove the warning generated by the following line labeling it as
checked,
expected and/or
--- Additional Comments From ebertakis at gmail dot com 2005-03-20 19:22
---
(In reply to comment #4)
This case is slightly different. The compiler just warns you that you are using
variable x before its value have been defined. Many programmers (that have bad
programming habits :-)
--- Additional Comments From pcarlini at suse dot de 2005-03-20 20:13
---
Seenms doable...
--
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |pcarlini
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-20
21:12 ---
Subject: Bug 18551
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-03-20 21:12:09
Modified files:
gcc: ChangeLog
gcc/config/avr :
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-20
21:13 ---
Subject: Bug 18551
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Branch: gcc-4_0-branch
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-03-20 21:13:13
Modified files:
gcc:
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-20
21:14 ---
Subject: Bug 18551
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Branch: gcc-3_4-branch
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-03-20 21:14:28
Modified files:
gcc:
Test program:
enum fred
{
apple,
orange,
fruit_1,
fruit_2,
fruit_3,
};
int xx()
{
fred e;
switch (e) {
case apple:
;
case orange:
;
case fruit_1 ... fruit_3:
;
Trying to build fontutils on FreeBSD 5.4, amd64, ran into this bug.
Command line:
gcc -g -I../include -I/usr/X11R6/include -c display.c
Error:
display.c: In function `digitize_spline':
display.c:600: internal compiler error: in loc_descriptor_from_tree, at
dwarf2out.c:8863
--- Additional Comments From sam at kalessin dot jpl dot nasa dot gov
2005-03-20 21:49 ---
Created an attachment (id=8425)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=8425action=view)
preprocessed file
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20572
--- Additional Comments From bangerth at dealii dot org 2005-03-20 22:46
---
IIRC, this was intentional because people had a habit of writing RCS
$ID: strings at the top of files and wanted to find them again in
the executable to identify which files exactly were linked together.
--- Additional Comments From mueller at kde dot org 2005-03-20 23:22
---
this is where __attribute__((unused)) kicks in..
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20562
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-20
23:34 ---
*** Bug 20571 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-20
23:34 ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 18715 ***
--
What|Removed |Added
--
What|Removed |Added
Component|c |debug
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-20
23:43 ---
This is fixed in 3.4.3 and above. This is a dup of bug 14492.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 14492 ***
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-20
23:43 ---
*** Bug 20572 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-20
23:54 ---
Fixed. Please as normal send the patch to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
What|Removed |Added
There doesn't seem to be an easy way to suppress this warning in a macro like
#define MILL(in) ((in) 100)
where the macro may be passed different sizes of ints including shorts.
I would have expected the warning to be suppressed when a cast is present
like:
#define MILL(in) ((int)(in)
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-21
00:24 ---
A better way is to just to suppress the warning point, see PR 12963.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 12963 ***
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-21
00:24 ---
*** Bug 20573 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-21
02:25 ---
(In reply to comment #4)
Can you try this patch, Andrew? The required padding should never overflow
2^32.
Sorry for not replying sooner, exams got in the way. But yes this fixes the
problem.
--
Take the following code:
@implementation A
+B
+C {}
@end
With 4.0, we got:
t.m: In function +[A B]:
t.m:3: error: syntax error before + token
But with 4.1 we get:
t.m: In function +[A B]:
t.m:3: error: expected { before + token
t.m: At top level:
t.m:3: error: redefinition of
--
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.1.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20574
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-21
02:41 ---
tree PRE now does this and has since at least the 4.0 branch was created.
--
What|Removed |Added
After I upgraded to expect-5.43, I noticed that I'm getting extra java
failures on the 3.3 branch on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu. Other gcc
branches do not have problems.
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2005-03/msg01295.html
I'm using an expect-5.43 binary on x86_64 that was compiled on i686
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-21
03:30 ---
Subject: Bug 20539
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-03-21 03:30:08
Modified files:
gcc: ChangeLog fold-const.c c-common.c
--- Additional Comments From sthoenna at efn dot org 2005-03-21 03:49
---
Subject: Re: unable to use cast to suppress warning: comparison is always
false due to limited range of data type
On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 12:24:32AM -, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
---
--- Additional Comments From billingd at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-21
06:20 ---
Operator error. The correct flag is --disable-multilib and that works.
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From uros at kss-loka dot si 2005-03-21 06:20
---
This is a duplicate of PR 14981. The fix is in a follow-up bug PR 19010.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 14981 ***
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From uros at kss-loka dot si 2005-03-21 06:21
---
*** Bug 20051 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
What|Removed |Added
80 matches
Mail list logo
