: 4.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: rwgk at yahoo dot com
GCC build triplet: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
GCC host triplet: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
GCC
--- Comment #1 from rwgk at yahoo dot com 2006-06-12 19:28 ---
Created an attachment (id=11656)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=11656&action=view)
short reproducer
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28003
--- Comment #3 from rwgk at yahoo dot com 2008-12-07 07:34 ---
Created an attachment (id=16844)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=16844&action=view)
reproducer, no dependencies, no includes
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37922
--- Comment #4 from rwgk at yahoo dot com 2008-12-07 07:44 ---
Testing with:
g++ (GCC) 4.4.0 20081206 (experimental)
svn revision 142514
pr37922repro1.cpp should always exit with status 0.
However, it fails this test when compiling with -O3 and -O2:
g++ -Wall -fPIC -O3
--- Comment #5 from rwgk at yahoo dot com 2008-12-13 22:09 ---
The bug is still present in svn revsion 140355 from last night.
I ran an automatic search through the svn history. The result is that
revision 129269 (svn log below) introduced the bug.
Could someone please confirm the bug
--- Comment #7 from rwgk at yahoo dot com 2008-12-16 02:17 ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> Does -fno-strict-aliasing work?
>
Nope. I just tried it with svn revisions 129269 and 142737.
Adding -fno-strict-aliasing does not change the (wrong) result.
Thanks for looking a
--- Comment #18 from rwgk at yahoo dot com 2008-12-17 19:01 ---
(In reply to comment #17)
> A patch is posted at
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2008-12/msg00943.html
>
I tried this patch locally and I'm happy to report that it fixes
the original problem.
Tha
NCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: bootstrap
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: rwgk at yahoo dot com
GCC build triplet: i386-redhat-linux
GCC host triplet: i386-redhat-linux
GCC target triplet: i386-redhat-linux
http://g
--- Comment #3 from rwgk at yahoo dot com 2007-01-28 20:03 ---
I've repeated my test with
g++ (GCC) 4.2.0 20070128 (prerelease)
SVN revision: 121258
on three platforms:
x86_64 Fedora Core release 5 (Bordeaux)
% g++ -fPIC -O3 dbg_gcc_bugzilla_30567.cpp
% ./a.out
--- Comment #4 from rwgk at yahoo dot com 2007-02-03 20:42 ---
I've repeated my test with
g++ (GCC) 4.2.0 20070203 (prerelease)
SVN revision: 121547
on two platforms:
x86_64 Fedora Core release 5 (Bordeaux)
Fedora Core release 6 (Zod)
The results are still the same as
--- Comment #6 from rwgk at yahoo dot com 2007-02-11 05:30 ---
I immediately believe that Andrew's and Wolfgang's findings are accurate, but I
never claimed that the mainline has a problem. I never even tried it.
My interest it to make sure that our code works with any new g
--- Comment #8 from rwgk at yahoo dot com 2007-02-12 05:23 ---
I'm in the process of narrowing down the revision bracket the really hard way
(make bootstrap; make; make install for each revision, using a binary search).
Currently my best bracket is:
119819 fails
119788 works
I s
--- Comment #9 from rwgk at yahoo dot com 2007-02-12 15:47 ---
My binary search (using the gcc-4_2-branch) stopped here:
119790 OK
119791 fails
The corresponding commit was:
% svn log -r 119791
r119791
--- Comment #12 from rwgk at yahoo dot com 2007-02-26 02:26 ---
Daniel Berlin wrote:
> This change actually made us more conservative with points-to, it certainly
> won't cause *more* things to be optimized away.
Was the change supposed to fix a certain problem?
If not I
--- Comment #14 from rwgk at yahoo dot com 2007-02-26 03:37 ---
> Yes.
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-12/msg00817.html
> It also fixed vect-101 testcase, in addition to 464.h264ref from spec2006.
> It initially caused a failure in 403.gcc, but this was later fou
--- Comment #16 from rwgk at yahoo dot com 2007-02-26 07:54 ---
Created an attachment (id=13110)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=13110&action=view)
minimal reproducer
I got it down to 29 lines. There aren't any includes, defines are typedefs
left.
--- Comment #8 from rwgk at yahoo dot com 2007-09-22 04:22 ---
Created an attachment (id=14243)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=14243&action=view)
reproducer
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33185
--- Comment #9 from rwgk at yahoo dot com 2007-09-22 04:23 ---
Info regarding Comment #8:
Fedora Core release 5 (Bordeaux)
% uname -r -m
2.6.15-1.2054_FC5 x86_64
% g++ -fpermissive -c -fPIC -I/usr/include/python2.4 ice_canonical.cpp
ice_canonical.cpp: In function 'void init_m
--- Comment #3 from rwgk at yahoo dot com 2007-09-22 04:59 ---
I'm getting an ICE that looks very similar (below).
However, I cannot reproduce the ICE with the test case posted when this
issue was opened. Therefore I'm wondering if my ICE is different.
What is the platform, a
--- Additional Comments From rwgk at yahoo dot com 2005-03-24 12:46 ---
Using the latest CVS:
gcc version 4.0.0 20050324 (prerelease)
My reproducer attached to this report
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19603
is still failing.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla
ocessor failure
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: rwgk at yahoo dot com
GCC build triplet: x86_64-unkn
--- Comment #2 from rwgk at yahoo dot com 2008-09-14 07:24 ---
> What is on that line?
#elif BOOST_PP_ITERATION_DEPTH() == 1
If you don't have /usr/include/boost, you can get the entire boost
tree from here:
svn co https://svn.boost.org/svn/boost/trunk boost
Then simply
would enable
you to inspect the generated code, and maybe give us a clue how to construct a
minimal reproducer.
--
Summary: code generation error
Product: gcc
Version: 4.4.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
--- Comment #2 from rwgk at yahoo dot com 2008-10-27 02:18 ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> With out a testcase, it is hard to tell if it was reported before or not.
> Also
> does -fwrapv allows for the code to work?
Yes!
(FWIW: -ftrapv doesn't help.)
> what type i
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46807
--- Comment #2 from rwgk at yahoo dot com 2010-12-17 22:34:16 UTC ---
Using a binary search I found that svn rev. 161579 introduced the ICE.
(Note that I had to replace gcc/config/i386/i386.md with rev. 161594
since gcc doesn't build othe
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46807
--- Comment #4 from rwgk at yahoo dot com 2011-01-07 04:28:46 UTC ---
I just saw the "GCC 4.6.0 Status Report (2011-01-04), Stage 3 is over"
announcement.
This bug should be a P1 since it is an ICE on valid code.
If necessary I'l
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46807
--- Comment #6 from rwgk at yahoo dot com 2011-01-07 18:29:59 UTC ---
Created attachment 22928
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22928
pre-processor output of original reproducer
Created with (Fedora 14 64-bit):
g++
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46807
--- Comment #7 from rwgk at yahoo dot com 2011-01-07 18:32:12 UTC ---
> This command still produces the original ICE with gcc svn trunk rev. 168562:
Sorry, cut and paste error. The last command should have been
g++
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46807
--- Comment #16 from rwgk at yahoo dot com 2011-02-16 05:08:05 UTC ---
Thank you very much! The original problem is solved, too.
g?
--
Summary: long-standing g++ bug?
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: rwgk at yahoo dot
5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: bootstrap
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: rwgk at yahoo dot com
GCC build triplet: x86_64-redhat-linux
GCC host triplet: x86_64-redhat-linux
GCC target triplet: x86_6
ed at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: rwgk at yahoo dot com
GCC build triplet: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
GCC host triplet: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
GCC target triplet: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42251
--- Comment #1 from rwgk at yahoo dot com 2009-12-02 06:23 ---
Created an attachment (id=19207)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=19207&action=view)
self-contained reproducer (60 lines, no includes)
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42251
--- Comment #3 from rwgk at yahoo dot com 2009-12-02 18:15 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> Yeah,
> yum install glibc-devel.i686
> in F12 case.
>
Thank you very much! This is exactly what I needed.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42247
--- Comment #2 from rwgk at yahoo dot com 2009-12-06 19:18 ---
With a binary search in the svn history I found that the change below lead to
the regression.
I believe it is a major problem. Could someone confirm it?
I think it should be a P1
: 4.5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: rwgk at yahoo dot com
GCC build triplet: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
GCC host triplet: x86_64-unknown-lin
--- Comment #1 from rwgk at yahoo dot com 2009-12-11 18:05 ---
Created an attachment (id=19277)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=19277&action=view)
reproducer
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42352
--- Comment #5 from rwgk at yahoo dot com 2009-12-11 19:27 ---
Thanks for the fast response!
Everything else we have works with -std=c++0x.
If this issue is fixed I could keep testing with -std=c++0x,
which I imagine could be of great value long term.
(We have several 100k of sources
--- Comment #9 from rwgk at yahoo dot com 2009-12-12 05:49 ---
Thanks very much for the quick fix!
It didn't clear up all errors of this type, though, when compiling our code (I
verified that the original problem is fixed). Based on your comments I decided
to remove the -std=c++x
--- Comment #12 from rwgk at yahoo dot com 2009-12-14 06:05 ---
(In reply to comment #10)
> What do you mean by "of this type"? As I tried already to explain, until the
> ISO C++ Committee resolves DR 1133 we cannot touch list::merge and
> list::splice.
Sorr
--- Comment #14 from rwgk at yahoo dot com 2009-12-19 15:09 ---
(In reply to comment #13)
> That said, this specific issue has been moved yesterday to [Tentatively Ready]
> and it's safe enough to simply re-add for now the C++03 set of overloads (we
> don't impl
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46757
Summary: bootstrap failure under Fedora 13 and 14
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: bootstrap
AssignedTo: una
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46757
--- Comment #1 from rwgk at yahoo dot com 2010-12-01 23:44:42 UTC ---
Created attachment 22595
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22595
output of make bootstrap
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46759
Summary: incorrect array bounds warning?
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Priority: P3
Component: c++
AssignedTo: unassig...@gcc.gnu.or
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46757
--- Comment #3 from rwgk at yahoo dot com 2010-12-02 01:52:35 UTC ---
Thank you very much for the hint!
As a remark: I had a little bit of a battle with the gmp, mpfr, mpc
dependencies, in particular mpc since I couldn't figure out the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46759
--- Comment #3 from rwgk at yahoo dot com 2010-12-02 19:47:29 UTC ---
Created attachment 22606
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22606
reproducer with additional tests
I changed the original reproducer to return 0 throug
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46759
--- Comment #4 from rwgk at yahoo dot com 2010-12-05 06:14:35 UTC ---
Created attachment 22639
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22639
reproducer for similar warning from gcc 4.6
I'm getting a similar warning with g++
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46807
Summary: internal compiler error: in synthesized_method_walk
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
AssignedTo:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46807
--- Comment #1 from rwgk at yahoo dot com 2010-12-05 07:42:02 UTC ---
Created attachment 22640
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22640
reproducer
Reproducer depends on and boost as shipped with Fedora 14.
org
ReportedBy: rwgk at yahoo dot com
GCC build triplet: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
GCC host triplet: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
GCC target triplet: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34018
--- Comment #1 from rwgk at yahoo dot com 2007-11-07 19:45 ---
Created an attachment (id=14501)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=14501&action=view)
reproducer
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34018
++
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: rwgk at yahoo dot com
GCC build triplet: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
GCC host triplet: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
GCC target triplet: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34063
--- Comment #1 from rwgk at yahoo dot com 2007-11-11 05:53 ---
Created an attachment (id=14527)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=14527&action=view)
reproducer
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34063
ode, -O2 OK
Product: gcc
Version: 4.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: rwgk at yahoo dot com
GCC build triplet: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
GCC hos
--- Comment #1 from rwgk at yahoo dot com 2007-11-14 03:15 ---
Created an attachment (id=14550)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=14550&action=view)
reproducer
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34090
--- Comment #4 from rwgk at yahoo dot com 2007-11-15 02:18 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> What happens if you add -fno-strict-aliasing ?
That's it!
> And maybe even try with
> warnings turned on.
>
-Wall doesn't lead to any warnings.
I've been compili
oduct: gcc
Version: 4.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: rwgk at yahoo dot com
GCC build triplet: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
GCC host triplet:
--- 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=14554&action=view)
reproducer
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34099
Summary: ICE: tree-ssa-operands.c:1688
Product: gcc
Version: 4.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: rwgk at yahoo dot com
GCC build tri
--- Comment #1 from rwgk at yahoo dot com 2007-11-16 21:11 ---
Created an attachment (id=14568)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=14568&action=view)
reproducer
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34127
--- Comment #3 from rwgk at yahoo dot com 2007-11-18 02:54 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> Works for me, this is a dup of PR34113.
>
> *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 34113 ***
>
This is not the case. My original bug report was based on svn revision
1
411 is still broken.
Ralf
--
Summary: error on correct code
Product: gcc
Version: 4.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: rwgk at yahoo
--- Comment #1 from rwgk at yahoo dot com 2007-11-25 20:30 ---
Created an attachment (id=14636)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=14636&action=view)
reproducer
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34229
--- Comment #4 from rwgk at yahoo dot com 2007-11-26 01:52 ---
Created an attachment (id=14638)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=14638&action=view)
reproducer preprocessed gzip'ed
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34229
--- Comment #5 from rwgk at yahoo dot com 2007-11-26 02:11 ---
cc'ing David Abrahams since the original code is his.
--
rwgk at yahoo dot com changed:
What|Removed |
--- Comment #6 from rwgk at yahoo dot com 2007-11-26 02:17 ---
The patch below makes the Boost.Python compilation work again with
gcc svn trunk revision 130411. This solves my problem. :-)
The g++ change could be tough for people who have to keep using older
boost versions for one
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: rwgk at yahoo dot com
GCC build triplet: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
GCC host triplet: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
GCC target triplet: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34233
--- Comment #1 from rwgk at yahoo dot com 2007-11-26 03:33 ---
Created an attachment (id=14639)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=14639&action=view)
reproducer
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34233
--- Comment #2 from rwgk at yahoo dot com 2007-11-26 03:34 ---
Created an attachment (id=14640)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=14640&action=view)
reproducer preprocessed gzip'ed
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34233
--- Comment #7 from rwgk at yahoo dot com 2007-11-27 17:43 ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> Fixed.
>
Confirmed (yesterday with svn revision 130447).
Thanks!
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34233
ty: P2
Component: c++
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: rwgk at yahoo dot com
CC: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
GCC build triplet: i686-pc-linux-gnu
GCC host triplet: i686-pc-linux-gnu
GCC target triplet: i686-pc-linux-gnu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bu
--- Additional Comments From rwgk at yahoo dot com 2005-01-06 19:40 ---
Created an attachment (id=7885)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=7885&action=view)
Preprocessed source code
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19297
ignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: rwgk at yahoo dot com
CC: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
GCC build triplet: i686-pc-linux-gnu
GCC host triplet: i686-pc-linux-gnu
GCC target triplet: i686-pc-linux-gnu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19298
--- Additional Comments From rwgk at yahoo dot com 2005-01-06 19:49 ---
Created an attachment (id=7886)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=7886&action=view)
Preprocessed source code
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19298
--- Additional Comments From rwgk at yahoo dot com 2005-01-06 19:51 ---
Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2005 14:24:06 -0500
From: David Abrahams
Ralf W. Grosse-Kunstleve wrote:
> Hi David,
>
> To ensure that Boost.Python will work with gcc 4 I've checked out the
> latest gcc cvs
--- Additional Comments From rwgk at yahoo dot com 2005-01-06 19:57 ---
> --- Additional Comment #2 From Andrew Pinski 2005-01-06 19:45 [reply]
---
> Looks like there are two bugs here ...
I've opened another bug report for the second error:
http://gcc.gnu.o
Version: 4.0.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P2
Component: c++
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: rwgk at yahoo dot com
CC: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
GCC build triplet: i686-pc-linux-gn
--- Additional Comments From rwgk at yahoo dot com 2005-01-24 11:49 ---
Created an attachment (id=8052)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=8052&action=view)
Reproducer
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19603
Component: c++
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: rwgk at yahoo dot com
GCC build triplet: i686-pc-linux-gnu
GCC host triplet: i686-pc-linux-gnu
GCC target triplet: i686-pc-linux-gnu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30567
--- Comment #1 from rwgk at yahoo dot com 2007-01-24 00:10 ---
Created an attachment (id=12945)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=12945&action=view)
standalone reproducer
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30567
80 matches
Mail list logo
