[Bug c++/24397] [3.4 regression] ICE in gen_subprogram_die, at dwarf2out.c
--- Comment #3 from falk at debian dot org 2005-10-16 08:43 --- Created an attachment (id=10001) --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10001&action=view) Reduced test case This is an auto-reduced test case, can probably be reduced more. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24397 --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You reported the bug, or are watching the reporter. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[Bug c++/22551] [4.0/4.1 Regression] [ICE] in tree_low_cst, at tree.c:3843
--- Comment #10 from nathan at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-16 09:02 --- something is not quite right ... -- nathan at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED Resolution|FIXED | http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22551 --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[Bug c++/22551] [4.0/4.1 Regression] [ICE] in tree_low_cst, at tree.c:3843
-- andreast at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||24399 nThis|| http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22551 --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[Bug c++/22551] [4.0/4.1 Regression] [ICE] in tree_low_cst, at tree.c:3843
--- Comment #11 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-16 22:06 --- The new switch2.C test is failing for me. In fact, I'm not sure why we should see overflow warnings on these expressions; isn't "0x8000" INT_MIN? In that case, INT_MIN + 1 does not overflow, does it? The C front end in GCC 3.4.x does not warn about the equivalent C program. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22551 --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#334296: /usr/lib/libgcj.a conflict with libgcj6-dev
Package: libgcj2-dev,libgcj6-dev Version: 1:3.0.4-7,4.0.2-2 Severity: normal Subject says it all -- System Information: Debian Release: testing/unstable APT prefers oldstable APT policy: (996, 'oldstable'), (996, 'stable'), (995, 'testing'), (640, 'stable'), (550, 'testing-proposed-updates'), (550, 'stable updates'), (550, 'proposed-updates'), (550, 'oldstable'), (550, 'experimental'), (550, 'unstable') Architecture: i386 (i686) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash Kernel: Linux 2.6.13.2+kai.20050930 Locale: LANG=de_DE, LC_CTYPE=de_DE (charmap=ISO-8859-1) Versions of packages libgcj2-dev depends on: ii gcj-3.01:3.0.4-7 The GNU compiler for Java(TM). ii libc6-dev 2.3.5-6 GNU C Library: Development Librari ii libgcj21:3.0.4-7 Java runtime library for use with ii zlib1g-dev 1:1.2.2-4.sarge.2 compression library - development libgcj2-dev recommends no packages. -- debconf-show failed -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[Bug rtl-optimization/17356] [4.0/4.1 Regression] [Ada] [ia64] ACATS c41325a & other ICE, also while building libada
--- Comment #15 from wilson at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-17 02:00 ---
It is dying in rest_of_handle_flow2 -> split_all_insns -> verify_flow_info. We
have non-call insns with EDGE_ABNORMAL_CALL edges attached to them.
The insns are coming from post-reload call insn splits. Before splitting, we
have
(call_insn 118 116 3807 4 (parallel [
(set (reg:OI 8 r8)
(call (mem:DI (symbol_ref:DI
("ada__text_io__editing__parse_num\ber_string") [flags 0x3] ) [0 S8 A64])
(const_int 1 [0x1])))
(clobber (reg:DI 320 b0))
(clobber (scratch:DI))
(clobber (scratch:DI))
]) 257 {call_value_gp} (insn_list:REG_DEP_TRUE 117 (nil))
(expr_list:REG_EH_REGION (const_int 1 [0x1])
(nil))
(expr_list:REG_DEP_TRUE (use (reg:DI 1 r1))
(expr_list:REG_DEP_TRUE (use (reg:TI 120 out0 [ D.1574 ]))
(nil
after splitting we have
(call_insn 4891 116 4892 4 (parallel [
(set (reg:OI 8 r8)
(call (mem:DI (symbol_ref:DI
("ada__text_io__editing__parse_num\ber_string") [flags 0x3] ) [0 S8 A64])
(const_int 0 [0x0])))
(clobber (reg:DI 320 b0))
]) 254 {call_value_nogp} (nil)
(expr_list:REG_EH_REGION (const_int 1 [0x1])
(nil))
(expr_list:REG_DEP_TRUE (use (reg:DI 1 r1))
(expr_list:REG_DEP_TRUE (use (reg:TI 120 out0 [ D.1574 ]))
(nil
(insn 4892 4891 4893 4 (set (reg:DI 1 r1)
(plus:DI (reg/f:DI 111 loc79)
(const_int -80 [0xffb0]))) 105 {adddi3} (nil)
(nil))
(insn 4893 4892 3807 4 (set (reg:DI 1 r1)
(mem:DI (reg:DI 1 r1) [0 S8 A64])) 5 {*movdi_internal} (nil)
(expr_list:REG_EH_REGION (const_int 1 [0x1])
(nil)))
We call find_bb_boundaries to split this into two blocks, and then
purge_dead_edges should delete the abnormal call edge on the load.
But there is a problem here... Ada sets flag_non_call_exceptions by default.
So the load is a trapping insn, just not a call-trapping insn.
In purge_dead_edges, we first verify that an EH edge is OK, then we verify that
an abnormal call edge is OK. But since an abnormal call edge is always an EH
edge, the first test triggers, and passes, because we do need an EH edge here.
We can fix this problem by switching the order of the tests.
With this patch, a cross-compiler ada build got all of the way to gnattools,
where it died building make.adb. This means libada built successfully. The
make.adb error is a different unrelated problem.
gcc -c -I./ -I/usr/lib64/gcc-lib/x86_64-suse-linux/3.3.3/adalib/../adainclude
-\I/usr/lib64/gcc-lib/x86_64-suse-linux/3.3.3/adalib/ -I.
-I/home/wilson/GCC/gcc/\gcc/ada -g -O2 -W -Wall -Wwrite-strings
-Wstrict-prototypes -Wmissing-prototype\s -fno-common -gnatpg -gnata -I-
/home/wilson/GCC/gcc/gcc/ada/gnatvsn.adb
gcc -c -I./ -I/usr/lib64/gcc-lib/x86_64-suse-linux/3.3.3/adalib/../adainclude
-\I/usr/lib64/gcc-lib/x86_64-suse-linux/3.3.3/adalib/ -I.
-I/home/wilson/GCC/gcc/\gcc/ada -g -O2 -W -Wall -Wwrite-strings
-Wstrict-prototypes -Wmissing-prototype\s -fno-common -gnatpg -gnata -I-
/home/wilson/GCC/gcc/gcc/ada/make.adb
make.adb:3577:45: Unmatched actual in call
make.adb:3581:45: Unmatched actual in call
make.adb:3804:13: invalid parameter list in call (use -gnatf for details)
make.adb:5709:10: invalid parameter list in call (use -gnatf for details)
mlib.ads:75:15: "Attribute" is undefined
mlib.ads:75:28: "Time_Stamps" is undefined
I am assuming this is good enough to close the problem after a proper bootstrap
test. I'll have to try a native ia64 bootstrap now.
--
wilson at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |wilson at gcc dot gnu dot
|dot org |org
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|2005-06-12 15:03:55 |2005-10-17 02:00:49
date||
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17356
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[Bug rtl-optimization/17356] [4.0/4.1 Regression] [Ada] [ia64] ACATS c41325a & other ICE, also while building libada
--- Comment #16 from wilson at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-17 02:03 --- Created an attachment (id=10005) --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10005&action=view) patch to fix ia64-linux libada build failure And here's the patch. It is simple enough that it should be safe. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17356 --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
