--- Comment #60 from giovannibajo at libero dot it 2008-06-10 17:26 ---
If a knowledgable GCC developer could suggest *any* workaround at -O1 for this
bug in 4.2 (including disabling whatever alias analysys causes the problem), it
might be proposed as a fix within distros at least
--- Comment #56 from giovannibajo at libero dot it 2008-05-21 15:49 ---
What is the workaround for this bug? It looks like not even -O1 fixes the
compile-time hog.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30052
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on
--
giovannibajo at libero dot it changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||giovannibajo at libero dot
--- Comment #44 from giovannibajo at libero dot it 2007-09-11 10:59 ---
Daniel, are you then going to fix the "slow" part of this bug?
As for the memhog, CC'ing Honza which is expert on memory allocations and leaks
:)
--
giovannibajo at libero dot it changed:
--- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2005-07-23
21:37 ---
Thanks Steve!
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2005-05-09
07:07 ---
Zack, this is a regression of part of your c-decl stuff. Can you possibly give
it a look? It breaks builds of glibc on primary platforms.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16676
--- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2005-04-12
17:35 ---
Since this bug was fixed in 4.1, I'm removing the dependencies with the 4.1
metabug.
--
What|Removed |
--- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2005-02-07
10:37 ---
Jakub, it looks like you applied the patch only to 3.4. Can you apply it to
mainline and 3.3 too so that we can close this regression?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18384
--- You
--- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2004-12-27
21:57 ---
Jakub, many thanks for cleaning this up for me!!
Just one comment: in your latest patch, the second error message is capitalized
and shouldn't, plus it uses a double negation ("not a non-negat
--- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2004-11-26
22:50 ---
Nathan, even if there is not an official committee position on the correct
semantic of this program, is there way to get a patch in to stop cc1plus from
segfaulting?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla
--- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2004-11-26
00:00 ---
The segfault comes from an infinite recursion which eventually causes a stack
overflow.
My bets are on:
2004-06-28 Nathan Sidwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR c++/16174
* call.c (buil
--- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2004-09-14
11:33 ---
Somebody will have to check with mainline and newer 3.4 then
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2004-08-16
10:34 ---
We need some kind of preprocessed source, otherwise there is not much we can do
about this.
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2004-08-05
06:58 ---
Confirmed by JDA.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
--- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2004-08-01
21:33 ---
Diego, can you have a quick look at these patches? At least, if you can comment
on the patch to verify_flow_insensitive_alias_info, Jie would know whether it
should work on making it bootstrap fixing the
--- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2004-07-30
17:28 ---
If the patch is right, it could contain also an update to verify_alias to make
it catch such situations earlier, in the future.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16225
--- You are
--- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2004-06-30
03:23 ---
Patch was committed to mainline but the Changelog didn't contain the PR to
crossreference it:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2004-06/msg01010.html
Notice that the patch had a latent bug, which was
--- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2004-04-25
15:31 ---
*** Bug 15125 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2004-04-25
15:31 ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 14791 ***
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2004-03-24
17:09 ---
Notice that the ICE itself can be reproduced with:
-
# 4294967290
void foo(void) { }
-
but only with 3.3, it's gone on 3.4 and mainline. Of course, the real pr
--- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2004-03-24
13:57 ---
Confirmed, but reducing this will be a challenge. Can the original submitter
try to generate a smaller file in the first place? As small as possible.
--
What|Removed
--- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2004-03-19
19:48 ---
If we consider this a bug of any kind, it's a regression against 2.95.
--
What|Removed |
--- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2004-03-10
01:12 ---
(In reply to comment #10)
> Honestly, is "std::bad_alloc" really that much more readable than
> "St9bad_alloc"? Especially compared to "bad allocation"?
Well, "S
--- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2004-03-06
19:17 ---
Nathan, can you please comment on this testcase? I can't see how this can be
valid since 'bla' is an unqualified non-dependent id which has to be looked up
at template definition time.
--- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2004-03-06
19:15 ---
Dave, your testcase in comment #7 is slightly different because the argument is
dependent. In the reduced testcase proposed by Andrew in comment #6, the
argument is not dependent.
--
What
--- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2004-03-06
19:12 ---
I don't think this is a duplicate of 13549. For once, Bug 13549 is about the
lookup of template-ids, while here we have an unqualified id.
--
What|Removed |
--- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2004-02-02
02:10 ---
I think I'll confirm it because EDG and MSVC71 have the same behaviour of GCC
3.2.3, but I can't see wording in the standard which speaks about what should
happen in this case.
Maybe this
--- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2004-01-18
11:51 ---
Richard, from the commit message, it looks like this went in in the gcc-3_4-
branch only. But this is a 3.3/3.4/3.5 regression, so you should port your fix
at least to mainline too. Also, as Gaby have just
--
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=7618
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
Y
--- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2003-12-16
01:22 ---
OK, then sorry for the noise.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED
--- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2003-12-15
18:01 ---
This is a regression on the 3.3 branch. Even if it's fixed on 3.4, the bug
should stay open until the branch is closed.
--
What|Removed |
PLEASE REPLY TO [EMAIL PROTECTED] ONLY, *NOT* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10849
giovannibajo at libero dot it changed:
What|Removed |Added
32 matches
Mail list logo
