--- Additional Comments From mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-09-01
06:03 ---
This patch is OK for 3.4.2.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17180
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You reported the bug, or are watching the reporter.
--- Additional Comments From ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-09-01
05:14 ---
Created an attachment (id=7014)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=7014&action=view)
Proposed fix (take 2).
Same testing as the previous one.
--
What|Removed
--- Additional Comments From ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-09-01
05:10 ---
> i should have always used sizeof(mallocArea_ *). since mallocArea_ and
> mallocArea_* are the same size, this error is not fatal. (i just printed
> them out on linux/i686/gnu and they are both = 4)
>
>
--- Additional Comments From bdavis at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-09-01
01:15 ---
there is a mistake on line 308 of malloc.c:
diff -r1.12.14.1 malloc.c
308c308
< t = (mallocArea_ *) (ptr - sizeof(mallocArea_));
---
> t = (mallocArea_ *) (ptr - sizeof(mallocArea_ *));
i should have al
--- Additional Comments From ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-08-31
17:27 ---
> You're replacing both sizeof(mallocArea_) and sizeof(mallocArea_*) with
> a size based on sizeof(mallocArea_*) roundup up to the byte-version of
> BIGGEST_ALIGNMENT. OK, I ssee that mallocArea is itse
--- Additional Comments From mark at codesourcery dot com 2004-08-31 15:11
---
Subject: Re: [3.4 Regression] nearly all g77 tests fail
ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
>--- Additional Comments From ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-08-31
>13:18 ---
>Created an att
--- Additional Comments From ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-08-31
13:18 ---
Created an attachment (id=7010)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=7010&action=view)
Proposed fix.
Mark, does it look ok to you? It was bootstrapped/regtested (C,F77) on x86,
SPARC32 and
--- Additional Comments From bdavis9659 at comcast dot net 2004-08-31
10:39 ---
Subject: Re: [3.4 Regression] nearly all g77 tests fail
On Tue, 2004-08-31 at 01:37, ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
>
> What happens is that we allocate a new 'ffesymbol' in symbol.c:ffesymbol_n
--- Additional Comments From bdavis at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-08-31
09:31 ---
i don't know how to ensure that the result stays on a 64 bit boundary:
ptr = ptr + sizeof(mallocArea_*);
other than to make the offset 64 bits for everyone.
if desired, i can test this out on i686/gnu/linu
--- Additional Comments From ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-08-31
06:36 ---
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2004-07/msg01136.html
> That was easy to find (using google).
You're the best :-) I was desperately searching my mailbox with "davis"...
Anyway, I think the patch
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-08-31
05:53 ---
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2004-07/msg01136.html
That was easy to find (using google).
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17180
--- You are receiving this mail because: --
--- Additional Comments From ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-08-31
05:47 ---
The problem was introduced/exposed by Bud's patch.
Bud, can you point at the message/discussion on gcc-patches (I failed to find
it) and/or comment upon the patch? Thanks in advance.
--
Wha
--- Additional Comments From ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-08-31
05:32 ---
> When can we expect a fix?
Hopefully today.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17180
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You reported the bug, or are watching the repor
--- Additional Comments From mark at codesourcery dot com 2004-08-31 05:11
---
Subject: Re: [3.4 Regression] nearly all g77 tests fail
ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
>--- Additional Comments From ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-08-31
>05:00 ---
>Mark, this PR
--- Additional Comments From ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-08-31
05:00 ---
Mark, this PR is a showstopper on SPARC/Solaris 32-bit. I'm working on it and I
respectfully request you not to release 3.4.2 until after it is resolved.
Thanks.
--
What|Removed
--- Additional Comments From ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-08-31
04:24 ---
Investigating.
--
What|Removed |Added
CC|ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot|
--- Additional Comments From ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-08-31
04:23 ---
Confirmed on SPARC/Solaris 32-bit too.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRM
--
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot
||org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
--- Additional Comments From mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-08-29
19:09 ---
Postponed until GCC 3.4.3.
--
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|3.4.2
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-08-25
07:16 ---
The only change to the front-end:
2004-07-12 Bud Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* bld.c (ffebld_constant_new_character1,
ffebld_constant_new_complex{1,2},
ffebld_constant_new_hollerith, ffebld
20 matches
Mail list logo
