--- 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/
--- 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
--
andreast at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
OtherBugsDependingO||24399
nThis||
http://gcc.
--- 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
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')
--- 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 spl
--- 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.
7 matches
Mail list logo