--
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |mark at codesourcery dot com
|dot org |
Status|NEW
--- Additional Comments From zack at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-07 07:10
---
Joseph - I never properly answered your question in comment #7, although
arguably the answer is already in comment #4.
I should mention I take as a basic premise that without exception, a sequence of
UCNs and
--- Additional Comments From jlquinn at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-07
06:37 ---
I don't even get that far now. I'm using:
CC=cc ../gcc/configure --with-cpu=power4 --prefix=/home/jlquinn
Now during bootstrap I see the following when trying to build the stage 1
compiler. Using CC=xlc
--- Additional Comments From roger at eyesopen dot com 2005-01-07 04:32
---
This bug has recently been fixed on mainline by the following patch:
2005-01-02 Greg McGary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* tree-mudflap.c (mf_varname_tree): decl_printable_name handles
anonymous decls.
--- Additional Comments From dje at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-07 03:30
---
I finally figured out how to get legitmize_reload_address to force the sum into
a register: wrap the PLUS in another PLUS with constant offset zero. The outer
PLUS becomes the MEM and the inner PLUS becomes the
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-07
03:25 ---
Subject: Bug 18398
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-01-07 03:25:48
Modified files:
gcc/testsuite : ChangeLog
libgfortran: C
--- Additional Comments From jariv at nic dot fi 2005-01-07 03:17 ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> Did you read http://www.gnu.org/software/gcc/bugs.html>?
> We need the preprocessed source.
Yes I did.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/enter_bug.cgi
-- could you kindly tell me where is the "upl
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-07
03:13 ---
*** Bug 19306 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-07
03:13 ---
This is a dup of bug 13993.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 13993 ***
--
What|Removed |Added
-
I configured gcc-3.4.3 with the above command line,
note I gave a relative path to ../gcc-3.4.3 from my .
Everything worked fine (I even submitted my test results :), until I
tried
make DESTDIR=/usr/local/TEST_NEW_gcc install
this failed with :
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-07
03:07 ---
Did you read http://www.gnu.org/software/gcc/bugs.html>?
We need the preprocessed source.
Also 3.2.2 is getting old at this point, try either 3.3.5, or 3.4.3.
--
What|Removed
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-07
03:01 ---
Fixed for 3.4.4.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESO
[ImageMagick-6.1.7]$ gcc -v -save-temps -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I. -I./magick \
-I./ltdl -I./ltdl -I/usr/local/include/freetype2 -I/usr/local/include \
-I/usr/X11R6/include -I/usr/X11R6/include/X11 -g -Wall -D_THREAD_SAFE \
-pthread -MT magick/magick_libMagick_la-convert.lo -MD -MP -MF \
"magick/.de
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-07
01:35 ---
Fixed.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-07
01:11 ---
Hmm, even though 3.1 did not produce the diagnostic we did produce wrong code.
So the only part which is a regression is the diagnostic but producing correct
code would be very nice.
--
What
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-07
01:10 ---
So closing as fixed.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-07
01:05 ---
Subject: Bug 6077
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-01-07 01:05:37
Modified files:
gcc: ChangeLog gcc.c
Log message:
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-07
00:56 ---
It worked with 4.0.0 20041124 so this is a new regression :(.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19298
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-07
00:54 ---
I decided to take a different method to reducing this testcase by using the old
style copy and paste
method which is better sometimes at reducing testcases (in fact much better and
faster with C++
code):
--- Additional Comments From ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-07
00:46 ---
Confirmed, it's the combiner optimistically getting rid of the HImode subreg.
--
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Additional Comments From ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-07
00:33 ---
> I think this is a dup of bug 17675.
I'm not sure: I've Steve's patch for PR 17675 in my tree and I still see the
failures everywhere.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19302
--- Additional Comments From ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-07
00:32 ---
Confirmed on all SPARC/Solaris platforms (32-bit or 64-bit).
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From coudert at clipper dot ens dot fr 2005-01-07
00:16 ---
As of today, libgfortran compilation fails on mips-sgi-irix6.5 with:
../../../../gcc/libgfortran/generated/exp_c8.c:29: error: conflicting types for
'cabs'
/var/tmp/gfortran-20050106/ibin/g
--- Additional Comments From wanderer at rsu dot ru 2005-01-06 23:47
---
Created an attachment (id=7890)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=7890&action=view)
With removed (mostly) iostreams and some other
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19298
--- Additional Comments From olh at suse dot de 2005-01-06 23:46 ---
Ok, libexec always looked like a sane place, to me.
But anyway. I will leave it to Andreas to update our rpm spec file.
I still wonder why the same configure options work on x86_64-linux
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzi
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-06
23:46 ---
As I said before this really should be 64bit on all targets instead as we
should support LFS (large file
support) (which is deafualt really on all *BSD, darwin is included with this
*BSD).
--
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-06
23:41 ---
Also note on some targets (like all *BSD's by the way), gfc_offset is always
64bits so really this is a miss
feature in the OS rather than in gfortran in my mind.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bu
--
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |critical
Keywords||wrong-code
Priority|P2
--- Additional Comments From pbrook at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-06
23:39 ---
This is a mis-ferature inherited from g77. It's definitely premitted by the
standard, but probably wants "fixing" anyway.
Full discussion here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2004-12/msg00139.html
--
--- Additional Comments From janis187 at us dot ibm dot com 2005-01-06
23:39 ---
Created an attachment (id=7889)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=7889&action=view)
diffs that worked for me
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19304
Benchmark 197.parser from SPEC CPU2000 fails on powerpc64-linux when
compiled with "-m32 -O2 -maltivec" or "-m32 -O2 -funroll-loops",
producing incorrect results. The failures start with this patch:
2004-12-12 Richar
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-06
23:28 ---
I think this is a dup of bug 17675.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19302
I am trying to read the binary files produced with amd64 on a 32 bit machine.
This is not possible because the record header changed from 4-bytes to 8-bytes.
Can this be fixed? Example program:
write(1)'Z'
end
produces fort.1 on opteron with the following content if opened in em
The test intrinsic_nearest.f90 from the fortran testsuite included with gcc
fails on sparc-sun-solaris2.9 will all optimization levels. I can reduce it to
the following code:
---
program test_nearest
real inf, max, x
integer infi, maxi
equivalence (inf
--- Additional Comments From jgrimm2 at us dot ibm dot com 2005-01-06
23:22 ---
Seems fixed?
Last broken here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2004-12/msg00804.html
Not failing here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2004-12/msg00844.html
Maybe fixed by??:
http://gcc.gnu.org
--- Additional Comments From milan at cmm dot ki dot si 2005-01-06 23:16
---
>
> we are trying to read 3 things, the '/' which consumes the first /n, then two
> numbers (each I2). the file has 2 /n's in it.
>
I simplified thing and threw out the / from format specification. If I put
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-06
23:15 ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> Debugging with puts statements, I confirm that the previously isolated code is
> the place where the segfault happens. Replacing:
This smell like the alignment is wrong ...
--
--- Additional Comments From coudert at clipper dot ens dot fr 2005-01-06
23:12 ---
Debugging with puts statements, I confirm that the previously isolated code is
the place where the segfault happens. Replacing:
*rptr = *sptr;
with:
puts ("Before"); foo = *sptr; pu
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-06
23:09 ---
I think we can confirm this now.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
--- Additional Comments From dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca
2005-01-06 23:04 ---
Subject: Re: [4.0 Regression] Undefined symbol: vtable for __c
> Dave, would you mind testing with this revision to the patch?
I'll try this evening. It's taken some time but I believe that the
f
--
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |minor
Priority|P2 |P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19046
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-06
23:02 ---
Actually I think the remaining issues of the mgrid performance regression are
caused by PR 19038.
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-06
22:57 ---
I tested this again and seems fixed on the mainline, is there a reason why it
is still marked as 4.0
regression?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17401
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-06
22:42 ---
(In reply to comment #17)
> I tried this:
> That appears to work. Only the binaries like cc1 end up in
> /usr/libexec/gcc/powerpc64-suse-linux/4.0.0
> This should be /usr/lib64/gcc-lib (at least thats the p
--
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.0.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18792
--- Additional Comments From dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-06
22:27 ---
Fixed
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
--- Additional Comments From ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-06
22:24 ---
> The RTL is wrong right away:
> (insn 13 11 14 (set (reg:HI 60)
> (subreg/u:HI (reg/v:SI 58 [ ad ]) 0)) -1 (nil)
> (nil))
>
> (insn 14 13 15 (parallel [
> (set (reg:SI 61)
>
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-06
22:08 ---
Subject: Bug 18792
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-01-06 22:08:27
Modified files:
gcc: ChangeLog tree-data-ref.c tree-loop-l
--
What|Removed |Added
CC||ericw at evcohs dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19293
--- Additional Comments From olh at suse dot de 2005-01-06 21:58 ---
I tried this:
/home/abuild/gcc-4.0.0-20050103/configure --enable-threads=posix --prefix=/usr
--with-local-prefix=/usr/local --infodir=/usr/share/info
--mandir=/usr/share/man --enable-languages=c,c++,objc,f95,java
--
--- Additional Comments From coudert at clipper dot ens dot fr 2005-01-06
21:52 ---
Playing with this test case to produce a minimal example, I found lots of
differents sources that crash at runtime, for different levels of optimization
(some at 1 and 2 but not 0 and 3, some only for 0,
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-06
21:39 ---
Looks like to me the register allocator is f'ing up as on PPC (where there more
fp registers) -O2 is faster
(by a factor of 2) than -O1. It is also one of the reasons why new-ra could be
fucking up too.
--- Additional Comments From jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk 2005-01-06 21:30
---
(In reply to comment #8)
> On closer inspection this is not a new-ra bug, sorry Joost.
> Can you see how the numbers look for you today? Don't use new-ra, it is
> known to be very, very broken.
timings for -O1
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-06
21:27 ---
Created an attachment (id=7887)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=7887&action=view)
a little more reduced
This is as far as I getting, not much but a start, someone else wants to start
red
--- Additional Comments From ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-06
20:56 ---
Investigating.
--
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |ebo
It'd be nice if we could get gnujaxp merged in. That's all :)
--
Summary: Can't run Eclipse with libgcj until jaxp is merged from
classpath
Product: gcc
Version: 4.0.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
P
--- Additional Comments From ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-06
20:37 ---
It only fails on i686, neither on i386 nor i586.
--
What|Removed |Added
GCC target triple
--
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |mark at codesourcery dot com
|dot org |
Status|NEW
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-06
20:21 ---
Subject: Bug 19244
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-01-06 20:21:16
Modified files:
gcc/testsuite : ChangeLog
gcc/cp : C
--- Additional Comments From mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-06
20:21 ---
Fixed in GCC 4.0.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RE
--- Additional Comments From ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-06
20:20 ---
Do you know if the tests pass with GCC 3.4.x?
--
What|Removed |Added
CC|
--
What|Removed |Added
Summary|PCH failuers on sparc-linux |PCH failures on sparc-linux
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19300
--
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Summary|Error compiling Boost.Python|[4.0 Regression] Error
|test
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-06
20:06 ---
Confirmed because this was just a reduction of PR 19297 and I had thought we
needed two bugs for
that but it was kindly already filed.
--
What|Removed |Added
--
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed||1
Keywords||wrong-co
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-06
20:01 ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> > --- 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
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-06
20:01 ---
*** Bug 19297 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-06
20:00 ---
I've investigated this a little.
The bug does not occur with gcj 3.3 or 3.4, so I am marking
it as a regression.
The trouble starts in fold_single_bit_test(). Here we transform
"tagBits & IsArrayType" into
--- 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.org/bugzilla/show_bu
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-06
19:56 ---
This is only host related and nothing else.
--
What|Removed |Added
Component|c++
Aurora SPARC Linux Corona (FC3-ish) UltraSparc IIi (Sabre) sun4u:
binutils-2.15.92.0.2-5 - sparc
bison-1.875c-2 - sparc
dejagnu-1.4.4-1 - noarch
expect-5.42.1-1 - sparc
gcc-3.4.2-6.fc3 - sparc
gcc4-4.0.0-0.8sparc - sparc
glibc-2.3.3-99 - sparcv9
glibc-2.3.3-99 - sparc64
glibc-headers-2.3.3-99 - sp
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-06
19:55 ---
Ok, the ICE is filed under PR 19299, reducing the rejects valid right now.
--
What|Removed |Added
--
What|Removed |Added
OtherBugsDependingO||19297
nThis||
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19299
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-06
19:55 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> > BTW: Do you know what to make of the strange characters (e.g.
> > M-CM-"M-bM-^BM-,
> M-bM-^DM-")?
>
> GCC bug?
No, just using UTF-8 for the quotes because your LC/LANG include
--- 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 today, along with the
--
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.0.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19299
struct V
{
virtual void f() = 0;
};
void execute(V volatile* p)
{
p->V::~V();
}
--
Summary: [4.0 Regression] ICE with volatile non-PODs pointer
Product: gcc
Version: 4.0.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
Severity:
--- 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
gcc CVS mainline, 2005/01/06 09:53 PST
Configured with: /net/legless/scratch1/rwgk/gcc_cvs_head/configure --
prefix=/usr/local_cci/gcc_cvs_head_20050106 --enable-languages=c,c++
Red Hat Enterprise Linux WS release 3 (Taroon)
Boost CVS mainline, 2005/01/06 10:09 PST
% g++ -I/net/legless/scratch1/rw
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-06
19:45 ---
Looks like there are two bugs here, one for rejects valid if it is valid as
there is an error message before
the ICE and one for an ICE on valid code which is definitely a regression.
I will reduce the IC
--
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |critical
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Priority|P2
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-06
19:40 ---
It also fails with last nights build of gcc of the mainline.
And 3.4.0, 3.3.3, 3.2.3 and 3.0.4.
Here is a testcase which also fails too (this is what fold does):
void abort ();
void f1(unsigned short ad)
{
--- 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
gcc CVS mainline, 2005/01/06 09:53 PST
Configured with: /net/legless/scratch1/rwgk/gcc_cvs_head/configure --
prefix=/usr/local_cci/gcc_cvs_head_20050106 --enable-languages=c,c++
Red Hat Enterprise Linux WS release 3 (Taroon)
Boost CVS mainline, 2005/01/06 10:09 PST
% g++ -I/net/legless/scratch1/rw
[forwarded from http://bugs.debian.org/288721]
This fails with 3.3.5 at -O and higher. Regression from 2.95. Also doesn't fail
on MIPS or Alpha. Debian 3.4.4 20041218 is OK.
void abort(void);
__attribute__((noinline)) void f(unsigned short ad) {
if (ad >= 0x4000 && ad < 0xc000)
abort
--- Additional Comments From overholt at redhat dot com 2005-01-06 19:15
---
Created an attachment (id=7884)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=7884&action=view)
test case
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19295
This is a boiled-down test case from part of Eclipse. gcj produces this
bytecode:
Method name:"isArrayType" public final Signature: ()boolean
Attribute "Code", length:35, max_stack:3, max_locals:1, code_length:11
0: aload_0
1: getfield
4: i2l
which results in a verification failure becau
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-06
19:12 ---
Subject: Bug 13299
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Branch: gcc-3_4-branch
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-01-06 19:12:05
Modified files:
gcc: Change
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-06
19:11 ---
Subject: Bug 13299
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-01-06 19:10:57
Modified files:
gcc: ChangeLog loop.c
Added files:
--- Additional Comments From bjoern dot m dot haase at web dot de
2005-01-06 18:57 ---
If it would be OK for GCC to simply ignore negative constant shift counts,
the following patch would do. I have tested this with the test suite for
gcc-3.4.3 . Unfortunately avr-gcc is still broken o
--
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |nathan at gcc dot gnu dot
|dot org |org
Status|NEW
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-06
18:28 ---
Hmm, this looks like an inliner bug. (I have it down to about 300 lines).
--
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Additional Comments From ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-06
18:19 ---
> I can reproduce this behaviour on sparc-sun-solaris2.8 using this solaris2.9
> compiler. I can give more details if someone see how to debug this. In
> particular, if someone knows the list of -O1 enable
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-06
18:19 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> Subject: Re: Jumping into blocks gives error rather than warning
>
> Hi Tobias,
>
> I just received a bunch of messages about gfortran bugs for which nothing
> has changed, as
--- Additional Comments From paulthomas2 at wanadoo dot fr 2005-01-06
18:17 ---
Subject: Re: Jumping into blocks gives error rather than warning
Hi Tobias,
I just received a bunch of messages about gfortran bugs for which nothing
has changed, as far as I can tell. Is there a reason
--- Additional Comments From ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-06
18:16 ---
Confirmed on Solaris 8 and 9. Interestingly, on Solaris 2.5.1, 2.6 and 7, it
also fails at -O0.
--
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Additional Comments From joseph at codesourcery dot com 2005-01-06
18:03 ---
Subject: Re: avr-gcc crashes when using shifts with negative
shift count
On Thu, 6 Jan 2005, bjoern dot m dot haase at web dot de wrote:
> It seems that the standard says that shift operations with negat
--- Additional Comments From tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-06 17:52
---
I think we should issue an error, because nml is not ASSIGNed a FORMAT, but
since g77 accepts this code I'm not sure.
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From bangerth at dealii dot org 2005-01-06 17:41
---
Nah, that may be your Eurocentric viewpoint. Over here in Texas one
thinks differently :-))
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19288
--- Additional Comments From tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-06 17:35
---
(In reply to comment #1)
> I don't think PR 18476 needs to be in there. The test case is
> invalid (just putting nml instead of nml= into the list).
I don't understand your parenthetical remark.
Please see m
1 - 100 of 212 matches
Mail list logo
