[Bug rtl-optimization/15853] [3.3 Regression] temporaries are not destroyed and overwritten later

--- Additional Comments From ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-24 07:53 --- Fixing. -- What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |ebotcazou

[Bug bootstrap/19601] [4.0 Regression] make bootstrap-lean fails: insn-conditions.c:189: error: `flag_unsafe_math_optimizations' undeclared

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-24 07:53 --- Hmm, interesting. 'flag_unsafe_math_optimizations' should be defined in options.h which is built each time. Can you attach the full log? I am going to try this myself to see if something goes wrong here

[Bug target/19602] -mno-80387 should define __NO_MATH_INLINES

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-24 07:36 --- glibc is fucked up really, it should not do this. We really should define it always because almost always get better than glibc (especially with the tree-ssa). -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.

[Bug fortran/19302] intrinsic_nearest.f90 fails

--- Additional Comments From coudert at clipper dot ens dot fr 2005-01-24 07:30 --- I confirm comment #3: PR 17675 is fixed, but this bug still appears on the nightly test logs I do on sparc-sun-solaris2.9. Bug or not, this should be fixed (either the compiler or the testcase). I inclin

[Bug target/19602] New: -mno-80387 should define __NO_MATH_INLINES

This testcase will fail with '-O2 -ffast-math -mno-80387': #include double test(double x) { return sin(x); } sin.c: In function 'test': /usr/include/bits/mathinline.h:456: error: impossible constraint in 'asm' Adding -D__NO_MATH_INLINES to compile flags fixes this problem. --

[Bug bootstrap/19601] New: make bootstrap-lean fails: insn-conditions.c:189: error: `flag_unsafe_math_optimizations' undeclared

make bootstrap-lean fails for native powerpc64-linux since a week. mkdir obj-powerpc64-linux-minimal cd obj-powerpc64-linux-minimal/ CFLAGS='-O2 -fsigned-char -fmessage-length=0 -Wall' /tmp/gcc-head/configure --enable-threads=posix --enable-languages=c,c++,objc,f95,java --enable-checking -

[Bug inline-asm/11203] source doesn't compile with -O0 but they compile with -O3

--- Additional Comments From spigel at olvs dot miee dot ru 2005-01-24 06:45 --- Subject: Re: source doesn't compile with -O0 but they compile with -O3 Yeah, fine battle! -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11203

[Bug other/16043] [3.4 only] gcc version not reported with "enable-version-specific-runtime-libs" to gcc-testresults

--- Additional Comments From billingd at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-24 05:19 --- Patch applied to 3.4 branch -- What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED

[Bug c/16403] Floating-point assignment to int is inconsistent

--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-24 05:05 --- Subject: Bug 16403 CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc Module name:gcc Branch: gcc-3_4-branch Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-01-24 05:05:04 Modified files: gcc/testsuite : Change

[Bug libstdc++/8670] Alignment problem in std::basic_string

--- Additional Comments From ncm-nospam at cantrip dot org 2005-01-24 03:42 --- I have read the discussion on 17744 and 19163. Nothing there suggests that there is any reason to prefer using an __attribute__ over using the portable, stable, apparently already-working union approach, whe

[Bug middle-end/19486] [4.0 Regression] flags_complex_divide_method=1 doesn't work

-- What|Removed |Added Summary|flags_complex_divide_method=|[4.0 Regression] |1 doesn't work |flags_complex_divide_method=

[Bug middle-end/19597] [4.0 Regression] avr-gcc 4.0, multiplication by constant, very long code

--- Additional Comments From roger at eyesopen dot com 2005-01-24 02:53 --- The function avr_rtx_costs needs fixing. For a start, it doesn't even use COSTS_N_INSNS, indeed COSTS_N_INSNS isn't used anywhere in the AVR backend. I'm only mildly surprised at the code sequence we generate,

[Bug middle-end/19486] flags_complex_divide_method=1 doesn't work

--- Additional Comments From rth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-24 02:32 --- Fixed. -- What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED

[Bug middle-end/18902] Naive (default) complex division algorithm

-- Bug 18902 depends on bug 19486, which changed state. Bug 19486 Summary: flags_complex_divide_method=1 doesn't work http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19486 What|Old Value |New Value ---

[Bug middle-end/19486] flags_complex_divide_method=1 doesn't work

--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-24 02:30 --- Subject: Bug 19486 CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc Module name:gcc Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-01-24 02:30:43 Modified files: gcc: ChangeLog tree-complex.c Log messag

[Bug middle-end/19486] flags_complex_divide_method=1 doesn't work

-- What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |rth at gcc dot gnu dot org |dot org | Status|NEW

[Bug tree-optimization/18595] [4.0 Regression] IV-OPTS is O(N^3)

--- Additional Comments From dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-24 01:57 --- Subject: Re: [4.0 Regression] IV-OPTS is O(N^3) >> On a side note, PRE also seems to have problems with the testcase. With the >> patch mentioned above, the largest consumers of compile time are ivopts (4

[Bug target/19558] openssl speed compiled with 20051020 gcc-4.0 (HEAD) segfaults

--- Additional Comments From gj at pointblue dot com dot pl 2005-01-24 01:50 --- how is it invalid ? openssl is crashing only when compiled with gcc4. It might not be the problem I've higlighted, but this crash is a fact!. IOW, you didn't enter any resolution. -- http://gcc.gnu.o

[Bug tree-optimization/18595] [4.0 Regression] IV-OPTS is O(N^3)

--- Additional Comments From dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-24 01:49 --- Subject: Re: [4.0 Regression] IV-OPTS is O(N^3) On Sun, 24 Jan 2005, rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote: > > --- Additional Comments From rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-24 > 01:46 --

Re: [Bug tree-optimization/18595] [4.0 Regression] IV-OPTS is O(N^3)

On Sun, 24 Jan 2005, rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote: --- Additional Comments From rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-24 01:46 --- On a side note, PRE also seems to have problems with the testcase. With the patch mentioned above, the largest consumers of compile time are ivopts

[Bug tree-optimization/18595] [4.0 Regression] IV-OPTS is O(N^3)

--- Additional Comments From rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-24 01:46 --- On a side note, PRE also seems to have problems with the testcase. With the patch mentioned above, the largest consumers of compile time are ivopts (45%) and pre (20%). -- What|Removed

[Bug tree-optimization/18595] [4.0 Regression] IV-OPTS is O(N^3)

--- Additional Comments From rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-24 01:40 --- The patch that causes ivopts to reset just the relevant parts of the scev cache (just regtesting) instead of clearing it completely helps a bit -- the compile time for N=100 gets about 2x better and memory c

[Bug target/19584] [4.0 Regression] ICE: insn does not satisfy its constraints

-- What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |rth at gcc dot gnu dot org |dot org | Status|NEW

[Bug target/19556] [4.0 Regression] ICE with -march=pentium-m (during bootstrap)

-- What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |rth at gcc dot gnu dot org |dot org | Status|NEW

[Bug java/18147] Objects in instance initializer blocks are scoped too widely

-- What|Removed |Added Keywords||rejects-valid Last reconfirmed|2004-10-25 18:49:33 |2005-01-24 00:57:56 date|

[Bug libstdc++/19343] [4.0 Regression] New warnings in libstdc++-v3 since 2004-01-05

--- Additional Comments From pcarlini at suse dot de 2005-01-24 00:57 --- > Do you *know* that this bug is fixed? Of course: checked with a one week old (20050117) compiler. Now, unfortunately, due to 19583 would be hard to tell: dozens and dozens of meaningless warnings during the buil

[Bug middle-end/16585] current_function_has_computed_jump incorrectly changed in make_edges

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-24 00:56 --- Assigning to Steven since he had accepted it before (just unassign if you don't want this bug anymore). -- What|Removed |Added --

[Bug ada/19600] [4.0 Regression] All acats tests fail

--- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-24 00:51 --- Following http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-01/msg01274.html it seems that s390, sparc, and x86 at least are also affected. -- What|Removed |Added -

[Bug middle-end/19597] [4.0 Regression] avr-gcc 4.0, multiplication by constant, very long code

--- Additional Comments From bernie at develer dot com 2005-01-24 00:49 --- Confirmed: --- 3.4 output --- ldi r18,lo8(24011) ldi r19,hi8(24011) mul r24,r18 movw r20,r0 mul r24,r19 add r21,r0 mul r25,r18 add r21,r0 c

[Bug ada/19600] [4.0 Regression] All acats tests fail

--- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-24 00:49 --- Do you actually know it breaks all targets? Can you actually show it is wrong code? -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19600

[Bug c++/17796] [3.4/4.0 Regression] Too many unused parameter warnings emitted.

--- Additional Comments From phython at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-24 00:35 --- Something like the following patch should work: Index: function.c === RCS file: /cvs/gcc/gcc/gcc/function.c,v retrieving revision 1.602 diff -

[Bug middle-end/19583] [4.0 Regression] Incorrect diagnostic: control may reach end of non-void function '...' being inlined

--- Additional Comments From hp at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-24 00:34 --- *** Bug 19573 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- What|Removed |Added

[Bug rtl-optimization/19579] [3.3/3.4/4.0 regression] -march=i686 generates a bogus program for x86*

--- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-24 00:34 --- For the RTL illiterate like myself: BB2: j = k + l j0 = j + 1 flags = (j0 <= 0) if (flags) goto BB4 else goto BB3 flags are in live_at_end BB3: flags are not in live_at_start

[Bug libstdc++/19573] [4.0 regression] g++.old-deja/g++.robertl/eb132.C, eb73.C failures

--- Additional Comments From hp at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-24 00:34 --- ...changing to duplicate of PR 19583. See comment #14 in PR 19343. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 19583 *** -- What|Removed |Added ---

[Bug ada/19600] [4.0 Regression] All acats tests fail

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-24 00:34 --- -largs is being passed on to LD which is wrong. Last sucessful bootstrap/test for me was on "17 Jan" This looks like wrong code as nothing in the ada front-end/testsuite changed. Here are the only changes t

[Bug libstdc++/19573] [4.0 regression] g++.old-deja/g++.robertl/eb132.C, eb73.C failures

--- Additional Comments From hp at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-24 00:33 --- Reopening and... -- What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED

[Bug ada/19600] New: [4.0 Regression] All acats tests fail

=== acats tests === Running chapter a ... splitting /home/dave/gnu/gcc-4.0/objdir/gcc/testsuite/ada/acats/tests/a/a22006b. ada into: a22006b.adb BUILD a22006b.adb gnatmake --GCC="/home/dave/gnu/gcc-4.0/objdir/gcc/xgcc -B/home/dave/gnu/gcc-4.0/ objdir/gcc/" -gnatws -O2 -I/home/dave/gnu/gcc-4.0/ob

[Bug target/19599] function pointer prevents tail-call optimisation

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-24 00:24 --- Since tail call is now down at the tree level (except for expansion which is where the problem is), this is a target bug. -- What|Removed |Added ---

[Bug libstdc++/19343] [4.0 Regression] New warnings in libstdc++-v3 since 2004-01-05

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-24 00:22 --- (In reply to comment #13) > Do you *know* that this bug is fixed? > If so, I have to reopen PR 19573 as not being a duplicate of this bug after > all; > I still see the failure. That is because I should ha

[Bug rtl-optimization/19599] New: function pointer prevents tail-call optimisation

This code: int g(int); int f(int x) { return g(x); } is correctly compiled to just f: bg But, if g is a function pointer: int (*g)(int); int f(int x) { return g(x); } then the generated code becomes much less efficient: f: str lr, [sp, #-4]! ldr r3, .

[Bug bootstrap/19364] [4.0 Regression] embedded sparc does not bootstrap

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-24 00:19 --- Removing target milestone per: . -- What|Removed |Added

[Bug libstdc++/19343] [4.0 Regression] New warnings in libstdc++-v3 since 2004-01-05

--- Additional Comments From hp at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-24 00:17 --- Do you *know* that this bug is fixed? If so, I have to reopen PR 19573 as not being a duplicate of this bug after all; I still see the failure. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19343

[Bug target/19598] New: [arm] non-optimal handling of invalid immediate constant in XOR

This function: int f(int x) { return x ^ 0x1234; } currently compiles (with -mtune=xscale) to: mov r3, #4608 add r3, r3, #52 eor r0, r0, r3 @ lr needed for prologue mov pc, lr or (with -mtune=arm9) to: ldr r3, .L3 @

[Bug c/5675] const variables wrongly considered part of constant expressions

-- What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|4.0.0 |--- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5675

[Bug rtl-optimization/19579] [3.3/3.4/4.0 regression] -march=i686 generates a bogus program for x86*

--- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-24 00:02 --- This looks more like an if-conversion bug in if-after-combine. -- What|Removed |Added

[Bug middle-end/19597] [4.0 Regression] avr-gcc 4.0, multiplication by constant, very long code

--- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2005-01-23 23:56 --- Bernie, can you confirm this? Roger, you tweaked the middle-end in this regard. Can you have a look at this? -- What|Removed |Added ---

[Bug target/19392] [4.0 regression] mmix-knuth-mmixware testsuite failure: gcc.c-torture/execute/931004-11.c execution, -O0

-- What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |4.0.0 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19392

[Bug target/19392] [4.0 regression] mmix-knuth-mmixware testsuite failure: gcc.c-torture/execute/931004-11.c execution, -O0

--- Additional Comments From hp at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-23 23:52 --- Works again with "Sun Jan 23 15:20:09 UTC 2005" (was still broken with "Sat Jan 22 23:57:16 UTC 2005"), so apparently the bug went away with another change. Wonderful when that happens. Now no unexpected compile

[Bug rtl-optimization/19579] [3.3/3.4/4.0 regression] -march=i686 generates a bogus program for x86*

--- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-23 23:50 --- >From the dump, I think the cse_condition_code_reg code is OK, but it is exposing a bug elsewhere. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19579

[Bug target/19593] ICE at build_def_use, at regrename.c:763

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-23 23:48 --- Can you try 3.4.4? -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19593

[Bug rtl-optimization/15342] [arm-linux] internal compiler error: in verify_local_live_at_start

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-23 23:47 --- *** Bug 18295 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- What|Removed |Added

[Bug rtl-optimization/18295] verify_local_live_at_start failed with -O3

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-23 23:47 --- *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 15342 *** -- What|Removed |Added

[Bug rtl-optimization/18295] verify_local_live_at_start failed with -O3

-- Bug 18295 depends on bug 15342, which changed state. Bug 15342 Summary: [arm-linux] internal compiler error: in verify_local_live_at_start http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15342 What|Old Value |New Value --

[Bug rtl-optimization/15342] [arm-linux] internal compiler error: in verify_local_live_at_start

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-23 23:47 --- Fixed. -- What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED

[Bug rtl-optimization/19198] ICE in copyprop_hardreg_forward_1

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-23 23:46 --- I think this is a dup of bug 18932 which is already fixed in a later version of 3.4.4, can you try a newer version of 3.4.4? -- What|Removed |Added

[Bug rtl-optimization/18295] verify_local_live_at_start failed with -O3

--- Additional Comments From joel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-23 23:46 --- Appears to be fixed in gcc 4.0.0 (20050122). -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18295

[Bug target/19593] ICE at build_def_use, at regrename.c:763

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-23 23:45 --- I think this is a dup of bug 18932 and already fixed in 3.4.4. (It was a latent bug). -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19593

[Bug middle-end/19597] [4.0 Regression] avr-gcc 4.0, multiplication by constant, very long code

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-23 23:01 --- The problem is that middle-end expands it to shifts and such but really it might be that rtx_cost for avr does not take into account size at all. -- What|Removed |Added

[Bug rtl-optimization/19597] New: avr-gcc 4.0, multiplication by constant, very long code

avr-gcc 4.0 (20050116) replaces multiplication by a constant to a combination of more simple operations. Thus it does not pay attention to efficiency of such replacement. For example: int foo (int x) { return 24011 * x; } produce 49 words (-mmcu=atmega8 -Os). Older GCC branches --

[Bug fortran/17941] gfortran: parser chokes on complex literal constant

-- What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |4.0.0 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17941

[Bug fortran/17941] gfortran: parser chokes on complex literal constant

--- Additional Comments From pbrook at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-23 22:38 --- Fixed. -- What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED

[Bug fortran/19292] [meta-bug] g77 features lacking in gfortran

-- Bug 19292 depends on bug 17941, which changed state. Bug 17941 Summary: gfortran: parser chokes on complex literal constant http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17941 What|Old Value |New Value --

[Bug fortran/17941] gfortran: parser chokes on complex literal constant

--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-23 22:29 --- Subject: Bug 17941 CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc Module name:gcc Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-01-23 22:29:41 Modified files: gcc/fortran: ChangeLog arith.c primary.c

[Bug target/19579] [3.3/3.4/4.0 regression] -march=i686 generates a bogus program

--- Additional Comments From kazu at cs dot umass dot edu 2005-01-23 22:25 --- On my machine, Athlon XP 2500 running Fedora Core 3, -O2 -march=i686 produces OK!, but -O2 -march=athlon-xp produces WRONG! if the original testcase is compiled with the current mainline. -- http://gcc.g

[Bug middle-end/19583] [4.0 Regression] Incorrect diagnostic: control may reach end of non-void function '...' being inlined

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-23 22:22 --- All this code will go away for 4.1 anyways which is good (and we will not have false postives any more). Anyways patch here: . -- What

[Bug target/19579] [3.3/3.4/4.0 regression] -march=i686 generates a bogus program

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-23 22:14 --- As per GDR (a while back) moving 3.4.x regressions to the target milestone for 3.4.x. -- What|Removed |Added

[Bug target/19579] [3.3/3.4/4.0 regression] -march=i686 generates a bogus program

--- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-23 22:13 --- "-O -frerun-cse-after-loop" is enough to reproduce it on AMD64. -- What|Removed |Added GCC

[Bug target/19579] [3.3/3.4/4.0 regression] -march=i686 generates a bogus program

--- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-23 22:08 --- Oh bugger. The tree dump is good. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19579

[Bug target/19579] [3.3/3.4/4.0 regression] -march=i686 generates a bogus program

--- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-23 22:06 --- The tree dump already looks wrong to me on mainline: g (k, l) { int j.0; int j; _Bool D.1460; int D.1459; int D.1458; int D.1457; : D.1457 = f (); if (D.1457 != 0) goto ; else g

[Bug target/19558] openssl speed compiled with 20051020 gcc-4.0 (HEAD) segfaults

--- Additional Comments From rth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-23 22:04 --- No, it should not. See the AMD K8 documentation for recommended nop sequences. -- What|Removed |Added ---

[Bug target/19579] [3.3/3.4/4.0 regression] -march=i686 generates a bogus program

--- Additional Comments From belyshev at depni dot sinp dot msu dot ru 2005-01-23 21:32 --- I can confirm this bug on mainline with this testcase: -- void abort (void); int f () { return 0; } void __attribute

[Bug target/19579] [3.3/3.4 regression] -march=i686 generates a bogus program

--- Additional Comments From reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-23 21:14 --- Confirmed. Here's a condensed testcase (compile with "-O2 -march=i686" on i686-pc-linux-gnu): int foo(int i, int j) { int k = i+1; if (j) {

[Bug tree-optimization/18133] computed gotos are not folded back to regular gotos when it is found that they are not computed gotos at all

--- Additional Comments From kazu at cs dot umass dot edu 2005-01-23 21:09 --- Here is another idea that would not compilicate the DOM. That is, we can set up things so that the actual threading part will be done by DOM. Suppose we have a factored computed goto block like so: # p_2 =

[Bug middle-end/14192] Restrict pointers don't help

--- Additional Comments From joseph at codesourcery dot com 2005-01-23 20:59 --- Subject: Re: Restrict pointers don't help On Sun, 23 Jan 2005, steven at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote: > Zack, Joseph, could one of you comment on Jan's interpretation of > the semantics of restrict?

[Bug tree-optimization/18133] computed gotos are not folded back to regular gotos when it is found that they are not computed gotos at all

--- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-23 20:59 --- This is one of those things that jump bypassing does catch, but tree CCP doesn't. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18133

[Bug libfortran/19596] New: eor generates false error message with advance='NO'

2.f90 $ ./a.out At line 6 of file eor2.f90 Fortran runtime error: EOR specification requires an ADVANCE specification of NO $ gfortran -v ; gfortran -dumpmachine Using built-in specs. Configured with: ../gcc/configure --prefix=/home/ig25 --enable-languages=c,f95 Thread model: posix gcc versi

[Bug libfortran/19595] New: eor and advance="yes" should not mix

$ cat eor.f90 program main character*3 c open(12) write(12,'(A)') '123','456' rewind(12) read(12,'(A3)',advance='YES',eor=100) c 100 continue end program main $ gfortran eor.f90 $ ./a.out Eor is only legal if advance='NO' is specified. It would be nice if the above would generate an erro

[Bug tree-optimization/18133] computed gotos are not folded back to regular gotos when it is found that they are not computed gotos at all

--- Additional Comments From kazu at cs dot umass dot edu 2005-01-23 20:39 --- IMHO, we need to call rewrite_ssa_into_ssa after fixing CFG. Consider: int c, d; int bar (int a) { void *p; int b; if (a!=0) { b = 3; p = &&L0; } else { b = 5; p

[Bug c++/18327] [3.3/3.4/4.0 Regression] ICE while compiling valid c code with g++

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-23 20:35 --- *** Bug 19594 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- What|Removed |Added

[Bug c++/19594] initializing a struct

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-23 20:35 --- *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 18327 *** -- What|Removed |Added

[Bug c++/19594] New: initializing a struct

compiling the C++ code -8<-8<-8<-8<- struct Struct { unsigned data[]; }; Struct data= { 0 }; -8<-8<-8<-8<- with the command g++ -O1 -c -o bug.o bug.cc results in: bug.cc

[Bug bootstrap/18058] [4.0 Regression] Sun CC cannot bootstrap GCC (static inline)

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-23 20:28 --- (In reply to comment #22) > > This should be fixed now, correct? Please close if it is fully fixed, > > otherwise please report what is the correct error. > > cc -erroff -g -DENABLE_CHECKING -DENABLE_ASS

[Bug middle-end/19330] [4.0 Regression] FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/20010605-2.c execution, -O1

--- Additional Comments From danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-23 20:23 --- This regression was introduced by the following change: 2004-11-26 Richard Kenner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * expmed.c (extract_bit_field): When extracting from non-integer mode, force a SUBREG

[Bug bootstrap/18058] [4.0 Regression] Sun CC cannot bootstrap GCC (static inline)

--- Additional Comments From ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-23 20:22 --- > This should be fixed now, correct? Please close if it is fully fixed, > otherwise please report what is the correct error. cc -erroff -g -DENABLE_CHECKING -DENABLE_ASSERT_CHECKING -DIN_GCC -DHAVE

[Bug c/19588] Documentation: Help on no-show of warning is missing

--- Additional Comments From mail at thorstenhau dot de 2005-01-23 20:18 --- That would be a workaround, not a solution. What I'm looking for is -Wno-string-length. I think it should be possible to diable any warning. Since you seem to see -pedantic as one big heap I'll make this a feat

[Bug java/19586] gij exits with SIGABR

--- Additional Comments From rickard dot narstrom at gmail dot com 2005-01-23 20:15 --- (In reply to comment #4) > (In reply to comment #3) > > the segfault seemed to be a tempurary failure its back to abort now > > Now it sounds like your machine has bad memory. Can you check your mem

[Bug tree-optimization/19581] Missed store monition on the tree level

--- Additional Comments From rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-23 20:01 --- The same holds for the old loop optimizer :-) -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19581

[Bug tree-optimization/14741] missing transformations lead to poorly optimized code

--- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-23 20:00 --- Joost, could you try this with CVS head? We should do a lot better now. Could you also show the code ifc produces for your test case? Maybe they have some option enabled by default that we have disabled

[Bug tree-optimization/19581] Missed store monition on the tree level

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-23 19:59 --- (In reply to comment #5) > GCSE store motion does catch this. But it is disabled for GCC 4.0 because > it is buggy and does not really work well in most cases. Yes but we don't catch in 3.4.0 so that mean

[Bug java/19586] gij exits with SIGABR

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-23 19:54 --- (In reply to comment #3) > the segfault seemed to be a tempurary failure its back to abort now Now it sounds like your machine has bad memory. Can you check your memory? -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/

[Bug tree-optimization/19581] Missed store monition on the tree level

--- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-23 19:53 --- GCSE store motion does catch this. But it is disabled for GCC 4.0 because it is buggy and does not really work well in most cases. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19581

[Bug c/9049] No support for selective enabling/disabling of warnings

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-23 19:53 --- *** Bug 19588 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9049

[Bug c/19588] Documentation: Help on no-show of warning is missing

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-23 19:53 --- You can use that to disable this warning for all sources by putting a #pragma in a header that gets included. There is no way to disable this warning at all (I assume you are using -pedantic since that i

[Bug java/19586] gij exits with SIGABR

--- Additional Comments From rickard dot narstrom at gmail dot com 2005-01-23 19:52 --- the segfault seemed to be a tempurary failure its back to abort now -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19586

[Bug rtl-optimization/19580] [3.4/4.0 Regression] missed load/store motion

--- Additional Comments From belyshev at depni dot sinp dot msu dot ru 2005-01-23 19:51 --- (In reply to comment #18) > I'm not sure what you think the missed optimization is here. You will have > to show what you want at the assembly level, and explain why you think this > is a coale

[Bug c/19588] Documentation: Help on no-show of warning is missing

--- Additional Comments From mail at thorstenhau dot de 2005-01-23 19:49 --- I don't want to exclude warnings for a specific part of the code, but a specific warning for all code. -- What|Removed |Added

[Bug middle-end/19330] [4.0 Regression] FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/20010605-2.c execution, -O1

--- Additional Comments From danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-23 19:48 --- The bad mem is generated by the call to extract_bit_field from this code in emit_group_load_1: (gdb) list 1678{ 1679 rtx mem; 1680 1681 gcc_assert (!bytepos

[Bug tree-optimization/19581] Missed store monition on the tree level

--- Additional Comments From rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-23 19:44 --- Gcse store motion could catch this as well (if I understand PR 19580 well, it does not, which is a bug), so this pr alone would not be a reason to block removal of old loop optimizer. However hopefully we s

[Bug tree-optimization/14741] missing transformations lead to poorly optimized code

-- Bug 14741 depends on bug 19464, which changed state. Bug 19464 Summary: [3.3/3.4/4.0 Regression] gcse causes poor register allocation http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19464 What|Old Value |New Value

[Bug rtl-optimization/19464] [3.3/3.4/4.0 Regression] gcse causes poor register allocation

--- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-23 19:43 --- . -- What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED R

  1   2   3   >