[Bug c++/19739] [3.4/4.0 Regression] ICE with additional comma in attribute

-- What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |mark at codesourcery dot com |dot org | Status|NEW

[Bug c++/19787] [3.4/4.0 Regression] Internal compiler error with ambiguous conversion functions

-- What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |mark at codesourcery dot com |dot org | Status|NEW

[Bug c++/19762] [3.4/4.0 regression] ICE in invalid explicit instantiation of a destructor

-- What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |mark at codesourcery dot com |dot org | Status|NEW

[Bug target/19653] x87 reg allocated for constants for -mfpmath=sse

--- Additional Comments From uros at kss-loka dot si 2005-02-09 07:30 --- (In reply to comment #4) > rth hacked the constraints recently to have better ra for some fp cases. Can > you see if the bug is still there today on mainline? gcc version 4.0.0 20050209 (experimental) '-O2 -march

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

-- What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|4.0.0 |--- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19597

[Bug java/19834] Eclipse bytecode miscompiled with -O --indirect-dispatch

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-09 07:20 --- Does this happen without -O if so this might not be a jave specific bug. When I am sober enough to look at testcase more, I will look into this one. -- What|Removed |Add

[Bug tree-optimization/19835] [4.0 Regression] [AVR] Loop variable gets widened to LONG instead of int

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-09 07:17 --- There has to be a reason why we want to use long int instead of the integer type which is the same size of the pointer. Confirmed. -- What|Removed |Added -

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

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-09 07:16 --- Actually Roger has not checked this in yet. I was misled by: . -- What|Removed |Added ---

[Bug ada/19489] gnat tools not buildable cross

--- Additional Comments From neroden at twcny dot rr dot com 2005-02-09 07:13 --- Subject: Re: gnat tools not buildable cross joel at oarcorp dot com wrote: > --- Additional Comments From joel at oarcorp dot com 2005-02-08 19:16 > --- > Subject: Re: gnat tools not buildable

[Bug tree-optimization/19828] [4.0 Regression] LIM is pulling out a pure function even though there is something which can modify global memory

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-09 07:03 --- Confirmed via Daniel Berline via IRC and Drow via this bug. -- What|Removed |Added

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

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-09 07:02 --- Fixed. Thanks Roger for looking into this testcase. And thanks for all people who tested the patch to show it actually helps the code size. -- What|Removed |Added

[Bug tree-optimization/19831] Missing DSE/malloc/free optimization

-- What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Ever Confirmed||1 Last reconfirmed|-00-00 00:00:00 |2005-02-

[Bug target/19799] sibcall-3.c and sibcall-4.c xfailed on hppa64-*-hpux*

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-09 06:41 --- The testcase is now xfailed but now it is missed optimization so suspending untill binutils is fixed. -- What|Removed |Added

[Bug preprocessor/19836] -E -dD includes predefined macros

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-09 06:39 --- (In reply to comment #2) > (In reply to comment #1) > > This is documented to do this so this is not a bug. > > I thought -dD was supposed to NOT include predefined macros? This is what the documentation sa

[Bug rtl-optimization/323] optimized code gives strange floating point results

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-09 06:35 --- *** Bug 19837 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- What|Removed |Added

[Bug c++/19732] [4.0 regression] Invalid destructor declarations accepted

-- What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |mark at codesourcery dot com |dot org | Status|NEW

[Bug c/19837] Floating-point numerical regression with and without optimization

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-09 06:34 --- x86 is werid in that it almost always uses 80 bit float point and not IEEE 64 bit floating point. This is a duplicate of bug 323. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 323 *** -- What

[Bug preprocessor/19836] -E -dD includes predefined macros

--- Additional Comments From jason at catapult dot com 2005-02-09 06:27 --- (In reply to comment #1) > This is documented to do this so this is not a bug. I thought -dD was supposed to NOT include predefined macros? Jason -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19836

[Bug c/19837] Floating-point numerical regression with and without optimization

--- Additional Comments From wirawan0 at softhome dot net 2005-02-09 06:25 --- Created an attachment (id=8147) --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=8147&action=view) A testcase to reproduce the error reported. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19837

[Bug c/19837] Floating-point numerical regression with and without optimization

-- What|Removed |Added Keywords||wrong-code http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19837

[Bug c/19837] New: Floating-point numerical regression with and without optimization

VERSION KNOWN TO BE AFFECTED: 3.4.3, 3.2.2 My gcc gives the following version/compilation info: ~/Projects/BUGS $ g++ -v Reading specs from /usr/local/gcc-3.4.3/lib/gcc/i686-pc-linux-gnu/3.4.3/specs Configured with: ../gcc-3.4.3/configure --enable-threads=posix --prefix=/usr/local/gcc-3.4.3 --ena

[Bug tree-optimization/19835] [4.0 Regression] [AVR] Loop variable gets widened to LONG instead of int

-- What|Removed |Added Component|c |tree-optimization Keywords||missed-optimization Summary|[AVR]

[Bug preprocessor/19836] -E -dD includes predefined macros

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-09 06:15 --- This is documented to do this so this is not a bug. -- What|Removed |Added Statu

[Bug preprocessor/19836] New: -E -dD includes predefined macros

The -dD flag includes all the defined macros that -dM includes. Unless I'm mistaken in my understanding of a predefined macro, it shouldn't include the ones defined in the std C headers. This is the case for 3.4.3 and 3.3.5. === ~/misc> touch foo.h ; cpp -dD foo.h | sort > test2 ~/misc> t

[Bug c/19835] New: [AVR] Loop variable gets widened to LONG instead of int

GNU C version 4.0.0 20041205 (experimental) (avr) Loop variable gets widened to LONG instead of unsigned int (or perhaps even int). Seems we forgeot how big the target is? Testcase: struct S19 { unsigned char i[19]; }; void init (struct S19 *p, int i)

[Bug libgcj/19823] java fails with non-executable memory

--- Additional Comments From Hans dot Boehm at hp dot com 2005-02-09 05:38 --- I believe that the GC alters permissions on the heap only if either - It is running in incremental mode, or - It is built with USE_MMAP, and thus uses mmap to allocate the heap. I think we talked about always

[Bug libgcj/19823] java fails with non-executable memory

--- Additional Comments From mckinlay at redhat dot com 2005-02-09 04:11 --- Note that TestProxy is failing too, which does seem to indicate a problem with ffi closures. boehm-gc does have code to call mprotect() on its heap (see PROTECT/UNPROTECT in os_dep.c), but it isn't used because

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

--- Additional Comments From ian at airs dot com 2005-02-09 03:52 --- New patch: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-02/msg00342.html -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19583

[Bug tree-optimization/19831] Missing DSE/malloc/free optimization

--- Additional Comments From dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-09 03:42 --- Subject: Re: New: Missing DSE/malloc/free optimization > void *malloc(__SIZE_TYPE__); > void free(void*); > int f(void) > { > char *i = malloc(1); > *i = 1; > free (i); > } > > This is somet

[Bug java/19834] New: Eclipse bytecode miscompiled with -O --indirect-dispatch

The following test case gets miscompiled from bytecode with "-O --indirect-dispatch". It doesn't appear to matter which compiler produced the bytecode - the same error occurs with all of them. import java.util.*; public class Test { static int i = 0; static int get() { return i++; } publ

[Bug c++/19826] [4.0 Regression] More array bounds rejected as non-constant in template...

--- Additional Comments From mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-09 03:09 --- Yeah, this is me being an idiot. Will fix. -- What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|unass

[Bug c++/19734] [3.4 regression] Another ICE on invalid destructor call

--- Additional Comments From mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-09 03:06 --- Fixed in 4.0, by the patch for PR 19733. -- What|Removed |Added Summary|[3.4/4.0

[Bug c++/19733] [3.4/4.0 regression] ICE on invalid destructor call

--- Additional Comments From mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-09 03:02 --- Fixed in GCC 3.4.4. -- What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|

[Bug c++/19733] [3.4/4.0 regression] ICE on invalid destructor call

--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-09 02:53 --- Subject: Bug 19733 CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc Module name:gcc Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-02-09 02:53:44 Modified files: gcc/testsuite : ChangeLog gcc/cp : C

[Bug other/19525] [4.0 Regression] In-build-directory multilib testing broken

--- Additional Comments From mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-09 02:51 --- See this thread: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-02/msg00264.html including this clarification of the proposed direction: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-02/msg00273.html -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bug

[Bug c++/17964] [4.0 Regression] cpp error messages contain wrong line in C++

--- Additional Comments From zack at codesourcery dot com 2005-02-09 02:28 --- I am testing a patch for this bug now. -- What|Removed |Added Status|NEW

[Bug c++/19733] [3.4/4.0 regression] ICE on invalid destructor call

--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-09 02:21 --- Subject: Bug 19733 CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc Module name:gcc Branch: gcc-3_4-branch Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-02-09 02:21:36 Modified files: gcc/cp : Change

[Bug target/19799] sibcall-3.c and sibcall-4.c fail on hppa64-*-hpux*

--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-09 01:44 --- Subject: Bug 19799 CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc Module name:gcc Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-02-09 01:43:51 Modified files: gcc/testsuite : ChangeLog gcc/testsuite/gcc.

[Bug target/19799] sibcall-3.c and sibcall-4.c fail on hppa64-*-hpux*

--- Additional Comments From danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-09 01:22 --- The stub placement issues in GNU ld still haven't been fixed. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19799

[Bug regression/19813] [4.0 Regression] wrong code with -finline-limit

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-09 00:51 --- (In reply to comment #6) > (In reply to comment #5) > > This is somewhat shorter, though maybe not much: > > Does -fno-strict-aliasing make this compile and run correctly? Because if it does then this is

[Bug regression/19813] [4.0 Regression] wrong code with -finline-limit

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-09 00:48 --- (In reply to comment #5) > This is somewhat shorter, though maybe not much: Does -fno-strict-aliasing make this compile and run correctly? -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19813

[Bug tree-optimization/19833] bogus uninitialized variable warning for powerpc64

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-08 23:57 --- It also fails on powerpc-darwin with -m64 too. So maybe xfailing it for powerpc*-*-* && lp64 would be a better idea. -- What|Removed |Added ---

[Bug c/19342] [4.0 regression] ICE in common_type, at c-typeck.c:490

--- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-08 23:52 --- Jakub, so why not get your patch of comment #11 in first, and worry about the, as you say yourself, unrelated bugs later? -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19342

[Bug tree-optimization/19833] New: bogus uninitialized variable warning for powerpc64

Test gcc.dg/uninit-4.c has failed on powerpc64-unknown-linux-gnu with -m64 since 2004-12-17 for a bogus uninitialized variable warning. No other target for which test results have been reported for the last few days gets this failure. The change is with this patch:

[Bug tree-optimization/19832] don't remove an if when we know the value is the same as with the if (subtraction)

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-08 23:34 --- Confirmed, here is the full testcase by the way: int f(int i, int j) { if (i!=j) return i - j; return 0; } Note I did not say the patch is useless but I just wantted to say that it would be useful

[Bug c/19832] New: Missed optimisation

According to Andrew Pinski , the following patch is useless because gcc should be able to find the optimisation by itself. Description : function preferable in cse.c can be simplified if we notice that, at the end of the function : if (regcost_a != regcost_b) return regcost_a - regcost_

[Bug fortran/19479] UBOUND causes ICE

--- Additional Comments From craig dot powers at gmail dot com 2005-02-08 21:53 --- Further testing indicates that the bug is caused by an array in a derived type -- the pointer is not necessary. program test implicit none type test_type integer, dimension(5) :: a end type te

[Bug target/19745] [meta-bug]: cris-elf gcc, g++, objc testsuite failures as of "Tue Feb 1 22:03:59 UTC 2005"

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-08 21:45 --- WARNING: gcc.dg/20010912-1.c compilation failed to produce executable as the following is in the testcase: /* { dg-warning "not supported" "PIC unsupported" { target cris-*-elf* cris-*-aout* mmix-*-* } 0 }

[Bug tree-optimization/19831] New: Missing DSE/malloc/free optimization

The following function really should be compiled to an empty function (DSE should first remove the store and then free of a malloc with no change inbetween and we should remove both calls). void *malloc(__SIZE_TYPE__); void free(void*); int f(void) { char *i = malloc(1); *i = 1; free (i);

[Bug target/19830] New: cris-elf testsuite failure: gcc.c-torture/execute/920501-8.c execute tests.

Regarding gcc.c-torture/execute/920501-8.c, there's an extra "0" in the "1.00" part. Comparing to results for other targets (mmix, frv), it seems the core sprintf function is miscompiled! -- Summary: cris-elf testsuite failure: gcc.c- torture/execute/920501-8.c

[Bug target/19745] [meta-bug]: cris-elf gcc, g++, objc testsuite failures as of "Tue Feb 1 22:03:59 UTC 2005"

-- What|Removed |Added BugsThisDependsOn||19830 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19745

[Bug tree-optimization/18178] Missed opportunity for removing bounds checking

--- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-08 21:07 --- We have this hunk in the .vrp dump: # BLOCK 1 # PRED: 4 (true,exec) :; iD.1901_30 = iD.1901_1; D.1909_31 = D.1909_4; i.0D.1911_5 = (unsigned intD.6) iD.1901_30; D.1909_6 = D.1909_31; D

[Bug target/19806] [4.0 regression] cris-axis-elf testsuite failure: gcc.c-torture/execute/20001130-1.c compilation, -O0

--- Additional Comments From hp at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-08 21:05 --- Judging from the similarity of the frv-elf test-results and a brief look at frv_print_operand_address, it has the same flaw as was fixed in this PR; making sure there's a call to mark_decl_referenced for SYMBOL_R

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

--- Additional Comments From snyder at fnal dot gov 2005-02-08 20:18 --- (In reply to comment #24) > (In reply to comment #23) > > This does not seem to be fixed so reopening. > I opened another PR because it is related but not fully the same problem. (PR 19699). We still (as of CVS fr

[Bug regression/19813] [4.0 Regression] wrong code with -finline-limit

--- Additional Comments From bangerth at dealii dot org 2005-02-08 20:13 --- This is somewhat shorter, though maybe not much: #include #include struct ltstr { bool operator()(const char* s1, const char* s2) const { return strcmp(s1, s2) < 0; } };

[Bug tree-optimization/19828] [4.0 Regression] LIM is pulling out a pure function even though there is something which can modify global memory

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-08 20:02 --- (In reply to comment #2) > Here's another one. This may be a different bug. Yes that is a different (but related) bug. The problem is now, what is definition of pure functions (for that testcase). Take

[Bug regression/19813] [4.0 Regression] gcc 4.0 regression: bad code generation?? due to inlining??

--- Additional Comments From bangerth at dealii dot org 2005-02-08 19:58 --- I can confirm this: tmp/xxx> c++ x.cc tmp/xxx> ./a.out tmp/xxx> c++ x.cc -O2 -finline-functions -finline-limit=604 tmp/xxx> ./a.out Segmentation fault tmp/xxx> c++ -v Using built-in specs. Target: i6

[Bug c++/19826] [4.0 Regression] More array bounds rejected as non-constant in template...

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-08 19:50 --- Is the problem here (in sematics.c): /* Since this name was dependent, the expression isn't constant -- yet. No error is issued because it might be constant when things a

[Bug regression/19829] New: [4.0 regression] cris-elf testsuite failure: 21_strings/basic_string/find/char/3.cc execution test

Between LAST_UPDATED: Mon Feb 7 13:27:26 UTC 2005 and Tue Feb 8 17:55:17 UTC 2005 the following regression was introduced for cris-axis-elf: FAIL: 21_strings/basic_string/find/char/3.cc execution test The message in libstdc++.log is: PASS: 21_strings/basic_string/find/char/3.cc (test for excess

[Bug tree-optimization/19828] [4.0 Regression] LIM is pulling out a pure function even though there is something which can modify global memory

--- Additional Comments From drow at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-08 19:36 --- Here's another one. This may be a different bug. Suppose we have two pure functions, one which checks whether a library is present and one which fetches some piece of data from the library. Code looks like t

[Bug tree-optimization/19828] [4.0 Regression] LIM is pulling out a pure function even though there is something which can modify global memory

--- Additional Comments From drow at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-08 19:27 --- Here's another related testcase. If you uncomment the store to global_int, LIM will move only func_const out of the loop. With them both commented out, however, the pure call gets moved out of the loop. func

[Bug libgcj/19823] java fails with non-executable memory

--- Additional Comments From aph at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-08 19:25 --- I don't think this is a libffi problem. gcj allocates trampolines on the heap, not the stack. I think this is a multilib problem. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19823

[Bug c++/19826] [4.0 Regression] More array bounds rejected as non-constant in template...

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-08 19:21 --- : Search converges between 2004-11-12-161002-trunk (#631) and 2004-11-13-014001-trunk (#632). Mark, I suspect your patch for PR 18429 is responsible for the regression. Could you please have a look? --

[Bug ada/19489] gnat tools not buildable cross

--- Additional Comments From joel at oarcorp dot com 2005-02-08 19:16 --- Subject: Re: gnat tools not buildable cross neroden at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote: > --- Additional Comments From neroden at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-08 > 18:30 --- > >>Is a fix likely to get into 4.

[Bug tree-optimization/18178] Missed opportunity for removing bounds checking

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

[Bug preprocessor/7263] __extension__ keyword doesn't suppress warning on LL or ULL constants

--- Additional Comments From joseph at codesourcery dot com 2005-02-08 19:07 --- Subject: Re: __extension__ keyword doesn't suppress warning on LL or ULL constants On Tue, 8 Feb 2005, neroden at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote: > Shouldn't the warning killer for system header errors apply

[Bug tree-optimization/19828] [4.0 Regression] LIM is pulling out a pure function even though there is something which can modify global memory

-- What|Removed |Added CC||ian at airs dot com http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19828

[Bug tree-optimization/19828] [4.0 Regression] LIM is pulling out a pure function even though there is something which can modify global memory

-- What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |4.0.0 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19828

[Bug tree-optimization/19828] New: [4.0 Regression] LIM is pulling out a pure function even though there is something which can modify global memory

Take the following program, it should run and work correct and not call abort but with -O1/-O2 on the mainline we call abort because LIM pulls out the call to f of the loop but should not because f1 can modify the global memory (and does). If I uncomment the store to the global memory in the

[Bug regression/19813] [4.0 Regression] gcc 4.0 regression: bad code generation?? due to inlining??

--- Additional Comments From neroden at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-08 18:58 --- Isn't this most likely to be an out-of-memory issue? -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19813

[Bug bootstrap/17383] [4.0 Regression] Building in src dir fails

--- Additional Comments From neroden at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-08 18:53 --- I have considered doing this in the truly parallel way: namely, introducing HOST_SUBDIR to go along with BUILD_SUBDIR and TARGET_SUBDIR. It requires mangling of '..'s in many subdirectories, which is why

[Bug bootstrap/19420] make install fails if not preceded by make all

--- Additional Comments From neroden at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-08 18:51 --- This has never worked. It is recommended by the GNU coding standards, but it also requires truly substantial work to get right without forcing rebuilds if 'make all' is followed by 'make install'.

[Bug preprocessor/19821] Preprocessor oom with nested vector operations

--- Additional Comments From pochini at shiny dot it 2005-02-08 18:48 --- Sorry for the noise, I didn't find #19411 while browsing the database. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19821

[Bug tree-optimization/19827] New: Missed pure/const optimization

The following two function should produce the same asm because we can skip the second call to f: int f(void) __attribute__((const,pure)); int g(int i, int j) { int k = 0; if(i) k = f(); if (j) k = f(); return k; } int h(int i, int j) { int k = 0; if(i) k = f(); else if (

[Bug ada/19489] gnat tools not buildable cross

--- Additional Comments From neroden at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-08 18:30 --- >Is a fix likely to get into 4.0? Yes, the hackish fix is in. I hope to get the cleaner fix in, but who knows. >FYI Once I am able to build, the next issue is that the Ada libraries >do not look into n

[Bug driver/19825] -fno-loop-optimize2 does not work

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-08 17:34 --- In fact the only thing which -floop-optimize2 does without enabling something else at -O1 is to enable -fbranch-count-reg which has no effect on ia64. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=198

[Bug driver/19825] -fno-loop-optimize2 does not work

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-08 17:33 --- There is a section in the source which does this: /* Enable new loop optimizer pass if any of its optimizations is called. */ if (flag_move_loop_invariants || flag_unswitch_loops || flag_pee

[Bug preprocessor/7263] __extension__ keyword doesn't suppress warning on LL or ULL constants

--- Additional Comments From neroden at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-08 17:26 --- Shouldn't the warning killer for system header errors apply to this sort of thing? Apparently it doesn't. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=7263

[Bug target/19745] [meta-bug]: cris-elf gcc, g++, objc testsuite failures as of "Tue Feb 1 22:03:59 UTC 2005"

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-08 17:16 --- XPASS: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/20040204-1.c scan-tree-dump-times link_error 0 is xfailed because it fails on most targets (except for ppc, and a couple of others). FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/loop-1.c scan-assembler-tim

[Bug c++/19826] [4.0 Regression] More array bounds rejected as non-constant in template...

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-08 17:10 --- Confirmed. -- What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW E

[Bug c++/19826] [4.0 Regression] More array bounds rejected as non-constant in template...

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-08 17:09 --- This is at least a 4.0 regression and it looks like it is going to effect libstdc++ also which is really bad. -- What|Removed |Added

[Bug c++/19826] More array bounds rejected as non-constant in template...

--- Additional Comments From reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-08 16:56 --- Even shorter example: template struct A { static const T i = 1; char a[i]; }; -- What|Removed

[Bug c++/19826] New: More array bounds rejected as non-constant in template...

This one *may* be related to c++/18470 but does *not* involve using... FWIW, Icc accepts it, same for 3.4.3. Maybe a regression, fall out of recent work in close areas... ?!? template class basic_string { typedef typename _Alloc::size_type size_type; static const size_type _S_max

[Bug tree-optimization/18687] [4.0 Regression] ~50% compile time regression

--- Additional Comments From rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-08 16:43 --- Patch (improving ivopts performance on the testcase by some 40%): http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-02/msg00307.html -- What|Removed |Added

[Bug fortran/5900] [g77 & gfortran] Lapack regressions since g77 2.95.2

--- Additional Comments From Thomas dot Koenig at online dot de 2005-02-08 16:36 --- I am not sure which of my tests of compiler options were actually testing anything. There appears to be a bug in passing at least one -fno - switch (see PR 19825). Thomas -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzi

[Bug driver/19825] -fno-loop-optimize2 does not work

--- Additional Comments From Thomas dot Koenig at online dot de 2005-02-08 16:36 --- This blocks testing of compiler options in PR 5900. -- What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDepen

[Bug AWT/17952] Windows don't show with window manager that supports _NET_REQUEST_FRAME_EXTENTS

--- Additional Comments From fitzsim at redhat dot com 2005-02-08 16:30 --- Fixed on java-gui-branch. -- What|Removed |Added Status|NEW

[Bug driver/19825] New: -fno-loop-optimize2 does not work

Apparently, the compiler likes -floop-optimize2 very much and does not want it to be switched off: $ gcc -O1 -fno-loop-optimize -fno-loop-optimize2 -S -fverbose-asm example.c $ cat example.s .file "example.c" .pred.safe_across_calls p1-p5,p16-p63 // GNU C version 4.0.0 20050130 (

[Bug target/19133] march=athlon can produce slower code than march=i686

--- Additional Comments From ornati at fastwebnet dot it 2005-02-08 16:13 --- gcc -v Using built-in specs. Configured with: /var/tmp/portage/gcc-4.0.0_alpha20050130/work/gcc-4.0-20050130/configure --enable-version-specific-runtime-libs --prefix=/usr --bindir=/usr/i686-pc-linux-gnu/gcc-b

[Bug target/19745] meta: cris-elf gcc, g++, objc testsuite failures as of "Tue Feb 1 22:03:59 UTC 2005"

-- Bug 19745 depends on bug 19806, which changed state. Bug 19806 Summary: [4.0 regression] cris-axis-elf testsuite failure: gcc.c-torture/execute/20001130-1.c compilation, -O0 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19806 What|Old Value |New Value --

[Bug target/19806] [4.0 regression] cris-axis-elf testsuite failure: gcc.c-torture/execute/20001130-1.c compilation, -O0

--- Additional Comments From hp at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-08 16:04 --- See http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-02/msg00306.html>. -- What|Removed |Added

[Bug fortran/5900] [g77 & gfortran] Lapack regressions since g77 2.95.2

--- Additional Comments From Thomas dot Koenig at online dot de 2005-02-08 15:36 --- (In reply to comment #34) > Please, try the opposite: disable optimizations through -O1 -fno-[optnam] and > see if you find out something. Still the same four failures with #! /bin/sh for a in \ verb

[Bug target/19806] [4.0 regression] cris-axis-elf testsuite failure: gcc.c-torture/execute/20001130-1.c compilation, -O0

--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-08 15:35 --- Subject: Bug 19806 CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc Module name:gcc Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-02-08 15:35:12 Modified files: gcc: ChangeLog gcc/config/cris: c

[Bug bootstrap/19824] genattrtab allocates over 4GB memory and fails!

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-08 15:13 --- This is one, see PR 19082. You have to change your limits. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 19082 *** -- What|Removed |Added -

[Bug other/19082] [4.0 Regression] build/genattrtab: out of memory allocating 151568 bytes after a total of 4161651196 bytes

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-08 15:13 --- *** Bug 19824 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- What|Removed |Added

[Bug preprocessor/19801] [4.0 Regression] cppinternals.texi references old file names

-- What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |4.0.0 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19801

[Bug preprocessor/19801] [4.0 Regression] cppinternals.texi references old file names

--- Additional Comments From bonzini at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-08 15:09 --- Fixed. -- What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED

[Bug preprocessor/19801] [4.0 Regression] cppinternals.texi references old file names

--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-08 15:09 --- Subject: Bug 19801 CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc Module name:gcc Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-02-08 15:08:53 Modified files: gcc/doc: cppinternals.texi gcc

[Bug bootstrap/19824] New: genattrtab allocates over 4GB memory and fails!

Hello I want to compile gcc 4.0.0 20050202 on ibm aix 4.3.3. Bootstrap fails if genattrtab runs: build/genattrtab /soft/gnu/packages/gcc_cvs/gcc/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.md > tmp-attrtab.c out of memory allocating 80016 bytes after a total of 4161650636 bytes I have not found an existing bug fo

[Bug libstdc++/17005] wide character strings don't work on HP-UX 11i using gcc 3.4.1

--- Additional Comments From hundertmarck at boehme-weihs dot de 2005-02-08 15:02 --- The Problem was using gcc-3.2 as bootstrap compiler. After using the system cc the bootstrap finished successfully. Now my g++ supports wstring :-D Thanks to all! -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/sh

  1   2   >