--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-15
07:14 ---
(In reply to comment #9)
> Isn't PR 19853 (and 19865) showing that this is not an Ada front-end bug?
Hmm, you might be correct.
--
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-15
07:12 ---
Reconfirmed, reduced testcase from c32001e:
PROCEDURE C32001E IS
BEGIN
DECLARE
PACKAGE PKG1 IS
TYPE PACC IS PRIVATE;
FUNCTION INIT5 (I : INTEGER) RETURN PACC;
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-15
06:44 ---
Confirmed, reduced testcase:
PROCEDURE C37305A IS
BEGIN
DECLARE
SUBTYPE ST IS INTEGER RANGE 1..10;
TYPE REC(DISC : ST := 1) IS
RECORD
CASE DISC IS
--- Additional Comments From dannysmith at users dot sourceforge dot net
2005-02-15 06:41 ---
Q: As a (new/cautious) target co-maintainer, is this within my domain to fix
without seeking approval?
This is not a regression, so I assume it would wait until after branching.
Correct?
D
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-15
06:17 ---
There is nothing we can do without a testcase, either see if your code compiles
on the mainline or
attach the preprocessed source here (and I will try to reduce it).
--
What|Removed
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-15
06:15 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> For addition, this is a regression against 3.3.5:
Actually it is not and here is why:
fadds .LC0
.LC0 is actually zero.
And in fact this only can happen with -funsafe-m
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-15
06:03 ---
Confirmed.
--
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancemen
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-15
06:00 ---
Confirmed.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
E
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-15
06:00 ---
>From the reduced testcase in that PR, we get the following for the constructor
>(which is wrong):
{.bandD.636=2, .the_commandD.637=0, ._parentD.648={.bandD.640=2},
.tc_sccD.652=66}
The problem comes from
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-15
05:48 ---
Confirmed on ppc also with the reduced testcase in PR 19408.
--
What|Removed |Added
OtherBugs
--
What|Removed |Added
BugsThisDependsOn||19900
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19408
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-15
05:45 ---
Hmm, here is what is going on:
long int p__x2___PAD___XVZ = x1.F.d == 0 ? 32 : 64;
struct p__x2___PAD x2;
We gimplify p__x2___PAD___XVZ but that is the TYPE_SIZE of p__x2___PAD in which
we ICE as i
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-15
05:36 ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> I think we are missing a SAVE_EXPR somewhere.
Or maybe not as this is type is dependent on the object.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19956
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-15
05:31 ---
Hmm, we call gimplify_type_sizes from:
/* ??? We really shouldn't need to gimplify the type of the variable
since it already should have been done. But leave this here
fo
For native and cross builds to MinGW (mingw32 or i386-pc-mingw32), Java and
libgcj are unnecessarily disabled by the top-level configure - they have been
building just fine for quite some time now in mainline. To get libgcj to build,
one has to explicitly specify --enable-libgcj to the configure co
--- Additional Comments From kazu at cs dot umass dot edu 2005-02-15 04:44
---
I've got a patch.
--
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |kazu
--- Additional Comments From wilson at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-15
04:20 ---
It was fixed by the ivopts patch for 18687, which was a patch to reduce
compilation time. The patch says nothing about fixing bugs, or changing the
result. It only claims to make ivopts faster. Since this
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-15
03:14 ---
This is not a bug, Labels can be moved if you don't use them as computed gotos
in which this case you
don't use it for that. Also note asms cannot, I repeat cannot change the flow
of a program at all.
-
The following code breaks when compiled with -O3 or -O2, because the label
seems to be misplaced. This problem seems to be restricted to situations where
I pass the address of a label into an assembly routine to be used. When
compiled without optimizations or with -O1, it works properly. I´m
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-15
02:39 ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> Did you mean MOVE_RATIO?
Yes. A value of 2 should be able to reproduce it. If we have any bigger
value, the gimplifier will not
produce the CONST_DECL which we will SRA on it.
--- Additional Comments From dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca
2005-02-15 01:56 ---
Subject: Re: [4.0 Regression] g++.dg/abi/inline1.C fails on hp
> > 3) I'm concerned that the proposed fix requires a linker fix. There won't
> >be a fix for HP-UX 10 and possibly 11.00. There
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-15
01:46 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
Yes I do (depending on which function by the way):
: Search converges between 2004-05-23-trunk (#458) and 2004-06-01-trunk (#459).
2004-05-30 Steven Bosscher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Additional Comments From joseph at codesourcery dot com 2005-02-15
01:37 ---
Subject: Re: [4.0 Regression] built-in folding causes
excess diagnostics
On Tue, 15 Feb 2005, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> Caused by:
> 2004-09-15 Jakub Jelinek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>
--
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.0.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19967
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-15
01:32 ---
: Search converges between 2002-10-02-trunk (#92) and 2002-10-03-trunk (#93).
Confirmed.
--
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-15
01:30 ---
: Search converges between 2004-09-15-014001-trunk (#540) and
2004-09-15-161001-trunk
(#541).
Confirmed.
Caused by:
2004-09-15 Jakub Jelinek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* expr.c (string_constant): Han
--- Additional Comments From reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-15
01:29 ---
Btw, the warning in the second case is missing since gcc 3.3.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19968
Compiling the following code snippet with -Wextra, a sensible warning
is issued:
==
struct B {};
struct A : B
{
const int i;
};
==
warn.cc:5: warning: non-static const member 'const int A::i' in class without a
constructor
However, if A is not a deriv
The folding of built-in functions does not always yield results with
the correct return type, causing excess warnings (errors with -pedantic-errors).
char *strchr(const char *, int);
char *strrchr(const char *, int);
char *index(const char *, int);
char *rindex(const char *, int);
char *strpbrk(co
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-15
01:18 ---
Confirmed.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
E
The following invalid code snippet causes a bogus error message:
==
struct A
{
static operator int();
};
==
bug.cc:3: error: 'static A::operator int()' must be a nonstatic member function
bug.cc:3: error: 'static A::operator int()' must
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-15
01:01 ---
Confirmed.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
E
--- Additional Comments From quanah at stanford dot edu 2005-02-15 01:00
---
To note, I'm using libtool 1.5.8
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19962
The following invalid code snippet is accepted since 2.95.3:
==
template struct A
{
A : 2;
};
==
It is correctly rejected if I instantiate the template.
--
Summary: Invalid member declaration diagnosed late
Product: gcc
Versio
--- Additional Comments From reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-15
00:55 ---
Btw, more segfaults can be generated with
A : A() (since 2.95.3)
A : B() (since 2.95.3)
A : A[] (since 3.4.0)
A : B[] (since 3.4.0)
--
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-15
00:54 ---
: Search converges between 2002-12-14-trunk (#159) and 2002-12-29-trunk (#160).
So ever since the new parser was merged in.
--
What|Removed |Added
--
--
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.0.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19301
--- Additional Comments From tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-15
00:45 ---
It has been merged in
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-15
00:40 ---
Confirmed. I thought I really saw this before.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|UN
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-15
00:38 ---
Fixed.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-15
00:36 ---
This seems like a libtool bug.
--
What|Removed |Added
Severity|critical
The following invalid code snippet causes an ICE since at least gcc 2.95.3:
==
struct A
{
A : 2;
};
==
bug.cc:3: error: name 'A' has incomplete type
bug.cc:2: internal compiler error: tree check: expected class 'type', have
'exceptional' (error_mark) in layout_
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-15
00:12 ---
Subject: Bug 19946
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Branch: gcc-3_4-branch
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-02-15 00:09:52
Modified files:
libstdc++-v3 : Change
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-15
00:08 ---
Subject: Bug 19946
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-02-15 00:07:53
Modified files:
libstdc++-v3 : ChangeLog
libstdc++-v3/tests
The dependency tracker inherited by a variety of libraries, like libstdc++.la
keeps local dependencies. Since it is never installed via libtool, its
dependencies are never fixed based on the installation prefix defined at
configure. Because of this, the installed .la files point to invalid locati
--- Additional Comments From jgrimm2 at us dot ibm dot com 2005-02-14
23:41 ---
Trivial patch. Set _M_narrow_ok to 1 only when memcpy would have given the same
results as do_narrow().
Index: locale_facets.h
===
RCS file
--- Additional Comments From ppluzhnikov at charter dot net 2005-02-14
23:37 ---
I just bumped into this bug as well.
Still failing in gcc-3.4.3 a year later :-(
The simplest test case:
mkdir pr12448 && cd pr12448 && touch foo.c &&
gcc -c -o foo.o -MD -MTfoobar foo.c && cat foo.d
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-14
23:24 ---
Subject: Bug 18109
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Branch: apple-gcc_os_35-branch
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-02-14 23:24:52
Modified files:
gcc
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-14
23:23 ---
I fixed this yesterday of days ago:
2005-02-13 Andrew Pinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR ada/19942
* utils.c (gnat_type_for_mode): Return null instead of ICE because we
asked
for an un
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-14
23:23 ---
*** Bug 19961 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
What|Removed |Added
../../xgcc -B../../ -c -g -O2 -fPIC -W -Wall -gnatpg a-ncelfu.ads
-o a-ncelfu.o
+===GNAT BUG DETECTED==+
| 4.0.0 20050213 (experimental) (PLD Linux) (x86_64-pld-linux-gnu) GCC error:|
| in gnat_type_for_mode, at ada/utils.c:1838
--- Additional Comments From uweigand at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-14
22:50 ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> The error occurs when building this with
> gnat1 -I/gcc/ada -O2 pr19865.adb
> (I've tested a gnat1 configured for s390-ibm-linux.)
I'm sorry, I have mixed up the include state
--- Additional Comments From Thomas dot Koenig at online dot de 2005-02-14
22:38 ---
For addition, this is a regression against 3.3.5:
$ cat c-add.c
#include
#include
int main()
{
float a;
complex float b,c;
foo(&a,&b);
c = b+a;
return creal(c) + cimag(c) < 0;
}
$
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-14
22:34 ---
(In reply to comment #10)
> Subject: Re: [4.0 Regression] ice / gnat bug detected.
SRA turns:
:
D.570 = C.8;
into
D.851_33 = &pr19865__no_argument + 8B;
SR.48_32 = (struct pr19865__string_access[(lo
--- Additional Comments From hp at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-14 22:25
---
I'm reopening this bug as I see the regression with LAST_UPDATED
"Mon Feb 14 15:49:50 UTC 2005" (on a stable machine this time)
where I did not see it with "Mon Feb 14 07:18:25 UTC 2005".
Keeping this PR open un
--- Additional Comments From bjoern dot m dot haase at web dot de
2005-02-14 22:21 ---
FYI,
I have just posted a RFC on gcc@gcc.gnu.org concerning implementation of a
target-specific mode-substitution convention. Hopefully someone competent will
answer.
Yours,
Björn.
--
--- Additional Comments From dnovillo at redhat dot com 2005-02-14 22:13
---
Subject: Re: [4.0 Regression] ice / gnat bug detected.
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> --- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-14
> 22:10 ---
> From PR 18706 when
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-14
22:10 ---
>From PR 18706 when I was looking into the bootstrap bug before
"I think this is the same failure as the current bootstrap problem on
ppc-darwin.
For the bootstrap problem we have the following CONST_DECL:
--- Additional Comments From dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-14
22:06 ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> (In reply to comment #5)
> > The error occurs when building this with
> > gnat1 -I/gcc/ada -O2 pr19865.adb
> > (I've tested a gnat1 configured for s390-ibm-linux.)
>
> And I ca
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-14
21:27 ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> The error occurs when building this with
> gnat1 -I/gcc/ada -O2 pr19865.adb
> (I've tested a gnat1 configured for s390-ibm-linux.)
And I can reproduce this with the reduced test
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-14
21:21 ---
Confirmed on powerpc-darwin, this looks like a gimplifier problem. Looking
into it a little further.
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-14
21:08 ---
Thanks for the test case.
--
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot
--- Additional Comments From uweigand at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-14
21:05 ---
Diego asked me to post a reduced test case; here we go.
This should go into a file named pr19865.ads:
package PR19865 is
procedure Test;
end PR19865;
and this into a file named pr19865.adb:
package b
--- Additional Comments From law at redhat dot com 2005-02-14 21:05 ---
Note the new jump thread selection code will catch this case. We get the
following code:
# BLOCK 0
# PRED: ENTRY [100.0%] (fallthru,exec)
# VUSE ;
D.1134_2 = *flag_1;
if (D.1134_2 != 0) goto ; else goto
--- Additional Comments From law at redhat dot com 2005-02-14 21:02 ---
The updated jump thread selection code will catch this case and optimize it in
the appropriate way -- without causing us to miss other jump threading
opportunities :-)
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?
--- Additional Comments From dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-14
20:57 ---
Fixed: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-02/msg00722.html.
--
What|Removed |Added
--
Bug 19865 depends on bug 19853, which changed state.
Bug 19853 Summary: [4.0 Regression] incorrect vops after exposing a new global
variable
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19853
What|Old Value |New Value
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-14
20:54 ---
Fixed for 4.0.0.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESO
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-14
20:50 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> Subject: Bug 19929
Ignore this commit message it was a mistake in typing the bug number in both
the changelog and the
testcase too. I already asked the committer to fix this.
-
--- Additional Comments From law at redhat dot com 2005-02-14 20:49 ---
We get the code we want for f0, f2 and f3 with the updated thread selection
code. There's still some lameness in f1 though.
--
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-14
20:48 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> This happens after in verify-ssa after running the kill_redundant_phi_nodes
> pass. It would be great if
> someone with a better understanding of this pass could take a look at t
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-14
20:46 ---
Subject: Bug 16323
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-02-14 20:46:31
Modified files:
gcc: ChangeLog
gcc/doc: i
--- Additional Comments From law at redhat dot com 2005-02-14 20:43 ---
I'll note the updated jump threading selection code will catch all these
threading opportunities. I get something like this:
foo:
pushl %ebp
movl%esp, %ebp
movlx, %eax
test
--- Additional Comments From laurent at guerby dot net 2005-02-14 20:43
---
*** Bug 19851 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From laurent at guerby dot net 2005-02-14 20:43
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19956
has a 10 line testcase for the same ICE
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 19956 ***
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From pcarlini at suse dot de 2005-02-14 20:41
---
Thanks for your report: indeed, the logic inside _M_narrow_init() is incomplete:
should also check whether the narrowing is trivial or not, similarly to what
happens in _M_widen_init(). Will fix ASAP.
--
--- Additional Comments From law at redhat dot com 2005-02-14 20:35 ---
Actually, if the jump threader code really did its job right it would just
emit 45 calls to puts ("hello") since we've got a series of cascading jump
threads here.
As it stands now, the first DOM pass threads the ini
--- Additional Comments From schlie at comcast dot net 2005-02-14 20:32
---
(In reply to comment #9)
> None of the primary/secondary targets are known to fail so removing the
> target milestone.
Although I understand none of the failures are on primary/secondary targets,
might someone
--
What|Removed |Added
Component|c |target
GCC host triplet|3.3 |powerpc-darwin
GCC target triplet|3.3.5
--- Additional Comments From carl at vandenzen dot nl 2005-02-14 20:25
---
Created an attachment (id=8196)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=8196&action=view)
-save-temps .i file
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19960
[ibook1-thuis-vandenzen-nl:m6811-gcc-3.3.5-1/gcc-3.3.5/gcc] root#
/sw/src/m6811-gcc-3.3.5-1/
gcc-3.3.5/gcc/xgcc -B/sw/src/m6811-gcc-3.3.5-1/gcc-3.3.5/gcc/
-B/sw/share/m6811/m6811-elf/
bin/ -B/sw/share/m6811/m6811-elf/lib/ -isystem
/sw/share/m6811/m6811-elf/include -Os
-mrelax -DUSE_GAS -DIN_GCC
--
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||4.0.0
Known to work||3.4.3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19959
Hi,
with gcc-3.4.3 its possible to compile the gnat crosstools
with a simple 'make cross-gnattools'.
This no longer works for 4.0.0. (20050213)
I've tried this:
$ ../configure --target=avr --enable-languages=ada,c
[..]
$ make
[..]
it stops here:
make[3]: Entering directory `/src/gcc/obj/gcc/a
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-14
20:21 ---
Subject: Bug 19019
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-02-14 20:21:13
Modified files:
gcc: ChangeLog
gcc/config/rs6000:
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-14
20:14 ---
This is very closely related to PR 18832.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15352
--- Additional Comments From law at redhat dot com 2005-02-14 20:13 ---
It seems to me that the SSA optimizers ought to have removed the redundant test
well before we get into the RTL code. And it appears to me that they do I
get identical code for both tests out of the SSA optimizers.
--- Additional Comments From bosch at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-14 20:11
---
This happens after in verify-ssa after running the kill_redundant_phi_nodes
pass. It would be great if
someone with a better understanding of this pass could take a look at this bug.
--
What
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-14
20:08 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> I don't understand!
If I reduce the source further we get:
class Environment;
template struct ArrayCollection
{
int insert(const T& theObj)
{
Environment::ReportError();
--- Additional Comments From law at redhat dot com 2005-02-14 20:06 ---
This is not a jump threading issue. This is an aliasing issue. If the aliasing
code is fixed, then the new jump thread selection code will handle this
correctly.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1
--- Additional Comments From Thomas dot Koenig at online dot de 2005-02-14
20:06 ---
Same thing for complex division, where the performance
penalty is probably also pretty severe:
$ cat c-div.c
#include
#include
int main()
{
float a;
complex float b,c;
foo(&a,&b);
c
--- Additional Comments From tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-14
20:05 ---
I checked in a fix for this.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-14
20:04 ---
Subject: Bug 19921
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-02-14 20:04:36
Modified files:
libjava: ChangeLog
gcc/java : C
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-14
20:04 ---
Subject: Bug 19929
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-02-14 20:04:36
Modified files:
libjava: ChangeLog
gcc/java : C
--- Additional Comments From sciance at gdls dot com 2005-02-14 20:03
---
Subject: Re: Exception with Tornado C++ on PowerPC target
Thanks for your response.
I do not have easy access to the latest version of the compiler.
We are submitting a problem report to Wind River,
since the To
--- Additional Comments From berndtrog at yahoo dot com 2005-02-14 20:02
---
>Bernd, does this still fail on the most recent HEAD?
Yes, it still fails:
+===GNAT BUG DETECTED==+
| 4.0.0 20050213 (experimental) (avr-unknown-none) GCC e
--- Additional Comments From law at redhat dot com 2005-02-14 20:01 ---
The new jump thread selection code handles this properly.
I will note that your comments about the code we ought to be able to generate
are wrong. The correctly optimized code should look like this: (note the
diffe
--- Additional Comments From law at redhat dot com 2005-02-14 19:56 ---
FWIW, I just verified that the updated jump thread selection code handles this
correctly. In fact, this is precisely the kind of case it was designed to
handle :-)
However, your statement about turning foo into bar
--- Additional Comments From sabre at nondot dot org 2005-02-14 19:53
---
I don't really think this is the same as 2474: that is an issue of ctor
ordering, this is one of *destroying objects that weren't created*.
-Chris
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19958
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-14
19:50 ---
"cygnus-2.7.2-960126" that is very old, over 9 years old, I would try a newer
version first.
Actually can you try a new version first?
There is nothing which we can do of a 9 years old compiler.
--
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-14
19:46 ---
*** Bug 19958 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
What|Removed |Added
1 - 100 of 185 matches
Mail list logo
