Hi,
I have downloaded gcc-3.4.0 and trying to isntall on windows(cygwin).
i issued the command "configure", i was getting the below error.
Please help me.
$ configure
loading cache ./config.cache
checking host system type... i686-pc-cygwin
checking target system type... i686-pc-cygwin
checking bu
--- Comment #7 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-06 05:21
---
Subject: Bug 25598
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Fri Jan 6 05:21:01 2006
New Revision: 109408
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=109408
Log:
2006-01-05 Jerry DeLisle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
While building the pwlib package on alpha, the following problem
occured:
http://buildd.debian.org/fetch.php?&pkg=pwlib&ver=1.8.7-1&arch=alpha&stamp=1131832002&file=log&as=raw
The build does involve a testrun after linking the library. This
testrun is compiling and executin
Testcase from:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2005-07/msg00286.html
subroutine a(p)
type t
integer :: t1
end type
type(t) :: p
p%t1 = 42
end subroutine
subroutine b
type u
integer :: u1
end type
type (u) :: q
call a(q)
print *, q%u1
end subroutine
---
Paul says this is
The following code is invalid code but it is valid F95 code:
subroutine a(p)
type t
integer :: t1
end type
type(t) :: p
p%t1 = 42
end subroutine
--
lahey's fortran front-end gives:
FATAL -- Derived-type dummy argument must be accessed by use or host
association or have the
SEQUENCE
--- Comment #8 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-06 04:31 ---
Fixed for 4.1.0.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot
|
FAIL: 27_io/basic_ostream/inserters_character/char/9555-oc.cc execution test
appeared on mainline on 20060104 (between revisions 109267 and 109314) on
hppa64-hp-hpux11.11. This test previously PASSed. (It also previously
regressed on some other targets, bug 25315, a separate bug.)
--
--- Comment #5 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2006-01-06 02:32 ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> Working on a fix.
Many thanks. I was wondering whether you are aware of another (long standing)
multilib bug, libstdc++/20451, maybe fixable at the same time with a minor
additional effort?!? Tha
--- Comment #5 from gccbugzilla at multiwebinc dot com 2006-01-06 02:16
---
I just checked it... no errors.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25683
--- Comment #4 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-06 02:06 ---
Working on a fix.
--
jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|un
--- Comment #6 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-06 01:44
---
Subject: Bug 25598
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Fri Jan 6 01:44:31 2006
New Revision: 109406
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=109406
Log:
2005-01-05 Jerry DeLisle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Comment #5 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-06 01:39
---
Subject: Bug 25598
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Fri Jan 6 01:39:34 2006
New Revision: 109405
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=109405
Log:
2006-01-05 Jerry DeLisle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Comment #14 from danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-06 01:29
---
(gdb) r `cat xx.sh`
Starting program: /home/dave/gcc-4.2/objdir/gcc/gnat1 `cat xx.sh`
Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault.
0x0042a09c in gt_ggc_mx_basic_block_def (x_p=Variable "x_p" is not availab
--- Comment #12 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-06 01:28
---
Subject: Bug 24268
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Fri Jan 6 01:28:40 2006
New Revision: 109404
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=109404
Log:
2005-01-05 Jerry DeLisle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Comment #11 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-06 01:22
---
Subject: Bug 24268
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Fri Jan 6 01:21:56 2006
New Revision: 109402
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=109402
Log:
2006-01-01 Jerry DeLisle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-06 00:53 ---
This is why I said check your memory. There are many programs which can do
that for you,
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25683
--- Comment #3 from gccbugzilla at multiwebinc dot com 2006-01-06 00:50
---
All of my hardware appears to be working fine. I have this problem where
programs spontaneously disappear on me without any error message and the
process is killed, but I really have no clue what to look for. Al
/gcc-4.2/gcc/gcc/ada /home/dave/gcc-4.2/gcc/gcc/ada/make.adb -o make.o
+===GNAT BUG DETECTED==+
| 4.2.0 20060105 (experimental) (hppa-unknown-linux-gnu) Segmentation fault|
| Error detected at make.adb:7541:23
--- Comment #22 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-05 22:54 ---
Mustafa's change (http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?view=rev&rev=97481) has the
following ChangeLog entry:
(rtl_verify_flow_info_1): Fix.
@@ -2028,7 +2028,7 @@
err = 1;
}
if (n_branch != 1
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-05 22:46 ---
Can you try checking your memory and/or hardware?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25683
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot
|
--
steven at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Known to f
--- Comment #1 from gccbugzilla at multiwebinc dot com 2006-01-05 22:06
---
I just tried to install the latest version of gcc and I still got this error. I
don't know how to get around it.
gcc -c -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -g -O2 -I. -I../../gcc-4.0.2/libiberty/../include -W
-Wall -Wtraditional
I am running kubuntu on ubuntu 5.04. The version of GCC I have is either the
one on the CD or the latest one from the default apt-get sources. I have been
trying to install the latest version of gaim on my system and I have tried two
different versions and I got the same error message from both of
--- Comment #16 from alex at milivojevic dot org 2006-01-05 21:50 ---
(In reply to comment #15)
> It's a build machinery problem.
Actually it is the "configure" script and "libtool" scripts in 99% of open
source packages not handling the sparc64 correctly (not handling it at all
would b
A 'field offset' macro which has worked so far (up to gcc-3.4.3) now
causes an ICE.
Environment:
System: Linux suse2 2.4.19-64GB-SMP #1 SMP Mon Oct 21 18:48:05 UTC 2002 i686
unknown
Architecture: i686
host: i686-pc-linux-gnu
build: i686-pc-linux-gnu
target: i686-pc-linux-gnu
con
--- Comment #6 from eedelman at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-05 21:17
---
Fixed on 4.1 and mainline,
--
eedelman at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #5 from eedelman at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-05 21:10
---
Subject: Bug 23675
Author: eedelman
Date: Thu Jan 5 21:10:05 2006
New Revision: 109389
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=109389
Log:
fortran/
2006-01-05 Erik Edelmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-05 20:23 ---
Actually it does not work, though it does compile but I would like to know if
this should compile or just produce an error?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20960
--- Comment #9 from dann at godzilla dot ics dot uci dot edu 2006-01-05
20:22 ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> *** Bug 23338 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
>
Bug 23338 contained a patch that might fixed this issue. Here it is, so
that it can be evaluated.
*** i386.md
--- Comment #5 from dje at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-05 18:26 ---
Andrew, you are confusing the issue by quoting the AIX documentation. Darwin
and Linux implement different semantics from AIX. On Darwin and Linux, the
most significant doubleword always is correctly rounded, so it con
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot
|
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-05 18:11 ---
Confirmed.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCON
--- Comment #6 from janis at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-05 17:52 ---
My nightly build compilers don't show errors or warnings from anything later
than 3.4:
elm3b11% /opt/gcc-nightly/trunk/bin/gcc -c -mno-altivec -mabi=altivec 18631.c
elm3b11% /opt/gcc-nightly/4.1/bin/gcc -c -mno-altive
--- Comment #6 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-05 17:04 ---
Assigning to Andrew Pinski because I wont be able to work on this for a while.
--
steven at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #5 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2006-01-05 16:59 ---
Created an attachment (id=10585)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10585&action=view)
patch to try
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25677
--- Comment #4 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2006-01-05 16:59 ---
Combine does not try to combine across a call. But it does not invalidate
equivalences and, in this case, it tries to replace v (the result of a function
call) with the return value register... even though in the meanwhile
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-05 16:47 ---
Confirmed, reduced testcase:
subroutine Derived()
type Deriv
character(len=9) :: class
end type Deriv
type(Deriv), dimension(2) :: f_2d
i = len(f_2d%class)
end subroutine Derived
--
pinsk
--- Comment #1 from Heiko dot Klein at gmx dot net 2006-01-05 16:40 ---
Created an attachment (id=10584)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10584&action=view)
test-code as attachment
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25681
Accessing something like len(f_2d%class) where f_2d is a multidimensional
object gives a segmentation fault in the compiler.
Example:
module testLen
implicit none
public :: Derived
type, public:: Deriv
character(len=9) :: class
end type Deriv
type(Deriv), private, dimension(2) ::
--- Comment #4 from sebastian dot pop at cri dot ensmp dot fr 2006-01-05
16:32 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> Vectorizer's dump file can help.
>
vect dump ends with:
/home/seb/ex/pr25371.c:26: note: Access function of PHI: {0, +,
1}_4(get_loop_exit_condition
if (i_99 < D.1700_228)
--- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-05 15:55 ---
Confirmed.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCON
--- Comment #3 from hp at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-05 15:51 ---
As offered in comment #2. Thanks!
--
hp at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ass
--- Comment #6 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-05 15:32 ---
Fixed on the mainline.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #5 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-05 15:30 ---
Subject: Bug 22555
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu Jan 5 15:30:44 2006
New Revision: 109381
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=109381
Log:
2006-01-05 Richard Guenther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-05 15:25 ---
The testcase is comment #0.
In .final_cleanup:
t = __complex__ (0, 0);
REALPART_EXPR = REALPART_EXPR + 2;
IMAGPART_EXPR = IMAGPART_EXPR + 2;
D.1520 = g (&t);
return D.1520;
--
in .store_ccp:
Visi
int g(_Complex int*);
int f(void)
{
_Complex int t = 0;
int i, j;
__real__ t += 2;
__imag__ t += 2;
return g(&t);
}
--
Summary: Store CCP does not understand REALPART_EXPR <
COMPLEX_CST >
Product: gcc
Version: 4.2.0
Status:
--- Comment #2 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2006-01-05 15:10 ---
If it's still there, assign it to me.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25677
--- Comment #1 from hp at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-05 15:08 ---
It's still there LAST_UPDATED "Thu Jan 5 03:26:35 UTC 2006 (revision
109371M)",
so I unassign myself, at least temporarily.
Bonzini, a comment?
--
hp at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #21 from rearnsha at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-05 15:06
---
Subject: Bug 24998
Author: rearnsha
Date: Thu Jan 5 15:06:09 2006
New Revision: 109380
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=109380
Log:
PR middle-end/24998
* arm/t-netbsd (LIB2F
--- Comment #21 from dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-05 14:40
---
(In reply to comment #20)
> This is a showstopper.
>
I'm reviewing bonzini's patch today.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23948
--- Comment #14 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-05 14:29
---
Fixed at least on the 4.1 branch and the mainline. Zdenek can you add the
reduced testcase in comment #2?
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #7 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-05 14:18 ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> same (?) bug on GNU Fortran 95 (GCC) 4.2.0 20060104
Yes this is the same bug, we should not promote variable length (hopefully that
is the correct term) arrays to save/static (a C/GCC ter
--- Comment #6 from mimo2 at free dot fr 2006-01-05 13:41 ---
same (?) bug on GNU Fortran 95 (GCC) 4.2.0 20060104
program test
call toto(4)
end
subroutine toto(n)
integer, intent(in) :: n
real :: tab(n)
tab(1:n) = 4.
end
this code compiles when no option, but fails when -fno-autom
--- Comment #7 from nathan at codesourcery dot com 2006-01-05 11:22 ---
Subject: Re: Add a warning to detect empty body of if statements
(like in the C frontend)
mueller at kde dot org wrote:
> --- Comment #5 from mueller at kde dot org 2006-01-05 10:19 ---
> http://gcc.gnu.o
--- Comment #6 from falk at debian dot org 2006-01-05 10:36 ---
*** Bug 19773 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
falk at debian dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #3 from falk at debian dot org 2006-01-05 10:36 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> please resolve this as duplicate for bug 5520
OK.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 5520 ***
--
falk at debian dot org changed:
What|Removed |
--- Comment #2 from mueller at kde dot org 2006-01-05 10:20 ---
please resolve this as duplicate for bug 5520
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19773
--- Comment #5 from mueller at kde dot org 2006-01-05 10:19 ---
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-12/msg01627.html
--
mueller at kde dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
When gcc is called with -m68000 -Wa,-m68000 it may still generate bsr.l
instructions which are only supported with -m68020 and above. The assembler
obviously rejects those; but if -m68000 is specified, they shouldn't be there
in the first place.
--
Summary: -m68000 doesn't work
--- Comment #2 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-05 08:40 ---
Note that the code has undefined behaviour.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25662
--- Comment #8 from laurent at guerby dot net 2006-01-05 08:07 ---
This is with 4.0, right?
Are you able to produce a C99 or Fortran test case from your analsys?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20754
63 matches
Mail list logo
