--- Comment #11 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-12 06:46
---
This is interesting. I noticed before that with the previous test case i could
get two different error message depending on the size of the data. I will have
to study this a bit closer.
BTW Thanks for the test
--- Comment #7 from kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-12 05:25 ---
See 14.1.2.1.
A common block name in a scoping unit also may be the name of any local
entity other than a named constant, intrinsic procedure, or a local variable
that is also an external function in a functio
The fix is:
Index: i386.c
===
--- i386.c (revision 109602)
+++ i386.c (working copy)
@@ -6680,6 +6682,8 @@ output_pic_addr_const (FILE *file, rtx x
break;
case SYMBOL_REF:
+ if (SYMBOL_REF_DECL (x))
+
--- Comment #33 from hhinnant at apple dot com 2006-01-12 02:49 ---
(In reply to comment #32)
> As I said before, there is still a diagnostic issue and now it is worse
> with
> doing that in the front-end since people don't read docs that well so
> we will
> be getting bug reports abou
--- Comment #6 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-12 01:57 ---
I will submit this.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assigne
--- Comment #5 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-12 01:56 ---
gcc.c-torture/execute/2822-1.c fails the same way.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24959
--- Comment #6 from hjl at lucon dot org 2006-01-12 01:47 ---
Fixed.
--
hjl at lucon dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |
--- Comment #5 from hjl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-12 01:45 ---
Subject: Bug 25728
Author: hjl
Date: Thu Jan 12 01:45:54 2006
New Revision: 109632
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=109632
Log:
2006-01-11 H.J. Lu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR testsuite/25728
--- Comment #4 from hjl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-12 01:40 ---
Subject: Bug 25728
Author: hjl
Date: Thu Jan 12 01:40:48 2006
New Revision: 109631
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=109631
Log:
2006-01-11 H.J. Lu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR testsuite/25728
--- Comment #3 from hjl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-12 01:35 ---
Subject: Bug 25728
Author: hjl
Date: Thu Jan 12 01:35:21 2006
New Revision: 109628
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=109628
Log:
2006-01-11 H.J. Lu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR testsuite/25728
--- Comment #2 from hjl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-12 01:29 ---
Subject: Bug 25728
Author: hjl
Date: Thu Jan 12 01:29:07 2006
New Revision: 109627
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=109627
Log:
2006-01-11 H.J. Lu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR testsuite/25728
--- Comment #32 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-12 01:26
---
Subject: Re: exception_defines.h #defines try/catch
On Jan 11, 2006, at 8:10 PM, gdr at cs dot tamu dot edu wrote:
> | I realize that once the customer specifies -fno-exceptions, all bets
> | are off.
>
> Great.
On Jan 11, 2006, at 8:10 PM, gdr at cs dot tamu dot edu wrote:
| I realize that once the customer specifies -fno-exceptions, all bets
| are off.
Great. Fix the problem in the front-end.
As I said before, there is still a diagnostic issue and now it is worse
with
doing that in the front-end
--- Comment #6 from kkojima at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-12 01:20 ---
Subject: Bug 25613
Author: kkojima
Date: Thu Jan 12 01:20:32 2006
New Revision: 109625
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=109625
Log:
PR target/25613
* config/sh/sh.h (CONSTRAINT_
--- Comment #31 from gdr at cs dot tamu dot edu 2006-01-12 01:15 ---
Subject: Re: exception_defines.h #defines try/catch
"hhinnant at apple dot com" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
| I'm simply pointing out that the effort could be improved.
| Obviously no standard is going to back
--- Comment #30 from gdr at cs dot tamu dot edu 2006-01-12 01:10 ---
Subject: Re: exception_defines.h #defines try/catch
"hhinnant at apple dot com" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| (In reply to comment #28)
| > Subject: Re: exception_defines.h #defines try/catch
| >
| > | No, "try" in
--- Comment #29 from hhinnant at apple dot com 2006-01-12 00:59 ---
(In reply to comment #28)
> Subject: Re: exception_defines.h #defines try/catch
>
> | No, "try" in this context is not a keyword.
>
> I did not say it was a keyword. I know what it is in that phase.
>
> try/catch ar
--- Comment #6 from tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-12 00:18 ---
I'm setting this to waiting until someone quotes something from the standard.
Fortran has its quirks, but disallowing this special case would break the
distintion between the names of commons and those of other named
--- Comment #28 from gdr at cs dot tamu dot edu 2006-01-12 00:12 ---
Subject: Re: exception_defines.h #defines try/catch
"hhinnant at apple dot com" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| --- Comment #26 from hhinnant at apple dot com 2006-01-11 18:02 ---
| (In reply to comment #25)
|
--- Comment #27 from gdr at cs dot tamu dot edu 2006-01-12 00:12 ---
Subject: Re: exception_defines.h #defines try/catch
"hhinnant at apple dot com" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Or are our quality standards higher than that?
The way you solve this is neither through rhetorics, neith
--- Comment #7 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-12 00:09 ---
Subject: Bug 25734
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Jan 11 19:44:57 2006
New Revision: 109598
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=109598
Log:
2006-01-11 Richard Guenther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR
--- Comment #3 from janis at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-11 22:21 ---
It's easy to replace gcc.c-torture/execute/execute.exp with
compile/compile.exp, use "run" for the default instead of
"assemble", and then add test directives to the .c files to
replace the functionaity in the .x files
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfi
--- Comment #2 from nathan at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-11 22:03 ---
Subject: Bug 25386
Author: nathan
Date: Wed Jan 11 18:09:17 2006
New Revision: 109595
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=109595
Log:
PR c++/25386
* tree.c (lvalue_p_1): Any part of
--- Comment #6 from uttamp at us dot ibm dot com 2006-01-11 22:02 ---
Subject: Re: another runtime error goes undetected
On Wed, 2006-01-11 at 09:07 +, pault at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
>
> --- Comment #5 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-11 09:07 ---
> (In repl
In function 'prefix_from_string' of file 'collect2.c', a variable 'nstore' is
xmalloc'ed.
This variable is passed to 'add_prefix' where it is xstrdup'ed.
But the variable nstore itself seems to never be free'ed.
So, I think that a 'free(nstore)' should be added at the end of the function.
CJ
-
--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-11 21:41 ---
Confirmed. (well already via IRC). Note you will not get this email for a
while anyways.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #3 from aldot at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-11 21:34 ---
Created an attachment (id=10628)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10628&action=view)
testcase label_5.f90
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25756
--- Comment #2 from aldot at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-11 21:33 ---
Created an attachment (id=10627)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10627&action=view)
testcase label_4.f90
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25756
--- Comment #14 from aldot at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-11 21:37 ---
Sure, will fix the changelog tomorrow, sorry!
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25486
--- Comment #1 from aldot at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-11 21:32 ---
Created an attachment (id=10626)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10626&action=view)
testcase label_3.f90
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25756
--
steven at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25654
attached label_3.f90, label_4.f90 and label_5.f90 ICE with
gcc version 4.1.0 20060111 (prerelease)
As this worked with g77, please make pr19292 depend on this.
Backtraces are provided for the sake of completeness.
$ gfortran-4.1-HEAD -v -c -o /tmp/foo.o label_3.f90
In file label_3.f90:4
1
--- Comment #13 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-11 21:18 ---
Bernhard, thanks for fixing this, but you have put your ChangeLog entries in
the wrong ChangeLog. They should be in gcc/fortran/ChangeLog, and they are in
gcc/ChangeLog. Could you please fix that?
--
http://gc
I'm getting an ICE in current 4.1 branch on Solaris 10 x86. It's trying to
compile testsuite/gcc.c-torture/execute/20050316-1.c and getting:
Executing on host: /var/tmp/gcc_4.1_svn/gcc_20060111/gcc/xgcc
-B/var/tmp/gcc_4.1_svn/gcc_20060111/gcc/
/var/tmp/gcc_4.1_svn/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-11 20:44 ---
Fixed by:
2005-01-11 Kenneth Zadeck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Makefile.in Removed rotted odf.c entry.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #4 from pluto at agmk dot net 2006-01-11 19:51 ---
Created an attachment (id=10625)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10625&action=view)
patch for 4.1 branch.
please check-in this patch befor 4.1.0-final.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=
--- Comment #6 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-11 19:49 ---
Fixed.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #4 from tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-11 19:46 ---
This was fixed sometime during the 4.0 cycle.
Tested on my x86 FC4 box with:
opsy. gij --version
java version "1.4.2"
gij (GNU libgcj) version 4.0.1 20050727 (Red Hat 4.0.1-5)
--
tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org cha
--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-11 19:18 ---
Created an attachment (id=10624)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10624&action=view)
Patch which fixes this bug
ChangeLog:
* tree-ssa-ccp.c (ccp_fold): Handle store CCP of REALPART_EXPR and
IMAGPA
--- Comment #5 from pablo at ipi dot fi 2006-01-11 18:41 ---
Created an attachment (id=10623)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10623&action=view)
the spec file I used
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25750
A fresh down load of everything this morning gets a error trying to build -
gcc -c -g -no-cpp-precomp -DHAVE_DESIGNATED_INITIALIZERS=0 -DIN_GCC -W
-Wall -Wwrite-strings -Wstrict-prototypes -Wmissing-prototypes -pedantic
-Wno-long-long -Wno-variadic-macros -Wold-style-definition
-Wmissing-forma
--- Comment #1 from nathan at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-11 18:18 ---
patch applied
2006-01-11 Nathan Sidwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR c++/25386
* tree.c (lvalue_p_1): Any part of a COMPONENT_REF affects
packedness.
* g++.dg/ext/packed3.C: Add expected
--- Comment #26 from hhinnant at apple dot com 2006-01-11 18:02 ---
(In reply to comment #25)
> Subject: Re: exception_defines.h #defines try/catch
> | The demo program does not play tricks with try/catch.
>
> It does, with xlgue(try, ).
No, "try" in this context is not a keyword.
--- Comment #4 from pablo at ipi dot fi 2006-01-11 17:58 ---
I'm not using debian's compiler for SuperH target. On the host I'm using
Ubuntu's compiler.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25750
--- Comment #1 from chris at bubblescope dot net 2006-01-11 17:21 ---
This bug is fixed in 4.1 (and possibly 4.0, I don't have a copy). Is suspect it
isn't a serious enough bug to get the fix backported to 3.4 (although others
may know better than me)
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
--- Comment #12 from aldot at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-11 17:08 ---
Subject: Bug 25486
Author: aldot
Date: Wed Jan 11 17:07:55 2006
New Revision: 109593
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=109593
Log:
2006-01-11 Bernhard Fischer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR fo
--- Comment #11 from aldot at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-11 17:06 ---
Subject: Bug 25486
Author: aldot
Date: Wed Jan 11 17:06:44 2006
New Revision: 109592
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=109592
Log:
gcc/fortran:
2006-01-11 Bernhard Fischer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Comment #10 from dir at lanl dot gov 2006-01-11 16:50 ---
My thought on a possible fix is that the I/O buffers should be dumped before
the read whenever a read immediately follows a write, but I have no idea how
you would detect the situation.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/sho
--- Comment #25 from gdr at cs dot tamu dot edu 2006-01-11 16:41 ---
Subject: Re: exception_defines.h #defines try/catch
"hhinnant at apple dot com" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| --- Comment #24 from hhinnant at apple dot com 2006-01-11 16:10 ---
| (In reply to comment #23)
|
--- Comment #10 from aldot at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-11 16:38 ---
Subject: Bug 25486
Author: aldot
Date: Wed Jan 11 16:38:42 2006
New Revision: 109591
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=109591
Log:
gcc/fortran:
2006-01-11 Bernhard Fischer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Comment #4 from tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-11 16:38 ---
I forgot to say that g77 accepts this even with -pedantic. But this is
undocumented and doesn't make much sense, so we can probably do away with it
without alienating anybody.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_b
--- Comment #7 from r dot emrich at de dot tecosim dot com 2006-01-11
16:23 ---
Subject: Re: link failure for several acats tests
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
laurent at guerby dot net schrieb:
> --- Comment #5 from laurent at guerby dot net 2006-01-06 22:19 ---
--- Comment #24 from hhinnant at apple dot com 2006-01-11 16:10 ---
(In reply to comment #23)
> You forgot to mentin that -fno-exceptions is neither mandated, nor
> required to work with programs that play tricks with try/catch.
> So, your assertion is unfounded.
The demo program does n
--- Comment #9 from aldot at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-11 16:07 ---
I had trouble with the testcase:
I wanted to have only one .F file with three dg-options but this didn't work
out.
I'm about to check the patch in during the next few hours.
Really sorry for the long delay (flu).
-
--- Comment #9 from dir at lanl dot gov 2006-01-11 16:02 ---
With a larger amount of data it only takes one write -
[dranta:~/tests/gfortran-D] dir% gfortran -o write22 write22.f
[dranta:~/tests/gfortran-D] dir% write22
Bus error
[dranta:~/tests/gfortran-D] dir% cat write22.f
int
--
tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirme
--- Comment #3 from jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk 2006-01-11 15:58 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> I think the problem is that I does not live in a common block, but i don't
> have
> the standard to check.
>
yes
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25083
--- Comment #4 from jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk 2006-01-11 15:57 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> Even Lahey's Fortran 90 and their 95 compiler does not error out about this.
>
> I wonder if xlf does.
>
xlf90 -qsuffix=f=f90 mytest.f90
"mytest.f90", line 2.9: 1514-259 (S) A name must not
--- Comment #23 from gdr at cs dot tamu dot edu 2006-01-11 15:56 ---
Subject: Re: exception_defines.h #defines try/catch
"hhinnant at apple dot com" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| #define'ing try and catch is non-conforming.
You forgot to mentin that -fno-exceptions is neither mandate
--- Comment #11 from nickc at redhat dot com 2006-01-11 15:38 ---
Hi Libor,
Oops- there was a condition where the new code could walk backwards into a
previous block. Sorry about that. I have uploaded a revised patch which
should not fall into this trap. It certainly works with the
--- Comment #10 from nickc at redhat dot com 2006-01-11 15:37 ---
Created an attachment (id=10622)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10622&action=view)
Revised patch which should not walk over blocks
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24376
--- Comment #8 from dir at lanl dot gov 2006-01-11 15:34 ---
That fixed all the posted examples and it passed the 1048576 tests of all
combinations of read,write,backspace, and rewind taken 10 at a time writing a
single word, but when I increased the write size to 500 words it failed. Th
--- Comment #1 from alex at milivojevic dot org 2006-01-11 15:30 ---
I've just installed GNU binutils and recompiled gcc
(languages=c,c++,objc,java,f95) for sparc-sun-solaris2.9 and with GNU linker
and assembler. The problem exists there too. So it is libtool script not
passing -rpath
--- Comment #22 from hhinnant at apple dot com 2006-01-11 15:30 ---
Conforming C++ programs exist that work correctly with -fno-exceptions as long
as they don't include any libstdc++ header. These same programs can fail (at
either compile time or run time) if they also include some (not
#include
int main(void)
{
std::vector v;
v.begin();
}
Produces:
temp.cc: In function 'int main()':
temp.cc:5: error: 'foo' was not declared in this scope
temp.cc:5: error: template argument 1 is invalid
temp.cc:5: error: template argument 2 is invalid
temp.cc:5: error: invalid type in decla
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-11 15:17 ---
I have a three line fix.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
As
--- Comment #2 from tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-11 14:36 ---
I think the problem is that I does not live in a common block, but i don't have
the standard to check.
--
tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from pablo at ipi dot fi 2006-01-11 14:33 ---
Created an attachment (id=10621)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10621&action=view)
Output of the compile command
The actual compiler command
g++ -v -save-temps -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I. -I../../../pango -I.
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-11 14:32 ---
Even Lahey's Fortran 90 and their 95 compiler does not error out about this.
I wonder if xlf does.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25062
--- Comment #2 from pablo at ipi dot fi 2006-01-11 14:31 ---
Created an attachment (id=10620)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10620&action=view)
the preprocessed file
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25750
--- Comment #24 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2006-01-11 14:31 ---
patch committed
--
bonzini at gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #28 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2006-01-11 14:30 ---
patch committed to both branches
--
bonzini at gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Statu
--- Comment #17 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2006-01-11 14:30 ---
patch committed to 4.1 too
--
bonzini at gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSI
--- Comment #27 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2006-01-11 14:29 ---
Subject: Bug 24123
Author: bonzini
Date: Wed Jan 11 14:29:29 2006
New Revision: 109586
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=109586
Log:
gcc:
2006-01-11 Paolo Bonzini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR tree
--- Comment #23 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2006-01-11 14:29 ---
Subject: Bug 23948
Author: bonzini
Date: Wed Jan 11 14:29:29 2006
New Revision: 109586
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=109586
Log:
gcc:
2006-01-11 Paolo Bonzini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR tree
--- Comment #16 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2006-01-11 14:29 ---
Subject: Bug 23109
Author: bonzini
Date: Wed Jan 11 14:29:29 2006
New Revision: 109586
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=109586
Log:
gcc:
2006-01-11 Paolo Bonzini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR tree
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-11 14:29 ---
Are you using debian's compilers? If so you should have reported it to debian
first.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25750
--- Comment #2 from tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-11 14:29 ---
I'm quite sure it's not, but it would be a first, if Joost were wrong. Is
there anything special about parameters? Something like
real x
common /x/ y
or even
common /x/ x
is perfectly valid.
--
tobi at gc
Building debian package gtkmm2.4-2.4.10 for SuperH fails for internal compiler
error.
--
Summary: g++ internal compiler error: Segmentation fault
Product: gcc
Version: 3.4.5
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
--- Comment #3 from tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-11 14:26 ---
Also fails on i686.
--
tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
--- Comment #8 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-11 14:16 ---
*** Bug 25748 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-11 14:16 ---
Yes this is invalid code, in 4.1.0 and above we get:
t.cc:2: error: definition of 'foo::t' is not in namespace enclosing 'foo'
This is a dup of bug 13140.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 13140 ***
--- Comment #7 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-11 14:11 ---
Fixed in 4.1.0 and 4.2.0 at least.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-11 13:58 ---
Confirmed.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
--- Comment #4 from hp at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-11 13:51 ---
.
--
hp at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #3 from hp at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-11 13:45 ---
Subject: Bug 25706
Author: hp
Date: Wed Jan 11 13:45:03 2006
New Revision: 109585
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=109585
Log:
PR target/25706
* gcc.dg/torture/pr25706-1.c: New test.
--- Comment #2 from hp at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-11 13:43 ---
Subject: Bug 25706
Author: hp
Date: Wed Jan 11 13:43:08 2006
New Revision: 109584
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=109584
Log:
PR target/25706
* config/cris/cris.md ("*extopqihi_side
--- Comment #6 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-11 13:32 ---
Subject: Bug 25042
Author: hubicka
Date: Wed Jan 11 13:32:44 2006
New Revision: 109583
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=109583
Log:
PR target/25042
* i386.c (ix86_init_mmx_sse_
--- Comment #5 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-11 13:26 ---
Subject: Bug 25042
Author: hubicka
Date: Wed Jan 11 13:26:45 2006
New Revision: 109582
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=109582
Log:
PR target/25042
* i386.c (ix86_init_mmx_sse_b
--- Comment #5 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-11 13:21 ---
I have a fix.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|un
--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-11 13:09 ---
The diff between dse and forwrop:
--- pr25734.c.t88.dse2 2006-01-11 14:08:11.0 +0100
+++ pr25734.c.t89.forwprop3 2006-01-11 14:08:11.0 +0100
@@ -1,6 +1,19 @@
;; Function sysfs_hash_and_remove (
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-11 13:07 ---
Reduced testcase:
struct list_head {
struct list_head *next;
};
static inline __attribute__((always_inline)) void list_del_init(struct
list_head *entry)
{
__list_del(entry->next);
(entry)->next = (entry);
};
struc
--- Comment #22 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2006-01-11 13:02 ---
Subject: Bug 23948
Author: bonzini
Date: Wed Jan 11 13:02:18 2006
New Revision: 109578
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=109578
Log:
gcc:
2006-01-11 Paolo Bonzini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR tree
--- Comment #26 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2006-01-11 13:02 ---
Subject: Bug 24123
Author: bonzini
Date: Wed Jan 11 13:02:18 2006
New Revision: 109578
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=109578
Log:
gcc:
2006-01-11 Paolo Bonzini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR tree
--- Comment #15 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2006-01-11 13:02 ---
Subject: Bug 23109
Author: bonzini
Date: Wed Jan 11 13:02:18 2006
New Revision: 109578
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=109578
Log:
gcc:
2006-01-11 Paolo Bonzini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR tree
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-11 12:44 ---
SSE is not floating point in general. It is just used as the floating point
but it is just the vector unit. Your "work around" is the true fix.
-msoft-float only deals with the x87 part and not the SSE part.
--
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-11 12:42 ---
3) And also defined in the anonymous namespace in another module:
namespace { template T foo::t = 0; }
That is invalid code as you are instantiating in a different namespace. I
think there is a bug about acce
--- Comment #15 from rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-11 11:39
---
Subject: Bug 25632
Author: rakdver
Date: Wed Jan 11 11:39:49 2006
New Revision: 109575
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=109575
Log:
PR c++/25632
* g++.dg/other/pr25632.C: New
--- Comment #2 from dcb314 at hotmail dot com 2006-01-11 11:31 ---
Created an attachment (id=10619)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10619&action=view)
C source code which causes crash with -Os
I've stripped out about 3,000 lines of source code to
get the attachment
1 - 100 of 107 matches
Mail list logo
