--- Comment #27 from Ralf dot Wildenhues at gmx dot de 2006-03-02 07:09
---
(In reply to comment #25)
> PR libgcj/17311
> * ltmain.sh: Don't use "$finalize_rpath" for compile.
This change will cause breakage on systems when relinking is done at
installation time, and on
--- Comment #6 from patchapp at dberlin dot org 2006-03-02 06:35 ---
Subject: Bug number PR26499
A patch for this bug has been added to the patch tracker.
The mailing list url for the patch is
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-03/msg00115.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/sh
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-02 04:52 ---
Confirmed, weird. It also works just fine on powerpc-darwin, though I could
not test the 64bit part there.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #14 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-02 04:44
---
here is an ever more reduced testcase:
void g(const void*);
struct B
{
int* x[2];
int *p;
B()
{
for (int** p=x; phttp://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26197
--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-02 04:12 ---
Reduced testcase:
struct fd_set {
char fds_bits[1024];
};
void joy_polldev(char *a)
{
struct fd_set readfds;
unsigned int __i;
for (__i = 0;__i < 1024;++__i)
readfds.fds_bits[__i] = 0;
f(&readfds, *a)
Code calling ostream::operator<<(streambuf*) fails to link with g++ 4.1.0 when
_GLIBCXX_DEBUG is defined; more specifically, when _GLIBCXX_EXTERN_TEMPLATE is
defined to 0. This problem is not observed with
1) g++ 4.0.1 on the same system or
2) the same configuration of g++ 4.1.0 for i686-linux
t
--- Comment #2 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-02 03:58
---
OK, its in the queue.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26509
--- Comment #16 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-02 03:27
---
Confirmed, fixed on the mainline and will most likely be committed to the 4.1
branch in a couple of days so it gets some testing on the mainline first.
By the way nice nick.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org c
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-02 03:07 ---
This is definitely a RA issue.
(insn:HI 12 65 15 2 (set (reg/v:DI 121 [ hi ])
(fix:DI (reg/v:DF 123 [ xh ]))) 265 {fix_truncdfdi2}
(insn_list:REG_DEP_TRUE 6 (nil))
(nil))
(insn:HI 15 12 16 2 (set (reg:CC
--- Comment #15 from sayle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-02 02:47 ---
Subject: Bug 26489
Author: sayle
Date: Thu Mar 2 02:47:40 2006
New Revision: 111633
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=111633
Log:
PR other/26489
* gthr-posix.h (__gthrw2): Defin
The following compiled with -m64 -O2 -S
double f1 (double xh)
{
long long hi = (long long) xh;
if (hi == __LONG_LONG_MAX__)
{
xh += -__LONG_LONG_MAX__ - 1;
xh += 1.0;
}
else
xh -= hi;
return xh;
}
generates
fctidz 0,1
li 0,-1
rldicl 0,0,0
--- Comment #25 from mrs at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-02 02:20 ---
Subject: Bug 25908
Author: mrs
Date: Thu Mar 2 02:20:54 2006
New Revision: 111632
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=111632
Log:
PR darwin/25908
* decl2.c (import_export_decl): Fix
--- Comment #26 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-02 02:27
---
Fixed, thanks Mike for fixing this one.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
Andrew Pinski wrote:
On Mar 1, 2006, at 7:48 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
Is there a recommended version of GNU binutils for 4.1? I have been
using 2.13 but the latest compiler doesn't seem to be happy with it.
I tried the latest, 2.16.1, but I get the same error with it as well.
I don't see anythi
--- Comment #14 from dogcow at babymeat dot com 2006-03-02 02:14 ---
Created an attachment (id=10953)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10953&action=view)
4.1.0 branch version of patch.txt.
--
dogcow at babymeat dot com changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #5 from hjl at lucon dot org 2006-03-02 01:59 ---
A real patch for 4.2 is posted at
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-03/msg00094.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26146
On Mar 1, 2006, at 7:48 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
Is there a recommended version of GNU binutils for 4.1? I have been
using 2.13 but the latest compiler doesn't seem to be happy with it.
I tried the latest, 2.16.1, but I get the same error with it as well.
I don't see anything about this in INSTA
Is there a recommended version of GNU binutils for 4.1? I have been
using 2.13 but the latest compiler doesn't seem to be happy with it.
I tried the latest, 2.16.1, but I get the same error with it as well.
I don't see anything about this in INSTALL/specific.html.
Here's the error I get (building
--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-02 00:42 ---
Mine, this is will be one of my last Darwin specific patches. Hopefully PR
23504 gets resolved with it too.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-02 00:41 ---
Mine, this is will be one of my last Darwin specific patches.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #5 from janis at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-02 00:26 ---
Andrew wondered aloud on IRC when this was fixed on mainline, so I'm running a
regression hunt for that (between 20051130 and 20051128) and also for when it
broke on mainline (between 20050730 and 20050828). If all go
--- Comment #15 from wilson at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-02 00:06 ---
Created an attachment (id=10952)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10952&action=view)
not recommended prototype patch to avoid assembler bug
I have a gcc-3.4.x patch that silences the assembler war
--- Comment #4 from hjl at lucon dot org 2006-03-01 23:59 ---
Created an attachment (id=10951)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10951&action=view)
A patch
This patch should fix "configure i386-pc-solaris2.10". But have
# configure i[456]86-pc-solaris2.10
# onfigure -
--- Comment #17 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-01 23:45 ---
OK I have written a patch that fixes:
real :: a(1:4) = (/((i-1)**2,i=1,4)/)
real :: b(1)
i=2
b = maxloc(a(1:i-2)+1.)
print *, b
end
For i=3 or greater, gfortran an
--- Comment #1 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-01 23:30 ---
Jerry,
I think that this is one for you.
Cheers
Paul
--
pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #7 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-01 23:26 ---
Fixed on mainline. Patch ready for 4.1 to reopen.
Paul
--
pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #16 from bangerth at dealii dot org 2006-03-01 23:25 ---
> It does; I've used it to eliminate all these warnings in glibc's soft-fp
> code. Use statement expressions, i.e. surround the whole if body with ({
> }).
Ugh. Do we really want to advocate serious code obfuscatio
--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-01 23:24 ---
Reduced testcase:
SUBROUTINE CLATM5( PRTYPE, M, N, A, LDA, B, LDB, C, LDC, D, LDD,
$ E, LDE, F, LDF, R, LDR, L, LDL, ALPHA, QBLCKA,
$ QBLCKB )
COMPLEX
--- Comment #6 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-01 23:24 ---
Fixed on mainline. Patch ready for 4.1 to reopen.
Paul
--
pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #15 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2006-03-01 23:22
---
Subject: Re: should not warning with dead code
On Wed, 1 Mar 2006, bangerth at dealii dot org wrote:
> c) doesn't work with code where the code guarded by the if(0) is more
>than a single statement.
It does
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|major |normal
Known to work|4.0.1 |4.2.0
http:/
--- Comment #3 from martin dot audet at imi dot cnrc-nrc dot gc dot ca
2006-03-01 23:15 ---
Version 4.0.1 of gfortran (a Fedora Core 4 update) is able to compile clatm5.f
without any problems.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] trunk]$ /usr/bin/gfortran -v
Using built-in specs.
Target: x86_64-redhat-
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-01 23:14 ---
And it works on the mainline.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-01 23:13 ---
The backtrace goes back to the VRP.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #14 from bangerth at dealii dot org 2006-03-01 23:05 ---
But that's
a) clearly a kludge,
b) may not help in the future if our optimizers become more elaborate
c) doesn't work with code where the code guarded by the if(0) is more
than a single statement.
It would definitely
--- Comment #13 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2006-03-01 23:01
---
Subject: Re: should not warning with dead code
A workaround is to use ? : and statement expressions instead of "if".
This way, the front-end setting of skip_evaluation disables these
warnings. (skip_evaluatio
--- Comment #2 from amodra at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-01 22:58 ---
Subject: Bug 26453
Author: amodra
Date: Wed Mar 1 22:57:59 2006
New Revision: 111618
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=111618
Log:
PR target/26453
* config/rs6000/rs6000.c (rs600
Hi,
When I try to build LAPACK (http://www.netlib.org/lapack/) I get the following
ICE when I try to compile clatm5.f:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] MATGEN]$ gfortran -ffast-math -O3 -c clatm5.f
clatm5.f: In function 'clatm5':
clatm5.f:1: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault
Please submit a full bug r
--- Comment #5 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-01 22:24 ---
Subject: Bug 26393
Author: pault
Date: Wed Mar 1 22:24:19 2006
New Revision: 111616
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=111616
Log:
2006-03-01 Paul Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* iresolve.
--- Comment #6 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-01 22:24 ---
Subject: Bug 20938
Author: pault
Date: Wed Mar 1 22:24:19 2006
New Revision: 111616
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=111616
Log:
2006-03-01 Paul Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* iresolve.
--- Comment #7 from wanderer at rsu dot ru 2006-03-01 22:12 ---
> Are you using the toplevel configure or the configure in the gcc directory?
8( You are right! Sorry for false alarm...
--
wanderer at rsu dot ru changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #6 from wanderer at rsu dot ru 2006-03-01 22:08 ---
No. I not build in source dir. I recheck this before bug report posting and now
I have gcc 4.1.0 sources in /home/wanderer/pkg/build/gcc/src/gcc_41
full path to obj dir: /home/wanderer/pkg/build/gcc/obj_41
script in /home/w
--- Comment #5 from echristo at apple dot com 2006-03-01 22:04 ---
Confirmed. That's the error message if you use the configure from the gcc
subdir.
--
echristo at apple dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-01 21:59 ---
Are you using the toplevel configure or the configure in the gcc directory?
>From what you wrote:
/home/wanderer/pkg/build/gcc/src/gcc_41/gcc/configure
It looks like you are using the gcc subdirectory configure which
--- Comment #3 from wanderer at rsu dot ru 2006-03-01 21:54 ---
Also recheck with gmake bootstrap
Used tools:
make, ~/pkg/build/gcc > gmake -v
GNU Make 3.80
make, ~/pkg/build/gcc > gcc -v
Using built-in specs.
Configured with: FreeBSD/i386 system compiler
Thread model: posix
gcc versi
--- Comment #2 from wanderer at rsu dot ru 2006-03-01 21:52 ---
I use script:
cd obj_41
/home/wanderer/pkg/build/gcc/src/gcc_41/gcc/configure
--prefix=/home/wanderer/pkg/gcc_41 --enable-threads=posix --with-gnu-as
--with-gnu-ld --enable-languages=c,c++
gmake
cd ..
--
http://gcc.gn
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-01 21:45 ---
How did configure/make?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26523
I can't bootstrap (make and make bootstrap have same result and error) at
FreeBSD 6.0 RC1
Build terminated with error:
echo timestamp > s-options-h
TARGET_CPU_DEFAULT="" \
HEADERS="auto-host.h ansidecl.h" DEFINES="" \
/usr/local/bin/bash /home/wanderer/pkg/build/gcc/src/gcc_41/gcc/mkconfig.sh
bco
in my tests gcc 4.1.0-RC{1,2} install headers into a root (/) include
directory:
# cut -f 2- fl_wrapper.wlog | grep '^\/include\/' | cut -d / -f 1-4 | uniq
/include/c++
/include/c++/gcj
/include/c++/gnu
/include/c++/java
/include/c++/javax
/include/c++/org
/include/c++/java
/include/c++/gnu
/incl
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-01 19:33 ---
This is most likely a dup of bug 26197.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-01 19:31 ---
Reducing.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26518
--- Comment #11 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-01 19:28
---
Fixed.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNE
--- Comment #10 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-01 19:28
---
Subject: Bug 25761
Author: pinskia
Date: Wed Mar 1 19:28:22 2006
New Revision: 111611
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=111611
Log:
2006-03-01 Andrew Pinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR
--- Comment #1 from marcus at jet dot franken dot de 2006-03-01 19:26
---
Created an attachment (id=10949)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10949&action=view)
joystick_linux.i
gcc -m32 -O2 -ftree-vectorize -msse2
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26
/home/marcus/projects/gcc/BIN/bin/gcc -c joystick_linux.i -O2 -ftree-vectorize
-msse2 -m32
joystick_linux.i: In function 'joy_polldev':
joystick_linux.i:21877: internal compiler error: tree check: expected ssa_name,
have struct_field_tag in verify_ssa, at tree-ssa.c:735
Please submit a full bug re
--- Comment #9 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-01 19:14 ---
Patch is about to be committed.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-01 19:12 ---
Fixed.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-01 19:12 ---
Subject: Bug 26389
Author: pinskia
Date: Wed Mar 1 19:12:22 2006
New Revision: 111609
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=111609
Log:
2006-03-01 Andrew Pinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR ta
--- Comment #12 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-01 19:02
---
*** Bug 26516 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-01 19:02 ---
This is just a duplicate of PR 4210 which talks about not warning for dead code
since this is dead code after all since 15 < 8 is false.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 4210 ***
--
pinskia at gcc
Notice that I have tried this with several 32-bit native and
cross GCC compilers including versions 3.2.2, 3.3, and 4.0.2.
In the test-case that follows, I get the warning in spite of the
fact that the conditional is constant and "bitNumber" must always
be less than 8 to execute the conditional.
--- Comment #6 from j at uriah dot heep dot sax dot de 2006-03-01 18:53
---
After tracking it down, it turns out to be the following change,
introduced between GCC 3.4.3 and 3.4.4:
2005-03-19 Andy Hutchinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR target/18251
* config/avr/avr.md (movs
--- Comment #10 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-01 18:32
---
*** Bug 26444 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #14 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-01 18:32
---
Confirmed, this is fixed with the patch for PR 26443.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 26443 ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-01 18:31
---
> and I bet this is just the same issue as PR 23541 too.
Hum... yes, you're right, the CPP testsuite is a disaster. I only detected the
problem today because I switched to --enable-bootstrap, since the old schem
--- Comment #9 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-01 18:29 ---
*** Bug 26476 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #5 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-01 18:29 ---
Confirmed, fixed with the patch for PR 26443.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 26443 ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #11 from ifoox at redhat dot com 2006-03-01 18:10 ---
> I gave up and went down the road of a somewhat simpler implementation at
> the expense of lookup overhead. In most cases there are fewer than
> about a dozen headers, so linear searching an ArrayList should not be
>
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-01 18:02 ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> I've see the same ICE on ia64 with rev. 76 and
> gcc.c-torture/compile/930217-1.c. The backtrace is as follows:
930217 was a different bug.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug
--
hp at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfi
Noticed with revision 108225 plus local changes,
not noticed with revision 111226 plus local changes.
This code, compiled with -fpic -Os or -fpic -O2:
void
_nrrdSwap64Endian (void *_data, unsigned int N)
{
long long *data = 0;
long long l = 0;
long long fix = 0;
unsigned int I;
if (_data
--- Comment #8 from dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-01 17:48 ---
Fixed
--
dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
--- Comment #7 from dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-01 17:46 ---
Subject: Bug 26443
Author: dberlin
Date: Wed Mar 1 17:46:56 2006
New Revision: 111608
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=111608
Log:
2006-03-01 Daniel Berlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Fix P
--- Comment #26 from hjl at lucon dot org 2006-03-01 17:42 ---
Fixed.
--
hjl at lucon dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING
--- Comment #6 from flash at pobox dot com 2006-03-01 17:42 ---
Ouch.
PalmSource/Access bug 111534.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23870
--- Comment #7 from strieder at informatik dot uni-kl dot de 2006-03-01
17:42 ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> I tried my best to reproduce this, using --param ggc-min-expand=0 --param
> ggc-min-heapsize=0 as I thought it was a GC issue as that is usually what is
> causes the difference
--- Comment #25 from hjl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-01 17:39 ---
Subject: Bug 17311
Author: hjl
Date: Wed Mar 1 17:39:35 2006
New Revision: 111607
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=111607
Log:
2006-03-01 H.J. Lu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR libgcj/17311
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.1.0 |4.2.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21637
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.1.0 |---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25672
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.1.0 |4.1.1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9715
--
eedelman at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||eedelman at gcc dot gnu dot
|
--- Comment #6 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-01 17:37 ---
I tried my best to reproduce this, using --param ggc-min-expand=0 --param
ggc-min-heapsize=0 as I thought it was a GC issue as that is usually what is
causes the difference between with and without -save-temps. I t
--- Comment #5 from dir at lanl dot gov 2006-03-01 17:37 ---
With a sequential access file, the eof is always positioned after the location
of the last write. Thus, a file needs to be truncated to that location when it
is closed, otherwise you are saving data that is beyond the "end of f
--- Comment #5 from strieder at informatik dot uni-kl dot de 2006-03-01
17:35 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> Also if you try to compile it again does it work? Meaning without
> -save-temps,
> it works?
>
If I use the .ii file instead of the original .cc file with exactly the same
op
--- Comment #4 from strieder at informatik dot uni-kl dot de 2006-03-01
17:26 ---
Created an attachment (id=10948)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10948&action=view)
diff of the preprocessed files from not-working to working
Although the preprocessed files themselve
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-01 17:23 ---
Also if you try to compile it again does it work? Meaning without -save-temps,
it works?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26514
--- Comment #2 from strieder at informatik dot uni-kl dot de 2006-03-01
17:21 ---
Created an attachment (id=10947)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10947&action=view)
The preprocessed file from the failing run, which does itself not show the
problem.
--
http://gc
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-01 17:17 ---
Can you try the 4.1.0 release?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26514
Hello,
this is a quite mysterious bug, for several reasons.
There are two classes, which differ only in their name, and a few places, where
another
constant value is returned or another function is called. One of them succeeds
with g++-4.1.0
the other fails, when using -fprofile-generate.
g++ -g
--- Comment #6 from tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-01 17:13 ---
That format is used for exporting preferences to a file.
It turns out they use a variant of that for writing the
preferences to the preference store. However, how locking is
handled is undocumented. So, interoperat
--- Comment #10 from ddaney at avtrex dot com 2006-03-01 17:10 ---
Subject: Re: Weird handling of HTTP Headers
ifoox at redhat dot com wrote:
> --- Comment #9 from ifoox at redhat dot com 2006-03-01 16:11 ---
> Hi David,
>
> I tried to get classpath and try out applying the p
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-01 16:55 ---
Yes most of the darwin configuration stuff is done only for native builds.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #16 from paul dot richard dot thomas at cea dot fr 2006-03-01
16:43 ---
Subject: RE: runtime error "Attempt to allocate a negative amount of memory"
That's true QED QCD?
> -Message d'origine-
> De : tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
--- Comment #15 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-01 16:42
---
(In reply to comment #12)
> What about the testcase from comment #4? I believe that's valid.
I agree. The segfault in the original code is OK, but the "Attempt to allocate
a negative amount of memory" error mes
--- Comment #14 from paul dot richard dot thomas at cea dot fr 2006-03-01
16:41 ---
Subject: RE: runtime error "Attempt to allocate a negative amount of memory"
Oh hi, Tobi! How are you?
Yes, the testcase from comment #4 is valid. It is also identical to PR26017.
Paul
> -Mes
--- Comment #13 from tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-01 16:39 ---
(In reply to comment #12)
> What about the testcase from comment #4? I believe that's valid.
D'oh, no it ain't because the RHS and the LHS in the assignment to b aren't
conforming.
--
tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #12 from tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-01 16:37 ---
What about the testcase from comment #4? I believe that's valid.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15335
--- Comment #11 from paul dot richard dot thomas at cea dot fr 2006-03-01
16:30 ---
I believe that this PR should be closed as resolved. Since p is uninitialized
in the original test case, it can and does produce out of range array
references for lu(comment #6). The following developm
--- Comment #6 from tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-01 16:29 ---
Fix checked in to trunk.
This may be a good 4.1.1 candidate.
--
tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #9 from ifoox at redhat dot com 2006-03-01 16:11 ---
Hi David,
I tried to get classpath and try out applying the patch to test it out, but I
had some problems with it. I'll try again in a bit but I have some general
comments in the meanwhile.
It seems more appropriate to ke
1 - 100 of 154 matches
Mail list logo
