There is a claim in linux asm-i386/byteswap.h that:
/* Do not define swab16. Gcc is smart enough to recognize "C" version and
convert it into rotation or exhange. */
Not really. Consider these two testcases:
--cut here--
unsigned short bad(unsigned short a)
{
return ((a & 0xff00) >>
--- Comment #2 from pluto at agmk dot net 2006-11-07 06:06 ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> Can you give the backtrace and also attach the sources which crash?
sources come from gcc-4.2.0-0.20061030r118195.
(gdb) r
Starting program:
/home/users/pluto/rpm/BUILD/gcc-4_2-branch/builddir/pre
--- Comment #2 from mckelvey at maskull dot com 2006-11-07 05:43 ---
alpha1:mckelvey>rpm -qa | grep glibc
glibc-common-2.2.4-31
glibc-devel-2.2.4-31
compat-glibc-6.2-2.1.3.2
glibc-2.2.4-31
glibc-profile-2.2.4-31
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29737
--- Comment #3 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-07 04:50
---
Yes, but I think you could also grab out of the lb the symbol actually used,
though it may not be worth specializing this. Are there places where we get
errors for .ne. and /= or other similar things?
--
htt
--- Comment #3 from bangerth at dealii dot org 2006-11-07 04:38 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> (In reply to comment #1)
> > Why exactly is this invalid again?
> Because local types cannot be templates.
I don't think that's true. A local type cannot be a template
argument (14.3.1/2) but
--- Comment #2 from brooks at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-07 04:35 ---
Would simply having the error message say "operator '.eq.' or '=='" be a
sufficient solution?
--
brooks at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #1 from brooks at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-07 04:35 ---
Patch posted to fix this, among other cleanups:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2006-11/msg00151.html
--
brooks at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--
brooks at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |brooks at gcc dot gnu dot
|dot org
--- Comment #7 from brooks dot moses at codesourcery dot com 2006-11-07
04:28 ---
Patch posted for 4.2 but not yet approved:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2006-11/msg00150.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29689
--- Comment #8 from hbent at cs dot oberlin dot edu 2006-11-07 04:25
---
This patch fixes the cross-compile such that it completes and is a valid
compiler able to generate valid code. I cannot comment on any of the more
"official" tests.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-07 03:39 ---
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-11/msg00168.html
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #5 from kkojima at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-07 02:46 ---
I'd like to add Joern to the list.
--
kkojima at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #34 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-07 02:46 ---
(In reply to comment #33)
> > Okay, sounds fine. Would this make it into 2.2.1 or 2.3?
> For compatibility reasons (i.e. the 2.2.x versions must have the same
> interface), this can only be in 2.3.0.
> > And do you h
Executing on host: /home/dave/gnu/gcc-4.2/objdir/gcc/xgcc
-B/home/dave/gnu/gcc-4
.2/objdir/gcc/
/home/dave/gnu/gcc-4.2/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/execute/ie
ee/20041213-1.c -w -O3 -g -fno-show-column -lm -o
/home/dave/gnu/gcc-4.2/o
bjdir/gcc/testsuite/gcc/20041213-1.x4(timeout = 300)
--- Comment #4 from kkojima at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-07 02:40 ---
If the comparison with a constant is removed from cbranchdi4_i,
the 2nd test case and the original ifcvt.c are compiled successfully.
--- ORIG/trunk/gcc/config/sh/sh.md 2006-11-05 10:02:45.0 +0900
+++ T
--- Comment #2 from awreynolds at mac dot com 2006-11-07 02:40 ---
Information from the command line:
Configuring stage 2 in ./intl
configure: creating cache ./config.cache
checking whether make sets $(MAKE)... yes
checking for a BSD-compatible install... /usr/bin/install -c
checking wh
--- Comment #3 from kkojima at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-07 02:39 ---
Created an attachment (id=12558)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=12558&action=view)
a reduced test case for the spill failure
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29746
--- Comment #1 from awreynolds at mac dot com 2006-11-07 02:38 ---
Created an attachment (id=12557)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=12557&action=view)
intl/config.log
Stage 2 configure of intl
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29747
--- Comment #2 from kkojima at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-07 02:37 ---
I've attached a reduced test case which fails also on the cross compiler
with -O2:
foo.c:69: error: insn does not satisfy its constraints:
(insn 232 235 233 9 (set (reg:SI 147 t)
(eq:SI (reg:SI 8 r8 [orig:16
About the host compiler:
MacBookPro15:~/Developer/Compiler/gcc-head drew$ gcc -v
Using built-in specs.
Target: i686-apple-darwin8
Configured with: /Users/drew/Developer/Compiler/gcc-head/configure
--target=i686-apple-darwin8 --host=i686-apple-darwin8
--build=i686-apple-darwin8 --prefix=/usr/local/
--- Comment #1 from kkojima at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-07 02:35 ---
Created an attachment (id=12556)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=12556&action=view)
a reduced test case
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29746
The bootstrap on sh4-unknown-linux-gnu fails during stage2 with
../../TMP/trunk/gcc/ifcvt.c: In function 'noce_try_store_flag_constants':
../../TMP/trunk/gcc/ifcvt.c:1036: error: insn does not satisfy its constraints:
(insn 871 901 872 42 ../../TMP/trunk/gcc/ifcvt.c:977 (set (reg:SI 147 t)
--- Comment #34 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2006-11-07
02:08 ---
Subject: Re: [4.3 regression] ext/bitmap_allocator/check_allocate_max_size.cc
execution test
> Weird. COMDAT groups are not supposed to be disabled on Linux I think.
>
> Dave, are they also disabled on
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-07 01:10 ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> Why exactly is this invalid again?
Because local types cannot be templates.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29729
--- Comment #1 from bangerth at dealii dot org 2006-11-07 01:04 ---
Why exactly is this invalid again?
W.
--
bangerth at dealii dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #33 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-07 00:04
---
> Dunno. However, this bit is the same for gcc and gcc-4_2-branch on my system.
Weird. COMDAT groups are not supposed to be disabled on Linux I think.
Dave, are they also disabled on yours? If so, what compil
--- Comment #32 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-06 23:50 ---
Dunno. However, this bit is the same for gcc and gcc-4_2-branch on my system.
There are, however, other differences between the gcc and gcc-4_2-branch files:
%diff gcc/auto-host.h ../gcc-4_2-branch/gcc/auto-host.h
*
--- Comment #16 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-06 23:25
---
Fixed on the mainline, will fix later on the 4.2 branch.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #15 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-06 23:25
---
Subject: Bug 29439
Author: pinskia
Date: Mon Nov 6 23:25:19 2006
New Revision: 118530
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=118530
Log:
2006-11-06 Andrew Pinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-06 23:08 ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 27601 ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #19 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-06 23:08
---
*** Bug 29745 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
hello, I ported an app on x86_64 and I isolate the class who's make a compiler
break down.
bug.C:47: internal compiler error: in fold_offsetof_1, at c-common.c:5998
Please submit a full bug report,
with preprocessed source if appropriate.
See http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs.html> for instructions.
the co
Hello,
I am building gcc-4.1.1 in the framework of my project (see signature).
Basically, 'gcc' is built according to
configure
make
make check
make install
(I build everything locally, no root privileges are needed, directory per
lib/app)
scheme.
Because of the scheme I expect all the steps
--- Comment #4 from daney at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-06 22:31 ---
OK, looks like GCC may be allowed to emit the relocations out of order. I am
looking into the possiblility that gas can be fixed so that the relocaitons are
emitted in the proper order even if their position in the co
--- Comment #17 from kreckel at ginac dot de 2006-11-06 22:23 ---
(In reply to comment #15)
> Maybe scheduling would have the same issue. The fact that the result of the
> division is not used is a red herring, though. Of course, the assumption is
> that it's actually used.
For the reco
--- Comment #1 from eedelman at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-06 22:19
---
Subject: Bug 29679
Author: eedelman
Date: Mon Nov 6 22:18:54 2006
New Revision: 118528
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=118528
Log:
fortran/
2006-11-06 Erik Edelmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Comment #1 from eedelman at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-06 22:19
---
Subject: Bug 29630
Author: eedelman
Date: Mon Nov 6 22:18:54 2006
New Revision: 118528
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=118528
Log:
fortran/
2006-11-06 Erik Edelmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Comment #31 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-06 22:14
---
> Here you go Eric.
Thanks. Why are COMDAT groups disabled in your compiler?
/* Define 0/1 if your assembler and linker support COMDAT groups. */
#ifndef USED_FOR_TARGET
-#define HAVE_COMDAT_GROUP 0
+#define
--- Comment #9 from debian-gcc at lists dot debian dot org 2006-11-06
22:14 ---
hppa is supposed to use dwarf2 based exceptions in Debian; at least that's what
the libgcc soversion (4) suggests; explicitely configuring with
--enable-sjlj-exceptions would configure tu build libgcc with s
Hi,
the code sample from PR 19362 crashes for me after eating all
main memory. I checked that a copy of gfortran from 20060710
still works, while the copy from 20060904 and all later versions
crash.
The problems appears to be related to the renaming of the derived
type from the included module.
--- Comment #30 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-06 22:05 ---
Since this is also new hardware for me, I'll try a couple of other things to
try and isolate. Note that gcc-4_2-branch is working perfectly for me, so I
have switched over to that for work as a temporary measure so I
--- Comment #29 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-06 22:03 ---
Created an attachment (id=12555)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=12555&action=view)
auto-host.h file from FC6 gcc build directory
Here you go Eric.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi
--- Comment #10 from phil dot sidler at attachmate dot com 2006-11-06
21:58 ---
fyi, does work OK at
gcc (GCC) 4.1.2 20061028 (prerelease) (Debian 4.1.1-19)
cheers
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29714
--- Comment #8 from drow at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-06 21:47 ---
I'm not sure, but I think that our hppa port hasn't switched over yet.
As for ARM, I'm not sure what to do to fix the issue. ARM old ABI is stuck
with SJLJ. And the EABI can't implement _Unwind_Backtrace either. I h
--- Comment #7 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2006-11-06
21:09 ---
Subject: Re: [4.2/4.3 regression] gcj-dbtool segfaults
> Ranjit's patch to enable prologue analysis on i386 changed the behavior for
> other SJLJ targets. They used to call the no-op fallback_backtrace fr
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|ICE: default non-type |[4.1 Regression] ICE:
|template argument of
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot
|
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-06 20:38 ---
Can you give the backtrace and also attach the sources which crash?
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-06 20:37 ---
This is my fault I think. There was a PR about ubound and assumed-size arrays
where we crashed and I changed the code to reject all ubound on them IIRC.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
Wha
--- Comment #5 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-06 20:34 ---
Fixed.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #8 from pepster at users dot sourceforge dot net 2006-11-06
20:34 ---
I spent a considerable amount of my personal time on open source projects, so I
am not particularily ashamed of not fixing this bug myself (I tried, but gave
up after I realized the learnign curve is too
--- Comment #9 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-06 20:31 ---
*** Bug 29714 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #9 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-06 20:31 ---
This is a dup of bug 28924 after all and has been fixed already.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 28924 ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #8 from phil dot sidler at attachmate dot com 2006-11-06 20:29
---
I see you're right, this is probably fixed now.
This was on
cc (GCC) 4.1.2 20060928 (prerelease) (Ubuntu 4.1.1-13ubuntu5)
thanks.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29714
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot
|
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-06 20:29 ---
I had meant to close this as fixed.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-06 20:28 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> Reducing ...
This is still reducing, well I got distracted for a little bit also.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29653
--- Comment #7 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-06 20:26 ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> Recreated with the following
What exact version of 4.1.2 are you using?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29714
--- Comment #32 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-06 20:25
---
*** Bug 29725 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 2006-11-06 20:25 ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 27639 ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #6 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-06 20:20 ---
I think this has been fixed already, see PR 28924.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29714
--- Comment #5 from phil dot sidler at attachmate dot com 2006-11-06 20:18
---
Recreated with the following
#include
main()
{
uint8_t area = 1;
uint8_t oldval;
uint8_t res;
oldval = area;
res = __sync_val_compare_and_swap(&area, oldval, 128);
--- Comment #7 from lopezibanez at gmail dot com 2006-11-06 19:51 ---
I think 4.3 will be released on 2007 or early 2008. Fixing bugs on 4.2 and 4.3
will speed up things, of course.
In addition, anyone could take the patches and apply them to their preferred
stable version. I think the
--- Comment #11 from aldot at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-06 19:41 ---
Mine.
Will regtest when i get to a machine with TeX installed.
--
aldot at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #6 from drow at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-06 19:33 ---
Created an attachment (id=12553)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=12553&action=view)
Potential patch.
This hasn't been tested yet; when it has I can add a changelog and post it.
That's in progress n
--- Comment #10 from aldot at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-06 19:14 ---
Should there be a default (I currently default to 100) for -ferror-count?
I did choose to add one single check into gfc_warning_check, so we don't
immediately bail out if the error count did exceed the given limit. I
--- Comment #3 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-06 19:14 ---
Created an attachment (id=12552)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=12552&action=view)
Patch to fix PR and two further, hidden problems
The comments in the testcase tell the story. I need to think a
--- Comment #6 from pepster at users dot sourceforge dot net 2006-11-06
18:49 ---
4 years to agree there is an issue here. maybe we will have a fix in 2010.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29739
--- Comment #5 from jaco at kroon dot co dot za 2006-11-06 18:21 ---
I'm refering to the response to the bug, not the actual fix. I've had the
"priviledge" of filing bugs against other projects where I forgot about the bug
by the time somebody responded (two years down the line). I rec
--- Comment #4 from pepster at users dot sourceforge dot net 2006-11-06
17:45 ---
Quick response? you must be joking. I reported this in "Opened: 2002-05-09
14:46" against 2.95.3.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29739
--- Comment #8 from law at redhat dot com 2006-11-06 17:37 ---
Subject: Re: bootstrap comparision fails with
"-ftree-vectorize -maltivec" on ppc
On Mon, 2006-11-06 at 09:39 +, irar at il dot ibm dot com wrote:
>
> --- Comment #7 from irar at il dot ibm dot com 2006-11
--- Comment #7 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-06 17:33
---
> `make' performing all tests is not enough to test successfully. The
> test failures normally result in make error, ignored by `-k' or not.
The GCC testsuite is DejaGNU-based so it is to be invoked with make -k
--- Comment #6 from gin at mo dot msk dot ru 2006-11-06 17:24 ---
Subject: Re: check requires autogen
`make' performing all tests is not enough to test successfully. The
test failures normally result in make error, ignored by `-k' or not.
One looks for such error messages in `make' ou
--- Comment #16 from hjl at lucon dot org 2006-11-06 17:19 ---
I think we should add the testcase when the patch is reverted to prevent it
from happening again.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29680
--- Comment #12 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-06 17:18 ---
Subject: Bug 24398
Author: pault
Date: Mon Nov 6 17:18:03 2006
New Revision: 118522
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=118522
Log:
2006-11-06 Paul Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR fortra
--- Comment #4 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-06 17:18 ---
Subject: Bug 29407
Author: pault
Date: Mon Nov 6 17:18:03 2006
New Revision: 118522
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=118522
Log:
2006-11-06 Paul Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR fortran
--- Comment #5 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-06 17:18 ---
Subject: Bug 29364
Author: pault
Date: Mon Nov 6 17:18:03 2006
New Revision: 118522
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=118522
Log:
2006-11-06 Paul Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR fortran
--- Comment #6 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-06 17:18 ---
Subject: Bug 29115
Author: pault
Date: Mon Nov 6 17:18:03 2006
New Revision: 118522
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=118522
Log:
2006-11-06 Paul Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR fortran
--- Comment #11 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-06 17:18 ---
Subject: Bug 29373
Author: pault
Date: Mon Nov 6 17:18:03 2006
New Revision: 118522
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=118522
Log:
2006-11-06 Paul Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR fortra
--- Comment #7 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-06 17:18 ---
Subject: Bug 29098
Author: pault
Date: Mon Nov 6 17:18:03 2006
New Revision: 118522
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=118522
Log:
2006-11-06 Paul Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR fortran
--- Comment #4 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-06 17:18 ---
Subject: Bug 29232
Author: pault
Date: Mon Nov 6 17:18:03 2006
New Revision: 118522
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=118522
Log:
2006-11-06 Paul Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR fortran
--- Comment #4 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-06 17:18 ---
Subject: Bug 29211
Author: pault
Date: Mon Nov 6 17:18:03 2006
New Revision: 118522
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=118522
Log:
2006-11-06 Paul Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR fortran
--- Comment #7 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-06 17:18 ---
Subject: Bug 27701
Author: pault
Date: Mon Nov 6 17:18:03 2006
New Revision: 118522
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=118522
Log:
2006-11-06 Paul Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR fortran
--- Comment #3 from jaco at kroon dot co dot za 2006-11-06 16:46 ---
Awesome. That would be a good move. The implicit conversions are very handy
for catching certain types of bugs early one, however, the function prototype
thing is a pain.
Unfortunately I won't be able to assist with
--- Comment #2 from lopezibanez at gmail dot com 2006-11-06 16:30 ---
(a bit more explanation won't hurt)
The GCC documentation says:
-Wconversion: Warn if a prototype causes a type conversion that is different
from what would happen to the same argument in the absence of a prototype.
--- Comment #15 from dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-06 16:28
---
Subject: Re: [4.3 Regression] Misscompilation of spec2006 gcc
Zdenek, can you revert your patch until we fix this?
It might be a month or two before i get back to it.
(Yeah, i know it sucks to have to do this,
Zdenek, can you revert your patch until we fix this?
It might be a month or two before i get back to it.
(Yeah, i know it sucks to have to do this, but)
On 6 Nov 2006 15:12:30 -, hjl at lucon dot org
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
--- Comment #14 from hjl at lucon dot org 2006-11-06 15:
Bootstrap build fails.
Operating system:
uname -a
SunOS malta.info.bt.co.uk 5.10 Generic_118844-26 i86pc i386 i86pc
pwd
/export/space/applications/install-files/gcc-4.1.1/objdir
Sequence used:
a) Create a temporary object directory
b) ../configure --enable-shared
c) make bootstrap <- fails
--- Comment #17 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-06 15:17
---
pinskia: ping! (whole distro-rebuild with that patch ok for
{x86_64,i686,ppc,ppc64,ia64,s390,s390x}-linux)
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28545
--- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-06 15:15 ---
Actually, this is a dup of 28545.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 28545 ***
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #16 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-06 15:15
---
*** Bug 29740 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28545
--- Comment #14 from hjl at lucon dot org 2006-11-06 15:12 ---
I checked gcc 4.3. The same source code, which is miscompiled in gcc from
SPEC CPU 2006, is there. It is most likely that gcc 4.3 is also miscompiled
and now generating wrong unwind/debug info, if not wrong instructions.
--
--- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-06 14:58 ---
#1 0x008aad40 in find_or_generate_expression (block=0x2b50ce8c4c80,
expr=0x2b50ce8d9210, stmts=0x2b50ce8d9ab0)
at /space//rguenther/src/svn/gcc-4_1-branch/gcc/tree-ssa-pre.c:1468
1468 gcc_a
Compile with -O2.
double lap_discrete[3][3][3];
void create_laplacian (double **phi, unsigned long *nvox, unsigned *ext)
{
unsigned indx, indy, indz;
for (indz=0; indz<*ext; indz++)
for (indy=0; indy<*ext; indy++)
for (indx=0; indx<*ext; indx++)
--- Comment #10 from schwab at suse dot de 2006-11-06 13:55 ---
*** Bug 29739 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
schwab at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from schwab at suse dot de 2006-11-06 13:55 ---
The warning works as intended.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 6614 ***
--
schwab at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
Hi guys,
The following snippet of code should not produce a warning as far as I
understand:
int foo(short bar)
{
return bar;
}
int main()
{
short d = 0;
return foo(d);
}
Unfortunately, however, I get this when I try to compile this code:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ~/src $ gcc -Wconversion -o foo
--- Comment #8 from rguenther at suse dot de 2006-11-06 12:37 ---
Subject: Re: Missed constant propagation into
loops
On Mon, 6 Nov 2006, rakdver at atrey dot karlin dot mff dot cuni dot cz wrote:
>
>
> --- Comment #7 from rakdver at atrey dot karlin dot mff dot cuni dot cz
>
--- Comment #7 from rakdver at atrey dot karlin dot mff dot cuni dot cz
2006-11-06 12:33 ---
Subject: Re: Missed constant propagation into loops
> But obviously for real operands, foo () won't clobber them. I.e. the
> following
> also could be optimized but is not:
>
> void foo (in
--- Comment #28 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-06 12:25
---
> OK, thanks. I'll try harder to reproduce on x86/Linux.
This is getting annoying. I've built a first C++ compiler --with-as --with-ld
set to the new binutils, installed it, then built a second C++ compiler us
1 - 100 of 116 matches
Mail list logo
