[Bug middle-end/31150] [4.2/4.3/4.4 Regression] Not promoting an whole array to be static const

--- Comment #9 from eres at il dot ibm dot com 2008-07-06 05:29 --- Following http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2008-07/msg00104.html I would like to ask to be unassign from this bug. Thanks -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31150

[Bug target/36736] gfortran unrecognizable insn

--- Comment #5 from masaki dot chikama at gmail dot com 2008-07-06 03:32 --- >Looks similar to ... Thank you. I'll try. I'll report in a few weeks because it takes 10 days to compile gcc package natively. >Is there a reason why you did not report this to redhat? Because RedHat doesn't

[Bug preprocessor/36453] PR36320 breaks boost

--- Comment #3 from tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-07-06 03:25 --- Sorry, I somehow missed the followup comment. >> #elif defined(BOOST_PP_ITERATION_DEPTH) && BOOST_PP_ITERATION_DEPTH() == 1 The expression has to be valid after preprocessing. So, if BOOST_PP_ITERATION_DEPTH is not

[Bug debug/36728] [stack]: gdb doesn't work with stack alignment

--- Comment #12 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2008-07-06 01:21 --- Fixed. -- hjl dot tools at gmail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFI

[Bug debug/36728] [stack]: gdb doesn't work with stack alignment

--- Comment #11 from hjl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-07-06 01:19 --- Subject: Bug 36728 Author: hjl Date: Sun Jul 6 01:18:49 2008 New Revision: 137517 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=137517 Log: 2008-07-05 H.J. Lu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Xuepeng Guo <[

[Bug libgomp/36442] libgomp/libssp/libmudflap builds fail when using --with-build-sysroot

--- Comment #1 from ulfs at dof dot se 2008-07-06 00:26 --- I see indications in gcc-4.2.2 compiled by the buildroot system at buildroot.uclibc.org. Files are compiled with "--sysroot=$(STAGING_DIR)" where STAGING_DIR=/home/ulf/projects/Buildroot/20080704/buildroot-ngw100-expanded/build_

[Bug c++/36740] [c++0x] Compiler accepts invalid syntax in variadic template specialization

--- Comment #1 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2008-07-05 23:08 --- CCing... thanks. -- paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed: What|Removed |Added

[Bug c++/36740] New: Compiler accepts invalid syntax in variadic template specialization

Compiler is g++.exe (GCC) 4.3.0 20080305 (alpha-testing) mingw-20080502 This invalid snippet compiles without errors, with the specialization being silently ignored: = template struct X {}; template struct X // invalid! should be Args... {}; = -- Summary: Compile

[Bug target/36736] gfortran unrecognizable insn

--- Comment #4 from kkojima at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-07-05 22:28 --- Looks similar to http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2008-02/msg01457.html which was fixed on mainline. -- kkojima at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added -

[Bug target/36684] [4.3/4.4 Regression] spill failure for class 'R0_REGS' on sh4 with -fPIC -O2

--- Comment #8 from kkojima at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-07-05 21:43 --- Fixed. -- kkojima at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW

[Bug target/36684] [4.3/4.4 Regression] spill failure for class 'R0_REGS' on sh4 with -fPIC -O2

--- Comment #7 from kkojima at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-07-05 21:40 --- Subject: Bug 36684 Author: kkojima Date: Sat Jul 5 21:39:36 2008 New Revision: 137511 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=137511 Log: Backport from mainline: PR target/36684

[Bug target/36736] gfortran unrecognizable insn

--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-07-05 21:20 --- >See for instructions. Is there a reason why you did not report this to redhat? -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36736

[Bug middle-end/36735] incomplete tree dump with "-fdump-tree-original-raw"

--- Comment #5 from grabner at icg dot tugraz dot at 2008-07-05 20:40 --- Ok, I inserted my best guess for host-target-build (since this particular problem is not related to code generation, it shouldn't be too important here anyway). A few proposals how to make it easier for first-time

[Bug web/36739] Proposal for clarifications in GCC Bugzilla

--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-07-05 20:23 --- Almost all of this is got from the front page of GCC since there is a how to report a bug page: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs.html which you should be reading before even trying to enter a bug report. Also the triplet fie

[Bug web/36739] New: Proposal for clarifications in GCC Bugzilla

*) Please make a link to http://gcc.gnu.org/install/specific.html in http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/enter_bug.cgi since Google doesn't take you there when searching for "host triplet" etc. *) Add brief instructions how to obtain the host-target-build triplet (run a command, examine the config log, exa

[Bug middle-end/36735] incomplete tree dump with "-fdump-tree-original-raw"

--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-07-05 19:22 --- Really these options are only to be used to debug GCC and not really supposed to be used to outside of that. > What's that? If this value is important to you, please document It is documented via autoconf and reall

[Bug c/36737] Wrong results from floating-point multiplication by 10

--- Comment #7 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-07-05 19:08 --- You should also read http://www.validlab.com/goldberg/paper.pdf . >Well it certainly gives wrong results. In this case, the number is not directly representable in float. You will be able to get better precision w

[Bug target/36570] segmentation fault

--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-07-05 19:06 --- You need to provide the preprocessed source as directed by the instructions: >with preprocessed source if appropriate. :). -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36570

[Bug target/36570] segmentation fault

-- pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|critical|normal http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36570

[Bug target/36570] segmentation fault

-- info at milde dot cz changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |critical http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36570

[Bug fortran/36736] gfortran unrecognizable insn

--- Comment #2 from masaki dot chikama at gmail dot com 2008-07-05 12:15 --- With "-E" option, it does nothing. The command exits immediately and produces nothing. Will I attach strace result ?. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36736

[Bug fortran/36736] gfortran unrecognizable insn

--- Comment #1 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-07-05 11:51 --- If you compile the file with the -E option, you get on stdout the preprocessed file. Can you try to reduce that file to a minimal example and attach the file? -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36736

[Bug bootstrap/36738] [4.4 Regression] Yet another bootstrap failure at rev. 137502 on darwin9

--- Comment #1 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2008-07-05 10:22 --- Could revision 137480 be reverted? -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36738

[Bug c/36737] Wrong results from floating-point multiplication by 10

--- Comment #6 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2008-07-05 10:16 --- (In reply to comment #5) > Well it certainly gives wrong results. No! Read comment #3 and learn the primers about floating point numbers. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36737

[Bug c/36737] Wrong results from floating-point multiplication by 10

--- Comment #5 from aremo at ngi dot it 2008-07-05 10:06 --- (In reply to comment #4) Well it certainly gives wrong results. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36737

[Bug c/36737] Wrong results from floating-point multiplication by 10

--- Comment #4 from schwab at suse dot de 2008-07-05 09:54 --- Not a bug. -- schwab at suse dot de changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug bootstrap/36738] New: [4.4 Regression] Yet another bootstrap failure at rev. 137502 on darwin9

At revision 137502 bootstrap fails on darwin9 with: ... gcc -g -fkeep-inline-functions -DIN_GCC -W -Wall -Wwrite-strings -Wstrict-prototypes -Wmissing-prototypes -Wcast-qual -Wold-style-definition -Wmissing-format-attribute -fno-common -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I. -I../../gcc-4.4-work/gcc -I../../g

[Bug c/36737] Wrong results from floating-point multiplication by 10

--- Comment #3 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2008-07-05 09:48 --- Why do you think the results are incorrect? Did you hear aboud round-off errors? 0.2008 cannot be represented exactly in float (nor in double) and you cannot expect to have more that six significant digits. If you wan

[Bug inline-asm/23200] [4.2/4.3/4.4 Regression] rejects "i"(&var + 1)

--- Comment #38 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-07-05 09:40 --- Removing 4.1 marker and restoring milestone in that case. -- jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added --

[Bug c/36735] incomplete tree dump with "-fdump-tree-original-raw"

--- Comment #3 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2008-07-05 09:40 --- Subject: Re: incomplete tree dump with "-fdump-tree-original-raw" On Sat, 5 Jul 2008, grabner at icg dot tugraz dot at wrote: > Created an attachment (id=15858) --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=

[Bug other/36468] [LTO] ICE in force_decl_die, at dwarf2out.c:13976

-- aldot at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |4.4.0 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36468

[Bug c/36737] Wrong results from floating-point multiplication by 10

--- Comment #2 from aremo at ngi dot it 2008-07-05 09:14 --- Created an attachment (id=15861) --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=15861&action=view) The preprocessed source -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36737

[Bug c/36737] Wrong results from floating-point multiplication by 10

--- Comment #1 from aremo at ngi dot it 2008-07-05 09:12 --- Created an attachment (id=15860) --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=15860&action=view) The program's source code -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36737

[Bug c/36737] New: Wrong results from floating-point multiplication by 10

A C program, compiled without optimization, which does repeated multiplications by 10 on a float number (0.2008) outputs incorrect results. I know about the "most often reported non-bug", but since the K&R specifies that FLT_DIG (decimal digits of precision) must be at least 6, I still consider th

[Bug target/36635] [4.4 Regression] cc1 segfault from svn 137122

--- Comment #2 from cltang at pllab dot cs dot nthu dot edu dot tw 2008-07-05 07:57 --- Created an attachment (id=15859) --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=15859&action=view) Patch for cse.c I have looked at the debug dumps for the testcase. This seems like a very rare

[Bug fortran/36736] New: gfortran unrecognizable insn

gcc-4.3.0's gfortran fail to compile cernlib-2006 with this message. gcc-4.1.3's one can compile without failure. gfortran -g -c -O2 -g -mieee -fno-range-check -fno-automatic -fno-second-underscore -I/builddir/build/BUILD/cernlib-2006/2006/build/geant321 -I/builddir/build/BUILD/cernlib-2006/200