--- Comment #4 from hjl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-10-11 02:52 ---
Subject: Bug 37002
Author: hjl
Date: Fri Oct 10 23:28:05 2008
New Revision: 141049
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=141049
Log:
2008-10-10 H.J. Lu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR debug/37002
--- Comment #4 from vmakarov at redhat dot com 2008-10-10 20:16 ---
I am sorry that I was silent. I am working on this. Please don't worry,
Andreas. Simply I have a lot of IRA bugs. I hope the problem will be solved on
next week.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=376
--- Comment #12 from grosser at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-10-10 19:40
---
(In reply to comment #9)
> Subject: Re: [graphite] Disconnecting exit edge in process of code generation
>
> > Commit 140746 should have fixed Bug 3. Can you confirm this?
>
> This is a side effect of your patch
--- Comment #17 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-10-10 19:01 ---
Fixed.
--
jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #2 from andreast at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-10-10 18:17
---
Bootstrap ok, results here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2008-10/msg00704.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35760
--- Comment #16 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-10-10 18:23 ---
Subject: Bug 37146
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Oct 10 18:22:17 2008
New Revision: 141045
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=141045
Log:
PR c++/37146
* cp-gimplify.c (cp_genericize_r):
>From https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=449493
Compiling the following testcase with -O -g -dA, I see that where the functions
are inlined into main they properly use DW_TAG_inlined_function, but where they
are inlined into the abstract intermediate functions they show up as
DW_TAG_lexic
--- Comment #4 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2008-10-10 17:17
---
By the way, those two cases, *both* lead to undefined behavior. I would
recommend you using -Wsequence-point more frequently.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37800
--- Comment #3 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2008-10-10 17:06
---
(In reply to comment #2)
> isn't it?
What you or I believe doesn't matter here, the specifications in the C / C++
Standard do. If you want to write portable code simply you can't rely on that
order. If you wan
--- Comment #2 from terrix at wp dot pl 2008-10-10 16:57 ---
i'm not really sure why there maight be a difference in incrementation behavior
between:
foo(++p, p);
and
foo(++p, p - 1);
looking at the code it is obvious that '++p' is a first operation and the 'p'
or in
--- Comment #3 from krebbel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-10-10 16:56 ---
Vladimir could you please have a look. Mainline is still not bootstrapping on
S/390 due to this problem.
--
krebbel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #82 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2008-10-10 16:33
---
*** Bug 37800 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #1 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2008-10-10 16:33
---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 11751 ***
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
compiled with no any special arguments: g++-4.2 test.cpp
operating system: Linux/Debian 4 (lenny)
problem:
foo(++i, i-1);
i've read non-bugs, but there was no exacly about my situation.
example code:
#include
void func(int* a, int* b) {
printf("%d %d\n", *a, *b);
}
int main() {
Current mainline as of 20081002 fails to bootstrap on sparcv9-sun-solaris2.11:
/vol/gccsrc/obj/gcc-4.4.0-20081002/11-gcc-v9/./prev-gcc/xgcc
-B/vol/gccsrc/obj/gcc-4.4.0-20081002/11-gcc-v9/./prev-gcc/
-B/vol/gcc/sparcv9-sun-solaris2.11/bin/ -c -g -O2 -gnatpg -gnata -nostdinc -I-
-I. -Iada -I/vol/gc
--- Comment #25 from lothar at tradescape dot biz 2008-10-10 15:58 ---
I was running the code on my Lenovo T61 Laptop:
$ cat /proc/cpuinfo
processor : 0
vendor_id : GenuineIntel
cpu family : 6
model : 15
model name : Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo CPU T7700
The following program crashes after an unaligned memory access.
--
extern "C" int printf(const char*,...);
struct Base
{
double a;
int b;
Base() { a = 0; }
};
struct Left: public virtual Base { };
class Right : public virtual Base
{
pub
--- Comment #3 from spop at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-10-10 15:28 ---
Fixed.
http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?view=rev&revision=141042
--
spop at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #3 from ro at techfak dot uni-bielefeld dot de 2008-10-10
15:11 ---
Subject: Ada testsuites lack multilib support
While testing the fix for PR ada/37681, I tried to test both multilibs
(default and amd64) on i386-pc-solaris2.10, and found that I had to make
the following c
--- Comment #1 from ro at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-10-10 14:45 ---
*** Bug 37797 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37703
--- Comment #1 from ro at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-10-10 14:45 ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 37703 ***
--
ro at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
As I found while testing a patch for PR ada/37681, all parts of the Ada
testsuite
lack proper multilib support:
* ada/acats isn't multilib-aware at all (i.e. runs only for the default
multilib), and
* gnat.dg at least runs the tests for all multilibs, but fails to pass the
proper
--RTS switc
--- Comment #29 from ro at techfak dot uni-bielefeld dot de 2008-10-10
14:41 ---
Subject: Re: [4.3/4.4 regression] on bootstrap getting section .eh_frame: bad
cie version 0: offset 0x0
I've just formally submitted my patch
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2008-10/msg00441.ht
--- Comment #2 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-10-10 13:18 ---
I can, note the : before function body. That said, P4 as it is only an
error-recovery bug.
--
jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #2 from J dot Hogg at rl dot ac dot uk 2008-10-10 11:38 ---
I agree code is invalid Fortran and should be rejected [though it can be made
valid quite easily by supplying the missing type].
Works fine on both 4.3 and 4.3.1 on this machine.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
--- Comment #1 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-10-10 11:26 ---
I might have done something wrong, but the program below fails here with a
memory-access error not only with 4.4 but also with 4.3. Additionally, the
program is rejected with 4.1 and 4.2 - and with NAG f95, ifort and
When compiling h.ads, the global variable Global and function Subroutine should
be eliminated. They are not, because they have TREE_PUBLIC set (corresponds to
Is_Public in the Ada f-e) even though they are internal to the body of the
generic package G. This seems to be because G is instantiated in
--- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-10-10 10:07 ---
Mine.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned
int foo (int i, int j)
{
if (i >= j)
if (i != j)
return 0;
return -1;
}
should be optimized to
if (i > j)
return 0;
return -1;
--
Summary: if-combine doesn't optimize != after >= test
Product: gcc
Version: 4.4.0
Status: UNCONFI
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37658
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||3.3.6
Priority|P3 |P4
http://gcc
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||4.3.0
Known to work||4.2.4
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||4.2.0
Known to work||4.1.2
If we overload symbols from modules with specific names I can cause an ICE.
Works fine with earlier versions of gfortran and an old build of gcc-4.4.0.
This error occurs with a build of svn version number 141030
gfortran-4.4 -c -o hsl_of01d.o hsl_of01d.f90
gfortran-4.4 -c -o hsl_of01i.o hsl_of
--- Comment #3 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-10-10 08:37 ---
Have you ever pinged that patch?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37002
--- Comment #10 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-10-10 08:25 ---
Let's close this...
--
jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status
--- Comment #15 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-10-10 08:13 ---
Testing a patch.
--
jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|un
--- Comment #10 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-10-10 07:49
---
I will have a look.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assig
--- Comment #1 from dodji at seketeli dot org 2008-10-10 07:40 ---
Subject: Re: New: [4.4 regression] ICE with __FUNCTION__
reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org a écrit :
[...]
I can't reproduce this on trunk's revision 140900
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37789
Currently, "non_array(i) = array" is read as statement function at an invalid
place. A more likely error is that non_array was supposed to be an array.
Found at:
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.fortran/browse_thread/thread/bcff74be5cc12be8
Current error message:
Error: Unexpected STATEM
--- Comment #8 from cnstar9988 at gmail dot com 2008-10-10 07:28 ---
Target Milestone 4.3.3?
But this patch didn't committed to 4.3 branch.
why closed?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36690
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot
|
42 matches
Mail list logo
