--- Comment #14 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-19 06:18 ---
This seems to have been fixed sometime in the 4.3 release cycle; it works
properly with the current 4.3, 4.4 and 4.5 branches.
--
jason at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--
jason at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|enhancement |normal
Keywords||rejects-valid
--- Comment #2 from m dot a dot hulsen at tue dot nl 2009-11-19 06:08
---
Created an attachment (id=19043)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=19043&action=view)
simplified (removed pp in main)
Removed the pp in the main program, because ifort does not seem to like it.
--- Comment #1 from m dot a dot hulsen at tue dot nl 2009-11-19 05:52
---
Created an attachment (id=19042)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=19042&action=view)
source exposing the problem
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42104
The attached file gives:
1.9045084
1.9045084
Segmentation fault
Both ifort and g95 seems fine.
--
Summary: Segmentation fault with procedure pointer component
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
--- Comment #6 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-19 05:27
---
Subject: Bug 42090
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Thu Nov 19 05:27:15 2009
New Revision: 154317
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=154317
Log:
2009-11-18 Jerry DeLisle
PR libgfortran/4209
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-19 05:25 ---
Without a full testcase it is hard to see what is going on here.
Please attach the preprocessed source. Note using the may_alias attribute will
fix the aliasing issue.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
The following two declarations work under gcc 4.2.4, but are inconsistent under
gcc 4.4.1:
static inline void put_unaligned_uint64(void *p, uint64_t datum)
{
struct { uint64_t d; } __attribute__((packed)) *pp = p;
pp->d = datum;
}
static inline void put_unaligned_uint32(void *p, unsigned
--- Comment #5 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-19 04:50
---
Subject: Bug 42090
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Thu Nov 19 04:50:04 2009
New Revision: 154316
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=154316
Log:
2009-11-18 Jerry DeLisle
PR libgfortran/4209
--- Comment #1 from doko at ubuntu dot com 2009-11-19 04:11 ---
only seen when configuring with --with-mode=thumb, disabling scheduling for
thumb2 shows the same endless loop.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42093
--- Comment #4 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-19 03:49
---
Confirmed and have a patch.
--
jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from ysato at users dot sourceforge dot jp 2009-11-19 03:18
---
Created an attachment (id=19041)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=19041&action=view)
test program
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42102
rx-elf-gcc -O2 -S failed.c
failed.c: In function ¡Æwrite_cache_pages¡Ç:
failed.c:76:1: error: insn does not satisfy its constraints:
(insn 123 230 39 12 failed.c:68 (set:QI (mem/s/j:QI (plus:SI (reg:SI 11 r11)
(const_int 20 [0x14])) [0 S1 A32])
(ior:QI (mem/s/j:QI (plus:SI (
--- Comment #7 from andhow at gmail dot com 2009-11-19 02:41 ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> This is pretty basic C++, by the way.
Mmm hmm. SO basic that it warranted special clarification in 9.4.2-4:
"The member shall still be defined in a namespace scope if it is used in the
program
--- Comment #22 from howarth at nitro dot med dot uc dot edu 2009-11-19
02:27 ---
In case this helps, I have attached the assembly diffs from...
gcc-4 -O1 -m32 -g --save-temps complex-sign-add_red_1.c
for the 20090908 compiler (before the VTA merge) and for the 20091118 compiler
--- Comment #21 from howarth at nitro dot med dot uc dot edu 2009-11-19
02:25 ---
Created an attachment (id=19040)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=19040&action=view)
assembly diffs from 20090908 vs 20091118 compiler for testcase
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/b
--- Comment #6 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2009-11-19 02:16
---
It doesn't have any definition, it does have a *declaration*. This is pretty
basic C++, by the way. Just add out of class:
const size_t X::DEPENDENT_LENGTH_MASK;
...
...
and everything will be fine. The
--- Comment #5 from dvander at alliedmods dot net 2009-11-19 01:58 ---
I'll also note that the compiler seems to accept it, as I get a .o file. The
linking step botches.
--
dvander at alliedmods dot net changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from andhow at gmail dot com 2009-11-19 01:53 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> (In reply to comment #2)
> > You don't have a definition of the static const variable which you need for
> > this to be valid C++.
Heh, oops, hit 'Commit' accidentally.
This example does have a
--- Comment #3 from andhow at gmail dot com 2009-11-19 01:52 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> You don't have a definition of the static const variable which you need for
> this to be valid C++.
--
andhow at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-19 01:46 ---
You don't have a definition of the static const variable which you need for
this to be valid C++.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #1 from dvander at alliedmods dot net 2009-11-19 01:44 ---
Created an attachment (id=19039)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=19039&action=view)
reduced test case
This program doesn't link, though it should.
keima:src dvander$ g++ test.cpp -o test
test.cpp
When using private, static constants in a class declaration, and using these
constants in an inline function that returns a ternary expression , gcc
produces linker errors.
This seems to be a problem going back to at least 4.0, and I can reproduce it
against 4.4.1. I have not tried anything earlie
--- Comment #4 from riddikulus at verizon dot net 2009-11-19 01:22 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
>
> *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 39390 ***
>
Just FYI, the test code in bug #39390 does not generate any warnings with GCC
4.4.1, while the test code attached to this bug
--- Comment #16 from lwalkera at ieee dot org 2009-11-19 00:53 ---
The bug also occurs with 4.4.2 when building uClibc:
libm/nan.c:45: error: insn does not satisfy its constraints:
(insn 95 92 49 4 libm/nan.c:42 (set (reg/f:SI 13 sp)
(reg/f:SI 44 wcgr1 [141])) 441 {*iwmmxt_movsi
--- Comment #3 from law at redhat dot com 2009-11-19 00:05 ---
Created an attachment (id=19038)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=19038&action=view)
patch to improve register allocation
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41998
--- Comment #1 from schodet at efrei dot fr 2009-11-18 23:43 ---
Created an attachment (id=19037)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=19037&action=view)
Modified t-arm-elf
Lines have been commented out to enable a more flexible multilib.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzil
This is similar to #14895.
On arm-elf target, the compiler defaults to soft-float even when no option is
passed. Binutils defaults to hard-float (it sets the SOFTFLOAT only if the
soft-float option is given). When libgcc is built for soft-float, gas receives
no option from gcc and therefore does
--- Comment #6 from ludovic at ludovic-brenta dot org 2009-11-18 22:09
---
With a stock GCC 4.4.2 bootstrapped with the default options (-g -O2, I think)
on alpha the symptoms are the same. Here is a backtrace:
(gdb) run -vP2 -Pp
Starting program: /home/lbrenta/gcc-obj/gcc/gnatmake -v
--- Comment #9 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-18 22:00 ---
Er, actually this is
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/cwg_closed.html#247
which was resolved to say that the example is well-formed, so G++ should accept
it.
--
jason at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
--
jason at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|SUSPENDED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=950
--- Comment #15 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-18 21:55 ---
Actually, this is issue 203, so I'll suspend it instead of closing.
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/cwg_active.html#203
--
jason at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #2 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2009-11-18
21:51 ---
Subject: Re: lto.c:289:7: error: implicit declaration of function 'strtoll'
> Is strtoll defined in some other header in hppa64-hp-hpux11.11? If it isn't, I
> will start porting it to libiberty.
It's not
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-18 21:22 ---
This is a HWI issue as it works with --enable-target=all but fails without that
(--enable-targets=all changes HWI to be 64bits).
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Summary|Error in 64-bit division for|[4.5 Regre
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-18 20:59 ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> Actually there is a defect report against the C standard for this issue.
I take that back. Note it worked for some previous versions of GCC.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.c
--- Comment #9 from rguenther at suse dot de 2009-11-18 20:52 ---
Subject: Re: flag_gtoggle in free_lang_data hides -fcompare-debug
errors
On Wed, 18 Nov 2009, aoliva at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> --- Comment #8 from aoliva at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-18 20:05
> ---
>
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-18 20:51 ---
Actually there is a defect report against the C standard for this issue.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42099
I compiled this test case in a i686-pc-linux-gnu gcc configured with
--with-arch=pentium4:
long long foo(long long v) { return v / -0x08000LL; }
void main() { if (foo(0x08000LL) != -1) abort(); exit (0); }
The value of 0x8000LL / -0x8000LL is -1. However, gcc computes it as
0, an
--- Comment #1 from jepler at unpythonic dot net 2009-11-18 20:23 ---
Created an attachment (id=19036)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=19036&action=view)
test program to demonstrate the problem
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42098
Given the declaration: typedef volatile double D __attribute__((aligned(16)));
gcc and g++ give different alignments (and thus differing offsets and sizes)
for structures that contain D. Removal of the volatile qualifier changes the
alignment behavior.
$ g++ -m32 vs.c && ./a.out
$ gcc -m32 -Dvola
--- Comment #1 from espindola at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-18 20:21
---
Is strtoll defined in some other header in hppa64-hp-hpux11.11? If it isn't, I
will start porting it to libiberty.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42096
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-18 20:11 ---
C90/C99 does not have a reference type.
extern void Prop (double &, double &, double &, double &, double &, double &,
int) ;
is C++ code, compile it with the C++ front-end.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org c
Using built-in specs.
Target: i586-redhat-linux
Configured with: ../configure --prefix=/usr --mandir=/usr/share/man
--infodir=/usr/share/info --with-bugurl=http://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla
--enable-bootstrap --enable-shared --enable-threads=posix
--enable-checking=release --with-system-zlib --en
--- Comment #8 from aoliva at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-18 20:05 ---
We used to do such things, using pointers rather than UIDs even, and I fixed a
number of such issues to avoid codegen differences. But hey, if you could
prove that a DECL uid would never affect decisions taken by the
--- Comment #7 from rguenther at suse dot de 2009-11-18 19:50 ---
Subject: Re: flag_gtoggle in free_lang_data hides -fcompare-debug
errors
On Wed, 18 Nov 2009, aoliva at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> --- Comment #6 from aoliva at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-18 17:58
> ---
>
--- Comment #7 from alanpae at ilkda dot com 2009-11-18 19:39 ---
changing to --disable-threads also works.
alan
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41810
--- Comment #4 from redi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-18 18:47 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> you tell me when they plan to release a stable version of a C++1x compiler ?
After the C++1x standard is finished, which might be next year, or might not.
I don't know of any compiler that
--- Comment #3 from marc dot coiffier at free dot fr 2009-11-18 18:13
---
(In reply to comment #2)
> (In reply to comment #1)
> > I think C++0x (well renamed to C++1x) has something like this.
>
> Called template aliases:
> http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2007/n2258.
--- Comment #3 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-18 18:04
---
Yes, I will have a look tonight.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42090
--- Comment #6 from aoliva at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-18 17:58 ---
decl UIDs are used in various expression hashes. Enforcing strict ordering
among them without relying on UIDs would be an interesting problem, but if you
have a solution for that, go for it. Disabling the printing o
--- Comment #2 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2009-11-18 17:31 ---
It is caused by revision 154284:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2009-11/msg00505.html
--
hjl dot tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
/test/gnu/gcc/objdir/./prev-gcc/xgcc -B/test/gnu/gcc/objdir/./prev-gcc/
-B/opt/g
nu64/gcc/gcc-4.5.0/hppa64-hp-hpux11.11/bin/
-B/opt/gnu64/gcc/gcc-4.5.0/hppa64-hp
-hpux11.11/bin/ -B/opt/gnu64/gcc/gcc-4.5.0/hppa64-hp-hpux11.11/lib/ -isystem
/op
t/gnu64/gcc/gcc-4.5.0/hppa64-hp-hpux11.11/include -isyst
--- Comment #5 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-18 16:53 ---
Btw, when I remove the flag_gtoggle check from free-lang-data we should get
bootstrap-debug comparison fails, no?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42088
--- Comment #4 from rguenther at suse dot de 2009-11-18 16:51 ---
Subject: Re: flag_gtoggle in free_lang_data hides -fcompare-debug
errors
On Wed, 18 Nov 2009, aoliva at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> --- Comment #3 from aoliva at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-18 16:30
> ---
>
--- Comment #1 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2009-11-18 16:41 ---
I got
lto1: error: edge points to wrong declaration:^M
>^M
QI^M
size ^M
unit size ^M
align 8 symtab 0 alias set -1 canonical type 0x7f77d2ab9210 method
basetype ^M
arg-types
On Linux/ia32, revision 154285 gave:
FAIL: g++.dg/lto/20081118-1 cp_lto_20081118-1_0.o-cp_lto_20081118-1_1.o link
FAIL: g++.dg/lto/20081118-1 cp_lto_20081118-1_0.o-cp_lto_20081118-1_1.o link
FAIL: g++.dg/lto/20081118-1 cp_lto_20081118-1_0.o-cp_lto_20081118-1_1.o link
FAIL: g++.dg/lto/20081118-1 cp
--- Comment #1 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2009-11-18 16:37 ---
A patch is posted at
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-11/msg00936.html
--
hjl dot tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #3 from aoliva at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-18 16:31 ---
Fixed
--
aoliva at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #3 from aoliva at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-18 16:30 ---
Different UIDs affect hash table walks, which in turn may affect codegen.
We've had several -g/-g0 codegen differences ultimately caused by decl UID
differences, and they were detected and fixed long before -fcompare
--- Comment #5 from espindola at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-18 16:18
---
(In reply to comment #4)
> Hm, the assert doesn't trigger if I add a tem != field check. In fact I do
> not
> understand the assert you added at all ;)
I completely misunderstood the assert you asked for. The t
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-18 16:06 ---
floor is considered a builtin by default, use either -fno-builtins or
-fno-builtin-floor to disable this behavior.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Adde
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-18 16:05 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> where can i get this libraries? (or how i can compile them with this option ?
> )
>
You recompile all of the distro yourself.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42092
--- Comment #7 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2009-11-18 16:04 ---
Fixed.
--
hjl dot tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
--- Comment #6 from hjl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-18 16:02 ---
Subject: Bug 41913
Author: hjl
Date: Wed Nov 18 16:02:17 2009
New Revision: 154296
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=154296
Log:
2009-11-18 H.J. Lu
PR testsuite/41913
* lib/lto.e
--- Comment #14 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-18 15:51 ---
Created an attachment (id=19035)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=19035&action=view)
patch
If this were a bug, this would be the fix.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=950
Consider the following code:
#include
double floor(double d) {
return 5;
}
int main() {
printf("Floor: %f", floor(3.4) );
}
Note I'm not importing math.h so floor(3.4) should return 5, but the output
from this function is:
lyo...@soba-testing-) floor2
Floor: 3.00
So it replaces i
--- Comment #2 from prodotahunter at gmail dot com 2009-11-18 15:30 ---
where can i get this libraries? (or how i can compile them with this option ? )
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42092
trunk 20091117 configured with
--with-arch=armv7-a --with-mode=thumb --with-float=softfp --with-fpu=vfp
hangs in the stage2 run of build/gengtype with 100% cpu time
attaching to the running process:
(gdb) bt
#0 0x00029fb4 in ?? ()
#1 0xa4a8 in walk_type ()
#2 0xa4a8 in walk_type ()
Back
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-18 15:28 ---
-fshort-wchar changes the ABI which means you need libraries that are compiled
with that option too.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
i use -fshort-wchar option for ggc to make wchar_t 16bit
but when i use wcslen - it returns incorrect values
i think problem in libraries, because they are same(like for 32bit wchar_t with
-fshort-wchar)
--
Summary: wcslen returns bad length when use -fshort-wchar
Product:
--- Comment #7 from matz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-18 15:04 ---
I'm not terribly thrilled by having to clutter the code with 20 lines of code
which should have been maybe two :-/ Even less so as nothing can make use
of the info. Let's drop it for now with a comment.
--
http:/
--- Comment #6 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-18 14:03 ---
Created an attachment (id=19034)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=19034&action=view)
gcc45-pr42078.patch
Untested patch. Though, maybe it is an overkill, because at least DWARF3 nor
current DWARF4
--- Comment #16 from howarth at nitro dot med dot uc dot edu 2009-11-18
14:02 ---
The dSYM issues looks like part of PR41473. I'll revert to debugging in gcc
4.4.2 for now which shouldn't have the issue.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41991
--- Comment #6 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-18 13:25 ---
Subject: Bug 42072
Author: janus
Date: Wed Nov 18 13:24:54 2009
New Revision: 154292
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=154292
Log:
2009-11-18 Janus Weil
PR fortran/42072
* tran
--- Comment #9 from mexas at bristol dot ac dot uk 2009-11-18 12:50 ---
and the same for gcc45:
[skip]
unwind-ia64_s.o(.text+0x30b2): In function `uw_frame_state_for':
../.././../gcc-4.5-20091112/libgcc/../gcc/config/ia64/unwind-ia64.c:1788:
undefined reference to `_Unwind_FindTableEnt
I use Scratchbox on an Ubuntu 8.04 OS with ARM target. The gcc version used in
the scratchbox is 4.2.1.
I modified the gcc.specs file, I add -imacros option to cpp.
Compilation don't even sart, I have a fatal error.
If I add to cpp the compilation switches -DTOTO1 -DTOTO2 instead -imacros, the
c
--- Comment #8 from mexas at bristol dot ac dot uk 2009-11-18 12:30 ---
this seems to help to pass that error, now I'm stopped with this:
[skip]
# @multilib_dir@ is not really necessary, but sometimes it has
# more uses than just a directory name.
/bin/sh ../.././../gcc-4.4-20091110/li
--
enrico dot scholz at informatik dot tu-chemnitz dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |blocker
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug
--- Comment #3 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2009-11-18 11:37
---
Fixed for 4.5.0.
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from paolo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-18 11:36 ---
Subject: Bug 40892
Author: paolo
Date: Wed Nov 18 11:36:00 2009
New Revision: 154288
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=154288
Log:
/cp
2009-11-18 Shujing Zhao
PR c++/40892
* er
--- Comment #6 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE 2009-11-18
11:17 ---
Subject: Re: Cannot build gcc: gthr-default.h:466: error: '__mutex' was not
declared in this scope
> --- Comment #5 from YLitvinenko at astana dot oilfield dot slb dot com
> 2009-11-18 07:03 ---
--- Comment #2 from vaillant dot etienne at gmail dot com 2009-11-18 11:17
---
(In reply to comment #1)
> You are likely running into excess precision issues of i?86. Try using
> -mpc64 or -mfpmath=sse.
>
I try :
$ gcc-4.4 -msse2 y.c -o y-4.4
$ ./y-4.4
ration=0.21 ratio*1000=
--- Comment #3 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2009-11-18 11:11
---
Fixed for 4.5.0.
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from paolo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-18 11:10 ---
Subject: Bug 22201
Author: paolo
Date: Wed Nov 18 11:09:50 2009
New Revision: 154287
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=154287
Log:
2009-11-18 Shujing Zhao
PR middle-end/22201
*
--- Comment #2 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-18 11:03 ---
It's a regression with regards to 4.1.2. Jerry can you have a look?
--
burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #1 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-18 10:57 ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 42090 ***
--
burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-18 10:57 ---
*** Bug 42089 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42090
--- Comment #4 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-18 10:55 ---
Hm, the assert doesn't trigger if I add a tem != field check. In fact I do not
understand the assert you added at all ;) We do find the correct field, if
that ends up still being the wrong one then DECL_CONTEXT is
--- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-18 10:32 ---
Oh, the UIDs appear in the dumps you compare. That's a bug in your comparer,
we never said different UIDs are not ok, only codegen differences are not
(and yes, UID _ordering_ differences have a great chance of caus
--- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-18 10:28 ---
Hmpf, no testcases ...
./xgcc -B. -c tree.i -O -g -fcompare-debug=-g0
has a compare-debug failure (-O0 does not). Fixed by
Index: gcc/tree.c
===
---
--- Comment #3 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-18 09:57 ---
Confirmed. Only fails with -m32 on x86_64. It is VRP that triggers the
miscompile, thus -O1 -ftree-vrp -fno-delete-null-pointer-checks is enough.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|
--- Comment #35 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-18 09:54 ---
Subject: Bug 3187
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Nov 18 09:53:52 2009
New Revision: 154284
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=154284
Log:
PR c++/3187
* cgraph.h (struct cgraph_node): Add
Consider the following:
Wot now ? cat da.f90
Program da
Implicit None
Real :: a, b
a = 1.1
b = 2.2
Open( 10, File = 't.dat', Form = 'Formatted', Access = 'Direct', Recl = 12 )
Write( 10, rec = 1, fmt = '( f6.4, /, f6.4 )' ) a, b
Close( 10 )
a = -1.0
b = -1.0
--
Summary: Problems when readinf partial records on direct access
files
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
AssignedTo: unassigned
95 matches
Mail list logo
