--- Comment #1 from foom at fuhm dot net 2010-01-19 06:15 ---
Error also occurs with:
g++ -O1 -fipa-sra -g -std=c++0x -c test.cpp
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42797
--- Comment #6 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-19 06:04 ---
Ah, I was being stupid; now I see what test case 2 actually is. duuh, I did
not think to go to comment #10!
My patch that was just posted does indeed fix this, so I'll take it on.
Thanks for the report.
Paul
--
On Linux x86_64
g++ --version:
g++ (Debian 20100117-1) 4.5.0 20100117 (experimental) [trunk revision 155979]
Compiling with:
g++ -O2 -g -std=c++0x -c test.cpp
The following program:
#include
#include
struct Foo {
Foo() {}
template
Foo(Tp *p) {}
};
void foo() {
std::map > the_
--- Comment #1 from espindola at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-19 04:45
---
The problem is coming from
DECL_FUNCTION_PERSONALITY (expr) = lto_input_tree (ib, data_in);
This reads in __gxx_personality_v0 as an external function and we try to add it
to the symbol table. If using the link
libstdc++-v3/config.log is:
configure: In function 'void foo()':
configure:14896:1: error: in basic block 2:
configure:14896:1: error: flow control insn inside a basic block
(jump_insn 36 35 37 2 (parallel [
(set (pc)
(if_then_else (ne:HI (reg:HI 2 r2)
--- Comment #5 from jrt at worldlinc dot net 2010-01-19 03:15 ---
Ahhh, i see. It appears that i is not assigned at the start of the loop. I
assigned it just before the loop, so the loop starts at the correct value. I
tried doing the assignment with an otherwise useless variable, don't r
--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-19 03:01 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> So setting a variable as the coder desires is no effect? Some would disagree.
>
> A statement that really would not have an effect would be:
>
> if (theworldis > notenough);
No that is
--- Comment #3 from jrt at worldlinc dot net 2010-01-19 02:58 ---
So setting a variable as the coder desires is no effect? Some would disagree.
A statement that really would not have an effect would be:
if (theworldis > notenough);
The comparison indicated here perhaps is performed, b
--- Comment #6 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-19 02:45 ---
>They are inconsistent, right?
No because i386-driver.c is only supposed to be compiled with a x86 or x86_64
compiler. Really the file could have
#if !defined(__i386__) && !defined(__x86_64__)
#error "This should o
--- Comment #5 from monaka at monami-software dot com 2010-01-19 02:42
---
(In reply to comment #3)
> driver-i386.c should not be included if you are compiling for a PPC host/build
> really. So it is a problem of you misconfiguring GCC really and nothing else.
I see what you want to s
--- Comment #23 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-19 02:37
---
Janus, reassigning to myself. I think I see a problem in the error checking
logic and I have a tentative patch that has regression tested fine. I want to
think a bit about whether I an fixing this correctly.
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-19 02:14 ---
>gnuchess.c:1021: warning: statement with no effect
This warning is correct as:
i;
has no effect.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #1 from jrt at worldlinc dot net 2010-01-19 01:22 ---
I used inaccurate phrasing. I should have said that
The compiler flags used in compiling THE FOLLOWING were -O3 -funroll-loops.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42795
I apologize for not knowing much about GCC bug filing, like the triplet info
requested above. I am using a GCC 4.3.4 with the following configuration:
Using built-in specs.
Target: i686-pc-linux-gnu
Configured with: ../gcc-4.3.4/./configure --prefix=/usr
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.3.4 (GCC)
--- Comment #2 from danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-19 01:01 ---
Still present in revision 155956.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42169
--- Comment #22 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-19 00:25
---
Obviously we do not have the original test case added to the testsuite so we
can catch these things. I added gfcbug96d.f90 to the testsuite, thinking it
was the same issue as gfcbug96.f90. Lets just reopen this
--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-19 00:13 ---
More to the point, use lipo to combine the gcc drivers after the fact to get a
dual arch executable.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42785
--- Comment #5 from monaka at monami-software dot com 2010-01-19 00:11
---
There are no GTY tags in t-h8300.h and t-m32r.h. Is this an indirect cause?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42787
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-19 00:10 ---
driver-i386.c should not be included if you are compiling for a PPC host/build
really. So it is a problem of you misconfiguring GCC really and nothing else.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
--- Comment #3 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-01-18 23:57
---
But really, test up to date 4.4 branch or mainline. Thanks.
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #2 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-01-18 23:57
---
I'm sorry, maybe you didn't mean the compiler loops, you mean the code is
miscompiled to an infinite loop?!?
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #1 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-01-18 23:52
---
Works fine for me with current mainline and 4_4-branch. Please, fetch the
current sources and try again, if you can still see something wrong re-open, or
file a different issue if the problem is different.
--
The following (reduced) code:
typedef enum {
TYPE_NON_IDR,
TYPE_IDR,
} NAL_UNIT_TYPE;
typedef struct recordTag
{
} Record;
typedef struct {
unsigned int ActualSize;
unsigned short *Slice;
}Info;
typedef struct {
} Params;
typedef struct {
NAL_UNIT_TYPE unit_type;
} NAL_UNIT;
u
--- Comment #2 from monaka at monami-software dot com 2010-01-18 23:29
---
(In reply to comment #1)
> If you use -arch ppc, then the host/build is really powerpc-apple-darwin so
> obviously you are configuring GCC incorrectly and the error message is correct
> as that is x86 inline-asm
--- Comment #4 from monaka at monami-software dot com 2010-01-18 23:21
---
(In reply to comment #3)
> It rather seems you do not have proper target headers.
What's "proper target headers"?
If it's t-m32r.h, I have it.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42787
--- Comment #13 from dodji at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-18 23:14 ---
Subject: Bug 42634
Author: dodji
Date: Mon Jan 18 23:14:01 2010
New Revision: 156026
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=156026
Log:
Revert fix of PR c++/
gcc/cp/ChangeLog:
* error.c (dump
--- Comment #24 from gcc at coreland dot ath dot cx 2010-01-18 22:53
---
Created an attachment (id=19653)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=19653&action=view)
A smaller repro for the "_master conflicts with declaration" error
$ gnatmake arc_dir_003.adb
gcc -c arc_dir_
--- Comment #23 from gcc at coreland dot ath dot cx 2010-01-18 22:51
---
Created an attachment (id=19652)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=19652&action=view)
Another repro
A smaller, simpler piece of code that triggers this:
$ gnatmake p.adb
p.adb:8:70: wrong type f
--- Comment #3 from gcc at coreland dot ath dot cx 2010-01-18 22:46 ---
Created an attachment (id=19651)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=19651&action=view)
Another repro
This appears to be the same bug but giving a slightly more interesting
crash message:
$ gnatchop
--- Comment #7 from chris2553 at googlemail dot com 2010-01-18 22:24
---
I can confirm that the patch at comment 4 has fixed the ICE.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42773
--- Comment #21 from anlauf at gmx dot de 2010-01-18 22:18 ---
(In reply to comment #19)
> > Regressions on fortran-dev branch fixed.
>
> Due to the patch in
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2009-12/msg00232.html
Jerry,
is this patch supposed to be complete for fortran-dev?
I still
--- Comment #1 from monaka at monami-software dot com 2010-01-18 22:07
---
Created an attachment (id=19650)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=19650&action=view)
Preprocessed source.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42790
--- Comment #14 from ubizjak at gmail dot com 2010-01-18 21:48 ---
Fixed.
--
ubizjak at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #13 from uros at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-18 21:44 ---
Subject: Bug 42774
Author: uros
Date: Mon Jan 18 21:44:32 2010
New Revision: 156024
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=156024
Log:
PR target/42774
* config/alpha/predicates.md (alig
--- Comment #12 from dodji at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-18 21:19 ---
Subject: Bug 42634
Author: dodji
Date: Mon Jan 18 21:18:49 2010
New Revision: 156022
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=156022
Log:
Fix PR c++/42634
gcc/cp/ChangeLog:
PR c++/42634
* error
--- Comment #26 from simon at pushface dot org 2010-01-18 20:54 ---
(In reply to comment #22)
> No longer bootstrap issue, but still ICE on valid.
The problem is that the ICE-on-valid occurs while building the Ada RTS, and
that is a bootstrap issue for Ada (what I mean is, a build confi
--- Comment #25 from simon at pushface dot org 2010-01-18 20:41 ---
OK on i86_64-apple-darwin10.2, powerpc-wrs-vxworks (hosted on
i366-apple-darwin10.2).
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42068
--- Comment #5 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-18 19:55 ---
Index: gcc/fortran/trans-decl.c
===
*** gcc/fortran/trans-decl.c(revision 155875)
--- gcc/fortran/trans-decl.c(working copy)
*** gfc_g
--- Comment #6 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-18 19:19 ---
Same issue: web renaming a single-USE "web".
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 42685 ***
--
steven at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #6 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-18 19:19 ---
*** Bug 42642 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42685
--- Comment #9 from dodji at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-18 19:17 ---
Fixed in 4.5
--
dodji at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNE
--- Comment #5 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-18 19:16 ---
Register number differences appear - again - because a USE operand of a
DEBUG_INSN ends up in a web of its own:
--- R1web/pr42685-2.c.167r.web 2010-01-18 11:11:38.0 -0800
+++ R2web/pr42685-2.c.167r.web 2010
--- Comment #8 from dodji at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-18 19:11 ---
Subject: Bug 42766
Author: dodji
Date: Mon Jan 18 19:11:24 2010
New Revision: 156020
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=156020
Log:
Fix PR c++/42766
gcc/cp/ChangeLog:
PR c++/42766
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-18 18:48 ---
This is a bug in boost and not GCC. Not all targets define the __sync_*
functions. There is a define for each one saying which one is available.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|R
--- Comment #15 from d dot g dot gorbachev at gmail dot com 2010-01-18
18:48 ---
Created an attachment (id=19649)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=19649&action=view)
Simple patch
It leaves -plugin-opt in LINK_COMMAND_SPEC, but I think it is not quite right,
as LIBGCC
--
steven at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
Last reconfirmed|2010-01-07 07:17:23 |2010-01-18 18:31:1
--- Comment #2 from gcc at coreland dot ath dot cx 2010-01-18 18:14 ---
Created an attachment (id=19648)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=19648&action=view)
Repro case
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42793
--- Comment #1 from gcc at coreland dot ath dot cx 2010-01-18 18:13 ---
I'm attempting to submit the repro case as an attachment but bugzilla keeps
suffering internal errors. Admin contacted...
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42793
$ gnatchop unchopped.adb
$ gnatmake protocol.adb
+===GNAT BUG DETECTED==+
| 4.4.0 (x86_64-unknown-freebsd8.0) Storage_Error stack overflow or erroneous
memory access|
| Error detected at serial_io.adb:560:3 [protocol.ads:32:3]|
|
--- Comment #12 from uros at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-18 17:46 ---
Subject: Bug 42774
Author: uros
Date: Mon Jan 18 17:46:17 2010
New Revision: 156017
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=156017
Log:
PR target/42774
* config/alpha/predicates.md (alig
--- Comment #5 from zsojka at seznam dot cz 2010-01-18 17:45 ---
$ /mnt/svn/gcc-trunk/binary-155984-lto/bin/g++ -O1 -fpeel-loops -fcompare-debug
pr42642.cpp -c
g++: pr42642.cpp: -fcompare-debug failure
r155984 still fails for me
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42642
--- Comment #9 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-18 17:32 ---
Have posted a fix on the list today.
Paul
--
pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #2 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-18 17:31 ---
Confirmed.
A weird and wonderful feature of this bug is that it disappears for -O2 and
higher :-)
The problem comes about because fsym->backend_decl is being used, which is
incorrect if the argument is missing becaus
--- Comment #24 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-18 17:19
---
Subject: Bug 42068
Author: hubicka
Date: Mon Jan 18 17:19:13 2010
New Revision: 156016
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=156016
Log:
PR middle-end/42068
* gcc-interface/utils.
--- Comment #11 from uros at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-18 17:04 ---
Subject: Bug 42774
Author: uros
Date: Mon Jan 18 17:04:29 2010
New Revision: 156014
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=156014
Log:
PR target/42774
* config/alpha/predicates.md (alig
--- Comment #4 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-18 17:00 ---
This still fails, even with Alexandre's patch for bug 42631.
With -fno-web the failure disappears. So this is probably another issue in the
webizer.
Investigating -> mine for now.
--
steven at gcc dot gnu dot or
--- Comment #4 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-18 16:57 ---
I think this is fixed now, with Alexandre's patch. Could the OP confirm that
please?
On to the next -fcompare-debug failure :-)
--
steven at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #8 from davek at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-18 16:35 ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> Should we perhaps rename all the lto_elf_ stuff to something else, if all of
> this also Just Works with COFF?
As I said, WIP; I was certainly thinking of renaming it all to
lto_objfile_xx
--- Comment #2 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-18 16:29 ---
Patch restoring the 4.4 behavior posted to the mailing list:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-01/msg00976.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42585
--- Comment #1 from David dot Biesack at sas dot com 2010-01-18 16:21
---
Created an attachment (id=19647)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=19647&action=view)
build log for gcc 4.4.2
build log showing environment, configure, make, and make errors linking
cc1-dummy
I downloaded a fresh 4.4.2 source distribution and configured and build
for x86_64-redhat-linux I'll attach a full build log, but basically
the GCC build fails trying to link cc1-dummy with many, many undefined
symbols.
I've built local copies of GMP, MPFR, MPC in /usr/local (using -fPIC)
and did
--- Comment #7 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-18 16:18 ---
Should we perhaps rename all the lto_elf_ stuff to something else, if all of
this also Just Works with COFF?
Can we use a similar approach for Mach-O?
Big kudos for Dave, btw, for working on this.
--
steven at g
--
dodji at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |dodji at gcc dot gnu dot org
|dot org
--- Comment #23 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-18 15:48
---
If it's now middle-end then we need to adjust the priority.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #22 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-18 15:47
---
No longer bootstrap issue, but still ICE on valid.
--
hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #21 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-18 15:42
---
Subject: Bug 42068
Author: hubicka
Date: Mon Jan 18 15:42:05 2010
New Revision: 156010
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=156010
Log:
PR middle-end/42068
(create_var_decl_1): Do
--- Comment #23 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-18 15:16
---
And a fix along comment #14 would be (untested, but of course fixes the
testcase):
Index: gcc/fold-const.c
===
--- gcc/fold-const.c(revision 1560
--- Comment #7 from dodji at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-18 14:55 ---
A candidate patch was posted to
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-01/msg00974.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42766
--
jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirm
--- Comment #11 from jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk 2010-01-18 14:41 ---
after the previous comment, marking this as a regression, confirm it, and set
P1 as suggest by Ian on the list.
--
jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #7 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-18 14:39 ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> > It sets the accessibility at resolution time and makes the following
> > variant
> > of comment #2 work:
>
> That variant works for me already with the trunk, i.e. it is not rejected
>
--- Comment #6 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-18 14:36 ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> It sets the accessibility at resolution time and makes the following variant
> of comment #2 work:
That variant works for me already with the trunk, i.e. it is not rejected which
is (for m
--- Comment #8 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-01-18 14:25
---
Whatever you prefer. As a matter of fact, now, a PR vs 3.4.4 should be invalid,
essentially.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42791
--- Comment #7 from FBergemann at web dot de 2010-01-18 14:16 ---
Hi Paolo,
shouldn't it be WONTFIX then?
(as it is against 3.4.4)
best rgds,
Frank
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42791
--- Comment #5 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-18 13:46 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> Here is a simple patch for setting the parent component accessibility:
> [...]
> This is probably not enough, since the access. specification of the parent
> type
> may come after the daught
--- Comment #6 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-01-18 13:38
---
Very hard to answer all those questions and for an architecture which I don't
know well, and for an application which I don't know (of course). For sure
here, in the FSF GCC community, 3.4.x is considered a ver
--- Comment #5 from FBergemann at web dot de 2010-01-18 13:31 ---
Hi Paolo,
well switching to more recent version might be a solution
- but unfortunately not that easy to implement for me.
It's a big project i am working in.
Switching the compiler means invoking our release management t
--- Comment #10 from carlr at freemail dot gr 2010-01-18 13:14 ---
Please note that computed gotos are factored out because "they are a hell to
deal with" in tree-cfg.c:build_gimple_cfg(). This means that they MUST be
unfactored out as promised in the comment without leaving this to anot
--- Comment #4 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-01-18 13:05
---
Excellent that it works fine with current GCCs. Frankly, I'm thinking that as
far as GCC is concerned the issue can be closed here, maybe you should consider
pointing out to the spirit project the little tweak
--- Comment #2 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-18 13:03 ---
This is a fwprop.c bug. In particular, that the
797 /* If target_insn comes right after def_insn, which is very common
798 for addresses, we can use a quicker test. */
799 if (NEXT_INSN (def_insn) == target_ins
--- Comment #31 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-18 13:00
---
Subject: Bug 39954
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Jan 18 12:59:50 2010
New Revision: 156008
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=156008
Log:
2010-01-18 Richard Guenther
PR middle-end/39954
--- Comment #30 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-18 12:59
---
Fixed.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNE
--- Comment #20 from hubicka at ucw dot cz 2010-01-18 12:57 ---
Subject: Re: [4.5 regression] ICE in
function_and_variable_visibility breaks Ada bootstrap
> This is really messy: maybe I'll have some more luck with a cross
> compiler.
Indeed it is. I will try, but I had proble
--- Comment #3 from FBergemann at web dot de 2010-01-18 12:55 ---
Hi Paolo,
i tested again with
1) gcc-4.1.2 package delivered from HP
(installed at /opt/hp-gcc-4.1.2/)
-> it works (no such problem)
But there were some warning for compilation
/var/tmp//ccgkYSFL.s: Assembler message
--- Comment #6 from davek at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-18 12:54 ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> > did you run autoconf?
>
> Forgot to run it, to my disgrace. :) Sorry, false alarm.
>
No need to apologise, thanks for testing on linux for me!
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bu
--
jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot
|dot org
--- Comment #2 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-01-18 12:27
---
Please, try to reproduce the problem for a currently maintained GCC, thuse
either 4.3.x or, better, 4.4.x. In case, please provide a self-contained
reproducer in the form of a pre-processed file. For details se
--- Comment #19 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE 2010-01-18
12:20 ---
Subject: Re: [4.5 regression] ICE in function_and_variable_visibility breaks
Ada bootstrap
> --- Comment #16 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-16 14:54
> ---
> Created an attachment (i
--- Comment #1 from FBergemann at web dot de 2010-01-18 12:18 ---
Created an attachment (id=19646)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=19646&action=view)
tar file with mini program sources & Makefile
Pls change the optimization level in Makefile to see the differences.
T
--- Comment #13 from irar at il dot ibm dot com 2010-01-18 12:17 ---
Does something like this make sense? (With this patch we will never use peeling
for function parameters, unless the builtin returns OK to peel for packed
types).
Index: tree-vect-data-refs.c
==
Hello,
i posted a problem against boost::serialization.
(http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lib.boost.user/54935).
But now i could track it down to boost::spirit.
I have extracted boost::serialization stuff , which is dealing with boost
spirit, in a mini demo program
(will attach tar file next).
--- Comment #5 from d dot g dot gorbachev at gmail dot com 2010-01-18
11:51 ---
> did you run autoconf?
Forgot to run it, to my disgrace. :) Sorry, false alarm.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42776
--- Comment #29 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-18 11:43
---
(In reply to comment #28)
> Btw, get_pointer_alignment should get passed an access type to put it into
> context. For alignment of say INDIRECT_REFs it would be the pointed-to type
> but for function arguments in
--
dodji at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |dodji at gcc dot gnu dot org
|dot org
--- Comment #13 from dodji at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-18 11:25 ---
Subject: Re: ice-on-legal-code: template class template
function local objects
> Ah, I see. So the reason it is not fixed in 4.5 is that it may cause new
> regressions?
Yes.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/sho
--- Comment #11 from dodji at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-18 11:24 ---
It looks like the fix for PR42761 made the previous fix for this one (the one I
reverted) acceptable now.
I am waiting for Jason's comment at
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-01/msg00964.html
--
http://gc
--- Comment #28 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-18 11:24
---
Btw, get_pointer_alignment should get passed an access type to put it into
context. For alignment of say INDIRECT_REFs it would be the pointed-to type
but for function arguments in general it needs to be 'char' if
--- Comment #2 from jwakely dot gcc at gmail dot com 2010-01-18 11:23
---
N.B. the Host/Target/Target fields are meant for the "host triplet" such as
i686-pc-cygwin
Feel free to include the snapshot date and OS details in the main report, but
putting them in the Host field just makes i
--- Comment #4 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-01-18 11:21
---
Excellent. If possible, I would suggest removing my temporary hack from the
testcase together with the parallel-mode patch.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42712
--- Comment #27 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-18 11:12
---
Testing a patch to do minimal surgery to restore previous behavior (thus, fix
this regression but not the fundamental frontend / middle-end problem).
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What
1 - 100 of 122 matches
Mail list logo
