--- Comment #12 from oakad at yahoo dot com 2010-08-09 06:02 ---
(In reply to comment #11)
> Fixed for 4.5.2.
>
Thanks.
I've been looking into rope data structure per your advice, and indeed, it
needs a lot of fixes. It can probably use canned smart pointers and vstrings
for added simp
--- Comment #78 from jasmin at revisionfx dot com 2010-08-09 01:56 ---
I am not exactly sure how to report a bug here - but it seems highly related to
this thread (I am pie...@revisionfx.com, since I am not sure if I am
auto-subscribed to this thread, and so will get email back about th
--- Comment #21 from dschlic1 at gmail dot com 2010-08-09 00:42 ---
Subject: Re: Make fails in zlib
Hello;
Well I solved my problem, however the issue still remains. I installed
the latest native binutils and gcc-4.5.1 on my linux installation. The
script now works without any
--- Comment #18 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2010-08-09
00:35 ---
Subject: Re: Generated constructors and destructors get
wrong debug location when a typedef uses a forward declaration of
the type before the definition
On Mon, 09 Aug 2010, danglin at gcc
--- Comment #10 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-09 00:31
---
Good
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44998
--- Comment #17 from danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-09 00:19
---
The match string doesn't work on hppa-linux:
FAIL: g++.dg/debug/dwarf2/lineno-simple1.C scan-assembler
_ZN1CC[12]Ev:[^\\t]*(\
\t.(frame|mask|file)[^\\t]*)*\\t[^:]+:4\\n
FAIL: g++.dg/debug/dwarf2/lineno-simple1.C s
--- Comment #9 from rmlarsen at gmail dot com 2010-08-09 00:02 ---
burnus,
Thanks for investigating. I have verified that the bug is indeed fixed in
4.6.0:
gcc version 4.6.0 20100407 (experimental) [trunk revision 158083] (GCC)
Hope the fixed version makes it into Ubuntu soon... Any
--- Comment #3 from truedfx at gentoo dot org 2010-08-08 23:09 ---
I've configured a minimal 4.3.5 compiler, and testing shows that
extern void f (_Decimal128);
void g(void)
{
__builtin_alloca (2);
f (0);
}
which also fails with the same ICE with 4.5.0 and 4.4.4, actually works wit
--- Comment #2 from truedfx at gentoo dot org 2010-08-08 22:44 ---
_Decimal128 has the same problem, and is supported by gcc 4.3, so this may
trigger there too (but I don't have 4.3 installed to check right now)
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45234
--- Comment #3 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-08 22:42
---
Responsible for the couple of ACATS regressions on 64-bit platforms:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2010-08/msg00848.html
--
ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #11 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-08 22:40
---
(In reply to comment #10)
> > This patch seems to work, and do more or less the right thing.
>
> No counter-example of that!-) thanks.
That's good.
> > It inserts the upper bound only for strides not equal to on
--- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-08 22:01 ---
Confirmed. GCC 4.3 rejects the code (no __float128), so not a regression.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
$ cat bug.c
extern void f (__float128);
void g(void)
{
__builtin_alloca (2);
f (0);
}
$ gcc -m32 -mpreferred-stack-boundary=2 -c bug.c
bug.c: In function g:
bug.c:5:5: internal compiler error: in expand_call, at calls.c:2840
Please submit a full bug report,
with preprocessed source if appropr
--- Comment #20 from rwild at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-08 20:44 ---
(In reply to comment #19)
> I am afraid I messed up my system. I was playing around trying to
> install the latest versions of binutils and gcc on my linux system
> (native, not cross compile), and now I am ge
--- Comment #9 from joel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-08 20:31 ---
Created an attachment (id=21439)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21439&action=view)
First attempt at fix
Is this what you have in mind? I think it worked since the desired symbols
are now in libgc
--- Comment #10 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2010-08-08 20:08 ---
> This patch seems to work, and do more or less the right thing.
No counter-example of that!-) thanks.
> It inserts the upper bound only for strides not equal to one.
I am unable to follow the code. Do you mean th
--- Comment #6 from danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-08 19:57 ---
Subject: Bug 44805
Author: danglin
Date: Sun Aug 8 19:57:46 2010
New Revision: 163018
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=163018
Log:
Backport from mainline.
2010-07-17 John Davi
--- Comment #5 from danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-08 19:55 ---
Subject: Bug 44805
Author: danglin
Date: Sun Aug 8 19:55:40 2010
New Revision: 163017
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=163017
Log:
Backport from mainline.
2010-07-17 John Davi
--- Comment #19 from dschlic1 at gmail dot com 2010-08-08 19:19 ---
Subject: Re: Make fails in zlib
Hello;
I am afraid I messed up my system. I was playing around trying to
install the latest versions of binutils and gcc on my linux system
(native, not cross compile), and now I
--- Comment #13 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-08 18:39
---
(In reply to comment #12)
> Created an attachment (id=21438)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21438&action=view) [edit]
> My current WIP patch to fix this
>
> This is my current WIP patch to fix
--- Comment #12 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-08 18:31
---
Created an attachment (id=21438)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21438&action=view)
My current WIP patch to fix this
This is my current WIP patch to fix this problem. I will resume work
on thi
On powerpc-apple-darwin9 the test gcc.c-torture/compile/pr44707.c fails at any
optimization level above -O0 for both -m32 and m64, probably since it has been
committed:
FAIL: gcc.c-torture/compile/pr44707.c -O1 (test for excess errors)
FAIL: gcc.c-torture/compile/pr44707.c -O2 (test for excess
--- Comment #9 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-08 16:08 ---
Created an attachment (id=21437)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21437&action=view)
Proposed patch
This patch seems to work, and do more or less the right thing.
It inserts the upper bound only f
--- Comment #7 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-08 15:52 ---
Fixed.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #19 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-08 15:51
---
Also fixed on the 4.5 branch.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #6 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-08 15:51 ---
Subject: Bug 45109
Author: rguenth
Date: Sun Aug 8 15:51:14 2010
New Revision: 163010
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=163010
Log:
2010-08-08 Richard Guenther
PR tree-optimization/
--- Comment #18 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-08 15:50
---
Subject: Bug 45034
Author: rguenth
Date: Sun Aug 8 15:50:17 2010
New Revision: 163009
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=163009
Log:
2010-08-08 Richard Guenther
PR middle-end/45034
--- Comment #5 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-08 15:48 ---
Subject: Bug 45109
Author: rguenth
Date: Sun Aug 8 15:48:25 2010
New Revision: 163008
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=163008
Log:
2010-08-08 Richard Guenther
PR tree-optimization/
--- Comment #4 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-08 15:45 ---
Subject: Bug 45109
Author: rguenth
Date: Sun Aug 8 15:45:22 2010
New Revision: 163007
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=163007
Log:
2010-08-08 Richard Guenther
PR tree-optimization/
--- Comment #6 from danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-08 15:17 ---
Fixed on trunk, 4.5 and 4.4.
--
danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-08 15:15 ---
Change severity to blocker.
--
kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
S
--- Comment #5 from danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-08 15:11 ---
Subject: Bug 34544
Author: danglin
Date: Sun Aug 8 15:11:20 2010
New Revision: 163005
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=163005
Log:
PR boehm-gc/34544
* gthr-posix.h (__gthread_s
--- Comment #4 from danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-08 15:08 ---
Subject: Bug 34544
Author: danglin
Date: Sun Aug 8 15:07:53 2010
New Revision: 163004
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=163004
Log:
PR boehm-gc/34544
* gthr-posix.h (__gthread_s
--- Comment #3 from danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-08 15:04 ---
Subject: Bug 34544
Author: danglin
Date: Sun Aug 8 15:04:38 2010
New Revision: 163003
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=163003
Log:
PR boehm-gc/34544
* gthr-posix.h (__gthread_s
--- Comment #26 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-08-08 15:03
---
US 113, ES 2, US 118 / Issue 579 have been closed as NAD, thus let's figure out
how best obtain O(1) in our implementation...
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #11 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-08-08 14:57
---
Fixed for 4.5.2.
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #10 from paolo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-08 14:56 ---
Subject: Bug 44963
Author: paolo
Date: Sun Aug 8 14:56:10 2010
New Revision: 163002
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=163002
Log:
2010-08-08 Paolo Carlini
PR libstdc++/44963
--- Comment #9 from paolo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-08 14:55 ---
Subject: Bug 44963
Author: paolo
Date: Sun Aug 8 14:54:51 2010
New Revision: 163001
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=163001
Log:
2010-08-08 Paolo Carlini
PR libstdc++/44963
*
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |paolo dot carlini at oracle
|dot org
--- Comment #8 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-08-08 14:47
---
Instead of waiting for the resolution of DR 1334, I'm going to resolve this by
adding in C++0x mode the overload:
operator=(const typename _Container::value_type&)
which is where 1334 is actually going. In
--- Comment #8 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-08 14:38
---
Patch posted here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-08/msg00599.html
--
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-08 12:55 ---
Created an attachment (id=21436)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21436&action=view)
prototype patch
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45232
--- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-08 12:35 ---
Err. Exchange - (-__INT_MAX__ - 1) for + (-__INT_MAX__ - 1) and see that
fold is fine and only reassoc is broken, but requires a way more complex
testcase.
extern void abort (void);
int i = 1;
int main()
{
int j
Fold:
extern void abort (void);
int i = 1;
int main()
{
if ((i - 1) - (-__INT_MAX__ - 1) != (-__INT_MAX__ - 1))
abort ();
return 0;
}
Forwprop (and reassoc with -fno-tree-forwprop) at -O1:
extern void abort (void);
int i = 1;
int main()
{
int j = i - 1;
j = j - (-__INT_MAX__ - 1);
if (j
--- Comment #22 from kirr at landau dot phys dot spbu dot ru 2010-08-08
09:20 ---
Thanks!
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43954
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.6.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45220
46 matches
Mail list logo
