[Bug c++/14379] ICE in tsubst with declaring then defining a member template

--- Additional Comments From reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-10-08 13:05 --- I've got good news and bad news. The good news is that the original testcase compiles. This is most probably due to Mark's patch http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2004-10/msg00645.html http://gcc.gnu.org/

Re: [Bug tree-optimization/17560] [4.0 Regression] Infinite recursion in tree-scalar-evolution with -Os

On Fri, 2004-10-08 at 09:03, sebastian dot pop at cri dot ensmp dot fr wrote: > Then the following patch solves the problem by avoiding the analysis > of these cycles. > You could also try splitting blocks, but if there's a cheaper work around for 4.0, that'd be safer. Diego.

[Bug tree-optimization/17560] [4.0 Regression] Infinite recursion in tree-scalar-evolution with -Os

--- Additional Comments From dnovillo at redhat dot com 2004-10-08 13:09 --- Subject: Re: [4.0 Regression] Infinite recursion in tree-scalar-evolution with -Os On Fri, 2004-10-08 at 09:03, sebastian dot pop at cri dot ensmp dot fr wrote: > Then the following patch solves the pr

[Bug rtl-optimization/16796] PowerPC - Unnecessary Floating Point Register Copy

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-10-08 13:11 --- Confirmed, the problem is related to the register allocator. -- What|Removed |Added

[Bug libstdc++/11953] _REENTRANT defined when compiling non-threaded code.

--- Additional Comments From redi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-10-08 13:13 --- I've finally sent a wwwdocs patch to gcc-patches for approval. http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2004-10/msg00736.html -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11953

[Bug c++/14379] ICE in tsubst with declaring then defining a member template

--- Additional Comments From reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-10-08 13:13 --- Well, we accept the following code since gcc 3.0. We rejected it in 2.95.x, but for a wrong reason ;-) template struct A { template void foo(T);

[Bug tree-optimization/17560] [4.0 Regression] Infinite recursion in tree-scalar-evolution with -Os

--- Additional Comments From rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-10-08 13:21 --- This fix should not be necessary (in fact we had the code like this before, but I removed it and replaced it by current solution; the problem with is that it behaves really weird, for example the results are

[Bug target/17245] [3.3/3.4 regression] ICE compiling gsl-1.5 statistics/lag1.c

--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-10-08 13:35 --- Subject: Bug 17245 CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc Module name:gcc Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2004-10-08 13:34:57 Modified files: gcc: ChangeLog gcc/config/sparc:

[Bug target/17245] [3.3/3.4 regression] ICE compiling gsl-1.5 statistics/lag1.c

--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-10-08 13:41 --- Subject: Bug 17245 CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc Module name:gcc Branch: gcc-3_4-branch Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2004-10-08 13:41:30 Modified files: gcc: Change

[Bug target/17245] [3.3 regression] ICE compiling gsl-1.5 statistics/lag1.c

--- Additional Comments From ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-10-08 13:48 --- See http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2004-10/msg00743.html I don't plan to have it fixed on the 3.3 branch as it is not a critical problem and there is a simple workaround (compiling with -mcpu=v8). Not

[Bug tree-optimization/17560] [4.0 Regression] Infinite recursion in tree-scalar-evolution with -Os

--- Additional Comments From sebastian dot pop at cri dot ensmp dot fr 2004-10-08 13:49 --- Subject: Re: [4.0 Regression] Infinite recursion in tree-scalar-evolution with -Os > Could you check whether the edges are marked as irreducible? If not, this would > be the problem. > Indeed,

[Bug libstdc++/11953] _REENTRANT defined when compiling non-threaded code.

--- Additional Comments From carlo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-10-08 13:53 --- This wording is very boost specific and does not give a solution for other libraries that need to detect at prepocessing time whether or not -pthread is being used. Consider a library libjohndoe, this library

[Bug c/17870] Compiling linux-2.6.8.1: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault

--- Additional Comments From pander at users dot sourceforge dot net 2004-10-08 14:18 --- Tried to get the *.i* files with the -save-temps option to complete bug report. Meanwhile I got an upgrade from gcc via apt-get and the problem has (luckily) disappered. -- What|R

[Bug tree-optimization/17884] [4.0 Regression] asm 'volatile' is not honored as documented

--- Additional Comments From amacleod at redhat dot com 2004-10-08 14:35 --- So after a discussion, I dont think the patch will be applied. A follow on sentence in the documentation reads: "Note that even a volatile asm instruction can be moved in ways that appear insignificant to the

[Bug preprocessor/15824] [4.0 Regression] uchar redefinition warnings in libcpp

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-10-08 14:50 --- Does this still happen? -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15824

[Bug c++/17873] [3.3/3.4/4.0 Regression] order of static destructors wrong

--- Additional Comments From bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-10-08 14:58 --- Agggh! Sorry everybody. My testing was flawed: I just discovered a typo in my config files for gcc builds. I was using --enable-_cxa_atexit instead of --enable-__cxa_atexit. (Two underscores.) Ughh! H

[Bug preprocessor/15824] [4.0 Regression] uchar redefinition warnings in libcpp

--- Additional Comments From ro at techfak dot uni-bielefeld dot de 2004-10-08 15:10 --- Subject: Re: [4.0 Regression] uchar redefinition warnings in libcpp pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org writes: > Does this still happen? It did when I last bootstrapped mainline on alpha-dec-osf5.1b

[Bug c++/17873] [3.3/3.4/4.0 Regression] order of static destructors wrong

--- Additional Comments From pcarlini at suse dot de 2004-10-08 15:11 --- > Agggh! Sorry everybody. My testing was flawed: I just discovered a typo in my > config files for gcc builds. I was using --enable-_cxa_atexit instead of > --enable-__cxa_atexit. (Two underscores.) Thanks. Now thi

[Bug c++/17873] [3.3/3.4/4.0 Regression] order of static destructors wrong

--- Additional Comments From bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-10-08 15:17 --- No, it just means we check for _GLIBCXX_USE___CXA_ATEXIT in mt_allocator.cc, and if it's not defined we don't have any definitions for ~__pool. That will resolve this issue. I'll take care of this today, but g

[Bug c++/17873] [3.3/3.4/4.0 Regression] order of static destructors wrong

--- Additional Comments From pcarlini at suse dot de 2004-10-08 15:19 --- > No, it just means we check for _GLIBCXX_USE___CXA_ATEXIT in mt_allocator.cc, and > if it's not defined we don't have any definitions for ~__pool. That will resolve > this issue. That makes perfect sense, indeed!

[Bug c++/17829] [3.4 Regression] wrong error: call of overloaded function is ambiguous

--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-10-08 15:20 --- Subject: Bug 17829 CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc Module name:gcc Branch: gcc-3_4-branch Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2004-10-08 15:19:57 Modified files: gcc/cp : Change

[Bug c++/17873] [3.3/3.4/4.0 Regression] order of static destructors wrong

--- Additional Comments From bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-10-08 15:34 --- Indeedy. All fixed. I'm closing this now, more than slightly embarrassed. -benjamin -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17873

[Bug c++/17873] [3.3/3.4/4.0 Regression] order of static destructors wrong

--- Additional Comments From bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-10-08 15:36 --- User deliriousness. -- What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESO

[Bug tree-optimization/17892] New: gcc-4.0 should not reassociate floating point add or multiplication

In the following code the repeated multiplication is folded into a single operation (multiplication by Infinity). For different values of "x" this leads to undeserved or absent floating point exceptions, and breaks some of the elementary math functions in Libm. Occurs at optimization O1 and hi

[Bug tree-optimization/17884] [4.0 Regression] asm 'volatile' is not honored as documented

--- Additional Comments From fjahanian at apple dot com 2004-10-08 16:23 --- But this is a regression from gcc-3.3. Also, without this patch, there is no other place which checks for a volatility of an 'asm' statement. Then why not just say in the documentation that 'volatile' has no ef

[Bug rtl-optimization/15632] Failure to unroll loop when using FDO causes performance regression

--- Additional Comments From steinmtz at us dot ibm dot com 2004-10-08 16:28 --- It appears that the specific problem documented here has been resolved in mainline. There is still a performance regression when using FDO, however, but it must be for other reasons. Marking this one as

[Bug rtl-optimization/15632] Failure to unroll loop when using FDO causes performance regression

-- What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |4.0.0 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15632

[Bug tree-optimization/17892] [4.0 Regression] gcc-4.0 should not reassociate floating point add or multiplication

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-10-08 16:59 --- Confirmed. -- What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW E

[Bug c/16999] [3.4/4.0 Regression] #ident stopped working

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-10-08 17:04 --- Patch posted here: . Mine. -- What|Removed |Added --

[Bug libstdc++/17864] [4.0 Regression] deallocate_global

--- Additional Comments From bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-10-08 17:07 --- I still think the scope of this problem is wrong. This is likely an AIX-only issue. At least, I cannot reproduce this on other platforms like darwin, or cross compilers. This compile error is confusing to me:

[Bug libstdc++/17755] Can't compile djgpp cross-compiler

--- Additional Comments From psychonaut at nothingisreal dot com 2004-10-08 17:18 --- The fix suggested by Andris Pavenis does not work for me. Even when the directory $prefix/lib/gcc/$target/$version (in this case /usr/local/compiler/cross/djgpp/lib/gcc/i586-pc-msdosdjgpp/3.4.2) exists

[Bug c++/17829] [3.4 Regression] wrong error: call of overloaded function is ambiguous

--- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2004-10-08 17:43 --- Fixed in GCC 3.4.3 and GCC 4.0.0. -- What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED

[Bug c++/17801] [3.4 Regression] segfault in perform_or_defer_access_check

-- Bug 17801 depends on bug 17829, which changed state. Bug 17829 Summary: [3.4 Regression] wrong error: call of overloaded function is ambiguous http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17829 What|Old Value |New Value -