[Bug target/22083] [3.4/4.0 Regression] TARGET_C99_FUNCTIONS is wrongly defined on AIX 5.1

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-30 21:54 --- *** Bug 22261 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- What|Removed |Added

Re: [Bug c++/22256] diagnostic shows wrong type for cast operator

"igodard at pacbell dot net" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | Gabriel: no, it also happens with any pointer: | | struct node { float*operator float*(); }; | | gets you: | | foo.cc:1: error: operator `float*' declared to return `float' Alright, that was a wrong guess. -- Gaby

[Bug c++/22256] diagnostic shows wrong type for cast operator

--- Additional Comments From gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2005-06-30 22:11 --- Subject: Re: diagnostic shows wrong type for cast operator "igodard at pacbell dot net" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | Gabriel: no, it also happens with any pointer: | | struct node { float*o

[Bug tree-optimization/17863] [4.0/4.1 Regression] threefold performance loss, not inlining as much

--- Additional Comments From danalis at cis dot udel dot edu 2005-06-30 22:16 --- I'm looking at the reduced testcase from comment #6, and I noticed that f() is declared double, but does not return anything. Thus the code doesn't compile with -O3 -Wall -Werror. If I fix the bug adding a

[Bug tree-optimization/17863] [4.0/4.1 Regression] threefold performance loss, not inlining as much

--- Additional Comments From danalis at cis dot udel dot edu 2005-06-30 22:24 --- I meant to say "return(*ap1)" not "return(return *ap1)" -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17863

[Bug c/22262] New: stack_protector use creates broken assembler

the attached testcase compiled with -fPIC -O2 creates currrently a construct likes this: movl[EMAIL PROTECTED](%ebx), %eax movl-16(%ebp), %eax xorl(%eax), %eax So, it clobbers the register it just loaded. I tried to reduce a testcase, attached. Also .

[Bug c/22262] stack_protector use creates broken assembler

--- Additional Comments From marcus at jet dot franken dot de 2005-06-30 22:31 --- Created an attachment (id=9182) --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=9182&action=view) xx.i gcc -O2 -fPIC -fstack-protector -S xx.i -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22262

[Bug c/22262] stack_protector use creates broken assembler

--- Additional Comments From marcus at jet dot franken dot de 2005-06-30 22:31 --- Created an attachment (id=9183) --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=9183&action=view) xx.s generated assembler on my machine -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22262

[Bug c/22262] stack_protector use creates broken assembler

--- Additional Comments From marcus at jet dot franken dot de 2005-06-30 22:32 --- (of course "compiled with -fPIC -O2 -fstack-protector" ... in first comment) -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22262

[Bug target/22262] stack_protector use creates broken assembler

-- What|Removed |Added CC||rth at gcc dot gnu dot org, ||jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org

[Bug tree-optimization/22212] [4.1 Regression] SEGV in is_gimple_variable during loop-ivopts while building Ada RTS

--- Additional Comments From laurent at guerby dot net 2005-06-30 23:04 --- Hmm, unless I made a mistake the strfix problem is indeed fixed, but gcc/ada/vms_conv.adb one is still there. LAST_UPDATED Thu Jun 30 21:09:27 UTC 2005 + Zdenek patch. ../../xgcc -c -I./ -I../rts -I. -I/home/gu

[Bug target/22260] -fPIC -fno-delayed-branch miscompiles MI this_adjusting thunks

--- Additional Comments From ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-30 23:15 --- Thanks for the very detailed bug report. Embarassing thinko... -- What|Removed |Added

[Bug target/22260] -fPIC -fno-delayed-branch miscompiles MI this_adjusting thunks

-- What|Removed |Added CC|ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot| |org | AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |ebotcazou at

[Bug c++/22263] New: explicit instantiation fails to emit symbols defined later

The program below fails to link with g++ 4.0 on Solaris 9 (I didn't try Linux). It appears that symbols defined after the explicit instantiation directive aren't emitted even when referenced. This works fine with prior versions of gcc. $ cat u.cpp && g++ u.cpp template struct S { T foo (); T bar

[Bug c++/22263] explicit instantiation fails to emit symbols defined later

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-30 23:26 --- Explicit instantiation should not instantitate the symbols defined later after the explicit instatntiation see PR 21118, but this is a weird problem as we now have a symbol defined afterwards which is use

[Bug target/22262] stack_protector use creates broken assembler

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-30 23:34 --- Patch posted here: . -- What|Removed |Added -

[Bug target/22262] stack_protector use creates broken assembler

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-30 23:35 --- Confirmed. -- What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW E

[Bug c++/22263] explicit instantiation fails to emit symbols defined later

--- Additional Comments From sebor at roguewave dot com 2005-06-30 23:36 --- Sorry about the duplicate PR. I searched Bugzilla for an existing report but obviously not thoroughly enough. I'm afraid I disagree with the analysis in both PRs. From 14.7.2, p7: The explicit instantiation

[Bug c++/22263] explicit instantiation fails to emit symbols defined later

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-30 23:49 --- (In reply to comment #2) > Sorry about the duplicate PR. I searched Bugzilla for an existing report but > obviously not thoroughly enough. > > I'm afraid I disagree with the analysis in both PRs. From 14.7.

[Bug c++/22263] explicit instantiation fails to emit symbols defined later

--- Additional Comments From sebor at roguewave dot com 2005-06-30 23:56 --- I don't believe you are reading the paragraph correctly. The paragraph applies to explicit instantiation. The reference to explicit specialization allows members of the class template that is being explicitly i

[Bug c++/22263] explicit instantiation fails to emit symbols defined later

--- Additional Comments From sebor at roguewave dot com 2005-07-01 00:06 --- Further, in response to comment 2 from bug 22263: I agree that 14.7.2, p3 applies to that case but since the definition of class b is in scope at the point of the explicit instantiation of the class template I

[Bug target/22260] -fPIC -fno-delayed-branch miscompiles MI this_adjusting thunks

--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-01 00:15 --- Subject: Bug 22260 CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc Module name:gcc Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-07-01 00:15:04 Modified files: gcc: ChangeLog gcc/config/sparc:

[Bug target/22260] -fPIC -fno-delayed-branch miscompiles MI this_adjusting thunks

--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-01 00:17 --- Subject: Bug 22260 CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc Module name:gcc Branch: gcc-4_0-branch Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-07-01 00:17:33 Modified files: gcc: Change

[Bug target/22260] -fPIC -fno-delayed-branch miscompiles MI this_adjusting thunks

--- Additional Comments From ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-01 00:23 --- Fixed in upcoming 4.0.1. -- What|Removed |Added URL|

[Bug bootstrap/22264] New: mmix-knuth-mmixware broken

With LAST_UPDATED: "Thu Jun 30 23:16:50 UTC 2005" I get: ... (building libiberty with the just-built-cross-gcc) /home/hp/combined/mmixware-sim/./gcc/xgcc -B/home/hp/combined/mmixware-sim/./gcc/ -nostdinc -B/home/hp/combined/mmixware-sim/mmix\ -knuth-mmixware/newlib/ -isystem /home/hp/combined/mmix

[Bug bootstrap/22264] mmix-knuth-mmixware broken

--- Additional Comments From hp at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-01 00:40 --- Created an attachment (id=9184) --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=9184&action=view) Preprocessed source for ICE cc1 command line: /home/hp/combined/mmixware-sim/./gcc/cc1 -fpreprocessed regex

[Bug bootstrap/22264] mmix-knuth-mmixware broken

--- Additional Comments From hp at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-01 00:41 --- Suspects from ChangeLog CC:ed. -- What|Removed |Added CC|

[Bug bootstrap/22264] mmix-knuth-mmixware broken

--- Additional Comments From hp at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-01 01:30 --- Backtrace as requested by Zack: (gdb) bt #0 fancy_abort (file=0x83c0080 "/home/hp/combined/combined/gcc/pretty-print.c", line=563, function=0x83c0061 "pp_base_output_formatted_text") at /home/hp/combined/co

[Bug bootstrap/22264] cris-axis-elf, mmix-knuth-mmixware broken

--- Additional Comments From hp at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-01 01:35 --- For cris-elf too, likely most/all (cross-)targets. -- What|Removed |Added GCC target triplet|mmix

[Bug other/22264] [4.1 Regression] cris-axis-elf, mmix-knuth-mmixware, powerpc-darwin broken

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-01 01:36 --- Powerpc-darwin is also broken. -- What|Removed |Added Component|bootstrap

[Bug other/22264] [4.1 Regression] cris-axis-elf, mmix-knuth-mmixware, powerpc-darwin broken

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-01 01:46 --- Short testcase: # 1 "t.c" # 0 "" # 1 "" # 1 "t.c" # 1 "t.h" 1 int f(int t[static]) { return x < y; } # 2 "t.c" 2 -- What|Removed |Added

[Bug other/22264] [4.1 Regression] cris-axis-elf, mmix-knuth-mmixware, powerpc-darwin broken

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-01 01:56 --- The following patch should fix this but I don't have time to test it fully as I still have to fix another bootstrap problem on powerpc-darwin: Index: diagnostic.c ==

[Bug other/22264] [4.1 Regression] bootstrap broken

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-01 02:59 --- Patch posted here: . Mine. -- What|Removed |Added --

[Bug c++/22265] New: Non -native type entry is getting added to an STL Map incorrectly

The bug that I am reporting was confirmed on g++ versions 3.3.1, 3.2.3 and 2.95.3 on a Linux platform. Although my simple sample program is quite self-explanatory, here’s the problem in a nutshell: I am maintaining an STL map between IP addresses. In the sample code, I am maintaining a map be

[Bug libstdc++/22265] Non -native type entry is getting added to an STL Map incorrectly

-- What|Removed |Added Component|c++ |libstdc++ http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22265

[Bug tree-optimization/22071] [4.1 regression] ICE in first_vi_for_offset, at tree-ssa-structalias.c:2506

--- Additional Comments From dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-01 03:37 --- The patch http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-06/msg02173.html combined with http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-06/msg02246.html should fix the bugs. (Sorry for the delay, i hit some latent issues in

[Bug tree-optimization/17863] [4.0/4.1 Regression] threefold performance loss, not inlining as much

--- Additional Comments From dank at kegel dot com 2005-07-01 03:44 --- Anthony, it looks like the runtimes with the fix match the runtimes from the larger testcase reasonably well; at least they're faster on gcc-3.4.3 where they're supposed to be. So maybe we should try to answer the qu

[Bug tree-optimization/22219] ICE when compiling gcc.dg/builtin-object-size-[1234].c

--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-01 03:55 --- Subject: Bug 22219 CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc Module name:gcc Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-07-01 03:55:28 Modified files: gcc: ChangeLog tree-ssa-alias.c g

[Bug tree-optimization/21584] [4.1 Regression] ICE: verify_flow_sensitive_alias_info failed.

--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-01 03:55 --- Subject: Bug 21584 CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc Module name:gcc Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-07-01 03:55:28 Modified files: gcc: ChangeLog tree-ssa-alias.c g

[Bug tree-optimization/22219] ICE when compiling gcc.dg/builtin-object-size-[1234].c

--- Additional Comments From dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-01 04:01 --- Fixed. http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-07/msg9.html. -- What|Removed |Added

[Bug tree-optimization/21584] [4.1 Regression] ICE: verify_flow_sensitive_alias_info failed.

--- Additional Comments From dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-01 04:02 --- Fixed. http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-07/msg9.html. -- What|Removed |Added

[Bug c++/21687] [4.0/4.1 Regression] ICE on valid code

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-01 04:32 --- I wonder if this is the same bug as PR 22139. -- What|Removed |Added BugsThisDependsOn|

[Bug c++/22139] [4.0/4.1 regression] Segfault

-- What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||21687 nThis|| http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22139

[Bug other/20722] select_section invoked with argument "unlikely"

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-01 04:37 --- Confirmed. -- What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW E

[Bug c++/22248] Incorrect work with multiple assigment.

--- Additional Comments From algorithmus at gmail dot com 2005-07-01 05:04 --- (In reply to comment #9) > > Did you try -Wsequence-points (or similar)? yeah. both -Wall and -Wsequence-points return nothing. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22248

[Bug c++/22248] Incorrect work with multiple assigment.

--- Additional Comments From gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2005-07-01 05:10 --- Subject: Re: Incorrect work with multiple assigment. "algorithmus at gmail dot com" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | (In reply to comment #9) | > | > Did you try -Wsequence-points (or similar)? | | ye

[Bug c++/22248] Incorrect work with multiple assigment.

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-01 05:13 --- (In reply to comment #11) > then reclassify the bug as missed warning, (not incorrect code). Did you read my comment #8, which I referenced the bug about the warning: > But it will not warn about this testca

[Bug c++/22248] Incorrect work with multiple assigment.

--- Additional Comments From gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2005-07-01 05:23 --- Subject: Re: Incorrect work with multiple assigment. "pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | (In reply to comment #11) | > then reclassify the bug as missed warning, (not incor

<    1   2