FAIL: gcc.dg/weak/weak-14.c (test for excess errors)
has appeared on mainline on 20051021 on hppa2.0w-hp-hpux11.11. This is a new
test.
/scratch/gcc/nightly-2005-10-21-mainline/src/gcc-mainline/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/weak/weak-14.c:20:
error: alias definitions not supported in this configuration
--- Comment #5 from fxcoudert at gmail dot com 2005-10-21 20:13 ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> Is this true any more on the mainline?
Yes, it is.
--
fxcoudert at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-21 20:19 ---
Only fails on targets which don't support alias attribut.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
Please run the following code through gcc with -O3 flag, then run the
executable. The expected result is -13275031.0, but the result from the code is
-13275030.0. That is because the result from the addition (a+0.5) was stored in
a signle precision, not double precision as ISO C++ standard mandates
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-21 20:24 ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 323 ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #78 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-21 20:24
---
*** Bug 24479 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
GCC target triplet||ia64-*-*
Target Milestone|--- |4.1.0
http
--- Comment #7 from cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-21 21:44
---
Subject: Bug 24460
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-10-21 21:44:42
Modified files:
gcc: ChangeLog bb-reorder.c
Log message:
PR
--- Comment #8 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-21 21:48
---
Now the failure is:
Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault.
0x0067d51c in output_line_info ()
at /home/eric/cvs/gcc/gcc/dwarf2out.c:7902
7902 if (function != line_info->function)
--- Comment #2 from dyang at mathworks dot com 2005-10-21 21:51 ---
I am quite surprised when i saw this bug report was marked as duplicate with
#323. I have to reopen the bug and here is the reason.
With bug 323, it is caused by hardware using excessive precision so that it
leads to di
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-21 21:53 ---
Fixed in 4.1.0 by:
2005-10-05 Dale Johannesen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* convert.c (convert_to_real): Don't convert
(float)floor(double d) to floorf((float)d).
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org ch
--- Comment #2 from cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-21 22:07
---
Subject: Bug 24451
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Branch: gomp-20050608-branch
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-10-21 22:06:53
Modified files:
gcc/cp : ChangeLog.gomp
--- Comment #3 from rth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-21 22:10 ---
Fixed.
--
rth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-21 22:23 ---
Can you supply more information? Like how to reproduce it.
Also can you double check to make sure that -fprofile-arcs -ftest-coverage is
being passed to all invokation of gcc/g++?
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-21 22:27 ---
Confirmed.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
OtherBugsDependingO|
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-21 22:38 ---
Confirmed, a regression from 4.0.x.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-21 22:48 ---
Confirmed.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCON
--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-21 22:49 ---
Confirmed.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCON
(This bug report is just one example of a category of bugs that may all revolve
around one bug in the compiler. I've run into this situation in various
guises. The sample code below is the smallest example of the problem I've
encounted so far.)
The bug manifests when:
a) a generic child package
--- Comment #1 from rth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-21 23:44 ---
Fixed as part of other goto and label cleanups.
--
rth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
java.security.SecureRandom in GCJ 4.0.2 has no impact, so SecureRandom always
uses the same weak seed. This has obvious security issues, though they'd take
a targetted attack to mount (e.g. force a JVM restart so the SecureRandom
reverts to the default seed - "new java.util.Random(0l).nextBytes(ne
test
--
Summary: tesdting
Product: gcc
Version: 4.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P2
Component: libgcj
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |trivial
Target Milestone|--- |4.1.1
http:
--
dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|libgcj |awt
Product|gcc |classpath
Targ
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-22 02:27 ---
Testing
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFI
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-22 02:28 ---
java.security.SecureRandom is part of/comes from classpath on the mainline.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-22 02:36 ---
Confirmed on the mainline.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #5 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-22 03:00 ---
Does anyone have a testcase for this one?
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |minor
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16306
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |minor
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16913
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |minor
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21715
Take the following code:
int f ()
{ int j0, j1, j2, j3, j4, j5, j6, j7, j8, j9, a;
a = 0;
for (j0 = 0; j0 < 2; j0 ++)
for (j1 = j0; j1 < 2; j1 ++)
for (j2 = j1; j2 < 2; j2 ++)
for (j3 = j2; j3 < 2; j3 ++)
for (j4 = j3; j4 < 2; j4 ++)
for
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot
|
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-22 03:36 ---
Fixed at least on the mainline:
t.c: In function 'ret':
t.c:3: warning: GCC vector returned by reference: non-standard ABI extension
with no compatibility guarantee
t.c: In function 'pass':
t.c:4: warning: GCC vector
--- Comment #9 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-22 04:02 ---
Here are the numbers for yesterday's 4.1 compiler:
4.0.2: 3.77
4.1.0: 3.05
3.4.0: 3.19
3.3.6: 3.34
So the mainline's number is the fastest so removing the regression marker.
--
pinskia at gcc do
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |minor
Last reconfirmed|2005-10-13 20:55:07 |2005-10-22 04:0
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |minor
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22141
--- Comment #4 from hp at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-22 06:56 ---
I reconfirm this regression PR.
There seems to be a real bug lurking in packed4.C failing, exposed by Nathan's
"Undo DECL_PACKED when possible" change for PR 21166. Maybe I'm missing
something, but I doubt the FAIL shoul
101 - 138 of 138 matches
Mail list logo
