--- Comment #7 from dick_guertin at yahoo dot com 2006-01-17 08:33 ---
Response to: "ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Program received signal SIGILL, Illegal instruction.
> 0x00297064 in hex_to_character ()
> Could you post an excerpt of the assembly code around 0
--- Comment #8 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-17 08:47
---
> You're assuming hex_to_chararacter is 'entered' normally. It is NOT. The
> corrupt stack causes a branch into the middle of that routine, which is why
> the system reports an illegal instruction.
Ah, thanks f
> OK?
Assuming you add a proper "???" comment explaining why we use an alignment of
8 in this file (basically summarizing this PR), this is OK.
> 2006-01-16 John David Anglin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> PR ada/24533
> * s-osinte-linux-hppa.ads: Reduce alignment of atomic_lock_t to
--- Comment #16 from charlet at adacore dot com 2006-01-17 08:56 ---
Subject: Re: FAIL: a85013b: *** glibc detected *** free(): invalid pointer:
0x00062a00 ***
> OK?
Assuming you add a proper "???" comment explaining why we use an alignment of
8 in this file (basically summarizing t
Hello everyone,
I have a doubt reagarding these trampolines, When i was going through
the details in an atricle named GCC-INTERNALS, It said that we have a
macro with the following name TRAMPOLINE_ADJUST_ADDRESS (addr).
The explaination to it said that this is used mainly to perform any
machine-s
--- Comment #6 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-17 09:58 ---
Subject: Bug 25682
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Jan 17 09:57:56 2006
New Revision: 109812
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=109812
Log:
PR c/25682
* c-typeck.c (build_unary_op): Fold of
--- Comment #7 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-17 10:00 ---
Subject: Bug 25682
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Jan 17 10:00:05 2006
New Revision: 109813
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=109813
Log:
PR c/25682
* c-typeck.c (build_unary_op): Fold of
--- Comment #6 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-17 10:56 ---
Subject: Bug 25219
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Jan 17 10:56:29 2006
New Revision: 109816
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=109816
Log:
PR fortran/25219
* testsuite/libgomp.fortran/pr25
--- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-17 11:47 ---
Confirmed. LIM could do it also, and it looks like its a full redundancy even.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #3 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-17 11:51 ---
I agree with Pinskia here - also the detection of a constant RHS is difficult
and
will cause followup PRs that we do not catch all cases.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25808
--- Comment #3 from Raimund dot Merkert at baesystems dot com 2006-01-17
12:32 ---
I would not consider myself a beginner, but I'm no c++ language laywer either.
Usually the problem will get caught as soon as you try to invoke a method, but
if it's something like a guard object, without
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-17 12:35 ---
Here is another testcase:
void rs6000_emit_move (int mode, int t, int tt)
{
if (t == 1)
if (mode != 2)
t = ();
if (t == 1)
if (mode != 2)
__builtin_abort ();
}
--
pinskia at gcc dot
--- Comment #3 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2006-01-17 12:53 ---
Created an attachment (id=10657)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10657&action=view)
Draft for an aliasing issue
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25815
--- Comment #4 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2006-01-17 12:55 ---
Can you check whether this patch helps you in any way? Is the only pending
issue I'm aware of in the involved code and we are going to have something
similar anyway. -fno-strict-aliasing should also tell you something.
--
--- Comment #5 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2006-01-17 13:00 ---
By the way, no need to run the entire testsuite: example/erase_if.cc can be
compiled and run standalone as-is.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25815
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-17 13:24 ---
Oh, this is a regression because the more use of TLS in the libraries.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #2 from dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-17 14:27 ---
Subject: Re: missed PRE optimization - move
"invariant casts" out of loops
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> --- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-17 11:47
> ---
> Confirmed.
--- Comment #5 from zadeck at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-17 14:34 ---
Subject: Bug 25799
Author: zadeck
Date: Tue Jan 17 14:34:50 2006
New Revision: 109818
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=109818
Log:
2005-01-17 Kenneth Zadeck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR data
PROGRAM TSBVSL
CALL NRANIN(54321.)
END
SUBROUTINE NRAN(VECTOR,N)
DIMENSION VECTOR(N)
DO I=1,N
VECTOR(I) = RNDM(I)
END DO
RETURN
ENTRY NRANIN (V)
CALL RDMIN(V)
RETURN
END
SUBROUT
--- Comment #7 from ssen at opendarwin dot org 2006-01-17 15:15 ---
I think this should be done for both PowerPC and x86 targets for Darwin. The
vendor compiler rejects nested functions for both targets presumably because of
this, and so trampolines should enable stack execution for both
--- Comment #8 from gcc at microbizz dot nl 2006-01-17 15:30 ---
Subject: Re: Trampolines fail on i686-apple-darwin because
stack is not executable
Currently it is not necessary for powerpc, but Apple may indeed change
this in a future version of powerpc-darwin.
--
http://gcc.gn
--- Comment #4 from dir at lanl dot gov 2006-01-17 15:30 ---
Opps, I think that the change suggested in Comment #1 actually does fix the
problem on the LINUX version.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25577
--- Comment #3 from meklund at cisco dot com 2006-01-17 15:36 ---
Subject: Re: feature request: generate a warning for sizeof on a pointer
Using the FreeBSD latest CVS pull on 10-Jan-06 (5.4 based), a build world
was run with the below modifications to GCC. The output was then evaluat
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-17 16:04 ---
There are a couple of issues here, first there is a missed optimization to sink
the load (there is a bug about that). In fact this is all related to that bug.
Also there is a front-end bug having the load there in
--- Comment #17 from hainque at adacore dot com 2006-01-17 16:29 ---
Subject: Re: FAIL: a85013b: *** glibc detected *** free(): invalid pointer:
0x00062a00 ***
John David Anglin wrote:
> As I understand the situation, fixing the above problem is quite involved.
Indeed. I have dug o
--- Comment #18 from charlet at adacore dot com 2006-01-17 16:33 ---
Subject: Re: FAIL: a85013b: *** glibc detected *** free(): invalid pointer:
0x00062a00 ***
> I'll let Arno state the definite approval.
As discussed live, I gave my OK this morning already, with the same comment
a
-bash-2.05b$ cd tests/cxf/cxf3a01
-bash-2.05b$ less *.log
,.,. CXF3A01 ACATS 2.5 06-01-17 04:01:09
CXF3A01 Check that the Valid function from package
Ada.Text_IO.Editing returns False for strings that fail
to comply with the composition constraints defined for
--- Comment #7 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-17 16:48 ---
I don't have time for this bug.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #5 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-17 16:48 ---
I don't have time for this bug at least right now.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #7 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-17 16:49 ---
I don't have time for this bug at least right now.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-17 16:50 ---
I don't have time for this bug at least right now.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #10 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-17 16:53
---
I have no time to update the patch right now, I might try to get to next week
but I am going to unassign it for now.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |
--- Comment #7 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-17 16:55 ---
I am just going to fail this test, I have a patch which I need to double check
and the commit. Unassigning for now.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Ad
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-17 17:06 ---
Subject: Bug 25764
Author: pinskia
Date: Tue Jan 17 17:06:40 2006
New Revision: 109826
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=109826
Log:
2006-01-17 Andrew Pinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR te
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-17 17:06 ---
Fixed.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRM
--- Comment #2 from daney at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-17 17:31 ---
My current patch is here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-01/msg00950.html
--
daney at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
While trying to build the libstdc++ library with --disable-hosted-libstdcxx
specified in the configure step, eh_alloc.cc fals to compile with an error that
the line:
extern "C" int memset (void *, int, std::size_t);
declares memset different than it has already been declared. Changing the line
t
--- Comment #1 from pedz at easesoftware dot net 2006-01-17 17:42 ---
Created an attachment (id=10658)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10658&action=view)
How configure was called
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25823
--- Comment #2 from pedz at easesoftware dot net 2006-01-17 17:43 ---
Created an attachment (id=10659)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10659&action=view)
My Patch
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25823
--- Comment #3 from chris at bubblescope dot net 2006-01-17 18:09 ---
Does that patch break other systems? (linux-x86 would seem the obvious thing to
try..)
--
chris at bubblescope dot net changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
While trying to build the libstdc++ library with --disable-hosted-libstdcxx
specified in the configure step, eh_globals.cc fals to compile. Calls to
std::free and std::malloc have not been defined. I do not have the error log.
I can recreate it if it is really necessary.
--
Summary
--- Comment #1 from pedz at easesoftware dot net 2006-01-17 18:21 ---
Created an attachment (id=10660)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10660&action=view)
How configure was called
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25824
--- Comment #2 from pedz at easesoftware dot net 2006-01-17 18:23 ---
Created an attachment (id=10661)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10661&action=view)
My Patch
I used the same style that eh_alloc.cc used by adding an ifdef and changing the
calls in the code to ju
--- Comment #18 from bero at arklinux dot org 2006-01-17 18:25 ---
If I compile without the compiler flag settings and make bootstrap instead of
profiledbootstrap, it throws the exception as expected rather than causing a
SIGABRT.
The cause is probably somewhere else in gcc; 4.0.2 works
On AIX, a device driver or kernel extension can not use floating point. I did
not see a way via the configure options to get libstdc++ built with a
-msoft-float option. But there is an option to remove libraries from the list.
So I changed t-aix52 to create versions of libstdc++ to use soft floa
--- Comment #1 from pedz at easesoftware dot net 2006-01-17 18:37 ---
Created an attachment (id=10662)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10662&action=view)
Suggested patch to t-aix52
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25825
--- Comment #2 from pedz at easesoftware dot net 2006-01-17 18:38 ---
Created an attachment (id=10663)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10663&action=view)
Suggested patch to ppc64-fp.c
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25825
--- Comment #4 from pedz at easesoftware dot net 2006-01-17 18:40 ---
I have not tried it and do not have the equipment to try it except on a Mac. I
can do that if it would help.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25823
--- Comment #5 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2006-01-17 18:50 ---
I have just completed succesfully a build on linux with both patches applied.
Look fine to me.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25823
--- Comment #9 from dick_guertin at yahoo dot com 2006-01-17 19:01 ---
First, I inherited this code from a co-worker who left the University. My
assignment was to keep this code working because the University relies on it.
Everything was fine until we went from 3.3.1 to 3.4.4, and then
--- Comment #13 from laurent at guerby dot net 2006-01-17 19:02 ---
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2006-01/msg00663.html
cdda01 fails on s390-linux on 4.1 with tree-sra disabled.
,.,. CDD2A01 ACATS 2.5 06-01-16 19:32:21
CDD2A01 Check that the Read and Write attributes for a
--- Comment #6 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2006-01-17 19:08 ---
If it's not abvious already to everyone, the reason the issue didn't show up
before on linux is that, when _GLIBCXX_HOSTED is not defined we are *not*
including an no declaration conflicts with the wrong one.
--
http:
The following code:
class A
{
public:
virtual ~A() = 0;
};
class B : public A
{
public:
~B() {}
};
int main()
{
B b;
}
compiles with GCC 4.0.2 (clean with -ansi -Wall -Wextra) but does not link due
to an undefined reference to ~A(). Herb Sutter claims this
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-17 19:27 ---
You still need to declare A::~A().
That is what the following passage from that doc means:
Of course, any derived class' destructor must call the base class' destructor,
and so the destructor must still be defined
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-17 19:31 ---
Did you try LIBCXXFLAGS and LIBCFLAGS?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25825
--- Comment #2 from lloyd at randombit dot net 2006-01-17 19:32 ---
Ah, I misread it, but the bug should stay open IMO - the invalidity of the code
reduces it to "GCC doesn't reject invalid code", which is obviously a low
priority, but still a bug, no?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-17 19:33 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> Ah, I misread it, but the bug should stay open IMO - the invalidity of the
> code
> reduces it to "GCC doesn't reject invalid code", which is obviously a low
> priority, but still a bug, n
--- Comment #27 from bero at arklinux dot org 2006-01-17 19:34 ---
Still breaks for me on 4.1 branch too (4.1 branch SVN ID 109831).
Linux x86, binutils 2.16.91.0.4
The error is related but slightly different and on a different file these days:
c-errors.c -o c-errors.o
stage1/xgcc -Bst
--- Comment #28 from bero at arklinux dot org 2006-01-17 19:35 ---
Created an attachment (id=10664)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10664&action=view)
Preprocessed source of code triggering this in current 4.1 SVN
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22
--- Comment #29 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-17 19:36
---
(In reply to comment #27)
> Still breaks for me on 4.1 branch too (4.1 branch SVN ID 109831).
> Linux x86, binutils 2.16.91.0.4
Can you file a different bug and attach the .s file? Because I don't see this
at all
--- Comment #30 from bero at arklinux dot org 2006-01-17 19:36 ---
Created an attachment (id=10665)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10665&action=view)
asm code generated by current 4.1 SVN
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22313
--- Comment #7 from tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-17 19:59 ---
Subject: Bug 20198
Author: tromey
Date: Tue Jan 17 19:59:29 2006
New Revision: 109837
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=109837
Log:
PR classpath/20198:
* java/net/URLClassLoader.j
--- Comment #5 from dir at lanl dot gov 2006-01-17 20:07 ---
This bug has now migrated into the 4.1 tree. Sometime after the 20060104
version Would it not be easier to elminate the offending updates rather than
debug them ?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25785
--- Comment #6 from laurent at guerby dot net 2006-01-17 20:13 ---
Dave reported the patch fixed the problem
--
laurent at guerby dot net changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #6 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-17 20:14 ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> This bug has now migrated into the 4.1 tree. Sometime after the 20060104
> version Would it not be easier to elminate the offending updates rather than
> debug them ?
It might but since I
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P5
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25785
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-17 20:15 ---
Does this work now since the bug which I pointed to has beend fixed?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25787
--- Comment #3 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2006-01-17 20:18 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> Does this work now since the bug which I pointed to has beend fixed?
I think so, everything is fine in all my tests.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25787
--- Comment #3 from rearnsha at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-17 20:22
---
Subject: Bug 11135
Author: rearnsha
Date: Tue Jan 17 20:22:19 2006
New Revision: 109839
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=109839
Log:
PR target/592
PR middle-end/11135
--- Comment #7 from rearnsha at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-17 20:22
---
Subject: Bug 592
Author: rearnsha
Date: Tue Jan 17 20:22:19 2006
New Revision: 109839
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=109839
Log:
PR target/592
PR middle-end/11135
*
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-17 20:23 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> i) The reason why you are able to set a breakpoint here is the consequence of
> the testclass having only one single (non-trivial) constructor and no base
> class. The problem becomes apar
--- Comment #4 from rearnsha at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-17 20:32
---
Closing as WORKSFORME. I didn't have to change anything in the middle-end in
order to fix the ARM back-end.
Maybe the documentation should be updated to reflect this status.
--
rearnsha at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #8 from rearnsha at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-17 20:32
---
Fixed
--
rearnsha at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|SUSPEN
--- Comment #7 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-17 20:53 ---
Confirmed, this looks obviously broken.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-17 20:55 ---
Lets close it as fixed then.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #10 from dick_guertin at yahoo dot com 2006-01-17 20:55 ---
I rebuilt with -O2 AND -g, and got the following trace. Notice the while-loop
in nscan, statements 1141 thru 1147 are four single statements. The "next"
trace by gdb shows them occuring multiple times. This should
--- Comment #6 from hjl at lucon dot org 2006-01-17 20:58 ---
The patch doesn't work on Linux/ia64. --gc-sections is ignored on Linux/ia64:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] tmp]$ gcc -Wl,--gc-sections x.c
/usr/local/bin/ld: Warning: gc-sections option ignored
I got many
/usr/local/bin/ld: Warning: g
The following code compiles perfectly with gcc 3.3.3 (xlc,icc):
g++ (GCC) 3.3.3 20040412 (Red Hat Linux 3.3.3-7)
With gcc 4.0.2:
> g++ -v
Using built-in specs.
Target: i486-linux-gnu
Configured with: ../src/configure -v
--enable-languages=c,c++,java,f95,objc,ada,treelang --prefix=/usr
--with-gxx-i
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-17 21:02 ---
See http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-3.4/changes.html
and PR 12970
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 12970 ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Adde
--- Comment #17 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-17 21:02
---
*** Bug 25827 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #26 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-17 21:07
---
Hi,
I've looked into it for some time, so here is my POV of this ugly issue.
It seems to me that from documentation of EMPTY_FIELD_BOUNDARY in gccint it is
clear that it
should be ignored when PPC_BITFIELD_TYPE_MAT
"lloyd at randombit dot net" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| The following code:
|
| class A
|{
|public:
| virtual ~A() = 0;
You still need to *define* the destructor. See ยง12.4/7.
-- Gaby
--- Comment #4 from gdr at cs dot tamu dot edu 2006-01-17 21:11 ---
Subject: Re: New: "pure virtual" destructors accepted by GCC, but cause link
failure
"lloyd at randombit dot net" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| The following code:
|
| class A
|{
|public:
| virtual ~A(
--- Comment #5 from gdr at cs dot tamu dot edu 2006-01-17 21:12 ---
Subject: Re: "pure virtual" destructors accepted by GCC, but cause link
failure
"lloyd at randombit dot net" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Ah, I misread it, but the bug should stay open IMO - the invalidity
| of the c
--- Comment #11 from listor1 dot rombobeorn at comhem dot se 2006-01-17
21:31 ---
Subject: Re: Dividing fixed point number by zero returns zero.
Excuse me, what's the reason for marking this bug as invalid? That an
exception on division by zero isn't required?
--
http://gcc.gnu.
--- Comment #6 from lloyd at randombit dot net 2006-01-17 21:39 ---
Thank you for the reference Gaby. I'm now not quite sure what purpose a pure
virtual destructor has, or why it should be legal, but neither the apparent
language oddity nor my confusion about same is a GCC problem, so...
ACCESS='STREAM' is IO without any record structure, i.e. it's similar to how IO
is done in C and many other languages.
--
Summary: [f2003] ACCESS='STREAM' io support
Product: gcc
Version: 4.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
F2003 supports the ASYNCHRONOUS='YES' specifier in some IO statements, as well
as the WAIT io-unit statement.
--
Summary: [F2003] Asynchronous IO support
Product: gcc
Version: 4.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priorit
--- Comment #7 from gdr at cs dot tamu dot edu 2006-01-17 22:00 ---
Subject: Re: "pure virtual" destructors accepted by GCC, but cause link
failure
"lloyd at randombit dot net" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| I'm now not quite sure what purpose a pure virtual destructor has,
the useful
--- Comment #4 from pedz at easesoftware dot net 2006-01-17 22:01 ---
No, I did not. Since your update, I've looked for some documentation and can
not find any. If you can point me to some, then I will be happy to investigate
futher.
I assume that LIBCXXFLAGS or LIBCFLAGS may be able
--- Comment #8 from pedz at easesoftware dot net 2006-01-17 22:02 ---
Note that 25824 is a close cousin to this bug report.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25823
Currently the gfortran IO library is supposed to be thread safe. Additionally,
allowing multiple processes to access the same file could be useful, and if we
eventually want to support co-arrays with multiple processes, it will be needed
as co-arrays specify that multiple images can access a single
--- Comment #1 from jb at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-17 22:07 ---
Change severity to enhancement.
--
jb at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Sev
--- Comment #1 from jb at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-17 22:10 ---
Switched dependencies to the correct order.
--
jb at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #27 from matz at suse dot de 2006-01-17 22:12 ---
Funnily I've also looked at stor-layout.c a bit, and basically came to
a similar conclusion and patch like Steven. I agree that as per documentation
PCC_BITFIELD_TYPE_MATTERS overrides EMPTY_FIELD_BOUNDARY. But that was
also
--- Comment #12 from simon at pushface dot org 2006-01-17 22:14 ---
Subject: Re: Dividing fixed point number by zero returns zero.
On 17 Jan 2006, at 21:31, listor1 dot rombobeorn at comhem dot se wrote:
> Excuse me, what's the reason for marking this bug as invalid? That an
> excepti
Executing on host: /test/gnu/gcc-4.0/objdir/gcc/xgcc
-B/test/gnu/gcc-4.0/objdir/
gcc/ /test/gnu/gcc-4.0/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/20050922-1.c -O1 -std=c99
-lm
-o ./20050922-1.exe(timeout = 300)
/test/gnu/gcc-4.0/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/20050922-1.c:8:20: error: stdint.h:
N
o such file or
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|FAIL: gcc.dg/20050922-1.c |[4.0 only] FAIL:
|(test for excess errors)|gcc.
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-17 22:27 ---
This was PR 24107 which was only fixed in 4.1.0.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot
|dot org
1 - 100 of 143 matches
Mail list logo
