--- Comment #3 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-30 08:52
---
(In reply to comment #2)
> Fixed.
As of 2006-01-25 (SVN trunk), this failure is still present.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25842
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Keyw
--- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-30 10:29 ---
D d(Initializer());
parses as a function declaration, as you see from the error (which is on
the cout line btw.):
// bug.cpp: In function `int main()':
// bug.cpp:35: error: request for member `i_'
--- Comment #12 from Woebbeking at web dot de 2006-01-30 12:03 ---
Subject: Re: std::advance() isn't stable for floating point numbers
On Monday 30 January 2006 08:54, gdr at integrable-solutions dot net
wrote:
> --- Comment #11 from gdr at integrable-solutions dot net
> | FYI,
--- Comment #5 from uweigand at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-30 12:31
---
The reduced testcase build fine for me with current 4.1 ...
Can you send me the full test case, and the assembler file you get?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26018
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-30 12:36 ---
Confirmed
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONF
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.1.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25030
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.1.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20895
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.1.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18579
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.1.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17911
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.1.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20857
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Expression or constant |Expression or constant
|actual with INTENT(OUT or
--- Comment #3 from Don at Skyler dot com 2006-01-30 12:39 ---
Subject: Re: Initializing using methods of class object passed to constructor
On 30 Jan 2006 10:29:01 -, you wrote:
>
>
>--- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-30 10:29
>---
>D d(Ini
--- Comment #14 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-30 12:45
---
Actually this has not been fixed yet in the SVN (mainling), reopening.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #13 from gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2006-01-30 12:50
---
Subject: Re: std::advance() isn't stable for floating point numbers
"Woebbeking at web dot de" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Subject: Re: std::advance() isn't stable for floating point numbers
|
| On Mond
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-30 12:58 ---
Reopening to ...
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-30 12:58 ---
As invalid.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOP
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-30 12:59 ---
Reopening to ...
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status
--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-30 12:59 ---
As a dup of bug 9217.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 9217 ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-30 12:59 ---
*** Bug 19503 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-30 12:59 ---
Reopening to ...
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status
--- Comment #5 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-30 12:59 ---
Close as a dup of bug 9217.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 9217 ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #5 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-30 12:59 ---
*** Bug 26024 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
// Expected output is:
// i_=1
// In g++ 3.4.4 under cygwin, output is
// i_=
// followed by a random integer value
// (I've seen zero and 97).
// It appears as though the i_ member is
// not being initialized.
#include
struct B1
{
B1
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-30 13:06 ---
This works for me on 3.4.0 and 4.1.0 on i686-linux-gnu.
Can you give the output of "gcc -v"?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26029
Dear all,
I would like to post a bug report for the GNU C/C++ compiler 3.3-e500.
We use the compiler to generate code for a PowerPC processor.
Used invokation line for the GNU C++ compiler:
ccppc -c -x c++ -ansi -Wall -Werror -mcpu=8540 -fverbose-asm -mbig
-fmerge-templates -mmultiple -mn
--- Comment #6 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-30 13:14 ---
Created an attachment (id=10760)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10760&action=view)
full testcase
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26018
--- Comment #7 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-30 13:14 ---
Created an attachment (id=10761)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10761&action=view)
assembly output
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26018
--- Comment #8 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-30 13:15 ---
s390z08:/# gcc -O -c vfprintf.i -v
Using built-in specs.
Target: s390-suse-linux
Configured with: ../configure --enable-threads=posix --prefix=/usr
--with-local-prefix=/usr/local --infodir=/usr/share/info
--mandir=/u
This is a follow-up to PR/25874, with the identical test case.
The compilation now causes another ICE:
/scratch>g++ -v -O -fopenmp -c bug.ii
Using built-in specs.
Target: i686-pc-linux-gnu
Configured with: /scratch/gompcc/configure --quiet --prefix=/scratch/ugccgomp
--enable-languages=c++,fortran
--- Comment #1 from martin at mpa-garching dot mpg dot de 2006-01-30 13:17
---
Created an attachment (id=10762)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10762&action=view)
unreduced testcase
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26032
--- Comment #17 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-30 13:46
---
Subject: Bug 23372
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Jan 30 13:46:30 2006
New Revision: 110396
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=110396
Log:
2006-01-30 Richard Guenther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Comment #18 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-30 13:48
---
The original testcase is now fixed on the mainline.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23372
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-30 13:52 ---
This is a dup of bug 10818. Note DR 195 is related to this case.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 10818 ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #8 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-30 13:52 ---
*** Bug 26030 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #11 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-30 14:03
---
Hmm, This works "correctly" on x86_64-linux-gnu. At least the one in comment
#7. The one in comment #5 is still bad.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #12 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-30 14:11
---
Loooking into fixing comment #5.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25505
--- Comment #13 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-30 14:25
---
For comment #5 in the C++ case, the problem comes from the middle-end
(gimplifier) doing:
4065 /* TARGET_EXPR temps aren't part of the enclosing block, so add
it
4066 to the temps list. */
406
Take the following code:
typedef struct a
{
int f[1000];
void g();
a operator=(const a&);
} a;
a f(void);
int g(void)
{
a t; t = f();
}
in 4.0, we use 20008 bytes for the stack.
In 4.2 and 4.1, we use 16024 bytes for the stack.
In 3.4 and 3.3, we use 12024 bytes for the stack.
This is sem
--- Comment #7 from alex at milivojevic dot org 2006-01-30 14:50 ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> ld from binutils 2.16.1 does not resolve this issue.
> GNU assembler version 2.16.1 (sparc-sun-solaris2.10) using BFD version 2.16.1
> sparc-sun-solaris2.10
I used recent weekly snapshot of b
--- Comment #21 from amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-30 15:07
---
Subject: Bug 14798
Author: amylaar
Date: Mon Jan 30 15:07:43 2006
New Revision: 110398
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=110398
Log:
PR target/14798:
gcc:
* sh.c (pragma_interrupt, tr
--- Comment #9 from aph at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-30 15:40 ---
Subject: Bug 21428
Author: aph
Date: Mon Jan 30 15:40:14 2006
New Revision: 110400
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=110400
Log:
2006-01-30 Andrew Haley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR java/21428
--- Comment #22 from amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-30 16:19
---
Subject: Bug 14798
Author: amylaar
Date: Mon Jan 30 16:19:11 2006
New Revision: 110401
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=110401
Log:
PR target/14798:
gcc:
* sh.c (pragma_interr
--- Comment #10 from aph at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-30 16:25 ---
Subject: Bug 21428
Author: aph
Date: Mon Jan 30 16:25:40 2006
New Revision: 110402
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=110402
Log:
2006-01-30 Andrew Haley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR java/21428
--- Comment #4 from tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-30 16:37 ---
You may want to send the GC patch upstream, to the GC list.
--
tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
The following code, while invalid, causes g++ >= 4.0.0 to hang while compiling.
Please note that "i" is also undeclared. GCC 3.4.4 errors out as expected.
class TestClass {
public:
int m_z;
};
class WrapperClass {
public:
TestClass m_test;
};
int main()
{
WrapperClass wrapp
--- Comment #4 from sje at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-30 17:08 ---
Subject: Bug 25318
Author: sje
Date: Mon Jan 30 17:08:10 2006
New Revision: 110406
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=110406
Log:
PR testsuite/25318
* lib/target-supports.exp (check_e
--- Comment #3 from sje at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-30 17:06 ---
Subject: Bug 25318
Author: sje
Date: Mon Jan 30 17:06:16 2006
New Revision: 110405
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=110405
Log:
PR testsuite/25318
* lib/target-supports.exp (check_e
--- Comment #23 from amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-30 17:22
---
Fixed on mainline and the 4.1 branch.
--
amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
The following stripped-down code fails to compile in g++3.4.5 (compiles fine
with other compilers).
// CODE SNIPPET.
#include
#include
#include
#include
namespace MyNameSpace {
struct Point
{
double x;
double y;
double z;
};
} // namespace
std::ostream&
operator<<
--- Comment #1 from tony dot luu at baesystems dot com 2006-01-30 17:31
---
Created an attachment (id=10763)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10763&action=view)
test code
fail to compile with g++ 3.4.5.
compiles ok with other compilers (SGI, SUN).
--
http://gcc.
--- Comment #1 from ben at pc-doctor dot com 2006-01-30 17:41 ---
(In reply to comment #0)
> Please note that "i" is also undeclared.
Err, i is not a variable so ignore that statement. I am assuming gcc is
treating the "WrapperClass wrapper0(TestClass(i));" as a declaration instea
--- Comment #2 from amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-30 17:42 ---
Strange - both on mainline and the 4.1 branch, I can reproduce this (albeit
with
a more sensible variable name of "u") for i686-pc-linux-gnu native, but not for
a cross to sh-elf. Yet the failing mark_addressable ca
--- Comment #7 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2006-01-30 18:00 ---
*** Bug 26037 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #8 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2006-01-30 18:00 ---
Reopen to adjust to...
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVE
--- Comment #9 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2006-01-30 18:01 ---
... invalid.
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-30 18:01 ---
This is caused by the following code in gimplifier:
3297if (use_target)
3298 {
3299CALL_EXPR_RETURN_SLOT_OPT (*from_p) = 1;
3300lang_hooks.mark
--- Comment #2 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2006-01-30 18:00 ---
Not a bug, this is how name lookup works. And any conforming, up to date,
compiler behaves in the same way. You can fix your code moving operator<<
inside namespace MyNameSpace.
I'm sure there are many duplicates, I'm goin
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-30 18:03 ---
I should note this is called argument dependent lookup (or ADL, there is
another name for it after a person but he no longer wants to be associated with
this).
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2603
--- Comment #5 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-30 18:04 ---
Fixed.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
--- Comment #11 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-30 18:05
---
Fixed for 4.1.0 and 4.2.0 at least.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-30 18:07 ---
I don't get a hang but I do get an ICE after some errors.
Confirmed.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #4 from gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2006-01-30 18:14
---
Subject: Re: no match for 'operator<<'
"pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| I should note this is called argument dependent lookup (or ADL, there is
| another name for it after a pe
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-30 18:17 ---
Reopening to ...
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-30 18:17 ---
Mark as a dup of bug 7049.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 7049 ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #10 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-30 18:17
---
*** Bug 21924 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #4 from amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-30 18:29 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> This is caused by the following code in gimplifier:
> 3297if (use_target)
> 3298 {
> 3299CALL_EXPR_RETURN_SLOT_OPT (*from_p) = 1;
> 3300
--- Comment #5 from amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-30 18:31 ---
> It appears we actually don't have any way to query from the
> frontend-indenpendent code if we can mark something as
> safely.
^ addressable
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26004
--- Comment #9 from uweigand at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-30 18:32
---
This appears to be a pre-existing bug in s390_decompose_address,
that happens to be triggered by this particular glibc code.
The problem is the construct &&label1 - &&label2 used in the
source (b.t.w. is this usag
--- Comment #10 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-30 18:38
---
(In reply to comment #9)
> The problem is the construct &&label1 - &&label2 used in the
> source (b.t.w. is this usage of the GCC &&label extension
> valid in the first place?
It is "correct" but not does could me
--- Comment #6 from amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-30 18:38 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> Strange - both on mainline and the 4.1 branch, I can reproduce this (albeit
> with
> a more sensible variable name of "u") for i686-pc-linux-gnu native, but not
> for
> a cross to sh-elf.
--- Comment #3 from kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-30 18:42 ---
For a reduced testscase see
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2006-01/msg00407.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26001
--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-30 18:49 ---
I have a feeling it is one of the string patches that went in around the 8th.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #5 from tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-30 18:51 ---
There were not many changes to the tree during that time. I think the only
possible culprit is Feng Wang's patch for length-one characters.
--
tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--
eedelman at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||eedelman at gcc dot gnu dot
|
--- Comment #6 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-30 18:59 ---
It was the patch which changed string(c:c) == string1(c:c) to be inlined but it
is a latent bug from looking at the tree dumps.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #7 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-30 19:02 ---
Complete unrolling is causing it but I have not looked why.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #8 from tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-30 19:07 ---
Did the regression also happen on 4.1? We should probably revert Feng Wang's
patch there.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26001
--- Comment #9 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-30 19:08 ---
Actually it is not complete unrolling that is going wrong but expand.
static char intstr[1:10] = "0123456789";
;; if (c1$1 == intstr[1]{lb: 1 sz: 1}) (void) 0; else goto ;
(insn 85 83 86 (set (reg:CCZ 17 flags)
--- Comment #10 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-30 19:13
---
(In reply to comment #8)
> Did the regression also happen on 4.1? We should probably revert Feng Wang's
> patch there.
But there is a latent bug. I don't know a way to reproduce this without Feng's
patch in C or
--- Comment #11 from tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-30 19:23 ---
(In reply to comment #10)
> (In reply to comment #8)
> > Did the regression also happen on 4.1? We should probably revert Feng
> > Wang's
> > patch there.
>
> But there is a latent bug. I don't know a way to reprod
--- Comment #12 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-30 19:27
---
(In reply to comment #11)
> I'm not sure what you're trying to say, so let me rephrase: given the advanced
> state of 4.1 in the relase cycle, it may make sense to revert Feng Wang's
> patch
> in 4.1, and to fix t
--- Comment #13 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-30 19:32
---
(In reply to comment #12)
> > this (t02.original) looks like a possible off-by-one error.
>
> [1] here is correct, the arrary bounds is 1:1 and not the C array bounds
> starting at 0.
I should mention the off by
--- Comment #15 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-30 19:39
---
(In reply to comment #14)
> Sounds like the tree-optimizers should have replaced "0"[1] with '0'. This
> also sounds like it was pure chance that the bug didn't trigger at -O0.
Yes they should have but that is a
--- Comment #14 from tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-30 19:37 ---
(In reply to comment #13)
> (In reply to comment #12)
> > > this (t02.original) looks like a possible off-by-one error.
> >
> > [1] here is correct, the arrary bounds is 1:1 and not the C array bounds
> > starting at
--- Comment #6 from amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-30 20:24 ---
> Reload seems to need two rounds, but the emitted reload insns for each pass
> is left around. This is exposed but not actually caused by the fix for
> PR middle-end/24912.
Reload should be only called once per fun
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26029
--- Comment #2 from brainchild at skyler dot com 2006-01-30 21:36 ---
The gcc version is 3.4.4, the one in the current Cygwin distribution.
It must have been fixed since then, though. I downloaded and built gcc 4.0.2
and it gives the correct output, i_=1. So, I guess you can consider
--- Comment #3 from brainchild at skyler dot com 2006-01-30 21:40 ---
Per your request, the --version output:
g++ (GCC) 3.4.4 (cygming special) (gdc 0.12, using dmd 0.125)
Copyright (C) 2004 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This is free software; see the source for copying conditions. Th
--- Comment #4 from brainchild at skyler dot com 2006-01-30 21:42 ---
Sorry, just realized that's not what you asked for. Here is output of gcc -v:
$ ./gcc -v
Reading specs from /usr/lib/gcc/i686-pc-cygwin/3.4.4/specs
Configured with: /gcc/gcc-3.4.4/gcc-3.4.4-1/configure --verbose --pr
--- Comment #7 from hp at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-30 21:53 ---
Re: "needing two rounds". Looks like you're hung up on my choice of words.
I suggest ignore that and instead just run the test-case.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25335
--- Comment #5 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-30 22:11 ---
Ok, I have now tried a 3.4.x and also a 3.3.x. and found some interesting
results.
Well it is a regression only in 3.4.1 and above and 3.3.5 and above.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What
--- Comment #4 from eedelman at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-30 22:24
---
Subject: Bug 24266
Author: eedelman
Date: Mon Jan 30 22:23:57 2006
New Revision: 110412
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=110412
Log:
fortran/
2005-01-30 Erik Edelmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-30 22:24 ---
Confirmed.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCON
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-30 22:29 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> I CAN COMPILE binutils-2.16.1 successfully, but why can't I use them?
Because it has not been ported to AIX 5 yet.
> What is if i need to compile apps, which need binutils ?
Ask the app n
[EMAIL PROTECTED] cpu2006]$ cat foo.f90
subroutine foo(self)
character(*) :: self
pointer :: self
allocate(self)
end subroutine
[EMAIL PROTECTED] cpu2006]$ /usr/gcc-4.2/bin/gcc -S foo.f90 -m32
foo.f90: In function foo:
foo.f90:4: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault
P
--- Comment #1 from hjl at lucon dot org 2006-01-30 22:39 ---
It happens on gcc 4.2, 4.1 and 4.0. But gcc-4.1-redhat is fine:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] cpu2006]$ /usr/gcc-4.1-redhat/bin/gcc -S foo.f90 -O2
[EMAIL PROTECTED] cpu2006]$ /usr/gcc-4.1-redhat/bin/gcc --version
gcc (GCC) 4.1.0 20060128
I'm onto this.
$ cat maxval.f90
program main
integer, dimension(2) :: a
logical, dimension(2,1) :: lo
a = (/ 1, 2 /)
lo = .true.
print *,maxval(a,mask=lo)
end program main
$ gfortran maxval.f90
maxval.f90: In function 'MAIN__':
maxval.f90:5: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault
Pl
--- Comment #1 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-30 23:16 ---
Created an attachment (id=10764)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10764&action=view)
patch
Same problem (lack of check) with min/maxloc, product and sum, although
with different results.
--
tk
--- Comment #11 from wilson at tuliptree dot org 2006-01-30 23:24 ---
Subject: Re: problems with -Wformat and bit-fields
On Mon, 2006-01-23 at 16:06, tony dot luck at intel dot com wrote:
> u64 den : 32, num : 32; /* numerator & denominator */
> printf("den=%lx num=%lx\
1 - 100 of 139 matches
Mail list logo
