--- Comment #9 from ayers at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-12 07:04 ---
Fixed for 4.2.0
--
ayers at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
--- Comment #3 from jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk 2006-06-12 07:18 ---
(In reply to comment #0)
still failing ... since it has been opened about 2.5y ago, should it be closed
as wontfix ?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12821
In the following, the assignment to str gets truncated twice.
gfortran -Wall does not give any warning.
Expected: As similar warning as NAG gives:
Warning: trunc.f90, line 2: Initialisation expression for STR truncated
At least the first initalization should be detected, possibly also the second
--- Comment #4 from micis at gmx dot de 2006-06-12 10:24 ---
I tried an actual snapshot of gcc (gcc-4.2-20060603) on this source and the ICE
no longer occured.
Michael Cieslinski
--
micis at gmx dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #7 from dnovillo at redhat dot com 2006-06-12 12:12 ---
Subject: Re: [4.0/4.1/4.2 regression] ICE in cp_expr_size
with volatile and call to static
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote on 06/05/06 18:37:
> Diego, what say you?
>
Shouldn't COMPLETE_TYPE_P imply that we ca
--- Comment #4 from tbm at cyrius dot com 2006-06-12 12:15 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> I'm really on mipsel.
... but you can also see it with a x from i386 to mipsel.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27861
--- Comment #2 from m_ansoor at yahoo dot com 2006-06-12 12:43 ---
Hi,
An echo of $PATH shows:
/toolkit/newbin:/usr/local/bin:/usr/bin:/etc:/usr/sbin:/usr/ucb:/usr/bin/X11:/sbin:/usr/java14/jre/bin:/usr/java14/bin
On the configure line, I had specified --prefix=/toolkit
Is it possible
--- Comment #2 from reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-12 12:45
---
Well, the "Internal Error" at the end of the eror message doesn't look
like "the right thing" to me:
Internal Error at (1):
gfc_get_default_type(): Bad symbol
And this happens since GCC 4.0.0. I.e. GCC 4.0.x, 4
See Fortran 2003 standard, section 4.8.
Example (F2003, "Note 4.70"):
(/ CHARACTER(LEN=7) :: Takata, Tanaka, Hayashi /)
Currently, this gives the error:
a = (/ character(len=7) :: 'Takata', 'Tanaka', 'Hayashi' /)
1
Error: Syntax error in array constructor at (1)
The following constructor seems to be invalid according to the Fortran 2003
standard:
(/ 'Takata', 'Tanaka', 'Hayashi' /)
as first two strings are 6 whereas the last one is 7 character long.
NAG f95 fails with the following error:
Error: string.f90, line 3: Array constructor values have differin
--- Comment #28 from danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-12 13:21
---
See hang on hppa1.1-hp-hpux10.20 for c974013. I don't know whether
these are the same problem but c974004 and c974005 are also failing
on this target:
,.,. C974004 ACATS 2.5 06-06-11 23:43:09
C974004 Asynchr
raised STORAGE_ERROR : stack overflow detected
Stack size is set to 8192 kbytes. This doesn't happen all
the time.
--
Summary: FAIL: c64005c
Product: gcc
Version: 4.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
--- Comment #12 from martinol at nrlssc dot navy dot mil 2006-06-12 13:39
---
Created an attachment (id=11652)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=11652&action=view)
mips-sgi-irix6.5/libstdc++-v3/config.log
from gcc-4.1-20060428 build
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla
--- Comment #3 from kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-12 14:23 ---
I don't see the internal error.
laptop:kargl[205] cat > r.f90
subroutine FOO
character*20 X 0
data X /'A'/0
end subroutine FOO
laptop:kargl[206] gfc -c r.f90
In file r.f90:3
char
--- Comment #3 from matz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-12 14:40 ---
Is this still a problem David? On x86_64 the libunwind-0.98.5 doesn't work
for ptrace (missing implemented functions), so I can't reproduce anything
on that platform. And on ia64-linux with a 4.1.x compiler test-ptrac
,java,objc,obj-c++ --enable-threads
--enable-checking --prefix=/somepath/gcc-4.2-20060612 --with-gmp=/somepath/GMP
--with-mpfr=/somepath/MPFR
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.2.0 20060612 (experimental)
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27954
--- Comment #7 from dirk dot behme at googlemail dot com 2006-06-12 15:34
---
Until a fix for this bug is found, there are two possible workarounds:
- Compile kernels sound system as modules and compile these modules with -O1
instead of default -Os or -O2 (e.g. by changing main Makefi
I'd expect that at least the same code is generated for both cases as opposed
to creating worse code for the case where an explicit assignment is done.
I had hoped that the explicit assignment actually creates smaller code.
$ gcc -DDOINC -Os -march=i386 -c -o scan.o.orig scan.c
$ gcc -UDOINC -Os
--- Comment #5 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-12 16:30
---
This is not DLL-related, the following code doesn't have the expected behaviour
(although it works fine on i686-linux, even in the static case):
$ cat ctesti.c
#include
void print_from_gcc(char* txt) {
print
The decNumber sources files in libdecnumber were contributed by IBM and are
currently covered by the GPL. When GCC is configured with
--enable-decimal-float, some of these functions are included in the static
version of libgcc. The license needs to change from GPL to GPL plus exception.
I've ass
--- Comment #4 from ro at techfak dot uni-bielefeld dot de 2006-06-12
17:45 ---
Subject: Re: [4.2 Regression] Ada bootstrap failure on Solaris 10/x86
ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org writes:
> Right, it's another kind of SJLJ exceptions, purely front-end based. Excerpt
> from system
--- Comment #19 from tbm at cyrius dot com 2006-06-12 18:03 ---
Created an attachment (id=11654)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=11654&action=view)
C test case
Here's a C test case (from the Linux kernel).
5289:[EMAIL PROTECTED]: ~] /usr/local/bin/gcc -c -O2 --param
--- Comment #13 from martinol at nrlssc dot navy dot mil 2006-06-12 18:04
---
Created an attachment (id=11655)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=11655&action=view)
./mips-sgi-irix6.5/libstdc++-v3/config.log
This is from gcc-4.1-20060512 snapshot. So between 20060428
--- Comment #5 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-12 18:11
---
> Ok, I see. Thanks for the explanation. Any reason this is done this way?
> Solaris/SPARC doesn't use this, nor does Linux/x86, so it seems like both
> the Solaris and x86 parts of the code are there.
Short an
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-12 18:43 ---
The reason why increment is smaller is because the inc instruction is smaller
than loading a constant.
This is a target specific optimization as most other targets, it is going to be
about the same.
--
pinskia a
--- Comment #9 from sayle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-12 18:55 ---
Subject: Bug 21210
Author: sayle
Date: Mon Jun 12 18:50:22 2006
New Revision: 114573
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=114573
Log:
PR c++/21210
* typeck2.c (build_functional_cast)
--- Comment #3 from pluto at agmk dot net 2006-06-12 19:15 ---
still ice.
--
pluto at agmk dot net changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail|2.95 3.0.4 3.2.2 4.0.0
with: /net/rosie/scratch1/rwgk/gcc_trunk/configure
--prefix=/usr
/local_cci/gcc_trunk_2006_06_12_0834_fc5_x86_64 --enable-languages=c,c++
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.2.0 20060612 (experimental)
*/
--
Summary: optimizer bug
Product: gcc
Version
--- Comment #1 from rwgk at yahoo dot com 2006-06-12 19:28 ---
Created an attachment (id=11656)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=11656&action=view)
short reproducer
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28003
--- Comment #2 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-12 19:43 ---
This will never be implemented.
--
steven at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
GNU Fortran 95 (GCC) 4.2.0 20060612.
If I write a program with a intent(out) variable and this varibale is not set,
gfortran only writes:
warning: unused variable C
Expected: Default warning like ifort/NAG f95/g95:
In file ff.f90:7
subroutine sub(a)
1
Warning (158): INTENT
--- Comment #20 from tbm at cyrius dot com 2006-06-12 20:18 ---
Finally, a *small* test case.
5336:[EMAIL PROTECTED]: ~/tmp/delta/bin] /usr/local/bin/gcc -c -O1 --param
ggc-min-expand=0 --param ggc-min-heapsize=0 mini.c
mini.c:27: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault
Please submi
--- Comment #2 from reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-12 20:51
---
Subject: Bug 27951
Author: reichelt
Date: Mon Jun 12 20:50:53 2006
New Revision: 114577
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=114577
Log:
PR c++/27951
* decl2.c (finish_anon_union)
--- Comment #3 from reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-12 20:55
---
Subject: Bug 27951
Author: reichelt
Date: Mon Jun 12 20:55:42 2006
New Revision: 114578
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=114578
Log:
PR c++/27951
* decl2.c (finish_anon_union)
--- Comment #4 from reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-12 21:00
---
Subject: Bug 27951
Author: reichelt
Date: Mon Jun 12 21:00:31 2006
New Revision: 114579
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=114579
Log:
PR c++/27951
* decl2.c (finish_anon_union)
--- Comment #5 from reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-12 21:03
---
Fixed on mainline, 4.1 branch, and 4.0 branch.
--
reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #7 from dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-12 21:10
---
This is still an issue. http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2006-06/msg00178.html
--
dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-12 21:13
---
Subject: Bug 27933
Author: reichelt
Date: Mon Jun 12 21:12:52 2006
New Revision: 114580
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=114580
Log:
PR c++/27933
* name-lookup.c (lookup_quali
>
>
>
> --- Comment #7 from dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-12 21:10
> ---
>
> This is still an issue. http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2006-06/msg00178.html
I think this is only an issue when you have a normal multi lib x86_64 but use
--disable-multilib.
-- Pinski
--- Comment #8 from pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu 2006-06-12 21:18
---
Subject: Re: Cannot find libgomp.spec after 'make install' on x86_64 and ppc64
>
>
>
> --- Comment #7 from dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-12 21:10
> ---
>
> This is still an issue. http:
--- Comment #3 from reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-12 21:18
---
Subject: Bug 27933
Author: reichelt
Date: Mon Jun 12 21:18:20 2006
New Revision: 114581
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=114581
Log:
PR c++/27933
* name-lookup.c (lookup_quali
--- Comment #4 from reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-12 21:23
---
Subject: Bug 27933
Author: reichelt
Date: Mon Jun 12 21:23:30 2006
New Revision: 114582
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=114582
Log:
PR c++/27933
* name-lookup.c (lookup_quali
--- Comment #5 from reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-12 21:24
---
Fixed on mainline, 4.1 branch, and 4.0 branch.
--
reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
ran (4.2.0 20060612 and 4.1.0 (SUSE Linux)):
3.00 3.00 0.00
Should be: 8.0 8.0 0.0
ifort, g95 and NAG f95 give the correct result (8. 8. 0.0).
--
Summary: gfortran: mathmul produces wrong result
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
--- Comment #16 from reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-12 21:34
---
Subject: Bug 27421
Author: reichelt
Date: Mon Jun 12 21:34:32 2006
New Revision: 114583
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=114583
Log:
PR target/27421
* config/i386/i386.c (cla
--- Comment #17 from reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-12 21:39
---
Subject: Bug 27421
Author: reichelt
Date: Mon Jun 12 21:39:10 2006
New Revision: 114584
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=114584
Log:
PR target/27421
* config/i386/i386.c (cla
--- Comment #18 from reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-12 21:40
---
Now also fixed for unions (mainline, 4.1 branch, and 4.0 branch).
--
reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #1 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-12 21:57 ---
Created an attachment (id=11657)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=11657&action=view)
patch
Here's a patch (regression-tested).
I'm not 100% sure this is the most elegant method, though.
--
h
-
This produces in gfortran:
Fortran runtime error: Attempt to allocate a negative amount of memory.
intfunc -1
Tested with 4.2.0 20060612 (experimental) and 4.1.0 (SUSE Linux).
--
Summary: Negative-sized array should be empty array, not try to
--- Comment #14 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2006-06-12 22:40 ---
Ok, thanks for your feedback. Indeed, the only possible "cause" of the problem
are the finer grained checks for wchar_t vs C99 wchar_t proper functions which
are now carried out after my 2006-05-03 commit (which fixed regr
--- Comment #14 from reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-12 22:56
---
Subject: Bug 27601
Author: reichelt
Date: Mon Jun 12 22:56:07 2006
New Revision: 114588
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=114588
Log:
PR c++/27601
* semantics.c (finish_offset
--- Comment #1 from kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-12 22:56 ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 27980 ***
--
kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #2 from kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-12 22:56 ---
*** Bug 28006 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #15 from reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-12 23:00
---
Subject: Bug 27601
Author: reichelt
Date: Mon Jun 12 23:00:00 2006
New Revision: 114589
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=114589
Log:
PR c++/27601
* semantics.c (finish_offset
--- Comment #16 from reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-12 23:03
---
Subject: Bug 27601
Author: reichelt
Date: Mon Jun 12 23:03:36 2006
New Revision: 114590
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=114590
Log:
PR c++/27601
* semantics.c (finish_offset
203] gfc4x -v
Using built-in specs.
Target: amd64-unknown-freebsd7.0
Configured with: ../gcc4x/configure --prefix=/home/sgk/work/4x
--enable-languages=c,fortran --enable-checking
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.2.0 20060612 (experimental)
troutmask:sgk[204] gfc4x -c l.f90
In file l.f90:3
--- Comment #17 from reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-12 23:07
---
Now the ICE with pseudo-destructors described in
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-06/msg00677.html
is also fixed.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27601
Here is a simple example which shows the bug when compiled with
-arch i386 -O2 -msse3 -funroll-loops -ftree-vectorize -msse3-ftree-vectorize
and -funroll-loops
#include
#include
int main (int, char * const)
{
const int count = 5;
uint32_t x[count];
for (int i = 0; i <
--- Comment #15 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2006-06-12 23:22 ---
Not waiting anymore, but not confirmed either: we badly need an independent
confirmation.
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #8 from paolo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-12 23:24 ---
Subject: Bug 26970
Author: paolo
Date: Mon Jun 12 23:24:22 2006
New Revision: 114591
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=114591
Log:
2006-06-12 Paolo Carlini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR libstd
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-12 23:24 ---
-arch i386
Hmm, you are using Apple's compiler and you really should report this to Apple
first. It might actually be fixed in the FSF GCC already (maybe it was never
broken here either).
--
pinskia at gcc dot
--- Comment #9 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2006-06-12 23:25 ---
Fixed.
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #6 from reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-12 23:26
---
I can reproduce the bug also on i686-pc-linux-gnu.
Does freebsd vs. linux really matter that much here?
Or could GMP or MPFR be the culprit?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27954
--- Comment #18 from patchapp at dberlin dot org 2006-06-13 00:10 ---
Subject: Bug number PR c++/27601
A patch for this bug has been added to the patch tracker.
The mailing list url for the patch is
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-06/msg00677.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzi
--- Comment #7 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2006-06-13 00:35 ---
Subject: Re: ICE on garbage in DATA statement
On Mon, Jun 12, 2006 at 11:26:16PM -, reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org
wrote:
>
> I can reproduce the bug also on i686-pc-linux-gnu.
> Does freebs
--- Comment #8 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2006-06-13 00:56 ---
Subject: Re: ICE on garbage in DATA statement
On Mon, Jun 12, 2006 at 05:34:52PM -0700, Steve Kargl wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 12, 2006 at 11:26:16PM -, reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org
> wrote:
> >
From
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-06/msg00595.html
/work/rearnsha/gnu/gcc/trunk/./gcc/xgcc -B/work/rearnsha/gnu/gcc/trunk/./gcc/
-B/work/rearnsha/gnu/testinstall/arm-netbsdelf2/bin/
-B/work/rearnsha/gnu/testinstall/arm-netbsdelf2/lib/ -isystem
/work/rearnsha/gnu/testinstall/arm-netbsdel
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-13 01:57 ---
Also read
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-06/msg00494.html
Where I mentioned this should not have been applied.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |
--- Comment #3 from danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-13 02:09 ---
Subject: Bug 27944
Author: danglin
Date: Tue Jun 13 02:08:53 2006
New Revision: 114598
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=114598
Log:
PR ada/27944
* s-taprop-hpux-dce.adb: Delete
--- Comment #3 from howarth at nitro dot med dot uc dot edu 2006-06-13
02:10 ---
It appears that on Macintel, simply unsetting MACOSX_DEPLOYMENT_TARGET is
insufficient to
eliminate the undefined symbols for _Unwind_GETIPInfo when building gcj. This
doesn't happen
on ppc Darwin. Cur
--- Comment #4 from danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-13 02:14 ---
Fixed by patch on trunk.
--
danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-13 03:15 ---
This is correct on the FSF GCC.
In 4.0.x, we don't vectorize the loop and in 4.1.x, we produce:
pslld $24, %xmm1
So please report this bug to Apple.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
--- Comment #3 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-13 04:22 ---
Could it be an issue on the autovect branch?
--
steven at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-13 04:24 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> Could it be an issue on the autovect branch?
No because we do vectorize the look in 4.1.0 correctly.
Witness pslld $24, %xmm1
This was most likely at one point a problem on the
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-13 04:41 ---
Hmm, we get after dce, just:
reduced_cell_two_folds[26] = {};
And DCE removes:
this_616 = &reduced_cell_two_folds[26].u;
# SMT.68_1055 = V_MAY_DEF ;
this_616->elems[0] = 1;
# SMT.68_1056 = V_MAY_D
--- Comment #14 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-13 06:26
---
Thomas, could you backport your patch to 4.1? (when you have some time, of
course)
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27715
76 matches
Mail list logo
