--
jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
|dot org
--- Comment #5 from falk at debian dot org 2006-10-29 09:57 ---
Zdenek,
do you think this patch (or another fix) can be backported to 4.1?
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-01/msg01259.html
--
falk at debian dot org changed:
What|Removed |Ad
--- Comment #6 from rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-29 10:00 ---
> do you think this patch (or another fix) can be backported to 4.1?
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-01/msg01259.html
Given the nature of the patch, I do not think this is the right approach to
fixing th
--- Comment #2 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-29 10:27 ---
Subject: Bug 29629
Author: jakub
Date: Sun Oct 29 10:27:39 2006
New Revision: 118134
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=118134
Log:
PR fortran/29629
* trans-openmp.c (gfc_trans_omp_
Hello. A group of developers, including myself, have done a
lot of work to get gcc 3.2.3 working on MVS. That is the i370
target which has unfortunately been removed from gcc 4. You
can see the result here:
http://www.softlib.org/GCCMVS/gccmvs.html
It is all working fine, but there are some in
The following gives an ICE:
type foo
integer :: i
end type foo
interface fun_interface
type(foo) function fun()
end function fun
end interface
contains
type(foo) function fun()
end function ieee_class_r4
end
If the return type of the function, type(foo), is replaced by
--
fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Last recon
--- Comment #2 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-29 10:45
---
An ICE at the same line of code was reported as PR 29634. Maybe your patch
fixes both?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29539
--- Comment #2 from paolo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-29 10:49 ---
Subject: Bug 29520
Author: paolo
Date: Sun Oct 29 10:49:07 2006
New Revision: 118135
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=118135
Log:
2006-10-29 Paolo Carlini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR libstd
--- Comment #3 from paolo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-29 10:49 ---
Subject: Bug 29520
Author: paolo
Date: Sun Oct 29 10:49:30 2006
New Revision: 118136
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=118136
Log:
2006-10-29 Paolo Carlini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR libstd
--- Comment #4 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2006-10-29 10:52 ---
Fixed for 4.2.0.
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #3 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-29 11:21 ---
Subject: Bug 29629
Author: jakub
Date: Sun Oct 29 11:20:53 2006
New Revision: 118139
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=118139
Log:
PR fortran/29629
* trans-openmp.c (gfc_trans_omp_
--- Comment #4 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-29 11:35
---
> So this is another loop.c bug.
Confirmed.
> This is why it was removed, it was full of bugs :).
With this criterion VRP wouldn't have survived either. :-)
--
ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
--- Comment #5 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-29 11:35
---
Investigating.
--
ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assigne
--- Comment #4 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-29 11:38 ---
Fixed on the trunk, gcc-4_2-branch and redhat/gcc-4_1-branch.
--
jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #4 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-29 11:49 ---
Created an attachment (id=12506)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=12506&action=view)
updated patch
In the previous patch, I had ommitted one test too many
(the one for EOF). Here's an updated ver
--- Comment #5 from franke dot daniel at gmail dot com 2006-10-29 11:52
---
Great. Jakub, thank you very much!
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29629
--- Comment #13 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-29 11:57 ---
Subject: Bug 24313
Author: burnus
Date: Sun Oct 29 11:56:56 2006
New Revision: 118142
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=118142
Log:
2006-10-28 Tobias Burnus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR libg
--- Comment #14 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-29 11:58 ---
For completeness, the two problems are in the meanwhile fixed in glibc:
- csqrt bug, fixed 2005-10-13,
http://sources.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1466
- cacosh bug, fixed 2006-08-03,
http://sources.redhat.c
--- Comment #5 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-29 11:59 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
Hi Jerry,
> Now
> that we are in 4.3 this is a good time to do some cleanup. Overall, the
> prelminary patch approach looks good, but I have not tested yet.
There's another reason why I w
$ cat a.f90
module foo
integer i
end module foo
use foo
print *, i
end
$ ifort -g -c a.f90
$ readelf -wi a.o
The section .debug_info contains:
Compilation Unit @ offset 0x0:
Length:167
Version: 2
Abbrev Offset: 0
Pointer Size: 4
<0>: Abbrev Number: 1 (DW_TAG_co
--
steven at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |steven at gcc dot gnu dot
|dot org
--- Comment #5 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-29 14:19
---
Hi Janne,
As we've discussed on IRC, the inclusion of the ISO_C_BINDING patch is still
uncertain. For other work (implementation of the IEEE intrinsic modules), I've
felt the need to add an option to gfortran tha
--- Comment #6 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-29 14:20
---
Created an attachment (id=12507)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=12507&action=view)
Patch implementing namespace separation, to go with symbol versioning
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/sho
/usr/bin/ld: Undefined symbols:
___emutls_get_address
when compiling c++ sources with open mp
--
Summary: Undefined symbols: ___emutls_get_address
Product: gcc
Version: 4.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
--- Comment #1 from mail at nicetoeatyou dot de 2006-10-29 14:26 ---
Created an attachment (id=12508)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=12508&action=view)
log from the build
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29636
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-29 16:34 ---
The patch which caused this was reverted already. You might as well try a
newer GCC.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #8 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-29 16:43
---
Subject: Bug 17741
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Sun Oct 29 16:43:48 2006
New Revision: 118149
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=118149
Log:
2006-10-29 Jerry DeLisle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Comment #9 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-29 16:45
---
Fixed on 4.3, no need to backport
--
jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[4.1/4.2 Regression] ICE|[4.1/4.2/4.3 Regression] ICE
|when building the ker
--- Comment #6 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-29 16:47
---
I have started looking into this one
--
jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #7 from sayle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-29 17:51 ---
Subject: Bug 15458
Author: sayle
Date: Sun Oct 29 17:51:07 2006
New Revision: 118152
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=118152
Log:
PR tree-optimization/15458
* fold-const.c (fold_
--- Comment #5 from mueller at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-29 18:38 ---
Subject: Bug 16307
Author: mueller
Date: Sun Oct 29 18:38:26 2006
New Revision: 118154
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=118154
Log:
2006-10-29 Dirk Mueller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR c++
--- Comment #6 from mueller at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-29 19:13 ---
Fixed in 4.3
--
mueller at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASS
--- Comment #7 from jb at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-29 19:32 ---
Yes, this approach is fine by me. Thanks for doing the work.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27740
--- Comment #2 from mueller at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-29 19:53 ---
Subject: Bug 29089
Author: mueller
Date: Sun Oct 29 19:52:52 2006
New Revision: 118156
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=118156
Log:
PR c++/29089
* typeck.c (build_unary_op): Dupli
--- Comment #3 from mueller at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-29 19:58 ---
Fixed for 4.3
--
mueller at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NE
--- Comment #7 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2006-10-29 20:02 ---
Subject: Re: ICE in gfc_assign_data_value_range
> Should we simply avoid the ice, perhaps accepting the invalid code or do we
> want to search for duplicates in the DATA statements and generate an
--- Comment #8 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-29 20:27 ---
Fixed.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
--- Comment #7 from geoffk at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-29 20:29 ---
I think I'll just declare that GCC requires a shared libgcc on Darwin.
--
geoffk at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-29 20:40 ---
Do you have a testcase that actually compiles?
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
PR29092 fix causes a regression:
/* { dg-do compile } */
/* { dg-options "-O2 -ftree-vectorize" } */
typedef struct __attribute__ ((aligned (8)))
{
short a, b, c, d;
} A;
typedef struct
{
A a[24];
} B;
static const A b = { 0, 0, 1, -1 };
void
foo (B *x)
{
int i;
for (i = 0; i <= 20; i
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot
|
PR29092 fix causes a regression:
/* { dg-do compile } */
/* { dg-options "-O2 -ftree-vectorize" } */
typedef struct __attribute__ ((aligned (8)))
{
short a, b, c, d;
} A;
typedef struct
{
A a[24];
} B;
static const A b = { 0, 0, 1, -1 };
void
foo (B *x)
{
int i;
for (i = 0; i <= 20; i
--
jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
|dot org
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-29 20:53 ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 29638 ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-29 20:53 ---
*** Bug 29637 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29638
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot
|
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-29 21:03 ---
Confirmed, reduced testcase:procedure rv is
task serveur is
entry rendez_vous;
entry photo;
end serveur ;
task body serveur is
begin
accept photo do
null;
end p
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-29 21:29 ---
This is not a bug in GCC but rather longjump/setjmp on Darwin, report this bug
to Apple.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #6 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-29 21:40
---
It's another fallout of PR middle-end/25125. In final_cleanup:
short unsigned int pretmp.53;
short int p0;
:
pretmp.53 = (short unsigned int) delta;
p0 = 2;
ivtmp.59 = 0;
:;
p0 = (short int) (pretm
--
fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot|unassigned at gcc dot gnu
|org
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-29 22:15 ---
The problem is that gfc_conv_intrinsic_transfer does *(int*)&float_var which
causes a violation of aliasing rules.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Adde
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-29 22:36 ---
Here is the fix which I am testing right now:
Index: trans-intrinsic.c
===
--- trans-intrinsic.c (revision 118159)
+++ trans-intrinsic.c (working co
--- Comment #7 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-29 23:06
---
As per comment #3.
--
ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Co
--- Comment #8 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-29 23:06
---
Investigating.
--
ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assigne
--- Comment #7 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-29 23:10
---
Probably a lost cause at this point...
--
ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--
ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|SUSPENDED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20548
--- Comment #21 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-29 23:17
---
After the latest changes to VRP, only cxh1001 still fails on mainline.
--
ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|major |normal
Summary|[4.2/4.3 Regression] ACATS |[4.2/4.3 reg
--- Comment #8 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-29 23:51
---
Here is a case that makes it through gfortran and into middle-end or back-end.
real :: a(5,5)
DATA a /25*-5.0/ !(1,1), a(3,1), a(1,2), a(3,3) /2*1.0, 2*2.0/
DATA a(2,1) /2.5/
print '(5f5.2)', a
end
test2.f90: In
Between 2006-10-28 and 2006-10-29 a regression appeared on at least some
targets:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2006-10/msg01448.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2006-10/msg01450.html
On i686-pc-linux-gnu, I'm seeing it only at -O1 or above, and goes like this:
#0 parse_
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-30 00:02 ---
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2004-04/msg01768.html
Hmm, I bet this is really a binutils bug.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29639
--- Comment #2 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2006-10-30 00:08 ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2004-04/msg01768.html
Are you sure this *2004* patch is relevant?
> Hmm, I bet this is really a binutils bug.
I'm seeing the problem with a stock 2.17, if nobo
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-30 00:21 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> (In reply to comment #1)
> > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2004-04/msg01768.html
>
> Are you sure this *2004* patch is relevant?
>
Yes since it just went in during the time frame you
--- Comment #4 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2006-10-30 00:27 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> > Are you sure this *2004* patch is relevant?
> >
>
> Yes since it just went in during the time frame you mentioned:
> 2006-10-28 Eric Botcazou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crazy. Ok, thanks, let's ad
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-30 02:14 ---
Fixed in 4.3.0 by the patch which fixed PR 27132.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-30 02:17 ---
Confirmed, this regression was caused by the removal of ADDRESSOF.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-30 02:46 ---
Fixed in 4.2.0.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|
testcase:
int f(int m, int n[m]);
@ implementation NGActiveSocket
+ (void) socketPair:(int)m :(int [m]) _pair
{
_pair[0] = 0;
}
@end
---
Seems like method arguments should be parsed the same as function arguments.
--
Summary: C99 VLA size rejected in an objc method def
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-30 06:21 ---
I am testing the fix for this right now.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29197
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-30 06:21 ---
Note I xfailed these testcases.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25359
--- Comment #24 from sur at compart dot net 2006-10-30 07:32 ---
I get this very same issue also on sparc-solaris 2.10 with the mentioned source
and gcc v 4.1.1. So I hope 4.1.2 will fix this there too, but I get it there
only with option -ggdb, in case this helps anyway. Alternatively I
73 matches
Mail list logo
