--- Comment #4 from brian at dessent dot net 2007-02-03 09:08 ---
I never found out what was causing this but it hasn't happened in quite some
time so this can be closed out as INVALID.
--
brian at dessent dot net changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #5 from tbm at cyrius dot com 2007-02-03 09:45 ---
I don't see this with Linux on HPPA hardware. Steve Ellcey, can you try on
HPUX please?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29209
--- Comment #19 from tbm at cyrius dot com 2007-02-03 09:47 ---
(In reply to comment #18)
> Fixed.
Richi, do you think you can check whether PR28358 is really a duplicate of this
bug (as Andrew thinks) and should be closed.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28116
--- Comment #7 from tbm at cyrius dot com 2007-02-03 09:51 ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> Created an attachment (id=10360)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10360&action=view) [edit]
> source file set for the 4.2 Bug Box
>
> To reproduce,
Can you still reproduce this
I get the following with 4.2.0 20070131:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/libtexttools$ /usr/lib/gcc-snapshot/bin/gcc -c windows.adb
+===GNAT BUG DETECTED==+
| 4.2.0 20070131 (prerelease) (ia64-unknown-linux-gnu) GCC error: |
| in expand_expr_addr_ex
--- Comment #1 from tbm at cyrius dot com 2007-02-03 10:04 ---
Created an attachment (id=13000)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=13000&action=view)
ada testcase
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30686
--- Comment #2 from tbm at cyrius dot com 2007-02-03 10:05 ---
Also happens with 4.1:
+===GNAT BUG DETECTED==+
| 4.1.2 20061115 (prerelease) (Debian 4.1.1-22) (ia64-unknown-linux-gnu) GCC
error:|
| in expand_expr_addr_expr_1, at expr.c
The ia64 backend has various undocumented machine attributes. Unfortunately
they are used in code.
{ "syscall_linkage", 0, 0, false, true, true, NULL },
{ "model", 1, 1, true, false, false, ia64_handle_model_attribute },
{ "version_id", 1, 1, true, false, false,
ia64_han
--- Comment #3 from tbm at cyrius dot com 2007-02-03 10:11 ---
I also see this with 4.2.0 20060721.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30686
--
fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
GCC build t
--- Comment #2 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-03 10:43
---
I've tried a few times to look into it, but the .tar.bz2 code on your server is
just too large, and the example you posted here doesn't compile. Could you try
the following:
* upgrade to gfortran-4.2 or later (y
During Linux kernel development we ran into a few situations that showed
that indirect calls (through a function pointer) are significant slower on IA64
than on other platforms. Various ugly workarounds have been added to work
around that.
Some investigation shows the code gcc generates for indire
--- Comment #1 from ak at muc dot de 2007-02-03 11:22 ---
Here's a simple test case:
void f(int k, int (*fptr)(int i))
{
int i;
/* Do something useless */
for (i = 0; i < 5; i++)
k *= 10;
fptr(k);
}
compiled with 4.3.0
I hope this is a new bug (I am not good at searching through bugzilla). I am
also not sure if this is according to standards, but as I undertand equivalence
is a harmless statement. It shouldn't change the lenght of the common block. I
am using gfortran -fdefault-integer-8 to compile gaussian-03 pr
--- Comment #5 from sfilippone at uniroma2 dot it 2007-02-03 12:05 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> I'm testing a patch for this at the moment. The problem is you
> have renamed SIZE to an interface. That is, this is leading to
> the segfault:
>
>
> interface size
> module proce
Right now, the files from the m4 directory don't follow
a sane nor uniform quoting style. What they do is also
undocumented.
This section of the code needs to be documented better, and
also needs some cleanup. Alternatively, a rewrite
would be in order.
--
Summary: Clean up m4 file
--
fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch, rejects-valid
Known to fail|
--
fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Last recon
--
fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
Target Milestone|--- |4.3.0
http:
Under "Intel 386 and AMD x86-64 Options" are listed several different
parameters one can give to -march, such as i386,i486,pentium,prescott,etc. For
AMD64 users the special options -m32 and -m64 specify whether to build for 32
or 64 bit environments. Aren't both these options redundant? If you're b
--- Comment #5 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-03 13:13 ---
I cannot reproduce this with either current 4.1 branch head nor g++ (GCC) 4.1.2
20061115 (prerelease) (Debian 4.1.1-21).
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28358
--- Comment #4 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-03 13:38 ---
Subject: Bug 30660
Author: pault
Date: Sat Feb 3 13:38:42 2007
New Revision: 121541
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=121541
Log:
2007-02-03 Paul Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR fortran/
--- Comment #13 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-03 13:38 ---
Subject: Bug 29820
Author: pault
Date: Sat Feb 3 13:38:42 2007
New Revision: 121541
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=121541
Log:
2007-02-03 Paul Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR fortran
--- Comment #5 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-03 13:38 ---
Subject: Bug 30514
Author: pault
Date: Sat Feb 3 13:38:42 2007
New Revision: 121541
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=121541
Log:
2007-02-03 Paul Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR fortran/
--- Comment #6 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2007-02-03
14:47 ---
Subject: Re: ICE optimizing passing long double to abstract method while in
other abstract's impl
> --- Comment #5 from tbm at cyrius dot com 2007-02-03 09:45 ---
> I don't see this with Linux on
I want to use gcc's -E option to just have the preprocessor run on one of my
header files, to see if some macros expand correctly. GCC will do this happily
if the file's extension is .h, but not if it is .hpp. You can see this
trivially by typing in at the console:
$ touch blah.hpp
$ gcc -E blah.h
--- Comment #24 from tbm at cyrius dot com 2007-02-03 15:06 ---
Is the following supposed to fail given that Joseph said that it's valid C code
(but not valid in C++) and the header contains extern "C":
(sid)976:[EMAIL PROTECTED]: ~/src] cat t.h
#if defined(__cplusplus)
extern "C" {
#en
--- Comment #25 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2007-02-03 15:13
---
Subject: Re: Illegal use of typedef to "void"
On Sat, 3 Feb 2007, tbm at cyrius dot com wrote:
> Is the following supposed to fail given that Joseph said that it's valid C
> code
> (but not valid in C++) and th
--- Comment #1 from schwab at suse dot de 2007-02-03 15:15 ---
.hpp is not a recognized extension. If you want the file to be treated as a
C++ header precede it with `-xc++-header'.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30692
--- Comment #7 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2007-02-03
15:16 ---
Subject: Re: ICE optimizing passing long double to abstract method while in
other abstract's impl
> --- Comment #5 from tbm at cyrius dot com 2007-02-03 09:45 ---
> I don't see this with Linux on
--- Comment #7 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-03 15:28 ---
Is this now being looked into by Diego or Aldy?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30375
--
steven at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfir
--- Comment #8 from gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-03 15:31 ---
won't fix in GCC-4.0.4
--
gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|W
--- Comment #2 from gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-03 15:32 ---
Fixed in GCC-4.1.1 and higher.
--
gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #17 from gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-03 15:32 ---
Fixed in GCC-4.1.1 and higher.
--
gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #9 from gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-03 15:33 ---
Fixed in GCC-4.1.0 and higher.
--
gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #5 from gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-03 15:34 ---
won't fix in GCC-4.0.x. Adjusting milestone
--
gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #10 from gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-03 15:35 ---
Fixed in GCC-4.1.0 and higher.
--
gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #6 from gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-03 15:35 ---
Fixed in GCC-4.1.0 and higher.
--
gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #5 from gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-03 15:36 ---
Fixed in GCC-4.1.1 and higher.
--
gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #14 from gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-03 15:37 ---
Fixed in GCC-4.1.0 and higher
--
gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-03 15:37 ---
Fixed in GCC-4.1.0 and higher
--
gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
S
--- Comment #6 from gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-03 15:38 ---
Fixed in GCC-4.1.0 and higher.
--
gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-03 15:38 ---
Fixed in 4.1.0 and higher.
--
gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Stat
--- Comment #2 from gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-03 15:42 ---
won't fix in GCC-4.0.4. Adjusting milestone.
--
gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #5 from gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-03 15:43 ---
Fixed in GCC-4.1.2 and higher.
--
gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-03 15:44 ---
Fixed in GCC-4.1.1 and higher.
--
gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #5 from gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-03 15:44 ---
Fixed in GCC-4.1.1 and higher.
--
gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #6 from gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-03 15:45 ---
Won't fix in GCC-4.0.4. Adjusting milestone.
--
gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #11 from gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-03 15:46 ---
Fixed in GCC-4.1.0 and higher.
--
gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-03 15:46 ---
Fixed in GCC-4.1.1 and higher.
--
gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #9 from gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-03 15:47 ---
Fixed in GCC-4.1.0 and higher.
--
gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #7 from gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-03 15:48 ---
Fixed in GCC-4.1.0 and higher
--
gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
S
--- Comment #6 from gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-03 15:49 ---
Fixed in GCC-4.1.0 and higher,
--
gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #8 from dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-03 15:49
---
(In reply to comment #7)
> Is this now being looked into by Diego or Aldy?
>
It wasn't. It is now.
--
dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #1 from gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-03 15:50 ---
Won't fix in GCC-4.0.x
--
gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|U
--- Comment #3 from gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-03 15:51 ---
Won't fix in GCC-4.0.4. Adjusting milestone.
--
gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #7 from gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-03 16:02 ---
Fixed in GCC-4.1.0.
--
gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
--- Comment #6 from gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-03 16:02 ---
Fixed in GCC-4.1.0
--
gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIG
--- Comment #6 from gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-03 16:03 ---
Won't fix in GCC-4.0.x. Adjusting milestone.
--
gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #8 from gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-03 16:03 ---
Fixed in GCC-4.1.0.
--
gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
--- Comment #3 from gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-03 16:04 ---
Fixed in GCC-4.1.0
--
gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
--- Comment #4 from gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-03 16:05 ---
Fixed in GCC0-4.1.0
--
gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
--- Comment #10 from gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-03 16:05 ---
Won't fix in GCC-4.0.x. Adjusting milestone.
--
gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #10 from gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-03 16:06 ---
Fixed in GCC-4.1.1.
--
gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
--- Comment #8 from gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-03 16:06 ---
Won't fix in GCC-4.0.x. Adjusting milestone.
--
gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #12 from gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-03 16:06 ---
Fixed in GCC-4.1.0.
--
gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASS
--- Comment #3 from gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-03 16:07 ---
Won't fix in GCC-4.0.x. Adjusting milestone.
--
gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #10 from gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-03 16:08 ---
Fixed in GCC-4.1.0 ad higher.
--
gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-03 16:09 ---
Won't fix in GCC-4.0.x. Adjusting milestone.
--
gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #13 from gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-03 16:09 ---
Fixed in GCC-4.1.2 and higher.
--
gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-03 16:10 ---
Fixed in GCC-4.1.0 and higher.
--
gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #10 from gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-03 16:10 ---
Fixed in GCC-4.1.0 and higher.
--
gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-03 16:11 ---
> Apparently the address of lenstr gets shifted in the subroutine because of the
> equivalence statement. Is this the right behavior?
This is what happens with my amd84:
$ /irun/bin/gfortran --version
GNU Fortran 95
--- Comment #6 from gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-03 16:11 ---
Fixed in GCC-4.1.0 and higher
--
gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
S
--- Comment #5 from gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-03 16:14 ---
Won't fix in GCC-4.0.x. Adjustine milestone.
--
gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #8 from gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-03 16:14 ---
Fixed in GCC-4.1.2 and higher.
--
gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-03 16:15 ---
Won't fix in GCC-4.0.x. Closing.
--
gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-03 16:15 ---
Fixed in GCC-4.1.0.
--
gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
--- Comment #6 from gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-03 16:16 ---
Won't fix in GCC-4.0.x. Closing.
--
gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #10 from gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-03 16:16 ---
Fixed in GCC-4.1.1.
--
gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
This is strange:
$ cat minval.f90
program main
integer :: i
data i /z'7f80'/
real :: a(1)
a(1) = transfer(i,a(1)) ! a(1) contains +Inf
print *,a(1), minval(a)
if (a(1) > minval(a)) print *,"Strange..."
end program main
$ gfortran minval.f90
$ ./a.out
+Infinity 3.4028235E+38
--- Comment #4 from gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-03 16:17 ---
Won't fix in GCC-4.0.x. Closing.
--
gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #12 from gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-03 16:19 ---
Fixed in GCC-4.1.1
--
gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
--- Comment #11 from gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-03 16:19 ---
Fixed in GCC-4.1.2
--
gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
--- Comment #8 from gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-03 16:19 ---
Fixed in GCC-4.1.2
--
gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
--- Comment #7 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-03 16:20 ---
Brooks,
It wasn't fair to deposit this one on you so I have taken it back.
Cheers
Paul
--
pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #13 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-03 16:20 ---
Haven't seen any reports of wrong-code coming out of register renaming in a
while. Register renaming is enabled if loop unrolling / peeling is enabled. So
the test coverage of this pass is much better than it used t
--- Comment #5 from gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-03 16:20 ---
Fixed in GCC-4.2.0
--
gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
--- Comment #6 from gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-03 16:20 ---
Fixed in GCC-4.1.0
--
gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
--- Comment #5 from gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-03 16:21 ---
Won't fix in GCC-4.0.x. Adjusting milestone.
--
gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #6 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2007-02-03 16:22 ---
Subject: Re: [4.0/4.1/4.2/4.3 Regression] invalid parameter
forward declarations not diagnosed
On Sat, 3 Feb 2007, gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> won't fix in GCC-4.0.x. Adjusting milestone
>Wha
--- Comment #19 from gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-03 16:22 ---
Fixed in GCC-4.2.0
--
gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSI
--- Comment #9 from gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-03 16:23 ---
Fixed in GCC-4.1.0.
--
gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
--- Comment #17 from gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-03 16:23 ---
Fixed in GCC-4.2.0.
--
gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASS
--- Comment #3 from gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-03 16:24 ---
Won't fix in GCC-4.0.x. Adjustine milestone.
--
gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #6 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2007-02-03 16:24 ---
Subject: Re: [4.0/4.1 regression] mips: unable to find a
register to spill in class 'FP_REGS'
On Sat, 3 Feb 2007, gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> Fixed in GCC-4.2.0
>What|Removed
--- Comment #6 from gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-03 16:24 ---
Won't fix in GCC-4.0.x. Adjustine milestone.
--
gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #10 from gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-03 16:25 ---
Fixed inGCC-4.1.0
--
gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
--- Comment #9 from gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-03 16:25 ---
Fixed in GCC-4.1.1
--
gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
1 - 100 of 402 matches
Mail list logo
