[Bug fortran/31205] aliased operator assignment produces wrong result

--- Comment #9 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-07-24 19:16 --- Subject: Bug 31205 Author: pault Date: Tue Jul 24 19:16:36 2007 New Revision: 126886 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=126886 Log: 2007-07-24 Paul Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> PR fortran/31

[Bug fortran/32842] User operator / allocateable array: Wrong code

--- Comment #6 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-07-24 19:18 --- Fixed on trunk Thanks Paul -- pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added

[Bug fortran/31205] aliased operator assignment produces wrong result

--- Comment #10 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-07-24 19:19 --- Fixed on trunk. Thanks, Joost. Paul -- pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added

[Bug middle-end/32878] FAIL: 23_containers/bitset/cons/16020.cc execution test

--- Comment #5 from danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-07-24 19:22 --- test01 is miscompiled at O2: (gdb) disass _Z6test01v Dump of assembler code for function _Z6test01v: 0x0001030c <_Z6test01v+0>: ldi 7,ret0 0x00010310 <_Z6test01v+4>: stw rp,-14(sp) 0x00010314 <_Z6test01v+8

[Bug fortran/30814] non-conforming array sizes in PACK should raise an error

--- Comment #4 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-07-24 19:25 --- Fixed on trunk. Closing. -- tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added

[Bug middle-end/32878] FAIL: 23_containers/bitset/cons/16020.cc execution test

--- Comment #6 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2007-07-24 19:30 --- Subject: Re: FAIL: 23_containers/bitset/cons/16020.cc execution test > 0x00010318 and 0x0001031c are totally bogus. Changing this > to a middle-end bug. Here is preprocessed source. Dave --- Comme

[Bug target/25413] wrong alignment or incorrect address computation in vectorized code on Pentium 4 SSE

--- Comment #14 from dirtyepic at gentoo dot org 2007-07-24 19:37 --- Created an attachment (id=13965) --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=13965&action=view) zlib testcase > A fix for PR25413 was committed to mainline. > Ryan, could you please check if it solves the zlib

[Bug target/25413] wrong alignment or incorrect address computation in vectorized code on Pentium 4 SSE

--- Comment #15 from dirtyepic at gentoo dot org 2007-07-24 19:40 --- Created an attachment (id=13966) --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=13966&action=view) gcc-PR25413-gdb.log -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25413

[Bug fortran/32760] Error defining subroutine named PRINT

--- Comment #8 from dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-07-24 19:53 --- Traced it down to primary.c(match_variable). Here, a symbol for PRINT is found (originating from the PUBLIC-statement). As the current flavour of the symbol is FL_UNKNOWN, it is set to FL_VARIABLE. The subroutine PRI

[Bug fortran/32880] User operator & allocatable TYPE components: wrong deallocate

--- Comment #2 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-07-24 19:57 --- Tobias, Well done - that's a useful reduction. I don't think that the deallocate is entirely wrong. However, the the rhs expression should be assigned to a temporary first, the result deallocating and the assignemen

[Bug fortran/32760] Error defining subroutine named PRINT

--- Comment #9 from dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-07-24 19:59 --- Obviously, this mechanism fails: /* Since nothing has any business being an lvalue in a module specification block, an interface block or a contains section, we force the changed_symbols mechanism to wor

[Bug c++/32346] long long bitfield passed to int argument incorrectly

--- Comment #3 from greened at obbligato dot org 2007-07-24 19:59 --- This is also broken in 4.2.1. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32346

[Bug tree-optimization/30375] [4.3 Regression] tree-ssa-dse incorrectly removes struct initialization

--- Comment #11 from marcus at jet dot franken dot de 2007-07-24 20:29 --- has resurfaced in gcc-Version 4.3.0 20070724 (experimental) but in a different file. -- marcus at jet dot franken dot de changed: What|Removed |Added

[Bug tree-optimization/30375] [4.3 Regression] tree-ssa-dse incorrectly removes struct initialization

--- Comment #12 from marcus at jet dot franken dot de 2007-07-24 20:31 --- Created an attachment (id=13967) --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=13967&action=view) msg.i.bz2 the .i.bz2 file -- marcus at jet dot franken dot de changed: What|Removed

[Bug tree-optimization/30375] [4.3 Regression] tree-ssa-dse incorrectly removes struct initialization

--- Comment #13 from marcus at jet dot franken dot de 2007-07-24 20:31 --- Created an attachment (id=13968) --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=13968&action=view) msg.c.074t.dce4.bz2 -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30375

[Bug tree-optimization/30375] [4.3 Regression] tree-ssa-dse incorrectly removes struct initialization

--- Comment #14 from marcus at jet dot franken dot de 2007-07-24 20:31 --- Created an attachment (id=13969) --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=13969&action=view) msg.c.075t.dse1.bz2 -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30375

[Bug tree-optimization/30375] [4.3 Regression] tree-ssa-dse incorrectly removes struct initialization

--- Comment #15 from marcus at jet dot franken dot de 2007-07-24 20:32 --- diff -u msg.c.074t.dce4 msg.c.075t.dse1 |less --- msg.c.074t.dce4 2007-07-24 22:23:47.0 +0200 +++ msg.c.075t.dse1 2007-07-24 22:23:47.0 +0200 @@ -2760,7 +2760,6 @@ unsigned int D.12275;

[Bug middle-end/32852] [4.3 Regression] g++.old-deja/g++.jason/synth7.C

-- nathan at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |nathan at gcc dot gnu dot |dot org

[Bug target/32886] New: c4x: error: unrecognizable insn configuring libgcc

GCC revision 126809 configured with these flags: --target=c4x --disable-gdb --with-newlib --enable-sim --enable-obsolete configure:2567: checking for suffix of object files configure:2588: /home/rask/build/gcc-c4x/./gcc/xgcc -B/home/rask/build/gcc-c4x/./gcc/ -nostdinc -B/home/rask/build/gcc-c4x/c4

[Bug fortran/32760] Error defining subroutine named PRINT

--- Comment #10 from dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-07-24 20:51 --- > Obviously, this mechanism fails OTOH, maybe it doesn't. Setting host_flag to 0 in gdb does not seem to have any effect. Currently I'm lost. No idea how to fix this, thus unassigning myself. Jerry? -- dfrank

[Bug fortran/32881] PURE attribute escapes from contained procedure

--- Comment #2 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-07-24 20:53 --- Of cause it did not regtest :-( (fails for impure_assignment_2.f90, l.58, were "B" is a host-associated variable; thus gfc_pure(NULL) seems to be ok.) The problem is actually that gfc_check_pointer_assign is called t

[Bug target/25413] wrong alignment or incorrect address computation in vectorized code on Pentium 4 SSE

--- Comment #16 from David dot Monniaux at ens dot fr 2007-07-24 21:21 --- (In reply to comment #13) > David, can you confirm that this PR can now be closed? I'm no seeing the bug any longer when compiling/testing the octagon library. This does not imply, though, that it no longer occu

[Bug tree-optimization/32828] [4.3 Regression] Bootstrap comparison error -- VUSES info changed

--- Comment #4 from danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-07-24 22:51 --- Fixed by . -- danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added -

[Bug target/11180] [avr-gcc] Optimization decrease performance of struct assignment.

--- Comment #9 from eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com 2007-07-24 23:50 --- Version 4.2.1 offers somewhat better results: With -O0: .file "test.c" /* File "test.c": code 109 = 0x006d ( 74), prologues 18, epilogues 17 */ With -O[123s]: .file "test.c" /* File "

[Bug target/11259] [avr] gcc Double 'andi' missed optimization

--- Comment #7 from eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com 2007-07-25 00:04 --- Bug still exists on 4.2.1. -- eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com changed: What|Removed |Added -

[Bug c/32887] New: memset warning

gcc -O3 -Wall test.c can gernerate warning on gcc-4.2.1 on x86. but no warning on gcc-4.2.1/x64. even -m32 or -m64. #include #include #include int main(int argc, char **argv) { char x[20]; memset(x,19,0); return 0; } -- Summary: memset warning

[Bug c++/32888] New: Declared long long double has wrong type

The code: int main() { long long double x; long long double v = 0.0; } gets you: ~/ootbc/common$ g++ foo.cc foo.cc: In function 'int main()': foo.cc:3: warning: converting to 'long long int' from 'double' Either "long long double" is illegal and should be flagged on both declarations,

[Bug c++/32888] Declared long long double has wrong type

--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-07-25 02:35 --- *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 6634 *** -- pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added ---

[Bug c++/6634] wrong parsing of "long long double"

--- Comment #13 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-07-25 02:35 --- *** Bug 32888 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added -

[Bug middle-end/32887] memset warning

--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-07-25 02:43 --- What is the warning that you are expecting? We don't warn at all for memset with a zero size. -- pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added --

[Bug middle-end/32887] memset warning

--- Comment #2 from cnstar9988 at gmail dot com 2007-07-25 02:49 --- why gcc show warnings on x86. not show warnings on x64? Bug? -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32887

[Bug libfortran/32841] [4.3 regression] HUGE(1.0d0) is written a +Infinity on Darwin8

--- Comment #12 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-07-25 04:45 --- There were two modifications between these revs: 123620 format.c 123623 write.c I will take this on. -- jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added ---

[Bug tree-optimization/30375] [4.3 Regression] tree-ssa-dse incorrectly removes struct initialization

--- Comment #16 from marcus at jet dot franken dot de 2007-07-25 05:10 --- Created an attachment (id=13970) --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=13970&action=view) pr30375.c I created a testcase for later addition to gcc. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?

[Bug fortran/32876] Wrongly accepts private items in public NAMELISTs

--- Comment #1 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-07-25 05:13 --- 5.4 Namelist Constraint: If a namelist-group-name has the PUBLIC attribute, no item in the namelist-group-object-list shall have the PRIVATE attribute or have private components. I think that, by extension, component

[Bug fortran/32880] User operator & allocatable TYPE components: wrong deallocate

--- Comment #3 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-07-25 05:20 --- Another sub-pr: putting the res on the rhs in parentheses does not work either. This can be fixed by... $ svn diff -x -cp gcc/fortran/trans-expr.c Index: gcc/fortran/trans-expr.c =

[Bug libfortran/32841] [4.3 regression] HUGE(1.0d0) is written a +Infinity on Darwin8

--- Comment #13 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-07-25 05:28 --- This is interesting. Using valgrind induces a problem with huge(1.0_10) on x86-64 [EMAIL PROTECTED] test]$ ./a.out 3.4028235E+38 1.797693134862316E+308 1.1897314953572317650E+4932 [EMAIL PROTECTED] test]$

[Bug libfortran/32858] printf-capabilities for runtime_error()

--- Comment #2 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-07-25 05:47 --- Working on a patch. I have already gotten rid of st_sprintf. The nice thing about vsprintf is that it has a gcc builtin, so we should be able to use it even if the system doesn't have it. -- tkoenig at gcc dot

[Bug libfortran/32841] [4.3 regression] HUGE(1.0d0) is written a +Infinity on Darwin8

--- Comment #14 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2007-07-25 06:38 --- Subject: Re: [4.3 regression] HUGE(1.0d0) is written a +Infinity on Darwin8 > There were two modifications between these revs: > 123620 format.c > 123623 write.c Yes, but the first one is very short and not conne

[Bug libfortran/32841] [4.3 regression] HUGE(1.0d0) is written a +Infinity on Darwin8

--- Comment #15 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2007-07-25 06:41 --- Subject: Re: [4.3 regression] HUGE(1.0d0) is written a +Infinity on Darwin8 Forgot to say in my previous mail that libgfortran/config.h for gcc4.2.1 contains: ... /* Define if fpclassify is broken. */ /* #undef H

<    1   2