When I define a function that is already declared in a system header
file (same signature, of course), all warnings are disabled not only
in that function, but any following function definitions in the same
compilation unit.
For example, with this code,
cat <<'EOF' > k.c
#include
int clearenv (v
--- Comment #9 from ivan at vc dot cvut dot cz 2008-10-23 07:57 ---
Subject: Re: Compilation never ends
Quoting manu at gcc dot gnu dot org <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>
> --- Comment #6 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-10-21 21:25 ---
> I cannot compile this testcase with GC
Hallo,
can you help me?? this bug i have never seen !!
email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
OS: Linux OpenSuse 11.0
This Fortran-program was tested
! program test
open(6,file='test.aus')
write(6,100)
100 format(10x,'testprogramm')
close(6)
end
Sta
--- Comment #2 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-10-23 07:59 ---
I can reproduce this too, on i686-linux, make -j48.
gcj is invoked with
-fsource-filename=/usr/src/gcc/obj19/i686-pc-linux-gnu/libjava/classpath/tools/all-classes.lst
but that file doesn't exist.
If you look at the cha
--- Comment #1 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2008-10-23 08:06
---
If you are compiling Fortran, use gfortran, not gcc.
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #3 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-10-23 08:28 ---
Patch posted.
--
jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassi
--- Comment #4 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-10-23 08:28 ---
*** Bug 37899 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #2 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-10-23 08:28 ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 37893 ***
--
jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #17 from Joey dot ye at intel dot com 2008-10-23 08:42 ---
CPU2006/454.calculix has about 10% regression with IRA + core2 + fpmath=sse on
Core2 ix86:
IRAIRA_core2 NO_IRA_core2
454.calculix 1.00 0.901.01
Revision: trunk 140514
Options in
--- Comment #5 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-10-23 09:24 ---
Subject: Bug 37893
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Oct 23 09:23:00 2008
New Revision: 141320
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=141320
Log:
PR java/37893
* tools/Makefile.am (tools.zip): Ge
--- Comment #6 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-10-23 09:26 ---
Fixed.
--
jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #2 from florian dot goujeon at wanadoo dot fr 2008-10-23 10:00
---
Seems to be fixed, now.
--
florian dot goujeon at wanadoo dot fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-10-23 10:10 ---
Branches are likely affected as well. There we might consider just building
the affected files with -fno-strict-aliasing?
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
See http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/2008-10/msg01511.html
/* { dg-options "-O -W -Wall -Wdeclaration-after-statement -fpreprocessed" }
# 1 "my.c" 1
# 1 "my.h" 1 3 4
void foo (void);
# 2 "my.c" 2
void
foo (void)
{
}
int
bar (void)
{
return 0;
int j;
return j;
}
doesn't warn in bar, supposed
--- Comment #1 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-10-23 12:40 ---
The regression has been introduced by PR32256, before that in_system_header
flag wasn't saved/restored in push_cfun/pop_cfun.
The issue seems to be that allocate_struct_function call in store_parm_decls
doesn't seem to
--- Comment #10 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2008-10-23
13:25 ---
Subject: Re: [4.4 Regression] Small structs are not passed correctly on
hppa64-*-*
> --- function.c.jj10 2008-09-30 16:57:11.0 +0200
> +++ function.c 2008-10-22 17:32:26.0 +0200
> @@
--- Comment #4 from mikael dot morin at tele2 dot fr 2008-10-23 14:37
---
(In reply to comment #3)
> I am not 100% sure that the following is due to the patch in comment #1,
There is already something wrong on trunk, but I agree that the patch makes it
worse. As a side note I'm really
--- Comment #31 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-10-23 15:13 ---
Both testcases involve passing of small structures, so might as well be the PA
small struct passing bug.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35518
--- Comment #32 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2008-10-23
16:00 ---
Subject: Re: [4.4 Regression] FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/20040709-1.c
execution at -O2 and above
> Both testcases involve passing of small structures, so might as well be the PA
> small struct passing bu
--- Comment #2 from danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-10-23 16:04 ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 37316 ***
--
danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #8 from danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-10-23 16:05 ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 37316 ***
--
danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #12 from danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-10-23 16:05
---
*** Bug 37318 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37316
--- Comment #11 from danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-10-23 16:04
---
*** Bug 37320 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37316
--- Comment #13 from danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-10-23 16:15
---
Looking at the test results with the fix proposed in comment #10,
I see we still have the failure of the following two tests:
FAIL: gcc.dg/compat/scalar-by-value-4 c_compat_x_tst.o-c_compat_y_tst.o execute
FAIL:
--- Comment #2 from janis at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-10-23 16:16 ---
The code in question is in the 4.3 branch but not 4.2. The changes are very
minimal, so the patch is probably appropriate for the 4.3 branch. I had
already planned to ask to put it there as well as mainline.
--
Modified code from a comment for PR36091
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36091#c3
integer :: i(-1:1) = 1, j(3) = 1, k(3)
k = j((/1,1,1/)+i)
end
Wrong code, the temporary array generated is too small.
--
Summary: wrong-code for complicated vector subscri
The g++ compiler reports the error "internal compiler error: Segmentation
fault" when the attached (reduced) file is compiled. The fault seems to depend
on inclusion of a destructor (last (only) method in the file). If the
destructor is omitted, the file compiles. The error originally occurred wh
--- Comment #1 from john dot roden at wanadoo dot fr 2008-10-23 19:01
---
Created an attachment (id=16533)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=16533&action=view)
Test Case -- preprocessed code
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37904
--- Comment #9 from lucier at math dot purdue dot edu 2008-10-23 19:20
---
I bootstrapped and regtested the suggested patch. There was one fewer FAIL in
the gcc tests:
FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/nestfunc-6.c execution, -O0
and one more failure in the libgomp tests:
FAIL: libgomp.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|java|libgcj
Keywords||build
Targe
--- Comment #5 from grosser at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-10-23 20:04 ---
Subject: Bug 37886
Author: grosser
Date: Thu Oct 23 20:02:59 2008
New Revision: 141328
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=141328
Log:
2008-10-23 Tobias Grosser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR m
--- Comment #3 from grosser at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-10-23 20:09 ---
It seems we do not have implemented all cases in expand_scalar_variables_expr()
Backtrace for "f951 -O2 -fgraphite-identity".
#1 0x081f3461 in fancy_abort (file=Could not find the frame base for
"fancy_abort".
) a
--- Comment #4 from grosser at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-10-23 20:11 ---
Created an attachment (id=16534)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=16534&action=view)
Testcase fails because of missing INDIRECT_REF
#0 internal_error (gmsgid=0x8ae0d27 "in %s, at %s:%d") at
../..
--- Comment #1 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-10-23 20:11 ---
Works with 4.1/4.2...
--
burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Sta
--- Comment #14 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-10-23 20:25 ---
Can you please look at the testcases why they fail (what is passed differently)
and try to minimize them as much as possible? Finding a bug in RTL or assembly
without knowing what you are looking for is certainly har
--- Comment #2 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2008-10-23 20:30 ---
> Modified code from a comment for PR36091
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36091#c3
First the code came from http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31610#c16
Second, if I change the lower bound of
--- Comment #5 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2008-10-23 20:34 ---
> As a side note I'm really impressed by how fast you found a not-working
> case to my slowly and laboriously prepared code.
Don't worry, it is always much easier to find (others') bugs than to fix them.
The problem
--- Comment #15 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2008-10-23
20:47 ---
Subject: Re: [4.4 Regression] Small structs are not passed correctly on
hppa64-*-*
> Can you please look at the testcases why they fail (what is passed
> differently)
> and try to minimize them as much a
--- Comment #10 from lucier at math dot purdue dot edu 2008-10-23 21:25
---
This patch fixes my original problem and the reduced test case.
The two testresults reports I referred to earlier are at
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2008-10/msg01616.html
and
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/
--- Comment #3 from mikael dot morin at tele2 dot fr 2008-10-23 21:27
---
Quickfix (understand: not regression tested):
Index: trans-array.c
===
--- trans-array.c (révision 141321)
+++ trans-array.c (copie de t
--- Comment #5 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-10-23 22:07
---
Ooops, I should have claimed this PR sooner. As HP says, I have the ball,
unless or until the approach I'm advocating is rejected.
HP linked to the proposed patches. I can't really submit them in good
conscience
--- Comment #4 from mikael dot morin at tele2 dot fr 2008-10-23 22:31
---
There is this comment at the beginning of gfc_trans_create_temp_array.
/* TODO: Investigate why "if (n < loop->temp_dim)
gcc_assert (integer_zerop (loop->from[n]));" fails here. */
This is the case here: n=0
--- Comment #6 from eric dot weddington at atmel dot com 2008-10-23 23:21
---
New test case fails for AVR target, as test case assumes that an integer is
32-bits. An integer on the AVR is 16 bits and the test case fails for -O[0123s]
with:
/gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/execute/pr37882.c:
--- Comment #7 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-10-23 23:33 ---
Guess you can leave the int a : 21; line completely out, the testcase used to
fail apparently even without that.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37882
--- Comment #14 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-10-24 00:06 ---
Testing a patch for 4.5.
--
jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assig
--- Comment #12 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-10-24 00:06 ---
Testing a patch for 4.5.
--
jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assig
--- Comment #11 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-10-24 00:07 ---
Testing a patch for 4.5.
--
jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assig
--- Comment #3 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-10-24 00:08 ---
Testing a patch for 4.5.
--
jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assign
--- Comment #3 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-10-24 00:08 ---
Testing a patch for 4.5.
--
jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assign
--- Comment #8 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-10-24 00:09 ---
Testing a patch for 4.5.
--
jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assign
Hello,
When I try to build gcc-4.4.0 20081022 on loongson2f machine, an error
occurs on the stage3,
/home/xmj/tools/build-svn-gcc/./prev-gcc/xgcc
-B/home/xmj/tools/build-svn-gcc/./prev-gcc/
-B/home/xmj/install/svn-gcc/mipsel-linux/bin/ -c -g -O2 -DIN_GCC -W
-Wall -Wwrite-strings -Wstrict-proto
Compile the following code with: m68k-elf-gcc -c -O2 -mcpu=5272 lltest.c
--save-temps -v
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
long long fred;
void broken(int b)
{
fred = (long long)b;
}
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
The assembler will correctly report:
lltest.s:9: Error: operands mismatch --
--- Comment #1 from jifl-bugzilla at jifvik dot org 2008-10-24 02:39
---
Created an attachment (id=16535)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=16535&action=view)
Fix/workaround
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37905
--- Comment #4 from dje at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-10-24 02:45 ---
Subject: Bug 35485
Author: dje
Date: Fri Oct 24 02:44:26 2008
New Revision: 141335
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=141335
Log:
PR target/35485
* configure.ac: AIX threads are Posix
The following:
#include
struct b
{
b() = default;
b(const b&) = delete;
};
void test01()
{
typedef b test_type;
// typedef std::is_standard_layout standard_layout_p;
typedef std::has_trivial_default_constructor ctor_p;
typedef std::has_trivial_destructor dtor_p;
// static_a
Already known, can be considered a feature request.
#include
struct b
{
int b;
b() = default;
b(const b&) = delete;
};
void test01()
{
typedef b test_type;
typedef std::is_standard_layout standard_layout_p;
static_assert(standard_layout_p::value, "not standard_layout");
}
--
Hello,
I discovered a failure relating to atomic NAND operation on x86 platform,
which can be confirmed using the included test-case. The test was done with
gcc 4.2.4, using 8-, 16-, 32- and 64-bit data width. Test cases on other logic
atomic operators passes all width-size except NAND. I have
--- Comment #5 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2008-10-24 05:48 ---
> Quickfix (understand: not regression tested): ...
With the patch the temporary has the right size, but there is one regression:
FAIL: gfortran.dg/array_constructor_15.f90 -O scan-tree-dump-times original
"atmp"
--- Comment #2 from wpatscher at web dot de 2008-10-24 06:44 ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> If you are compiling Fortran, use gfortran, not gcc.
> thank you Paolo for your comment;for my example the correct command:
gfortran-4.3 test.for -o test.aus
with compiler-exe file in my ho
59 matches
Mail list logo
