--- Comment #19 from jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk 2009-06-10 07:22 ---
(In reply to comment #18)
> > I was able to do a regression hunt. Going to r145209 just before the big
> > I/O
> > patch eliminates the error. I then moved forward to r145636 and confirmed
> > the
> > breakage.
>
>
--- Comment #20 from jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk 2009-06-10 07:24 ---
(In reply to comment #16)
> Joost, can you explain what the following means?
>
> CP2K| condition FAILED at line 195
> CP2K| Abnormal program termination, stopped by process number 0
> Aborted
In this case it means th
--- Comment #2 from dcb314 at hotmail dot com 2009-06-10 08:28 ---
Created an attachment (id=17973)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=17973&action=view)
C++ source code
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40388
--- Comment #21 from jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk 2009-06-10 09:25 ---
reduced testcase:
MODULE M1
IMPLICIT NONE
CONTAINS
SUBROUTINE S1(I)
INTEGER :: I,K
CHARACTER(LEN=100) :: a,b
write(a,'(I0,A)') I,"X"
write(b,*) I
write(6,FMT='('//TRIM(a)//",a,' ')", ADVANCE="NO") TRIM
--- Comment #4 from jwakely dot gcc at gmail dot com 2009-06-10 10:33
---
The code is invalid
MyStream::
MyStream ()
: std::iostream (&m_buf),
m_buf ()
{
}
m_buf has not been cosntructed when you pass it to the base constructor, so
m_buf.init() is called on an uncosntructed stre
/* CODE EXAMPLE ***/
#include
#include
typedef unsigned int U32;
typedef unsigned short U16;
typedef unsigned char U8;
#ifndef __GNUC__
#define __attribute__(a)
#endif /* __GNUC__ */
#define APP6DR_PACK_STRUCT __attribute__((packed))
#define APP6DR_INLINE_FUNC
--- Comment #5 from jwakely dot gcc at gmail dot com 2009-06-10 10:42
---
(In reply to comment #4)
>
> You shoudl either pass a null pointer to the base class, then call
> m_buf.init()
Oops, I got that a bit wrong, don't pass a null pointer to the base
constructor.
You should either
/* CODE EXAMPLE ***/
#include
#include
typedef unsigned int U32;
typedef unsigned short U16;
typedef unsigned char U8;
#ifndef __GNUC__
#define __attribute__(a)
#endif /* __GNUC__ */
#define APP6DR_PACK_STRUCT __attribute__((packed))
#define APP6DR_INLINE_FUNC
/* CODE EXAMPLE ***/
#include
#include
typedef unsigned int U32;
typedef unsigned short U16;
typedef unsigned char U8;
#ifndef __GNUC__
#define __attribute__(a)
#endif /* __GNUC__ */
#define APP6DR_PACK_STRUCT __attribute__((packed))
#define APP6DR_INLINE_FUNC
/* CODE EXAMPLE ***/
#include
#include
typedef unsigned int U32;
typedef unsigned short U16;
typedef unsigned char U8;
#ifndef __GNUC__
#define __attribute__(a)
#endif /* __GNUC__ */
#define APP6DR_PACK_STRUCT __attribute__((packed))
#define APP6DR_INLINE_FUNC
/* CODE EXAMPLE ***/
#include
#include
typedef unsigned int U32;
typedef unsigned short U16;
typedef unsigned char U8;
#ifndef __GNUC__
#define __attribute__(a)
#endif /* __GNUC__ */
#define APP6DR_PACK_STRUCT __attribute__((packed))
#define APP6DR_INLINE_FUNC
/* CODE EXAMPLE ***/
#include
#include
typedef unsigned int U32;
typedef unsigned short U16;
typedef unsigned char U8;
#ifndef __GNUC__
#define __attribute__(a)
#endif /* __GNUC__ */
#define APP6DR_PACK_STRUCT __attribute__((packed))
#define APP6DR_INLINE_FUNC
--- Comment #13 from jwakely dot gcc at gmail dot com 2009-06-10 11:45
---
(In reply to comment #12)
> Subject: Bug 26397
>
> Author: dje
> Date: Thu Nov 6 15:32:40 2008
> New Revision: 141646
>
> URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=141646
> Log:
> PR target
--- Comment #3 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2009-06-10 12:00 ---
It is caused by revision 146776:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2009-04/msg01418.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40388
--- Comment #4 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-10 12:02 ---
Patch -- I believe it does the right thing; especially, it preserves
backend_decl. If one copied the type earlier, the backend_decl would be
different and the backend does not like it, when the same type has different
--- Comment #5 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-10 12:05 ---
Forgot to mention: I will not be able to regtest/submit the patch before Monday
evening.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40383
--- Comment #22 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-10 12:32
---
Thanks for reduced test.
$ ./a.out >badfile
$ xxd badfile
000: 2020 2020 2020 2020 2020 2020 2020 33203
010: 2020 2020 2020 2020 2020 2020 2020 33003.
The NULL in the l
/* CODE EXAMPLE ***/
#include
#include
typedef unsigned int U32;
typedef unsigned short U16;
typedef unsigned char U8;
#ifndef __GNUC__
#define __attribute__(a)
#endif /* __GNUC__ */
#define APP6DR_PACK_STRUCT __attribute__((packed))
#define APP6DR_INLINE_FUNC
--- Comment #1 from goran dot steen at enea dot com 2009-06-10 12:42
---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 40394 ***
--
goran dot steen at enea dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #1 from goran dot steen at enea dot com 2009-06-10 12:42
---
*** Bug 40395 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40394
--- Comment #1 from goran dot steen at enea dot com 2009-06-10 12:42
---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 40394 ***
--
goran dot steen at enea dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #2 from goran dot steen at enea dot com 2009-06-10 12:42
---
*** Bug 40396 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40394
--- Comment #3 from goran dot steen at enea dot com 2009-06-10 12:42
---
*** Bug 40397 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40394
--- Comment #1 from goran dot steen at enea dot com 2009-06-10 12:42
---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 40394 ***
--
goran dot steen at enea dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #4 from goran dot steen at enea dot com 2009-06-10 12:43
---
*** Bug 40398 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40394
--- Comment #1 from goran dot steen at enea dot com 2009-06-10 12:43
---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 40394 ***
--
goran dot steen at enea dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #5 from goran dot steen at enea dot com 2009-06-10 12:43
---
*** Bug 40399 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40394
--- Comment #1 from goran dot steen at enea dot com 2009-06-10 12:43
---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 40394 ***
--
goran dot steen at enea dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #1 from goran dot steen at enea dot com 2009-06-10 12:43
---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 40394 ***
--
goran dot steen at enea dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #6 from goran dot steen at enea dot com 2009-06-10 12:43
---
*** Bug 40400 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40394
--- Comment #6 from fp at mc dot com 2009-06-10 12:50 ---
Jonathan,
thank you for identifying the bug in my original code.
According to my copy of ISO 14992:1998, std::iostream does not have a default
constructor. However, my reading of the standard leads me to believe that it
is vali
--- Comment #7 from fp at mc dot com 2009-06-10 12:51 ---
Created an attachment (id=17974)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=17974&action=view)
iostest.zip
Fixes test case to avoid invalid code. (Passes null pointer to base class then
calls this->init(&m_buf).)
--
--- Comment #8 from jwakely dot gcc at gmail dot com 2009-06-10 13:09
---
(In reply to comment #6)
> According to my copy of ISO 14992:1998, std::iostream does not have a default
> constructor. However, my reading of the standard leads me to believe that it
> is valid to pass a null po
--- Comment #23 from jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk 2009-06-10 13:18 ---
(In reply to comment #22)
> Thanks for reduced test.
>
> $ ./a.out >badfile
> $ xxd badfile
> 000: 2020 2020 2020 2020 2020 2020 2020 33203
> 010: 2020 2020 2020 2020 2020 2020 2020 3300
--- Comment #9 from fp at mc dot com 2009-06-10 13:18 ---
gdb reports
Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault.
0x10001384 in make ()
at
/opt/timesys/toolchains/lib/gcc/powerpc-timesys-linux-gnu/4.2.1/../../../../powerpc-timesys-linux-gnu/include/c++/4.2.1/ostream:366
366
--- Comment #10 from fp at mc dot com 2009-06-10 13:20 ---
Created an attachment (id=17975)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=17975&action=view)
disassemble.txt
Assembly dump of the function that crashes. gdb reports that the crash occurs
at address 0x10001384.
--
tions.
$ ./xgcc -B. -v
Reading specs from ./specs
Target: i686-pc-linux-gnu
Configured with: ../configure --enable-languages=c --disable-bootstrap
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.5.0 20090610 (experimental) [trunk revision 148341] (GCC)
--
Summary: ICE: verify_gimple failed
--- Comment #7 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-10 14:02 ---
You are violating C aliasing rules. Use -fno-strict-aliasing.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot
|
The code:
TYPE POINT
REAL :: X
ENDTYPE
TYPE(POINT) :: P != POINT(1.+X)
DATA P / POINT(1.+X) /
END
[phi...@dune tmp]$ gfortran -c t.F
t.F: In function MAIN__:
t.F:1: erreur interne du compilateur: dans gfc_conv_constant, à
fortran/trans-const.c:348
Veuille
--- Comment #1 from jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk 2009-06-10 14:10 ---
this is not valid code, but a gfortran bug nevertheless.
line 5: X is not permitted in an initialisation expression
--
jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-10 14:43
---
Confirmed. Reduced testcase (already crashes with "-O"):
==
struct A
{
~A();
};
struct B
{
A* p;
~B()
{
if (p)
delete p;
delete p;
}
};
struct C
{
B
--- Comment #5 from reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-10 15:50
---
Even shorter testcase:
==
void foo();
struct A
{
~A()
{
try
{
foo();
foo();
}
catch (...)
{
}
}
};
void bar()
{
A a1, a2;
}
==
--
$ cat t.i
__asm__ (
" .globl\t_start_\n"
"\t _start_:\n"
"\tnop\n"
);
$ ./xgcc -B. t.i -c
$ ./xgcc -B. -flto t.i -c
/tmp/ccPizQGw.s: Assembler messages:
/tmp/ccPizQGw.s:47: Error: instruction address is not a multiple of 4
.section.gnu.lto_.opts,"",@progbits
.al
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-10 16:32 ---
This code is invalid There is a duplicate of the same bug for -g3.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40403
--- Comment #23 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-10 16:32
---
*** Bug 40403 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-10 16:32 ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 33932 ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--
aldot at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |aldot at gcc dot gnu dot org
|dot org
--- Comment #8 from hp at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-10 17:36 ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> I do think that bit operations in general
> could be handled a lot better, and that would help out a whole lot of code.
If you add (compilable) test-cases with enhancement requests, carefully
#include
struct S {
unsigned int ui17 : 17;
} s;
int main()
{
s.ui17 = 0x1;
printf("%x\n", (unsigned int)s.ui17);
if (s.ui17 >= 0xfffeu)
puts("FAIL");
return 0;
}
Maybe I don't understand GCC's rules for the promotion of bitfields, but it
seems to me that s.ui1
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-10 18:41 ---
unsigned int:17 gets promoted to int IIRC.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40404
--- Comment #3 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-10 19:35
---
(In reply to comment #2)
> Commit in #1 added a simplifier for MERGE. Having a closer look at
> IS_IOSTAT_{END, EOR}, I think they won't make much sense in init expr anyway.
IS_IOSTAT_{END,EOR} are allowed by the
--- Comment #8 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-10 19:37 ---
As Jakub says, it's not a problem to take the address of a local variable as
long as that address is only used during the variable's lifetime; the
destructor for the temporary removes all references to its address, so
--- Comment #9 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-10 19:40 ---
Actually, I'm not sure I'm the right person to work on this bug, as we might
want this analysis to happen more in the optimizer. That is, we see that
"this" escapes in one of the H constructors, so all H must be treat
--- Comment #10 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-10 19:47
---
Can we have a less convoluted C-only testcase? I still don't see what is
going on ...
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40389
The following invalid code snippet triggers an ICE sincd GCC 3.4.5
(with the exception of GCC 4.0.0 and 4.0.1):
=
template struct A
{
static int i;
};
template int A<0,0>::i = 0;
int j = A<0,0>::i;
=
bug.cc:6:27:
--
reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.3.4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40405
The following invalid code snippet triggers an ICE since at least GCC 2.95.3:
template struct A
{
template template void A::foo() {}
};
bug.cc:3:36: error: extra qualification 'A< >::' on member 'f
--- Comment #11 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-10 20:12 ---
I don't think it's possible to reproduce this in C because C doesn't have
constructors, so it's obvious when the address is taken. Here's what's
happening:
baz uses new to allocate an A with f=0,l=0, call it A'
baz
--- Comment #3 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2009-06-10 20:14 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> The new cost model added in revision 148277 supresses prefetching in a loop
> when it is unlikely to be profitable. One such non-profitable case is a loop
> with an unknown trip count and a
--- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-10 20:15 ---
This has been fixed in GCC 4.4, likely by removing some shorten-compare stuff
in the frontend.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #3 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-10 20:25 ---
Can someone identify the patch that fixed that on the trunk?
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
The produced value is not the expected.
The code:
#include
#include
int main()
{
using namespace std;
long double x= numeric_limits::max();
cout<< fixed;
for(unsigned i= 0; i< 10; ++i)
{
cout<< x<< endl;
++x;
}
cout<< endl<< x<< endl<< numeric_l
--- Comment #1 from ivranos at freemail dot gr 2009-06-10 20:30 ---
Created an attachment (id=17976)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=17976&action=view)
The main.ii file produced with " g++ -ansi -pedantic-errors -Wall -save-temps
main.cc -o foobar"
--
http://gcc.
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-10 20:35 ---
This is called rounding. I think you need to look at the hex values of the
long double to see what happens rather than printing out the value.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40407
At revision 148352 bootstrapping is broken again on *-apple-darwin9 with:
...
/opt/gcc/i686-darwin/./prev-gcc/xgcc -B/opt/gcc/i686-darwin/./prev-gcc/
-B/opt/gcc/gcc4.5w/i686-apple-darwin9/bin/
-B/opt/gcc/gcc4.5w/i686-apple-darwin9/bin/
-B/opt/gcc/gcc4.5w/i686-apple-darwin9/lib/ -isystem
/opt/gcc/g
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-10 20:45 ---
case SWITCH_EXPR:
Should be changed to:
case GIMPLE_SWITCH:
that will fix at least one warning/error.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #12 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-10 20:58 ---
Incidentally, the testcase can be simplified by removing the body of the copy
constructor, i.e. reducing it to just the declaration
H (const H &h);
since it isn't actually called.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzil
--- Comment #13 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-10 20:58
---
Well. I see as final difference (no SRA vs. with SRA)
:
D.2249 = baz (); [return slot optimization]
- D.2417_8 = D.2249.a;
- g.a = D.2417_8;
- D.2415_10 = &D.2417_8->k;
+ SR.101_9 = D.2249.a;
+ SR.102_31
--- Comment #24 from jb at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-10 21:17 ---
Further reduced testcase:
program pr40330
implicit none
call s1()
call s1()
contains
subroutine s1()
character(LEN=100) :: a
a = "(3X)"
write(*,FMT='('//trim(a)//",a,' ')", ADVANCE="NO") "3"
end subrouti
$ ./xgcc -v
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=./xgcc
Target: powerpc-unknown-linux-gnu
Configured with: ../configure --target=powerpc-unknown-linux-gnu
--prefix=/home/ryan/cross/powerpc-unknown-linux-gnu/
--with-local-prefix=/home/ryan/cross/powerpc-unknown-linux-gnu/powerpc-unknown-linux-gnu/sys-r
--- Comment #14 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-10 21:27 ---
The gimplifier sees:
TARGET_EXPR >>
>;
and:
arg 0
addressable ignored BLK file pr40389.C line 67 col 12 size unit size
align 64 context >
and
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40389
--- Comment #15 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-10 21:28 ---
Shorter testcase:
template struct S
{
V *f, *l;
__attribute__ ((noinline)) S (void) { f = 0, l = 0; }
void foo (V *x)
{
if (x->p != 0)
x->p->n = x->n;
else
f = x->n;
if (x->n != 0)
--- Comment #16 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-10 21:29
---
In which case the following will fix it (provided the C++ FE sets the
TREE_ADDRESSABLE flag)
Index: gimple.c
===
--- gimple.c(revision 148325)
++
--- Comment #1 from reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-10 21:35
---
Confirmed. Even shorter testcase:
void (*fp)(const int i);
void (*fp)(int i);
void foo()
{
(*fp)(0);
}
The regression appeared between 2009-04-24 and 2
--- Comment #1 from rmansfield at gmail dot com 2009-06-10 21:53 ---
Created an attachment (id=17977)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=17977&action=view)
testcase
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40409
$ ./xgcc -v
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=./xgcc
Target: powerpc-unknown-linux-gnu
Configured with: ../configure --target=powerpc-unknown-linux-gnu
--prefix=/home/ryan/cross/powerpc-unknown-linux-gnu/
--with-local-prefix=/home/ryan/cross/powerpc-unknown-linux-gnu/powerpc-unknown-linux-gnu/sys-r
--- Comment #1 from rmansfield at qnx dot com 2009-06-10 22:08 ---
Created an attachment (id=17978)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=17978&action=view)
testcase
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40410
On Solaris, the C library does not operate in c99 compliant mode by default.
If c99 compliant operation is desired, the object file
/usr/lib/{32,64}/values-xpg6.o needs to be linked. The details are in the
Solaris standards(5) manpage.
When linking using "gcc -std=c99", gcc does not instruct the
--- Comment #2 from ian at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-10 22:46 ---
Subject: Bug 40408
Author: ian
Date: Wed Jun 10 22:46:38 2009
New Revision: 148356
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=148356
Log:
PR bootstrap/40408
* graphite.c (add_conditions_to_do
--- Comment #3 from ian at airs dot com 2009-06-10 22:48 ---
Fixed. Thanks for the bug report.
--
ian at airs dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNC
--- Comment #3 from tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-10 22:58 ---
Subject: Bug 40289
Author: tromey
Date: Wed Jun 10 22:58:22 2009
New Revision: 148357
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=148357
Log:
PR libstdc++/40289:
* python/Makefile.in: Rebui
--- Comment #4 from tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-10 23:06 ---
I changed this to install the code in a versioned directory.
I think this fixes the problem; reopen this PR if not.
--
tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #13 from mikpe at it dot uu dot se 2009-06-11 00:01 ---
(In reply to comment #11)
> Fixed.
Not quite. I'm trying to build gcc-4.4-20090609 on powerpc64-unknown-linux-gnu,
with binutils 2.17.50.0.6-6, configured with --enable-languages=c,ada
--with-cpu=default32 --disable-sha
--- Comment #4 from bje at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-11 01:07 ---
Subject: Bug 25972
Author: bje
Date: Thu Jun 11 01:06:53 2009
New Revision: 148363
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=148363
Log:
2009-06-11 Alan Modra
PR target/25972
* config/rs
--- Comment #25 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-11 01:29
---
Changing priority to normal.
I have a patch that fixes the reduced test case. Testing CP2K now.
--
jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #26 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-11 02:25
---
CP2K still fails. However, I think I have discovered the root cause. String
constants in formats are saved in the fnode at sting.p which is a pointer.
When we use cached parsed string data, those constant stri
--- Comment #2 from rmansfield at qnx dot com 2009-06-11 02:58 ---
I reproduced this on a i686-pc-linux-gnu target:
$ ./xgcc -v
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=./xgcc
Target: i686-pc-linux-gnu
Configured with: ../configure --enable-languages=c --enable-lto
--disable-bootstrap
Thread m
--- Comment #3 from rmansfield at qnx dot com 2009-06-11 03:01 ---
Created an attachment (id=17979)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=17979&action=view)
x86 testcase
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40409
--- Comment #2 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-11 05:27 ---
Created an attachment (id=17980)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=17980&action=view)
Fix for the problem
This regtests and bootstraps on trunk.
Paul
--
pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
--- Comment #3 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-11 06:21 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
I forgot to add that this demonstrates a proper fix. At the moment, it
generates an extra, spurious error. I'll see if I cannot do a proper job
tonight.
Je vous remercie pour le rapport. Je
91 matches
Mail list logo
