--- Comment #21 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-12 07:26 ---
I think this should not go into GCC 4.3 anyway. The problem is not a
regression, and the patch is non-obvious, so it's just not appropriate for a
stable release branch.
--
steven at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
--- Comment #3 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-12 07:54 ---
Patch: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2010-07/msg00113.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37077
--- Comment #14 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-12 07:54
---
It indeed works with the 4.5.0 release which makes it a blocker for 4.5.1.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
When I compile this test case with mainline c++:
struct S {};
struct T : S {};
int f(const T*) {}
void f(T*);
int main() {
S* s(0);
int a = f(static_cast(s));
int b = f(static_cast(0));
}
I get this:
foo.cc: In function int main():
foo.cc:7:37: error: void value not ignored as it ought t
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot
|
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.6.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44914
--- Comment #55 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-12 08:06
---
Fixed.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
--- Comment #22 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-12 08:07 ---
Implemented: Rounding on output.
TODO: Rounding on input. Current result for the program below is:
0.1000149011611938E+00
0.1000149011611938E+00
0.1555E+00
0.1000
The current form of the test case dynamic_dispatch_1.f03 is illegal:
module m
type :: t1
integer :: i = 42
procedure(make_real), pointer :: ptr
contains
procedure, pass :: real => make_real
procedure, pass :: make_integer
procedure, pass :: prod => i_m_j
generic, publi
--- Comment #1 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-12 08:59 ---
Reduced version:
module m
type :: t1
integer :: i = 42
contains
procedure, pass :: make_integer
generic, public :: extract => make_integer
end type t1
type, extends(t1) :: t2
integer :: j = 9
--- Comment #2 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-12 09:02 ---
Note that the ambiguity is detected if both specifics are already defined in
the base class:
module m
type :: t1
integer :: i = 42
contains
procedure, pass :: make_integer
procedure, pass :: make_inte
#include
void UnspecifiedSideEffectInExpression(int c)
{
int x = 0, y = 0, z = 20, t = 30, *p, *q;
x = c;
y = x++ + x++;
printf("x = %d, y = %d\n", x, y);
//Comment out the following code to get a different result
p = (c&2) ? &x : &t;
prin
--- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-12 09:19 ---
There is no sequence point between the two modifications to x.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #2 from eric dot liu at uniquesoft dot com 2010-07-12 09:34
---
I don't understand what is sequence point.
But as a user, I DO want gcc to produce the same result.
As for the code in the bug description, the result is:
x = 2, y = 2
*p = 30
If comment out the code indicated
--- Comment #1 from ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-12 09:35 ---
Confirmed - I think it should be fixed by this patch here.
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-07/msg00495.html
Jie : do you think you could backport this to the 4.5 branch ?
cheers
Ramana
--
ramana at gcc
--- Comment #2 from ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-12 09:43 ---
Confirmed with Thumb1.
Just to be clear - command line options that cause the crash are :
./xgcc -B`pwd` -S -Os -mthumb -fno-omit-frame-pointer /tmp/t2ice.c
-march=armv5te
/tmp/t2ice.c: In function '__libc_recvf
--- Comment #3 from eric dot liu at uniquesoft dot com 2010-07-12 09:49
---
Refer to my previous comment, I need to reopen it for a correct answer.
--
eric dot liu at uniquesoft dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-12 09:54 ---
The correct answer is: "here is no sequence point between the two modifications
to x.".
If you don't know what a sequence point is, use Google (see first hit,
Wikipedia).
If you don't know C, don't use C.
And don't r
--- Comment #2 from jiez at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-12 09:57 ---
Ramana, I will do it.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44888
--- Comment #3 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-12 10:19 ---
Fails even with -fno-var-tracking, so does not look VTA related.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44901
--- Comment #5 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-12 10:38 ---
Fixed.
--
jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #40 from ro at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-12 11:57 ---
Subject: Bug 14940
Author: ro
Date: Mon Jul 12 11:57:16 2010
New Revision: 162074
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=162074
Log:
PR pch/14940
* config/host-solaris.c (mmap_fixed): New
--- Comment #10 from iains at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-12 12:54 ---
(In reply to comment #9)
> (In reply to comment #8)
> > Perhaps we just need something like...
> In the native boostrap case, you probably want
> CC_FOR_TARGET / CFLAGS_FOR_TARGET / CXX_FOR_TARGET / CXXFLAGS_FOR_TARG
--- Comment #11 from howarth at nitro dot med dot uc dot edu 2010-07-12
13:05 ---
I wonder if there is any overlap with this bug and PR29404/42308?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42843
--- Comment #12 from iains at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-12 13:19 ---
(In reply to comment #10)
> Is there any cross-tool known to support plugins? (I get no response for
> cris-elf, s390x, mipsia64 and armel-linux-gnueabi). No error, just silently
> skips all plugin tests.
hmm this
--- Comment #13 from iains at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-12 13:28 ---
(In reply to comment #12)
> (In reply to comment #10)
>
> > Is there any cross-tool known to support plugins? (I get no response for
> > cris-elf, s390x, mipsia64 and armel-linux-gnueabi). No error, just silently
>
--- Comment #9 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-12 13:46 ---
Marking as regression. Weak symbols have multiple uses: allowing replacement
is one, but they are also used to allow equivalent definitions in multiple
translation units without linker errors.
--
jason at gcc dot
--- Comment #3 from jiez at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-12 14:06 ---
My patch has been committed on trunk and 4.5 branch. This bug should be fixed
now. Please verify.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44888
--- Comment #4 from jiez at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-12 14:07 ---
The updated patch:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-07/msg00968.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44888
--- Comment #4 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-12 14:26 ---
Created an attachment (id=21183)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21183&action=view)
pr44901.i
Reduced testcase:
./xgcc -B ./ -S -m32 -fcompare-debug -O2 -fno-var-tracking /tmp/pr44901.i -w
xgcc: e
--- Comment #5 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-12 14:50 ---
All the unordered removals for local_decls are obviously wrong.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44901
--- Comment #6 from froydnj at codesourcery dot com 2010-07-12 14:56
---
Subject: Re: [4.6 Regression] -fcompare-debug failure for
tree-predcom.c
Why are the unordered removals "obviously" wrong? And why, if they're
"obviously" wrong, does this problem only turn up with a spe
--- Comment #2 from sfilippone at uniroma2 dot it 2010-07-12 14:58 ---
(In reply to comment #1)
Hi Damian,
This is related to the original test case for PR 43945; that test case is now
going to handle the dynamic side of it, but the problem with generics exists
with normal typebound proc
--- Comment #3 from sfilippone at uniroma2 dot it 2010-07-12 14:59 ---
Created an attachment (id=21184)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21184&action=view)
additional test-case
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42385
--- Comment #14 from iains at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-12 15:00 ---
(In reply to comment #13)
> I'll have to check the config.log more carefully.
OK. possible a can of wiggly things here...
case "${host}" in
*-*-darwin*)
export_sym_check="$gcc_cv_nm -g" <=== maybe the
--- Comment #1 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-07-12 15:10
---
I have a patch (a tiny, straightforward, bit out of my __is_convertible_to
work)
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #7 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-12 15:23 ---
Created an attachment (id=21185)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21185&action=view)
gcc46-pr44901.patch
Untested fix.
Expansion depends on the order of vars in cfun->local_decls, see e.g.
expand_u
--- Comment #2 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2010-07-12 16:07 ---
It is caused by revision 161384:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2010-06/msg01302.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44915
Using built-in specs.
Target: ia64-linux-gnu
Configured with: ../src/configure -v --with-pkgversion='Debian 4.4.4-6'
--with-bugurl=file:///usr/share/doc/gcc-4.4/README.Bugs
--enable-languages=c,c++,fortran,objc,obj-c++ --prefix=/usr --enable-shared
--enable-multiarch --enable-linker-build-id --with
--- Comment #1 from joachim dot reichel at gmx dot de 2010-07-12 17:15
---
Created an attachment (id=21186)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21186&action=view)
test case for bug 44919
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44919
--- Comment #7 from amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-12 17:16 ---
Subject: Bug 44752
Author: amylaar
Date: Mon Jul 12 17:16:38 2010
New Revision: 162083
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=162083
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/44752
* genautomata.c (ma
--- Comment #2 from rearnsha at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-12 17:45
---
Looks to be a valid bug to me. I suspect it's triggered by the
'--enable-maintainer-mode' flag causing -Werror to be used while building
libstdc++.
Paul, is this just a straight prototype problem in the header fi
>Submitter-Id:net
>Originator:William S Fulton
>Organization:
>Confidential:no
>Synopsis:const rvalue cast results in internal compiler error
>Severity:serious
>Priority:medium
>Category:
>Class:ice-on-legal-code
>Release:gcc-4.5 (GCC) 4.5.0
>Environment:
--
redi at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Keyword
--- Comment #1 from redi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-12 18:24 ---
Using static_cast also works, the problem is only with C-style
casts
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44920
--- Comment #3 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2010-07-12 18:25 ---
It is caused by revision 149210:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2009-07/msg00087.html
--
hjl dot tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
On Linux/ia32, revision 162085 gave:
../../src-trunk/gcc/postreload.c: In function 'reload_cse_regs':
../../src-trunk/gcc/postreload.c:1327:57: error: 'min_regno' may be used
uninitialized in this function [-Werror=uninitialized]
../../src-trunk/gcc/postreload.c:1284:7: note: 'min_regno' was decla
--- Comment #1 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2010-07-12 18:46 ---
This patch:
Index: postreload.c
===
--- postreload.c(revision 162085)
+++ postreload.c(working copy)
@@ -1281,7 +1281,7 @@ move2add_use
--
hjl dot tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.6.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44921
--- Comment #6 from iains at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-12 19:15 ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> I do not see the fails shown in:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2010-07/msg00563.html
> with my current tree [162035] - but I'm using simulator combined tree build -
> with glibc fro
--- Comment #8 from amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-12 19:51 ---
Fixed in trunk r162083.
--
amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
It seems that at line 28 of execute/921202-1.c the variable cyx is used
undefined.
Can you look into it?
Vittorio Zecca
--
Summary: undefined variable in execute/921202-1.c
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
It seems that at line 23 of execute/921202-1.c the array element dy[size] is
accessed beyond thelimit of dy. This is because size=2055 and VLEN=2055.
Can you look into this?
Vittorio Zecca
--
Summary: Access beyond array limit in execute/921202-1.c
Product: gcc
V
--- Comment #2 from paolo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-12 19:59 ---
Subject: Bug 44907
Author: paolo
Date: Mon Jul 12 19:59:31 2010
New Revision: 162113
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=162113
Log:
/cp
2010-07-12 Paolo Carlini
PR c++/44907
* c
--- Comment #3 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-07-12 20:00
---
Fixed for 4.6.0.
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
I believe this needs to be relooked at. It is still an issue, and the bug seems
to come from the gcc/g++ compilers themselves.
To wit (quoting myself from a board where I was discussing this issue):
~~~Start Self Quote~~~
Outline of the problem:
C++ Software written by someone else for server-to-s
--- Comment #1 from ralgith at gmail dot com 2010-07-12 20:04 ---
Created an attachment (id=21187)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21187&action=view)
Preprocessor output (.ii) file.
This is the output from using --save-temps flag to g++ when trying to compile
the src
--- Comment #2 from ralgith at gmail dot com 2010-07-12 20:07 ---
This was originally reported and ignored here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39623
Since this ONLY happens with optimization, I'm curious why someone would think
it has multiple defines in the arpa headers?
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-12 20:10 ---
>-Wconversion
Will cause this warning.
sa.sin_port = (__extension__ ({ register unsigned short int __v, __x =
(siteinfo->port); if (__builtin_constant_p (__x)) __v = __x) >> 8) & 0xff)
| (((__x) & 0xff) << 8
--- Comment #4 from ralgith at gmail dot com 2010-07-12 20:17 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> >-Wconversion
> Will cause this warning.
>
>
>sa.sin_port = (__extension__ ({ register unsigned short int __v, __x =
> (siteinfo->port); if (__builtin_constant_p (__x)) __v = __x) >> 8)
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-12 20:18 ---
Yes it might be but the testcase is ok because the behavior does not really
depend on the uninitialized variable.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44922
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-12 20:21 ---
This testcase is so old, I don't know the history of it :). It is from 1992.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44923
--- Comment #7 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-12 20:28 ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> -(hopefully) Andrew's analysis is correct (but, I guess I'd like to know why
> it
> fixed them ... )..
IIRC the issue with section anchors and the objective-c front-end was the decl
was b
--- Comment #7 from marc dot glisse at normalesup dot org 2010-07-12 20:34
---
(In reply to comment #5)
> The patch is okay, but it should be tested with bootstrap, `make install' and
> a
> smoke test after install with:
>
> - in-tree GMP, in-tree MPFR 2.3
> - in-tree GMP, in-tree MPF
Consider the following code:
module test
type :: t
end type t
type, extends(t) :: tt
end type tt
contains
subroutine get_cptr(tt_cptr)
use iso_c_binding
type(c_ptr) :: tt_cptr
class(t), pointer :: tt_fptr
allocate(tt::tt_fptr)
if (associated(tt_fptr)) tt_cptr = c_
--- Comment #4 from pthaugen at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-12 21:03
---
Adding '<>' to the "=m" constraint fixes the testcase, but adding a single '>'
(or '<') results in an error for impossible constraints. This is caused by the
following snippet that was added to reload1.c:
--- Comment #5 from pthaugen at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-12 21:05
---
Sorry, recog.c is where the prior code snippet came from.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44701
--
janus at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Keywor
--- Comment #2 from justin dot lebar+bug at gmail dot com 2010-07-12 22:09
---
cc'ing Harsha Jagasia, who wrote sse-22.c and funcspec-9.
I might be willing to put together a patch for this, but I'm totally unfamiliar
with the codebase, so I'd almost surely need some help.
--
justin
--- Comment #3 from justin dot lebar+bug at gmail dot com 2010-07-12 22:22
---
Also cc'ing H.J. Lu, who wrote sse-23.c
--
justin dot lebar+bug at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #15 from amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-12 22:25
---
COMPILER is based on $(CC) / $(CXX), which during testing are overridden
to become the host compiler, i.e. stage 0 for a bootstrap, so to speak.
We want to use @CC@ / @CXX@ to use the same compiler that the latest
--- Comment #1 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-07-12 22:28
---
I have a patch for this one too, also from the work on __is_convertible_to.
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #16 from amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-12 22:40
---
Created an attachment (id=21188)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21188&action=view)
proposed patch
This patch should restore the use of the previous stage compiler for plugins.
--
http://g
--- Comment #4 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2010-07-12 22:43 ---
I think the whole "pragma GCC target" is incomplete/broken.
--
hjl dot tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--
amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot
|
--- Comment #2 from amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-12 22:54 ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> This patch:
>
> Index: postreload.c
> ===
> --- postreload.c(revision 162085)
> +++ postreload.c(working cop
--- Comment #3 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2010-07-12 23:33 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> The variable can not actually be used uninitalized, since min_cost is
> initalized to INT_MAX, and the return type of rtx_cost is int.
> So it is enough to shut up the compiler warning, no
--- Comment #4 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2010-07-12 23:34 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> (In reply to comment #2)
> > The variable can not actually be used uninitalized, since min_cost is
> > initalized to INT_MAX, and the return type of rtx_cost is int.
> > So it is enough to
--- Comment #5 from amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-12 23:45 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> Does the first chunk count as obvious?
I'd say yes.
My boostraps using that hunk with and without --enable-build-with-cxx on
i686-pc-linux-gnu
have progressed past the stage2/stage3 compa
--- Comment #6 from hjl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-13 00:52 ---
Subject: Bug 44921
Author: hjl
Date: Tue Jul 13 00:51:43 2010
New Revision: 162120
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=162120
Log:
Silence gcc warning on min_regno.
2010-07-12 H.J. Lu
PR
80 matches
Mail list logo
