Priority: P3
Component: c
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: bernie at develer dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24976
--- Comment #3 from bernie at develer dot com 2005-11-21 18:41 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> 0xe+100 is a single preprocessing number. If the end of
> <http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Incompatibilities.html> is unclear,
> please let us know how we could have impr
ReportedBy: bernie at develer dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28863
--- Comment #14 from bernie at develer dot com 2006-08-28 00:59 ---
Please also backport to 4.1 (see #28863).
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28659
--- Comment #16 from bernie at develer dot com 2006-08-28 05:05 ---
(In reply to comment #15)
> This never existed on 4.1.
gcc 4.1.1 from FC6 crashes with the testcase of bug 28863.
Maybe it's some redhat specific patch, but they follow
gcc's 4.0-branch quite closely these
--- Comment #18 from bernie at develer dot com 2006-08-28 06:18 ---
(In reply to comment #17)
> And that is Redhat's branch which has the patch which caused this in the first
> place on it.
Thus, I've filed a bug report in RedHat's bugzilla:
https://bugzill
--- Additional Comments From bernie at develer dot com 2005-07-11 21:07
---
A revised patch was posted here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-06/msg00853.html
I will attach it here in case someone wants to apply it
to an old version of GCC.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla
--- Additional Comments From bernie at develer dot com 2005-07-11 23:23
---
Created an attachment (id=9246)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=9246&action=view)
Updated patch
--
What|Removed
--- Additional Comments From bernie at develer dot com 2005-07-11 23:25
---
Patch attached to Bug #18421 (Attachment #9246).
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16719
--- Additional Comments From bernie at develer dot com 2005-07-11 23:33
---
Fixed.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
--- Additional Comments From bernie at develer dot com 2005-07-11 23:34
---
Fixed on mainline. Pending for 4.0 and 3.4.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16719
--- Additional Comments From bernie at develer dot com 2005-07-11 23:35
---
Oops... still pending for 4.0 and 3.4.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED
--- Additional Comments From bernie at develer dot com 2005-05-17 05:40
---
I'm still seeing the artsd miscompilation with
gcc 4.0.0 20050512 (Red Hat 4.0.0-5), which contains everything
from gcc-4_0-branch upto 13-05-2005 (circa).
This is from an arts *client*:
Starting pr
--- Additional Comments From bernie at develer dot com 2005-05-18 20:45
---
(In reply to comment #36)
> (In reply to comment #35)
> > I'm still seeing the artsd miscompilation with
> > gcc 4.0.0 20050512 (Red Hat 4.0.0-5), which contains everything
> > from
--- Additional Comments From bernie at develer dot com 2005-05-19 09:45
---
(In reply to comment #38)
> > My backtrace looks suspiciously similar to the backtrace reported in
> > comment #14.
>
> Yep, yours is probably the same bug as that in comment #14, which
--- Additional Comments From bernie at develer dot com 2005-05-19 10:00
---
(In reply to comment #49)
> > Mark, is
> >
> > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-02/msg00180.html
> >
> > OK for mainline as well as 4.0?
>
> It's OK for mai
--- Additional Comments From bernie at develer dot com 2005-05-19 10:42
---
(In reply to comment #39)
> (In reply to comment #37)
>
> > Reducing a testcase isn't trivial, but I'll try.
>
> try to pass to the ./configure the kde_cv_val_gcc_visibilit
Version: 3.4.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: rejects-valid
Severity: critical
Priority: P2
Component: c++
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: bernie at develer dot com
CC: aleph at develer dot com,
--
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||4.0.0 3.3.5 3.4.3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21832
--- Additional Comments From bernie at develer dot com 2005-05-30 21:56
---
(In reply to comment #1)
What a quick response!
> This is a dup of bug 14404. I thought this was on the bug reporting web page
(maybe not), well it should be.
It's there, I just didn't see i
--- Additional Comments From bernie at develer dot com 2004-12-12 13:52
---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 18887 ***
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From bernie at develer dot com 2004-12-12 13:52
---
*** Bug 18941 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18887
--- Additional Comments From bernie at develer dot com 2004-12-12 14:22
---
More precisely, the ICE has been triggered by this patch:
+2004-12-06 DJ Delorie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
+
+ * reload.c (find_valid_class): Fix logic to test inner mode as well.
+ (push_reload)
--- Additional Comments From bernie at develer dot com 2004-12-13 09:43
---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 18592 ***
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From bernie at develer dot com 2004-12-13 09:49
---
The top-level multilib directory is compiled for the
"default" target, which is in some cases m68000, and
in some cases m68020.
m68k-elf defaults to m68000. Perhaps your linker
script doesn'
--- Additional Comments From bernie at develer dot com 2004-12-14 01:23
---
Sorry, I've read your report vice-versa, because that's
the most likely thing that could have happened (there were
so many bogus uClinux reports that I finally decided to
remove m68000 librarie
--- Additional Comments From bernie at develer dot com 2004-12-15 22:37
---
> Note: PR 18542 also covers avr-* targets.
Comment #7 in PR18542 said that separate PR's
were going to be filed for avr and h8300.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18592
--- Additional Comments From bernie at develer dot com 2005-01-08 17:57
---
Also fails with this pre-release version:
avr-gcc (GCC) 3.4.3 20041019 (prerelease)
Copyright (C) 2004 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This is free software; see the source for copying conditions. There is
--- Additional Comments From bernie at develer dot com 2005-01-19 00:03
---
(In reply to comment #11)
> By the way at #19293, you will also find a patch suggestion that should be
> eaysily adapted to all of the present shifting problems.
I agree PR19293 is a superset of this b
--- Additional Comments From bernie at develer dot com 2005-01-19 00:04
---
*** Bug 19329 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From bernie at develer dot com 2005-01-19 00:06
---
Oops, I forgot this bug should stay open until someone
figures out why GCC 3.4 leaks through insns with a 0
shift count.
I've reclassified the bug as affecting the middle-end.
--
What|Re
--
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |bernie at develer dot com
|dot org |
Status|NEW
--- Additional Comments From bernie at develer dot com 2005-01-19 00:11
---
I'm no longer in charge for this bug.
--
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|bern
--- Additional Comments From bernie at develer dot com 2005-01-19 00:18
---
(In reply to comment #3)
A quick informal review.
> if (GET_CODE (operands[2]) == CONST_INT)
> {
> int k;
>
> if (!len)
> len = &k;
> !
--- Additional Comments From bernie at develer dot com 2005-01-20 05:46
---
(In reply to comment #10)
> Hi,
>
> here is the changed patch for avr.c . I hope that it is now compliant to the
> gcc coding standards. I however did not understand what you have meant with
--- Additional Comments From bernie at develer dot com 2005-01-24 00:49
---
Confirmed:
--- 3.4 output ---
ldi r18,lo8(24011)
ldi r19,hi8(24011)
mul r24,r18
movw r20,r0
mul r24,r19
add r21,r0
mul r25,r18
add r21,r0
--- Additional Comments From bernie at develer dot com 2005-01-24 10:28
---
Subject: Re: [4.0 Regression] avr-gcc 4.0, multiplication
by constant, very long code
marekm at amelek dot gda dot pl wrote:
> --- Additional Comments From marekm at amelek dot gda dot pl 2005-01
--- Additional Comments From bernie at develer dot com 2005-01-24 13:15
---
Subject: Re: [4.0 Regression] avr-gcc 4.0, multiplication
by constant, very long code
Bernardo Innocenti wrote:
> marekm at amelek dot gda dot pl wrote:
>
>>--- Additional Comments From mare
--- Additional Comments From bernie at develer dot com 2005-01-26 23:11
---
Please also apply to 3.4-branch.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19293
--- Additional Comments From bernie at develer dot com 2004-10-16 00:44 ---
I can still see it with a recent snapshot from RawHide:
gcc version 3.4.2 20041006 (Red Hat 3.4.2-5)
So unless it has been accidentally fixed during the last
10 days, the bug is still in 3.4-branch
--- Additional Comments From bernie at develer dot com 2004-10-22 19:37 ---
I still see this bug on mainline when doing a
profiledbootstrap:
stage1/xgcc -Bstage1/
-B/usr/local/src/gcc/i386-linux-HEAD-install/i686-pc-linux-gnu/bin/ -c -O2 -g
-fomit-frame-pointer -fprofile-use
--- Additional Comments From bernie at develer dot com 2004-11-17 00:54
---
Still present on mainline. Prevents bootstrap on avr.
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From bernie at develer dot com 2004-11-18 18:41
---
Works for me, thanks!
Patch still waiting for review in gcc-patches.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17735
Summary: wrong asm output for -ffunction-sections with g++
Product: gcc
Version: 4.0.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P2
Component: target
AssignedTo: denisc at overta dot ru
ReportedBy: bernie at devel
gnedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: bernie at develer dot com
CC: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
GCC host triplet: avr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18552
ignedTo: denisc at overta dot ru
ReportedBy: bernie at develer dot com
CC: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org,marekm at amelek dot gda
dot pl
GCC host triplet: avr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18553
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed||1
Known to fail||3.4.3 4.
--- Additional Comments From bernie at develer dot com 2004-11-18 20:30
---
Oops, this PR should have been about "-mcall-prologues",
not "-ffunction-sections".
--
What|Removed
--- Additional Comments From bernie at develer dot com 2004-12-12 14:11
---
The ICE has been triggered by one of these patches:
diff -u -p -r2.6723 -r2.6731
--- gcc/ChangeLog 6 Dec 2004 12:32:21 - 2.6723
+++ gcc/ChangeLog 7 Dec 2004 03:52:13 - 2.6731
--- Additional Comments From bernie at develer dot com 2004-12-13 08:53
---
What happens here is that func2() is inlined
inside func(), and j loaded into %a0 before
entering the loop, for improved speed.
The test for Array[i] > 0 is correctly
performed *inside* the loop.
This
--- Additional Comments From bernie at develer dot com 2004-12-13 09:14
---
And you also need -m68020 to trigger the bug. Works
fine with -m68000, so the bug must hide in one of the
TARGET_68020 patterns.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18592
--- Additional Comments From bernie at develer dot com 2004-12-13 09:29
---
It happens both on ColdFire and 680x0 (x>=2), but not
on 68000.
output_addr_const() gets passed a TRUNCATE (HImode) rtx.
I could find it in the last dump before the ICE:
(insn 87 45 127 3 (set (reg:HI 0
--- Additional Comments From bernie at develer dot com 2004-12-13 09:44
---
*** Bug 18542 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From bernie at develer dot com 2004-12-13 09:45
---
Please see additional comments attached to PR18542:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18542
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18592
Version: 4.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
AssignedTo: pcarlini at suse dot de
ReportedBy: bernie at develer dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29603
--- Comment #5 from bernie at develer dot com 2006-10-26 09:30 ---
*** Bug 29603 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
bernie at develer dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from bernie at develer dot com 2006-10-26 09:30 ---
Sorry, I've just noticed this was a dupe, and it's already fixed on trunk.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 29224 ***
--
bernie at develer dot com changed:
What
57 matches
Mail list logo
