FIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: caolanm at redhat dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28357
--- Comment #1 from caolanm at redhat dot com 2006-07-12 12:51 ---
Created an attachment (id=11865)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=11865&action=view)
demo source
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28357
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: caolanm at redhat dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28370
--- Comment #1 from caolanm at redhat dot com 2006-07-13 09:42 ---
Created an attachment (id=11877)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=11877&action=view)
testcase
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28370
--- Comment #2 from caolanm at redhat dot com 2006-07-13 09:43 ---
Created an attachment (id=11878)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=11878&action=view)
original -6 nm output
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28370
--- Comment #3 from caolanm at redhat dot com 2006-07-13 09:43 ---
Created an attachment (id=11879)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=11879&action=view)
new nm -7 output
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28370
--- Comment #4 from caolanm at redhat dot com 2006-07-13 11:06 ---
Created an attachment (id=11880)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=11880&action=view)
diff against testme.ii which will make it work for me
This attachment is a diff against the testme.ii and ma
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: caolanm at redhat dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40146
--- Comment #1 from caolanm at redhat dot com 2009-05-14 13:09 ---
Created an attachment (id=17864)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=17864&action=view)
test-case
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40146
ReportedBy: caolanm at redhat dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25199
--- Comment #1 from caolanm at redhat dot com 2005-12-01 10:27 ---
Created an attachment (id=10374)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10374&action=view)
preprocessed code
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25199
--- Comment #2 from caolanm at redhat dot com 2005-12-01 10:27 ---
Created an attachment (id=10375)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10375&action=view)
ok output
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25199
--- Comment #3 from caolanm at redhat dot com 2005-12-01 10:28 ---
Created an attachment (id=10376)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10376&action=view)
not ok output
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25199
--- Comment #4 from caolanm at redhat dot com 2005-12-01 10:28 ---
crash is
X11SalGraphics::SetXORMode (this=0x34b3f10, bSet=0 '\0')
at /home/caolan/ooo/SRC680_m142/vcl/unx/source/gdi/salgdi.cxx:695
695 if( !bXORMode_ == bSet )
where a bitfield is compare to uns
--- Comment #7 from caolanm at redhat dot com 2005-12-01 14:59 ---
Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault.
[witching to Thread -1209017888 (LWP 28260)]
X11SalGraphics::SetXORMode (this=0x3cb0f10, bSet=0 '\0')
at /home/caolan/ooo/SRC680_m142/vcl/unx/source/gdi/
java.lang.NullPointerException
Product: gcc
Version: 4.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: java
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: caolanm at redhat dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25389
--- Comment #7 from caolanm at redhat dot com 2005-12-14 08:35 ---
Throwing IllegalArgumentException should be fine.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25389
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: caolanm at redhat dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28844
--- Comment #1 from caolanm at redhat dot com 2006-08-25 09:50 ---
Created an attachment (id=12137)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=12137&action=view)
patch
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28844
--- Comment #3 from caolanm at redhat dot com 2006-08-25 10:15 ---
Created an attachment (id=12138)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=12138&action=view)
and add some smaller primes to the start of the list
An additional part to this puzzle...
From: Herber
--- Comment #4 from caolanm at redhat dot com 2006-08-25 10:19 ---
On a brief inspection the trl hashtable doesn't look like it really suffers
from these problems.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28844
--- Comment #6 from caolanm at redhat dot com 2006-08-25 10:32 ---
Sure, up to you, but I'd say you'd still be pretty safe adding two smaller
starting hash sizes.
This doesn't actually affect most OOos (at least for 95% of OOo's which exist)
which are normally built
org
ReportedBy: caolanm at redhat dot com
CC: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org,jakub at gcc dot gnu dot
org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20008
--- Additional Comments From caolanm at redhat dot com 2005-02-16 16:23
---
Created an attachment (id=8203)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=8203&action=view)
bzip2 compressed preprocesser output
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20008
at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: caolanm at redhat dot com
CC: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org,jakub at gcc dot gnu dot
org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20022
--- Additional Comments From caolanm at redhat dot com 2005-02-17 08:51
---
Created an attachment (id=8211)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=8211&action=view)
bzip2 compressed preprocessed source dump
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20022
signedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: caolanm at redhat dot com
CC: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org,jakub at gcc dot gnu dot
org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20023
--- Additional Comments From caolanm at redhat dot com 2005-02-17 08:55
---
Created an attachment (id=8212)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=8212&action=view)
bzip2 compressed proprocessed dump
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20023
--- Additional Comments From caolanm at redhat dot com 2005-02-17 10:00
---
FWIW: openoffice.org 1.9.77 side patch to workaround at
http://people.redhat.com/caolanm/gcc4/xmlsecurity.gcc20008.gcc4.patch
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20008
t: gcc
Version: 4.0.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P2
Component: c++
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: caolanm at redhat dot com
CC: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org,jakub at gcc dot g
--- Additional Comments From caolanm at redhat dot com 2005-03-02 09:39
---
Created an attachment (id=8311)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=8311&action=view)
bzip2'ed dump
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20280
Component: c++
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: caolanm at redhat dot com
CC: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20589
--- Additional Comments From caolanm at redhat dot com 2005-03-22 15:46
---
Created an attachment (id=8433)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=8433&action=view)
example
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20589
--- Additional Comments From caolanm at redhat dot com 2005-03-23 11:53
---
The workaround is trivial. But I'm still confused as to what exactly causes gcc
to treat unnamed enums so much differently that named ones. It would be great if
I could get some clarity on this. I have a ha
--- Additional Comments From caolanm at redhat dot com 2005-03-23 19:12
---
Sounds reasonable, but it's not the case that the compiler should just silently
not consider anonymous enums as candidates for template argument matching ?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.c
Component: c++
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: caolanm at redhat dot com
CC: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org,jakub at gcc dot gnu dot
org
GCC build triplet: ppc64-redhat-linux
GCC host triplet: ppc64-redhat-linux
GCC target
--- Additional Comments From caolanm at redhat dot com 2005-03-24 21:06
---
Created an attachment (id=8453)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=8453&action=view)
bzip2ed prorocessed dump
openoffice.org 1.9.88
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20629
--- Additional Comments From caolanm at redhat dot com 2005-03-25 11:28
---
FWIW I only see it on ppc, though I compile with different optimization values
for i386, ppc command line is...
g++ -fsigned-char -fmessage-length=0 -c -I. -I. -I../inc -I../../inc
-I../../unx/inc -I
--- Additional Comments From caolanm at redhat dot com 2005-03-30 07:29
---
I'm still seeing this, but some info...
a) I'm only seeing this with LANG=C, export LANG=en_US.UTF-8 and there is no
crash
b) compiling the dumped proprocessed code isn't crashing in either L
dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: caolanm at redhat dot com
CC: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org,java-prs at gcc dot gnu
dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21020
--- Additional Comments From caolanm at redhat dot com 2005-04-14 12:07
---
Created an attachment (id=8628)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=8628&action=view)
sample source
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21020
--- Additional Comments From caolanm at redhat dot com 2005-04-14 12:07
---
Created an attachment (id=8629)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=8629&action=view)
sample jar
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21020
--- Additional Comments From caolanm at redhat dot com 2005-04-14 12:09
---
version of failing gcj
gcc (GCC) 4.0.0 20050412 (Red Hat 4.0.0-0.42)
Copyright (C) 2005 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This is free software; see the source for copying conditions. There is NO
warranty; not
--- Additional Comments From caolanm at redhat dot com 2005-04-14 12:09
---
version of successful gcj
gcc (GCC) 4.0.0 20050405 (Red Hat 4.0.0-0.40)
Copyright (C) 2005 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This is free software; see the source for copying conditions. There is NO
warranty; not
--- Additional Comments From caolanm at redhat dot com 2005-04-14 12:11
---
affects db-4.2 as well for what it's worth
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21020
Component: c++
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: caolanm at redhat dot com
GCC target triplet: x86_64-redhat-linux
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39526
--- Comment #1 from caolanm at redhat dot com 2009-03-23 12:22 ---
Created an attachment (id=17519)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=17519&action=view)
trivial demo
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39526
Component: c++
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: caolanm at redhat dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39763
--- Comment #1 from caolanm at redhat dot com 2009-04-14 13:06 ---
Created an attachment (id=17631)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=17631&action=view)
trivial demo
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39763
--- Comment #4 from caolanm at redhat dot com 2009-08-27 11:17 ---
Created an attachment (id=18436)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=18436&action=view)
smaller test-case
Here's a smaller one, perturbing nearly any line in this makes the warning go
a
--
caolanm at redhat dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40146
nu dot org
ReportedBy: caolanm at redhat dot com
GCC build triplet: s390x-ibm-linux
GCC host triplet: s390x-ibm-linux
GCC target triplet: s390x-ibm-linux
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41847
--- Comment #1 from caolanm at redhat dot com 2009-10-27 14:47 ---
Created an attachment (id=18916)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=18916&action=view)
standalone demo
gcc -Wall -O2 -c demo.cxx
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41847
--- Comment #4 from caolanm at redhat dot com 2009-10-27 20:17 ---
At runtime of the original version of one of these loops (or a similar one, I
decided for ease to boil down to the warning case for this bug) goes way past
the RowSpan limits. If this one is cosmetic, then I'v
Priority: P3
Component: c++
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: caolanm at redhat dot com
GCC host triplet: s390x-ibm-linux
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41892
--- Comment #1 from caolanm at redhat dot com 2009-10-31 17:51 ---
Created an attachment (id=18943)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=18943&action=view)
demo code
s390x-redhat-linux-g++ -O2 -fpic demo.cxx
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41892
--- Comment #2 from caolanm at redhat dot com 2009-10-31 17:52 ---
$ gcc --version
gcc (GCC) 4.4.2 20091019 (Red Hat 4.4.2-5)
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41892
--- Comment #5 from caolanm at redhat dot com 2009-10-31 17:59 ---
bug 41892 now logged for the concrete runtime problem I'm encountering.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41847
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50255
Caolan McNamara changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||caolanm at redhat dot com
ement
Priority: P3
Component: c++
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: caolanm at redhat dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31785
: caolanm at redhat dot com
CC: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23691
--- Additional Comments From caolanm at redhat dot com 2005-09-02 09:05
---
Created an attachment (id=9645)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=9645&action=view)
testcase
I'm sure this worked very recently
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23691
signedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: caolanm at redhat dot com
CC: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22482
--- Additional Comments From caolanm at redhat dot com 2005-07-14 11:42
---
Created an attachment (id=9268)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=9268&action=view)
example to reproduce
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22482
--
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
Summary| -fvisibility=hidden and stl|-fvisibility=hidden and stl
--
What|Removed |Added
CC||caolanm at redhat dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23418
--
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at redhat dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23418
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: caolanm at redhat dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44268
--- Comment #1 from caolanm at redhat dot com 2010-05-25 10:34 ---
Created an attachment (id=20740)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=20740&action=view)
update docs
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44268
--- Comment #14 from caolanm at redhat dot com 2010-07-13 14:37 ---
Checking with gcc 4.5, this works fine for me now, so I'm happy to call this
fixed in 4.5.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40146
d at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: caolanm at redhat dot com
CC: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org,java-prs at gcc dot gnu
dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21233
--- Additional Comments From caolanm at redhat dot com 2005-02-01 15:04
---
breaks current OOo2 build
--
What|Removed |Added
CC
72 matches
Mail list logo
