--- Comment #19 from issac dot trotts at gmail dot com 2006-03-22 08:25
---
Subject: Re: Checking for gthread causes configure script to fail
On 22 Mar 2006 06:55:53 -, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> --- Comment #18 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu
--- Comment #17 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-22 09:00
---
Yes, this sounds very reasonable. Is there a chance you can take a look and
provide a rough implementation? I can take on the ball and try to fix
remaining issues - but as I'm not familiar with the VRP pass a pat
--- Comment #4 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-22 09:12 ---
If the salias-max-implicit-fields setting helps you then this is a PTA issue.
I never hit PTA issues with the expression templates in POOMA, so it might be
interesting to get a testcase for this. A testcase is also
--- Comment #5 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-22 09:17 ---
Use 'dmesg' to see if the kernel ran oom.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #3 from inaoka dot kazuhiro at renesas dot com 2006-03-22
09:48 ---
4.0.3 has a same problem.
4.1.0 has no problem. The following was a patch.
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-07/msg00533.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26776
--- Comment #4 from inaoka dot kazuhiro at renesas dot com 2006-03-22
09:49 ---
4.0.3 and 4.1.0 have a same problem.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26775
--- Comment #2 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-22 09:53
---
s-taasde.adb:Time_Enqueue is miscompiled at -O2, more specifically:
Q := Timer_Queue.Succ;
while Q.Resume_Time < T loop
Q := Q.Succ;
end loop;
-- Q is the block that has Resume
--- Comment #3 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-22 10:05
---
> I'm further digging but does this ring a bell to you, Richard?
I guess we should have a few V_MAY_DEFs for SFT.115, right?
# VUSE ;
q_17 = system__tasking__async_delays__timer_queue.succ;
# q_1 = PHI
--- Comment #4 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-22 10:28
---
Hum... perhaps I'm naive, but what's the point of creating SFTs for addressable
variables? What's the mechanism that is supposed to add V_MAY_DEFs for SFTs of
such variables when V_MAY_DEFs are added for the vari
--- Comment #1 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-22 10:32
---
Not present on 20/03:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2006-03/msg01368.html
Present on 21/03: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2006-03/msg01395.html
--
ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
--- Comment #1 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-22 10:33
---
Not present on 21/03:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2006-03/msg01395.html
Present on 22/03: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2006-03/msg01449.html
--
ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
--- Comment #5 from roebel at ircam dot fr 2006-03-22 11:13 ---
Created an attachment (id=11090)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=11090&action=view)
Results file for testcase
As you requested I provide a testcase. It consists of 2 shell scripts
that run the different
--- Comment #9 from richard dot guenther at gmail dot com 2006-03-22 11:14
---
Subject: Re: [4.1/4.2 Regression] missed jump threading after unroller
On 3/21/06, Jeffrey A Law <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It turns out this specialized PHI optimization pass is as effective
> as running
--- Comment #6 from roebel at ircam dot fr 2006-03-22 11:14 ---
Created an attachment (id=11091)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=11091&action=view)
master shell script
for comments
see 11090: Results file for testcase
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi
--- Comment #7 from roebel at ircam dot fr 2006-03-22 11:15 ---
Created an attachment (id=11092)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=11092&action=view)
single experiment shell script
for comments
see 11090: Results file for testcase
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/s
--- Comment #8 from roebel at ircam dot fr 2006-03-22 11:16 ---
Created an attachment (id=11093)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=11093&action=view)
testcase source file
for comments
see 11090: Results file for testcase
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cg
--- Comment #5 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-22 11:17 ---
Danny might have an idea and/or time to look at this.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #6 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-22 11:19 ---
I guess (only guess!) that the types differe in a way that aliasing does not
see them clobbered by means of type based alias analysis. Can you try if
-fno-strict-aliasing fixes it?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
Dear all,
I would like to post a bug report for the GNU C/C++ compiler 3.3-e500.
We use the compiler to generate code for a PowerPC processor.
Used invokation line for the GNU C++ compiler:
ccppc -c -x c++ -ansi -Wall -Werror -mcpu=8540 -fverbose-asm -mbig
-fmerge-templates -mmultiple -mn
--- Comment #9 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-22 11:39 ---
This is another case of find_used_portions missing explicit uses due to C++ and
lots of inlining without any cleanup after that. And inserting cleanup being
difficult because structure-aliasing pass running before g
--- Comment #10 from roebel at ircam dot fr 2006-03-22 11:55 ---
Not that I understand what you just said, but, I wanted to mention, that
in contrast to my initial email the data I just sent
indicates a small performance penalty of about 25% for g++ 4.0.2
for large vectors on a penti
gcc creates 'strd' instructions which are accessing non-double-word
aligned addresses. This is forbidden accordingly ARM Reference Manual
and causes an alignment exception:
| 10.6.14 STRD
| However, the address of the first of the two words is required to be
| doubleword-aligned (that is, the addr
--- Comment #1 from rearnsha at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-22 12:15
---
Invalid. The AAPCS requires 8-byte alignment of double-word objects (and,
recursively any object containing such an object). Your struct contains a long
long, which is a double-word object.
See http://www.arm.co
--- Comment #6 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-22 12:19 ---
Another one:
int foo(int i)
{
i = ++i;
return i;
}
I think the point is we should not warn for pre-increment, only post-increment.
Or can someone come up with a testcase that has undefined evaluation order just
--- Comment #7 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2006-03-22 12:26 ---
Subject: Re: -Wsequence-point reports false positives
On Wed, 22 Mar 2006, rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> i = ++i;
Modified twice between sequence points, so undefined behavior.
> I think the point is
Attached program generates a segfault when compiled with bounds-check enabled.
There is nothing strange in the code that I can see (though of course I might
be proven wrong).
[EMAIL PROTECTED] sfilippo]$ gfortran -v
Using built-in specs.
Target: i686-pc-linux-gnu
Configured with: ../gcc-4.2-2006
--- Comment #13 from rth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-22 12:33 ---
Mine.
--
rth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|dnovillo at gcc d
--- Comment #1 from sfilippone at uniroma2 dot it 2006-03-22 12:34 ---
Created an attachment (id=11094)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=11094&action=view)
test case
Note: the code segfaults even if the first do loop (before allocating the %a
components) is commented
--- Comment #14 from rth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-22 12:50 ---
Subject: Bug 26084
Author: rth
Date: Wed Mar 22 12:50:45 2006
New Revision: 112283
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=112283
Log:
PR middle-end/26084
* except.c (duplicate_eh_regions
--- Comment #15 from rth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-22 12:53 ---
Fixed.
--
rth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #8 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-22 12:53 ---
Sure - but this doesn't matter in this case. And
6.5.3.1 tells you
"The expression ++E is equivalent to (E+=1)."
6.5.16 says
"The side effect of updating the stored value of the left operand shall
occur betw
--- Comment #9 from schwab at suse dot de 2006-03-22 13:08 ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> i = (i += 1);
>
> where for i += 1 the next sequence point is the i = ... assigment?
The next sequence point is the semicolon.
> Of course for the particular testcase the ordering of the two sto
The existing testcase gfortran.dg/pr16597.f90 leaves behind a file named
fort.99 and should not do so. (If you run the entire testsuite, you have to
run the testcase manually to see fort.99 because later tests reuse the same
filename and delete it.)
Looking at the code, the last time the file is
--- Comment #10 from law at redhat dot com 2006-03-22 14:01 ---
Subject: Re: [4.1/4.2 Regression] missed jump
threading after unroller
On Wed, 2006-03-22 at 12:14 +0100, Richard Guenther wrote:
> On 3/21/06, Jeffrey A Law <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > It turns out this special
--- Comment #1 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-22 14:03
---
Not a bug. The first OPEN has neither FILE nor STATUS='SCRATCH' specifier, so
it creates a file named fort.99 in the cwd. This is the expected behaviour.
The testcase should probably have a STATUS='SCRATCH' adde
Alias analysis is taking a long time now.
I seem to have narrowed it down to this patch:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-01/msg00908.html
running cpgram.ii shows a regression:
before patch:
tree alias analysis : 2.49 ( 7%) usr 0.25 ( 5%) sys 6.13 ( 5%) wall
4971 kB ( 1%)
--- Comment #1 from amacleod at redhat dot com 2006-03-22 14:17 ---
Created an attachment (id=11095)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=11095&action=view)
large c++ include file.
cpgram.ii which compiles with -fpermissive
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi
--
tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot
|dot org
cratch/gcc/configure --quiet
--prefix=/afs/mpa/data/martin/ugcc --enable-languages=c++,fortran
--with-gmp=/usr/local/appl/gmp-4.1.4 --enable-checking=release
--without-makeinfo --disable-tls
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.2.0 20060322 (experimental)
/afs/mpa/data/martin/ugcc/libexec/gcc/i686-pc-lin
--- Comment #2 from dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-22 14:58 ---
Mine
--
dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned
--- Comment #11 from richard dot guenther at gmail dot com 2006-03-22
15:06 ---
Subject: Re: [4.1/4.2 Regression] missed jump threading after unroller
On 3/22/06, Jeffrey A Law <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-03-22 at 12:14 +0100, Richard Guenther wrote:
> > On 3/21/06, Jeff
--- Comment #5 from paolo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-22 15:13 ---
Subject: Bug 26777
Author: paolo
Date: Wed Mar 22 15:13:46 2006
New Revision: 112286
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=112286
Log:
2006-03-22 Paolo Carlini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR libstd
--- Comment #6 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2006-03-22 15:15 ---
Fixed for 4.2.0.
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-22 15:35 ---
I get a different error message on the mainline:
t7.cc:19: error: no matching function for call to ABC::ABC(void
(DEF::*)()const, DEF&)
t7.cc:4: note: candidates are: ABC::ABC(const ABC&)
--
http://gcc.gnu.org
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-22 15:36 ---
Fixed in 4.0.0, the error message is the same as in comment #1.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #12 from law at redhat dot com 2006-03-22 15:36 ---
Subject: Re: [4.1/4.2 Regression] missed jump
threading after unroller
On Wed, 2006-03-22 at 16:06 +0100, Richard Guenther wrote:
> ;
>
> see tv_id - so I guess increased CCP times are expected.
Nuts. I should ha
--- Comment #19 from gcc-bklyn at sneakemail dot com 2006-03-22 16:04
---
This bug appears to have recurred in gcc 4.1.0. I have no wide string or
iostream support on my brand-spanking-new versionof gcc, when this all worked
fine with gcc 3.4.3.
--
gcc-bklyn at sneakemail dot com c
--- Comment #20 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2006-03-22 16:11 ---
(In reply to comment #19)
> This bug appears to have recurred in gcc 4.1.0. I have no wide string or
> iostream support on my brand-spanking-new versionof gcc, when this all worked
> fine with gcc 3.4.3.
But frankly I su
--- Comment #21 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2006-03-22 16:23 ---
Humm, maybe Solaris < 2.10 is affected...
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6702
The capacita benchmark, part of the polyhedron benchmark suite, fails with the
ICE in the summary. BT:
#0 0x080d0276 in is_gimple_reg_type (type=0x0) at
../../trunk/gcc/tree-gimple.c:269
#1 0x080d0519 in is_gimple_val (t=0xb7852fa4) at
../../trunk/gcc/tree-gimple.c:368
#2 0x083e60c0 in verify_e
At -O2 and above,
Executing on host: /home/dave/gnu/gcc-4.2/objdir/gcc/xgcc
-B/home/dave/gnu/gcc-4
.2/objdir/gcc/
/home/dave/gnu/gcc-4.2/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/torture/pr24626-1
.c -O2 -fno-show-column -S -o pr24626-1.s(timeout = 300)
/home/dave/gnu/gcc-4.2/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tort
--- Comment #1 from jb at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-22 17:10 ---
Created an attachment (id=11097)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=11097&action=view)
Testcase
Testcase that demonstrates the ICE.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26806
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot
|
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-22 17:19 ---
I bet this was caused by the IA64 scheduler improvements on 2006-03-16.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26807
--- Comment #22 from gcc-bklyn at sneakemail dot com 2006-03-22 17:20
---
(In reply to comment #21)
> Humm, maybe Solaris < 2.10 is affected...
I am indeed on 2.8. What more can I do to debug this? I'll attach
sparc-sun-solaris2.8/libstdc++-v3/config.log.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/b
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot com
AssignedTo|law at redhat dot com
--- Comment #23 from gcc-bklyn at sneakemail dot com 2006-03-22 17:23
---
Created an attachment (id=11098)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=11098&action=view)
gcc 4.1.0 sparc-sun-solaris2.8/libstdc++-v3/config.log
Gcc 4.1.0 config.log from
/sparc-sun-solaris2.8/libst
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-22 17:27 ---
Confirmed, shorter testcase:
module solv_cap
integer, private, save :: Ng1=0, Ng2=0
contains
subroutine FourirG(G)
real, intent(in out), dimension(0:,0:) :: G
complex, allocatable, dimension(:,:)
--- Comment #24 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-22 17:40
---
Confirmed on Solaris 7, 8 and 9, everything is fine on Solaris 10.
--
ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
I successfully compiled binutils-2.16, configured gcc, and binutils, with
--target=sparc64-sun-solaris-2.9 --with-headers=$path_to_headers
--with-libs=$path_to_libs, but when I give the command "make all", this
happens:
...
>checking for ISO C99 support in ... no
>checking wctype.h usability... ye
--- Comment #13 from law at redhat dot com 2006-03-22 18:01 ---
Fixed via today's checkin to loop-unroll.c
--
law at redhat dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #18 from law at redhat dot com 2006-03-22 18:13 ---
Subject: Re: VRP/DOM does not like
TRUTH_AND_EXPR
On Wed, 2006-03-22 at 09:00 +, rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
>
> --- Comment #17 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-22 09:00
> ---
>
--- Comment #3 from law at redhat dot com 2006-03-22 18:14 ---
Subject: Re: [4.2 Regression] ICE at
gcc/tree-gimple.c:269
On Wed, 2006-03-22 at 17:27 +, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
>
> --- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-22 17:27
> --
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-22 18:16 ---
VIEW_CONVERT_EXPR(*B$P_ARRAYD.2768_872)[B92b.67D.2585_1027]{lb:
1 sz: 4}
We have a VIEW_CONVERT_EXPR here is ok, the assert is broken.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26795
--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-22 18:19 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> Options/flags? I've been unable to reproduce this.
Just -O2.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #2 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-22 18:48
---
The 3 failures have been introduced by the following change:
2006-03-21 Jeff Law <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* tree-vrp.c (extract_range_from_unary_expr): Derive ranges for
type conversions of a VR_VAR
--- Comment #2 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2006-03-22
18:49 ---
Subject: Re: [4.2 Regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/torture/pr24626-1.c -O2 (test for
excess errors)
> I bet this was caused by the IA64 scheduler improvements on 2006-03-16.
That's probably a good candidate. R
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-22 18:54 ---
The problem is that is the following:
Created value VH.637 for VIEW_CONVERT_EXPR(*_init$P_ARRAY_101)[A28b.23_725]{lb:
1 sz: 4} vuses: (HEAP.76_1012)
That should have been two split up into two VH's.
--
--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-22 18:56 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> The problem is that is the following:
> Created value VH.637 for VIEW_CONVERT_EXPR c37213d__E27b__S31b___C_PAD[D.1589:D.1591]>(*_init$P_ARRAY_101)[A28b.23_725]{lb:
> 1 sz: 4} vuses:
--- Comment #22 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-22 19:09
---
Subject: Bug 19303
Author: tkoenig
Date: Wed Mar 22 19:09:11 2006
New Revision: 112290
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=112290
Log:
2006-03-22 Thomas Koenig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR
--- Comment #18 from cristipp at excite dot com 2006-03-22 19:10 ---
(In reply to comment #17)
> see the solution in 24660
I'm not sure I understand correctly: are all C++ template libraries supposed to
add 24660-style machinery?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21405
--- Comment #5 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-22 19:19 ---
The problem is the follow if is being hit:
2941 /* If OP is a constant that has overflowed, do not value number
2942 this expression. */
2943 if (CONSTANT_CLASS_P (op)
2944
--- Comment #6 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-22 19:26 ---
I think I have a fix, removing this condition as this condition predates the
change for overflow constants being gimple invariant.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #2 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-22 19:27
---
The 2 failures have been introduced by the following change:
2006-03-20 Jeff Law <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* tree-pass.h (pass_phi_only_copy_prop): Delete.
(pass_phi_only_cprop): Declare.
* p
--- Comment #10 from reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-22 19:36
---
Subject: Bug 22600
Author: reichelt
Date: Wed Mar 22 19:36:22 2006
New Revision: 112292
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=112292
Log:
PR driver/22600
* system.h (ICE_EXIT_COD
Making all in mysys
if gcc -pipe -mcpu=power -Wa,-many
-DDEFAULT_BASEDIR=\"/usr/local/mysql\" -DDATADIR="\"/usr/local/mysql
/var\"" -DDEFAULT_CHARSET_HOME="\"/usr/local/mysql\""
-DSHAREDIR="\"/usr/local/mysql/share/mysql\"" -DDEFAULT
_HOME_ENV=MYSQL_HOME -DDEFAULT_GROUP_SUFFIX_ENV=MYSQ
--- Comment #11 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-22 20:00 ---
Subject: Bug 17298
Author: pault
Date: Wed Mar 22 20:00:17 2006
New Revision: 112293
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=112293
Log:
2006-03-22 Paul Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR fortran
--- Comment #12 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-22 20:02 ---
Fixed on trank and 4.1.
Paul
--
pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-22 20:06 ---
Created an attachment (id=11099)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=11099&action=view)
patch
This patch adds the appropriate _r10 versions.
It also includes the reversal of automake to 1.9.3 (which
The testsuite does not check for ICEs. Therefore, ICEs often go unnoticed
when they happen in a line that is marked with { dg-error "" }.
(See e.g. PR 24128, PR 26739, PR 26740 and several others).
Btw, this is somewhat similar to
PR 25241 "DejaGNU does not distinguish between errors and warnings"
--- Comment #11 from reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-22 20:14
---
Fixed in mainline.
I.e. the C and C++ frontend now return "4" if an ICE occurred,
and a code less than 4 if a regular error occurred.
(The Fortran frontend has been doing this already.)
In order to see the exit
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-22 20:54 ---
Fixed in 4.0.1.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 21173 ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #39 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-22 20:54
---
*** Bug 26811 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-22 21:00 ---
Confirmed, I was going to link the llibjava testing bug but you already found
it :).
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26813
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot
|
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot
|
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-22 21:09 ---
Look at config.log in libstdc++ subdirectory to see why it fails. The error
message is misleading.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26810
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-22 21:22 ---
Confirmed, but I don't see could not figure out why the segfault is there.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #7 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-22 21:39 ---
Full testing of my patch is happening right now. It worked for this testcase
just fine.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26795
--- Comment #3 from reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-22 21:42
---
Subject: Bug 26789
Author: reichelt
Date: Wed Mar 22 21:42:34 2006
New Revision: 112296
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=112296
Log:
PR mudflap/26789
* tree-mudflap.c (mf_xfor
--- Comment #3 from reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-22 21:45
---
Subject: Bug 26790
Author: reichelt
Date: Wed Mar 22 21:45:13 2006
New Revision: 112298
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=112298
Log:
PR mudflap/26790
* tree-mudflap.c (mudflap
--- Comment #4 from reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-22 21:58
---
Fixed on mainline.
The testcase is still missing, though.
--
reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
Hi All,
Bug encountered building X. Probably already reported but I couldn't
find any reference. I did google...
Commandline..
make World CROSSCOMPILEDIR=/usr/local/arm-linux/bin
X version XFree86-4.5.0, first 3 source archives only.
Following instructions for configuring as per
http://www.h
--- Comment #4 from reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-22 22:00
---
Fixed on mainline.
The testcase is still missing, though.
Will probably also be fixed on the 4.1 branch, since the patch is required
for a complete fix of PR 26790 which is a 4.1/4.2 regression.
--
reichelt at
--- Comment #16 from jonz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-22 22:12 ---
Subject: Bug 24173
Author: jonz
Revision: 112262
Modified property: svn:log
Modified: svn:log at Wed Mar 22 22:11:55 2006
--
--- svn:log (or
--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-22 23:03 ---
Fixed in 4.1.0 then.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
St
--- Comment #5 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-22 23:04 ---
Changing back to new then.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Configured and built with
#!/bin/tcsh
/bin/rm -rf *; ../configure --prefix=/pkgs/gcc-4.1.0 --with-gmp=/sw/
--with-mpfr=/sw/ --with-as=/usr/local/odcctools-20060123/bin/as
--with-ld=/usr/local/odcctools-20060123/bin/ld --enable-languages=c; make -j 8
bootstrap BOOT_CFLAGS='-mcpu=970 -m64 -O2 -g' >&
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-22 23:23 ---
This is the same issue as the follow patch tries to solve:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-02/msg01604.html
So it is not just PPC-darwin.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26814
--- Comment #2 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-22 23:24
---
If you start with a 32-bit compiler, the correct sequence of operations is:
CC="gcc -m64" $srcdir/configure --prefix=/pkgs/gcc-4.1.0 --with-gmp=/sw/
--with-mpfr=/sw/ --with-as=/usr/local/odcctools-20060123/bin/as
1 - 100 of 129 matches
Mail list logo
