[Bug fortran/35339] Improve translation of implied do loop in transfer

--- Comment #3 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-02 07:59 --- > In the meantime, I am thinking through a different approach for aio that > avoids > the issue here. > Yes it would - use gfc_conv_expr_descriptor to convert the expression and pass the resulting array descriptor.

[Bug fortran/35418] [4.4 Regression]: Revision 132592 miscompiles 172.mgrid

--- Comment #6 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-02 10:31 --- The foldings look legit. I wonder in which dump there starts to be a real difference? I suppose maybe the vectorizer now can do work if not faced with a COND_EXPR. -- rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

[Bug c++/28330] finds wrong template overload; peculiar diagnostic

--- Comment #4 from truedfx at gentoo dot org 2008-03-02 10:57 --- I only came across this bug looking for something else, but anyway, here's a reduced testcase: template class ring {}; template ring &operator<<(ring&, T *); class base {}; class derived : public base {}; void f() {

[Bug libfortran/35355] [4.3/4.4 regression] CPU_TIME gives wrong values on mingw

--- Comment #9 from e-dunlop at versanet dot de 2008-03-02 11:00 --- Subject: Fw: Bug libfortran/35355 Many thanks for your input into the repair of my reported bug. Your work is really appreciated - and the process is so much better than (commercial) Intel. Best wishes, Edmund Dunlo

[Bug fortran/35418] [4.4 Regression]: Revision 132592 miscompiles 172.mgrid

--- Comment #7 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-02 11:00 --- Note the COND_EXRPs will be lowered to control-flow while the MAX_EXPRs will retain a single BB. Still, on i686 the exactly same inner loop IL is created. And btw I don't see mgrid miscomparing on our tester that r

[Bug target/33604] [4.3/4.4 Regression] Revision 119502 causes significantly slower results with 4.3/4.4 compared to 4.2

--- Comment #38 from michael dot olbrich at gmx dot net 2008-03-02 12:14 --- I tried again with g++-4.2 (GCC) 4.2.3 (Debian 4.2.3-2) g++-4.3 (Debian 4.3-20080227-1) 4.3.0 20080227 (prerelease) [gcc-4_3-branch revision 132730] The problem still exists for the first two test cases. As I

[Bug target/33604] [4.3/4.4 Regression] Revision 119502 causes significantly slower results with 4.3/4.4 compared to 4.2

--- Comment #39 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2008-03-02 12:26 --- Subject: Re: [4.3/4.4 Regression] Revision 119502 causes significantly slower results with 4.3/4.4 compared to 4.2 > The problem still exists for the first two test cases. > As I noted in comment #8 there is a significa

[Bug target/33604] [4.3/4.4 Regression] Revision 119502 causes significantly slower results with 4.3/4.4 compared to 4.2

--- Comment #40 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-02 14:00 --- I think new analysis is necessary first -- what is exactly causing the speed difference? -- rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added --

[Bug other/28322] GCC new warnings and compatibility

--- Comment #16 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-02 15:19 --- The patch for gcc 4.3 was a duplicate of the patch for gcc 4.2. The correct patch for gcc 4.3 is here: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2008-03/msg00094.html (thanks to Matthias Klose for noticing this). -- http

[Bug c++/24924] front end and preprocessor pedantic_errors settings should agree

--- Comment #7 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-02 15:46 --- Subject: Bug 24924 Author: manu Date: Sun Mar 2 15:45:29 2008 New Revision: 132817 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=132817 Log: 2008-03-02 Manuel Lopez-Ibanez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> PR 2

[Bug other/35419] New: [4.3/4.4 Regression] bfin libgcc build error

... # If the gcc directory specifies which extra parts to # build for this target, and the libgcc configuration also # specifies, make sure they match. This can be removed # when the gcc directory no longer holds libgcc configuration; # it is useful when migrating a target. Configuration mismatch!

[Bug driver/35420] New: --version copyright date vs. 2008

--version output for trunk/4_3-branch has: %$bld/H-x86-gcc-4_3-branch.20080301/bin/g++ --version g++ (GCC) 4.3.0 20080302 (prerelease) Copyright (C) 2007 Free Software Foundation, Inc. This is free software; see the source for copying conditions. There is NO warranty; not even for

[Bug target/32871] [avr] Bad optimisation - gcc is pushing too many registers

--- Comment #3 from hutchinsonandy at aim dot com 2008-03-02 17:22 --- Problem is caused by bug in gcc DF or at least incorrect documentation regarding prolog/epilog register save/resotres As specified in internals manual AVR prolog/epilog uses df_regs_ever_live_p(reg) to determine whic

[Bug c++/35262] [4.4 Regression]: FAIL: abi_check

--- Comment #9 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2008-03-02 17:35 --- Confirmed, of course. Honza, any news on the inlining issue? -- pcarlini at suse dot de changed: What|Removed |Added --

[Bug driver/35420] --version copyright date vs. 2008

--- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-02 17:50 --- Jakub, you might want to fix this for/with the 4.3.0 release. -- rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added ---

[Bug c++/35401] [4.3/4.4 Regression] libstdc++ linked to system /usr/lib/libgcc_s.1.dylib not new gcc4.3 libgcc_s.1.dylib

--- Comment #24 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-02 17:52 --- If r131198 makes a difference, then I'm just guessing that while libgcc's install target depends on install-darwin-libgcc-stubs, install-leaf does not. So perhaps libgcc/config/t-slibgcc-darwin should change: ifeq (

[Bug target/35373] [4.4 Regression] bootstraping on powerpc-apple-darwin9 fails with revision 132578

result++; *dest = result; } It compiles at -O0 but fails at -O1. The backtrace is: #0 fancy_abort (file=0x755644 "/var/tmp/gfortran-20080302/ibin/../gcc/gcc/explow.c", line=492, function=0x856e04 "memory_address") at /var/tmp/gfortran-20080302/ibin/../gcc/gcc/diagnostic.c:664 #

[Bug libfortran/35355] [4.3/4.4 regression] CPU_TIME gives wrong values on mingw

--- Comment #10 from dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-02 18:43 --- Sorry for the regression and many thank for fixing it so quickly! (I was out of town over the weekend, so I couldn't participate here.) -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35355

[Bug target/35373] [4.4 Regression] bootstraping on powerpc-apple-darwin9 fails with revision 132578

--- Comment #5 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2008-03-02 19:01 --- Subject: Re: [4.4 Regression] bootstraping on powerpc-apple-darwin9 fails with revision 132578 On Sun, 2 Mar 2008, fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote: > (gdb) p mode > $4 = TFmode > (gdb) p debug_rtx(x) > (pl

[Bug target/35373] [4.4 Regression] bootstraping on powerpc-apple-darwin9 fails with revision 132578

--- Comment #6 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-02 19:11 --- (In reply to comment #5) > My guess would be that in rs6000_legitimize_address So maybe a likely culprit would be: 2008-02-22 Nathan Froyd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * config/rs6000/rs6000.c (rs6000_legitimi

[Bug c++/35401] [4.3/4.4 Regression] libstdc++ linked to system /usr/lib/libgcc_s.1.dylib not new gcc4.3 libgcc_s.1.dylib

--- Comment #26 from howarth at nitro dot med dot uc dot edu 2008-03-02 19:34 --- Could someone change the component for this bug from c++ to target? -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35401

[Bug c++/35401] [4.3/4.4 Regression] libstdc++ linked to system /usr/lib/libgcc_s.1.dylib not new gcc4.3 libgcc_s.1.dylib

--- Comment #25 from howarth at nitro dot med dot uc dot edu 2008-03-02 19:32 --- Jakub, The change to libgcc/config/t-slibgcc-darwin solves the problem here with gcc 4.3.0rc2. I'll submit the change to gcc-patches after regression testing on i686-apple-darwin9. Thanks for the hint.

[Bug target/35373] [4.4 Regression] bootstraping on powerpc-apple-darwin9 fails with revision 132578

--- Comment #7 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2008-03-02 19:52 --- Subject: Re: [4.4 Regression] bootstraping on powerpc-apple-darwin9 fails with revision 132578 On Sun, 2 Mar 2008, fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote: > So maybe a likely culprit would be: > > 2008-02-22 Na

[Bug preprocessor/35326] [4.2/4.3/4.4 regression] ICE with stray digraph token

--- Comment #1 from reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-02 21:23 --- The ICE with "%:%:;" disappeared on mainline. However, the following code snippet still triggers a segfault: === %:%: === This happens with the C and C++ frontend. Looks like it's the preprocessor's fault

[Bug target/35401] [4.3/4.4 Regression] libstdc++ linked to system /usr/lib/libgcc_s.1.dylib not new gcc4.3 libgcc_s.1.dylib

--- Comment #27 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-02 22:07 --- Subject: Bug 35401 Author: jakub Date: Sun Mar 2 22:06:32 2008 New Revision: 132819 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=132819 Log: PR target/35401 * config/t-slibgcc-darwin: Make

[Bug target/35401] [4.3/4.4 Regression] libstdc++ linked to system /usr/lib/libgcc_s.1.dylib not new gcc4.3 libgcc_s.1.dylib

--- Comment #28 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-02 22:08 --- Subject: Bug 35401 Author: jakub Date: Sun Mar 2 22:08:12 2008 New Revision: 132820 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=132820 Log: PR target/35401 * config/t-slibgcc-darwin: Make

[Bug target/35401] [4.3/4.4 Regression] libstdc++ linked to system /usr/lib/libgcc_s.1.dylib not new gcc4.3 libgcc_s.1.dylib

--- Comment #29 from andreast at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-02 22:17 --- Fixed. Adjusted to target iso. libstc++. -- andreast at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added

[Bug ada/15479] Ada manual problems

--- Comment #9 from rwild at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-02 22:37 --- Subject: Bug 15479 Author: rwild Date: Sun Mar 2 22:36:35 2008 New Revision: 132821 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=132821 Log: gcc/ada PR documentation/15479 * gnat_rm.texi, g

[Bug fortran/35009] error on valid with -std=f95 (character arrays in format tags)

--- Comment #9 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-02 22:31 --- (In reply to comment #8) > Need to update hollerith.f90 and hollerith_f95.f90, otherwise OK. I'm actually not sure at all whether the code in these two testcases is valid or not... And so, I'm not sure how to pro

[Bug driver/35420] --version copyright date vs. 2008

--- Comment #2 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-02 22:50 --- Subject: Bug 35420 Author: jakub Date: Sun Mar 2 22:50:02 2008 New Revision: 132823 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=132823 Log: PR driver/35420 * gcc.c (process_command): Update

[Bug driver/35420] --version copyright date vs. 2008

--- Comment #3 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-02 22:56 --- Subject: Bug 35420 Author: jakub Date: Sun Mar 2 22:55:19 2008 New Revision: 132824 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=132824 Log: PR driver/35420 * gcc.c (process_command): Update

[Bug c++/35421] New: ICE on Valid Code

Recent SVN: $ g++ -c -g -fno-elide-constructors -DUSE_MUTEX=1 -pedantic-errors -Werror -ansi -fno-common -Wall -Wold-style-cast -Wsign-promo -Wpointer-arith -Wundef -Wwrite-strings -Winvalid-pch -Woverloaded-virtual -Wcast-qual -Wextra -Wredundant-decls -Wshadow -Wcast-align -Wcomment -fstri

[Bug c++/35421] ICE on Valid Code

--- Comment #1 from mckelvey at maskull dot com 2008-03-02 22:59 --- Created an attachment (id=15253) --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=15253&action=view) Compressed preprocessed source -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35421

[Bug driver/35420] --version copyright date vs. 2008

--- Comment #4 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-02 22:59 --- Fixed. -- jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW

[Bug target/35401] [4.3/4.4 Regression] libstdc++ linked to system /usr/lib/libgcc_s.1.dylib not new gcc4.3 libgcc_s.1.dylib

--- Comment #30 from fang at csl dot cornell dot edu 2008-03-02 23:09 --- many thanks for a timely resolution -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35401

[Bug fortran/35009] error on valid with -std=f95 (character arrays in format tags)

--- Comment #10 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-02 23:06 --- The code is not valid in these test cases. For -std-f95 we give errors. Otherwise we always warn and it is allowed as an extension. The test cases happen to be using an array for the format which is allowed. T

[Bug c++/35421] ICE on Valid Code

--- Comment #2 from brian at dessent dot net 2008-03-02 23:21 --- Subject: Re: ICE on Valid Code A 65,000 line testcase? Seriously? -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35421

[Bug target/32871] [avr] Bad optimisation - gcc is pushing too many registers

--- Comment #4 from hutchinsonandy at aim dot com 2008-03-02 23:32 --- Created an attachment (id=15254) --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=15254&action=view) Patch to fix bug. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32871

[Bug c++/35262] [4.4 Regression]: FAIL: abi_check

--- Comment #10 from hubicka at ucw dot cz 2008-03-03 00:50 --- Subject: Re: [4.4 Regression]: FAIL: abi_check > Confirmed, of course. Honza, any news on the inlining issue? Sorry, I looked into it, got confused and then distracted by other problem and forgot to return back. At second

[Bug c++/35421] ICE on Valid Code

--- Comment #3 from mckelvey at maskull dot com 2008-03-03 00:54 --- (In reply to comment #2) > Subject: Re: ICE on Valid Code > > > A 65,000 line testcase? Seriously? > I'll try to make a smaller one. But it most likely won't be small. I think the bug is caused by a VERY large exp

Re: [Bug c++/35421] ICE on Valid Code

Sent from my iPhone On Mar 2, 2008, at 16:54, "mckelvey at maskull dot com" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: --- Comment #3 from mckelvey at maskull dot com 2008-03-03 00:54 --- (In reply to comment #2) Subject: Re: ICE on Valid Code A 65,000 line testcase? Seriously? I'll

[Bug c++/35421] ICE on Valid Code

--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gmail dot com 2008-03-03 01:43 --- Subject: Re: ICE on Valid Code Sent from my iPhone On Mar 2, 2008, at 16:54, "mckelvey at maskull dot com" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: > > > --- Comment #3 from mckelvey at maskull dot com 2008-03-03 > 00:54

[Bug c++/35415] [4.4 Regression] 20_util/shared_ptr/assign/shared_ptr_neg.cc

--- Comment #2 from hp at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-03 02:32 --- See . -- hp at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added

[Bug c++/35416] [4.4 Regression] tr1/2_general_utilities/shared_ptr/assign/shared_ptr_neg.cc

--- Comment #1 from hp at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-03 02:33 --- See . -- hp at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added

[Bug c/6906] warn about asserts with side effects

--- Comment #5 from chris dot pickett at mail dot mcgill dot ca 2008-03-03 02:55 --- Maybe you could fix the preprocessor to warn about operators with known side effects. Can cpp see the entire expr in assert (expr)? If so, just search the tokens for =, ++, --, +=, -=, etc. -- chr

[Bug c++/35421] ICE on Valid Code

--- Comment #5 from dannysmith at users dot sourceforge dot net 2008-03-03 03:32 --- (In reply to comment #4) > >> > >> A 65,000 line testcase? Seriously? > >> > > > > I'll try to make a smaller one. But it most likely won't be small. > > I think the bug is caused by a VERY large expr

[Bug fortran/35285] Failures in the NIST test suite FM827 with -m64

--- Comment #5 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-03 04:59 --- Was it decided this is a platform specific library issue, not gfortran? -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35285