--- Comment #3 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-26 09:11 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> the lbound should be simplified in simplify_bound even if the ARRAY argument
> is
> not a full array.
>
Here's a tentative patch:
Index: simplify.c
=
--- Comment #4 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-26 09:14 ---
> Here's a tentative patch:
... which causes regressions.
Back to the drawing board.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38914
The following code is expected to print "1."
However, with -O1 or -O2 option, it prints "2."
(-O0 option yields the correct output "1.")
Source code:
#include
int main (void)
{
int test=1;
volatile int a = 1;
test += (0 ==
--- Comment #3 from dave dot korn dot cygwin at gmail dot com 2009-01-26
09:48 ---
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2009-01/msg00367.html
Confirmed by OP.
--
dave dot korn dot cygwin at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #20 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-26 09:53
---
Fixed.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNE
--- Comment #17 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-26 09:55
---
Subject: Bug 38745
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Jan 26 09:55:30 2009
New Revision: 143673
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=143673
Log:
2009-01-26 Richard Guenther
PR tree-optimizatio
--- Comment #17 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-26 09:55
---
Subject: Bug 38745
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Jan 26 09:55:30 2009
New Revision: 143673
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=143673
Log:
2009-01-26 Richard Guenther
PR tree-optimizatio
--- Comment #25 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-26 10:22
---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 38789 ***
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #11 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-26 10:22
---
*** Bug 36359 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #19 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-26 09:53
---
Subject: Bug 38851
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Jan 26 09:52:48 2009
New Revision: 143672
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=143672
Log:
2009-01-26 Richard Guenther
PR middle-end/38851
--- Comment #6 from dave dot korn dot cygwin at gmail dot com 2009-01-26
09:58 ---
Hi HP,
(In reply to comment #5)
> Glancing at the assembly and simulator trace (no looking at rtl or tree dumps
> yet), the value of "p" (sp after the first alloca) is somehow lost and after
> the __buil
The website
http://gcc.gnu.org/projects/cxx0x.html
claims that the "New character types N2249"
C++0x extension is not supported by any
version of GCC. But GCC 4.4.0 supports the
u8, u and U string prefixes. :-)
--
Summary: Missing feature documentation
Product: gcc
--- Comment #3 from piotr dot wyderski at gmail dot com 2009-01-26 10:48
---
The bug is definitely confirmed and it still happens on GCC-4.4.0 trunk
(revision 143673).
--
piotr dot wyderski at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-26 10:24 ---
This is fixed in GCC 4.3.0 and later. We probably have a duplicate bugreport
somewhere.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gmail dot com 2009-01-26 11:12 ---
Subject: Re: New: Missing feature documentation
Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 26, 2009, at 2:35 AM, "piotr dot wyderski at gmail dot com"
wrote:
> The website
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/projects/cxx0x.html
>
> claims that
--- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-26 11:15 ---
This happens because ivcanon introduces an induction variable that counts
from 2000 to 1. This "confuses" data-ref analysis and we get
base_address: a_24(D)
offset from base address: ()
(() pretmp.2
--- Comment #2 from piotr dot wyderski at gmail dot com 2009-01-26 11:30
---
The website includes feature descriptions of the 4.4 mainline and even of some
branches (lambda, concepts). I consider this C++0x extension to be extremelly
useful, so IMHO the website should indicate at least
--- Comment #20 from Joey dot ye at intel dot com 2009-01-26 11:49 ---
(In reply to comment #10)
> This is caused by stack alignment change, revision 138335. Joey and
> Xuepeng will look into it after holiday, Feb. 1.
This must be stack alignment change. Looks we didn't handle stack unwi
The following example:
package Test is
type X is limited interface;
function Return_X return X is abstract;
task type Y is new X with
end Y;
overriding function Return_X return Y;
end Test;
does not compile with the following message:
test.ads:9:20: subprogram "Return_X" is n
The following does not compile:
package Test is
type X is new Positive;
type X_Access is not null access constant X;
Y : constant X_Access;
private
Y_Val : aliased constant X := 1;
Y : constant X_Access := Y_Val'Access;
end Test;
with the following diagnostics:
test.ads:6:09:
/pub/gcc/releases/gcc-4.3.3/md5.sum does not contain the md5sums for most of
the bz2 archives
--
Summary: /pub/gcc/releases/gcc-4.3.3/md5.sum does not contain the
md5sums for most of the bz2 archives
Product: gcc
Version: 4.3.3
Sta
--- Comment #2 from rob1weld at aol dot com 2009-01-26 12:36 ---
I was just going to post this and got a mid-air:
It is possible (and would be unfortunate) that gcc will only build with
a 'special edition' cloog-ppl from: ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/infrastructure/ .
Thanks, if you can
--- Comment #7 from hp at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-26 12:46 ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> Sounds like this could maybe be a dup of bug 38952, where the frame pointer
> is incorrectly calculated when setjmp saves it in the jmp_buf, and therefore
> restored to an incorrect value by l
I see
jobs.c: In function 'make_child':
jobs.c:4121: error: corrupted profile info: profile data is not flow-consistent
jobs.c:4121: error: corrupted profile info: number of executions for edge 10-11
thought to be -1726
jobs.c:4121: error: corrupted profile info: number of executions for edge 10-1
--- Comment #3 from irar at il dot ibm dot com 2009-01-26 13:09 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> Now, I wonder why we do not just use alignment + misalign in that case.
I think you are right.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38968
--- Comment #4 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-26 13:25 ---
Patch posted.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL|
--- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-26 13:58 ---
Interesting. I have no idea who generates this md5.sum file.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38976
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot
|
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.4.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38977
--- Comment #5 from howarth at nitro dot med dot uc dot edu 2009-01-26
14:21 ---
Is the fix for this PR targeted for gcc 4.4.0 or gcc 4.5 stage 1?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38968
--- Comment #6 from rguenther at suse dot de 2009-01-26 14:23 ---
Subject: Re: Complex matrix product is not
vectorized
On Mon, 26 Jan 2009, howarth at nitro dot med dot uc dot edu wrote:
> --- Comment #5 from howarth at nitro dot med dot uc dot edu 2009-01-26
> 14:21 ---
>
--- Comment #19 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-26 15:03
---
Subject: Bug 38745
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Jan 26 15:03:30 2009
New Revision: 143676
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=143676
Log:
2009-01-26 Richard Guenther
PR tree-optimizatio
On Linux/ia32, revision 143673 gave:
FAIL: g++.dg/torture/pr36191.C -O2 (internal compiler error)
FAIL: g++.dg/torture/pr36191.C -O2 (test for excess errors)
FAIL: g++.dg/torture/pr36191.C -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer (internal compiler
error)
FAIL: g++.dg/torture/pr36191.C -O3 -fomit-frame-poi
--- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-26 15:51 ---
Fixed.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRM
--- Comment #18 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2009-01-26 15:54 ---
Subject: Bug 38932
Author: bonzini
Date: Mon Jan 26 15:54:18 2009
New Revision: 143677
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=143677
Log:
gcc:
2008-01-26 Paolo Bonzini
PR tree-optimization/38932
--- Comment #19 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2009-01-26 15:54 ---
fixed on 4.3 branch too.
--
bonzini at gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGN
--- Comment #4 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2009-01-26 15:56 ---
> This only happens with 32bit HWI.
Does this mean it is a front-end bug that TREE_OVERFLOW is set?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38934
--- Comment #5 from rguenther at suse dot de 2009-01-26 15:57 ---
Subject: Re: [4.3/4.4 Regression] ICE in set_value_range,
at tree-vrp.c:398
On Mon, 26 Jan 2009, bonzini at gnu dot org wrote:
> --- Comment #4 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2009-01-26 15:56 ---
> > This only ha
--- Comment #6 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-26 16:02 ---
That brings us back to http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2008-11/msg00532.html
If the gimplifier shouldn't drop TREE_OVERFLOW bits from the IL, then it is
valid to have TREE_OVERFLOWs set and tree-vrp.c needs to deal w
--- Comment #7 from rguenther at suse dot de 2009-01-26 16:07 ---
Subject: Re: [4.3/4.4 Regression] ICE in set_value_range,
at tree-vrp.c:398
On Mon, 26 Jan 2009, jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> --- Comment #6 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-26 16:02 ---
> Th
--- Comment #40 from amacleod at redhat dot com 2009-01-26 16:16 ---
Created an attachment (id=17185)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=17185&action=view)
possible patch
The problem is due to a check that was added to is_replaceable_p() in
tree-ssa-ter.c. I presume th
--- Comment #8 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2009-01-26 16:48 ---
I disagree with this:
> working around these issues where they pop up is the way
> to go in the near future.
I think we need to be a bit more ambitious, and that does not mean separating
overflow/non-overflow tree codes.
--- Comment #3 from ubizjak at gmail dot com 2009-01-26 17:20 ---
Following patch fixes this problem:
--cut here--
Index: calls.c
===
--- calls.c (revision 143671)
+++ calls.c (working copy)
@@ -992,7 +992,6 @@ init
--- Comment #4 from ubizjak at gmail dot com 2009-01-26 17:22 ---
This is generic RTL optimization problem.
--
ubizjak at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #31 from hjl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-26 18:14 ---
Subject: Bug 36443
Author: hjl
Date: Mon Jan 26 18:13:58 2009
New Revision: 143681
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=143681
Log:
2009-01-26 H.J. Lu
Backport from mainline:
2008-
--- Comment #3 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2009-01-26 18:20
---
I'm having a look into this one...
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #24 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-26 18:24 ---
Subject: Bug 23287
Author: jason
Date: Mon Jan 26 18:24:45 2009
New Revision: 143682
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=143682
Log:
PR c++/23287
* parser.c (cp_parser_unqualified_i
See also:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2009-01/msg00308.html
Seemingly, a lot of the OpenMP-supporting compilers support THREADPRIVATE for
EQUIVALENCEd symbols; at least Intel's ifort, SUN's sunf95, Open64's openf95,
Pathscale's pathf95 and Portland's pgf95 compile the program listed at
gfortran
--- Comment #1 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-26 18:42 ---
Note: The standard does not allow this, see
http://www.openmp.org/mp-documents/spec30.pdf, page 94: Section "2.9.2
threadprivate Directive" has under "Restrictions":
"A variable can only appear in a threadprivate dir
--- Comment #4 from mikael at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-26 18:42 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> This is not so much an error in Fortran than it is an error in the
> scripting and it's ability to add it's own LD_LIBRARY_PATH components.
No. The current linking scheme links to the just-b
--- Comment #4 from janis at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-26 18:42 ---
Paolo, the person who reported the problem to me is no longer with IBM. I've
asked others in the same group to provide information about the origins of the
test and what implementations are known to pass it, but it mi
--- Comment #8 from dave dot korn dot cygwin at gmail dot com 2009-01-26
18:49 ---
Oh, bah, I misread the Host field for Target!
Guess it probably won't be TARGET_BUILTIN_SETJMP_FRAME_VALUE then. You only
need it if your stack frames have unpredicatable gaps in them so that you can't
--- Comment #2 from dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-26 18:50 ---
*** Bug 38947 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #1 from dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-26 18:50 ---
Closing this as dupe as the other PR has the same plus additional information.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 38979 ***
--
dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #21 from dave dot korn dot cygwin at gmail dot com 2009-01-26
19:03 ---
Hi Joey, thanks for helping look at this bug.
If you catch up with all the comments, you'll see that it's not just Cygwin,
SjLj was broken on Linux too; the mechanism works the same way on both, but
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-26 19:06 ---
Reopening to ...
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status
--- Comment #5 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2009-01-26 19:08
---
Ok, take your time. For the reasons we already discussed we don't want to rush
on this, in the meanwhile I will also try to collect more information.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38916
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-26 19:09 ---
To mark as fixed for 4.0.0. This has been fixed for a while now. Most likely
the gimplifier fixes it.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--
jason at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |jason at gcc dot gnu dot org
|dot org
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-26 19:13 ---
*** Bug 38962 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 2009-01-26 19:13 ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 30195 ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-26 19:15 ---
I think this is a bad idea. Also most if not all x86 CPUs released in the last
10 years support these instructions
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Add
--- Comment #13 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-26 19:23
---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 38966 ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-26 19:23 ---
*** Bug 37995 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-26 19:27 ---
Yes this is a dup of bug 18501.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 18501 ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #21 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-26 19:27
---
*** Bug 38945 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #5 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-26 19:28 ---
! Test XFAILed on these platforms because the system's printf() lacks
! proper support for denormalized long doubles. See PR24685
Looks like this testcase should be xfailed on solaris also.
--
pinskia at gcc do
--- Comment #8 from pluto at agmk dot net 2009-01-26 19:31 ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> AFAICT DW2 unwind has never worked on x86_64-mingw32, which is why Kai made
> sjlj the default EH model for that target.
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-12/msg00273.html
ok, with sjlj and
--- Comment #3 from dj at redhat dot com 2009-01-26 19:46 ---
Subject: Re: New: libiberty make_relative_prefix_1 mistakes directories for
executables
Your code conditionally includes but doesn't
conditionally enable the other code. If sys/stat.h isn't found,
perhaps the code could
When compiled with gcc 3.4.6 with -m32 on x86_64 Linux the compiler flags lines
7, 10, and 13 as expected. But when compiled with gcc 4.3.1, only line 7 is
diagnosed.
$ cat -n t.cpp && g++ -dumpversion && g++ -Wformat -m32 -c t.cpp
1 #include
2
3 void foo (size_t n)
4 {
--- Comment #4 from hjl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-26 20:34 ---
Subject: Bug 38949
Author: hjl
Date: Mon Jan 26 20:34:09 2009
New Revision: 143684
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=143684
Log:
2009-01-26 Danny Smith
PR testsuite/38949
* g++.d
--- Comment #5 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-26 21:04 ---
Created an attachment (id=17186)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=17186&action=view)
patch
Here's something that at least passes all the *bound* tests.
--
tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org change
--- Comment #8 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2009-01-26 21:12
---
Jason, can you maybe review Doug's patch linked in Comment #2? Thanks!
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #22 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2009-01-26 22:29
---
(In reply to comment #18)
> Created an attachment (id=17183)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=17183&action=view) [edit]
> Implement TARGET_BUILTIN_SETJMP_FRAME_VALUE.
>
> Now testing this patch
--- Comment #9 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-26 22:31 ---
I approved that patch back in March, but it turned out not to be the right fix:
see
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2008-03/msg01675.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35022
--- Comment #6 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-26 22:50 ---
> Here's something that at least passes all the *bound* tests.
Regression test passed - formal submission of the patch tomorrow,
probably.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38914
--- Comment #10 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2009-01-26 23:25
---
I see, thanks for the missing pointer.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35022
--- Comment #30 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-26 23:31 ---
This appears to have been fixed in the gcc-4.3.0 time frame. At least,
gcc-4.2.4 has:
dependency_libs='
-L/mnt/share/bld/gcc-4.2.4/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/libstdc++-
v3/src
-L/mnt/share/bld/gcc-4.2.4/x86_64-unknown-
--- Comment #23 from hjl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-26 23:39 ---
Subject: Bug 38952
Author: hjl
Date: Mon Jan 26 23:39:02 2009
New Revision: 143689
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=143689
Log:
2009-01-26 H.J. Lu
PR target/38952
* g++.dg/tort
--- Comment #7 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-27 00:19 ---
Updating this bug report.
This specific test case can no longer be reproduced as of gcc-4.0.x (and
continuing to 4.1.x, 4.2.x, 4.3.x, and today's trunk.)
This appears to be as a result of -std=gnu99 being required
--- Comment #19 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-27 00:23 ---
Fixed by 4.3.2
--
bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITI
--- Comment #9 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-27 00:26 ---
Update summary.
--
bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|parse
--- Comment #2 from janis at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-27 00:29 ---
It's not a bug that GCC EXEC_PREFIX is defined when the testsuite is run, as
explained in these patches:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-10/msg00708.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-12/msg01493.h
--- Comment #2 from markhobley at yahoo dot co dot uk 2009-01-27 00:36
---
Subject: Re: Additional switches to disallow processor supplementary
instructions
> --- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
> 2009-01-26 19:15 ---
> I think this is a bad idea. Also most i
Consider the attached code ice.c . When compiled, it is giving an internal
compiler error. I was not able to reduce it any further. Would appreciate if
someone can reduce it further.
> gcc -c ice.c
ice.c: In function 'd_substitution':
ice.c:23: internal compiler error: Bus Error
Please submit a f
--- Comment #1 from kamaraju at gmail dot com 2009-01-27 01:00 ---
Created an attachment (id=17187)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=17187&action=view)
code to reproduce the internal compiler error
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38981
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-27 01:01 ---
Can you provide the preprocessed source?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38981
--- Comment #14 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-27 01:02 ---
Fixed as of gcc-4.2.x.
--
bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Stat
--- Comment #2 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-27 01:03 ---
Add documentation keyword
--
bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywo
--- Comment #3 from kamaraju at gmail dot com 2009-01-27 01:05 ---
Created an attachment (id=17188)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=17188&action=view)
preprocessed source code
produced by using
gcc -E ice.c > ice.c.ppd
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi
--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-27 01:08 ---
So if I am reading this thread correctly this is really a bug in Solaris's
yacc?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38981
--- Comment #8 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-27 01:12 ---
Closing due to inactivity. If this is still a problem on a release branch (ie,
gcc-4.3.x and above), please re-open and provide details.
--
bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #5 from kamaraju at gmail dot com 2009-01-27 01:14 ---
My initial guess was that it is a bug in yacc. But now I do not think so. I
have compiled bison (which supersedes yacc). I still see this bug with bison
(and no yacc).
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3
--- Comment #6 from kamaraju at gmail dot com 2009-01-27 01:20 ---
Is there anyway to figure out if my gcc is still using yacc and not bison?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38981
--- Comment #7 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-27 01:22 ---
This could be fixed via a dg-skip-if embedded target type thing.
I don't remember seeing this fail in recent arm-elf crosses. Is this still an
active issue?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15088
--- Comment #4 from mmlr at mlotz dot ch 2009-01-27 01:23 ---
Created an attachment (id=17189)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=17189&action=view)
Proposed fix with conditional use of stat based on HAVE_SYS_STAT_H
This only conditionally uses stat() if HAVE_SYS_STAT_H
--- Comment #6 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-27 01:30 ---
Hey HP, is this still an issue? Don't see test results for this target for any
currently-open gcc branches. Update please.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21321
--- Comment #22 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-27 01:41 ---
waiting for feedback on a current release branch (4.3) or trunk.
--
bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #7 from hp at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-27 01:48 ---
I'll try to fit in to check this weekend, thanks for asking.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21321
Executing on host: /home/dave/gnu/gcc-4.4/objdir/gcc/gnatmake
-I/home/dave/gnu/g
cc-4.4/objdir/gcc/ada/rts --GCC=/home/dave/gnu/gcc-4.4/objdir/gcc/xgcc
--GNATBIND=/home/dave/gnu/gcc-4.4/objdir/gcc/gnatbind
--GNATLINK=/home/dave/gnu/gcc-4.4/o
bjdir/gcc/gnatlink -cargs -B/home/dave/gnu/gcc-4.4/objdir
1 - 100 of 112 matches
Mail list logo
