[Bug c++/18384] [3.3/3.4/4.0 Regression] ICE on zero-length array with empty initializer...
--- Additional Comments From gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2004-12-29 18:54 --- Subject: Re: [3.3/3.4/4.0 Regression] ICE on zero-length array with empty initializer... "mark at codesourcery dot com" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | > As for designated_index, this differs between 3.3 and 3.4+ it seems. | > With GCC 3.3, reshape_init_array can see arbitrary trees in TREE_PURPOSE (), | > checking of these happens afterwards, not before reshape_init. So I think we | > certainly want a host_integerp (, 1) there, that will ensure it is an | > INTEGER_CST and not negative. That is OK for 3.3.x -- Gaby -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18384 --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
[Bug target/18987] [3.3/3.4/4.0 regression] [ia64] Extra '.restore sp' in tail call
--- Additional Comments From gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2005-01-08 04:47 --- Subject: Re: [3.3/3.4/4.0 regression] [ia64] Extra '.restore sp' in tail call "wilson at specifixinc dot com" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | > according to http://bugs.debian.org/286840 (if that's the same thing), this is | > broken in gcc-3.3 CVS and gcc-3.4 CVS as well. Latest known working version is | > gcc-3.3.5. | | The patch in question is PR 13158. I added it to mainline, but did not | add it to gcc-3.4 CVS because technically it is not a regression, and | hence the rules do not seem to permit me to add it there without special | permission. For gcc-3.3 CVS, I need the branch maintainer's permission, | and I did not get it, though I did not try very hard, so it isn't on the | gcc-3.3 CVS branch either. Red Hat did add it to gcc-3_4-rhl-branch. I must have missed that patch then. | Someone probably added it to the debian gcc sources as a patch on top of | the FSF tree, so for gcc-3.3 and gcc-3.4 this will have to be fixed on | the debian side by adding the patch in this PR also. then, if it is 3.4.x it should go into 3.3.x too. -- Gaby -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18987 --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
[Bug libstdc++/13943] call of overloaded `llabs(int)' is ambiguous
--- Additional Comments From gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2005-05-22 10:32 --- Subject: Re: call of overloaded `llabs(int)' is ambiguous "pcarlini at suse dot de" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | Gaby, can you have a look? Yup. Just woke up and many people are awaiting in the TODO queue... -- Gaby -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13943 --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You reported the bug, or are watching the reporter. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[Bug optimization/11634] [3.3/3.4 regression] [hppa] ICE in verify_local_live_at_start, at flow.c:555
--- Additional Comments From gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2003-12-02 00:43 --- Subject: Re: [3.3/3.4 regression] [hppa] ICE in verify_local_live_at_start, at flow.c:555 "zack at gcc dot gnu dot org" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | Roger: I think you're right that split_all_insns_noflow will eventually | disappear, and so I will approve your patch for mainline. Ask | Gabriel about 3.3. OK there too. Thanks, -- Gaby -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11634 --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You reported the bug, or are watching the reporter.
Bug#121269: [Bug c/9209] [3.3 regression] cc allows dollars in identifiers by default on i386 but fails
--- Additional Comments From gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2003-12-15 20:06 --- Subject: Re: [3.3 regression] cc allows dollars in identifiers by default on i386 but fails "ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | What is this policy for? Doing so unnecessarily clutters | Bugzilla. The bug will be fixed in GCC 3.4 and not in GCC 3.3.x as | clearly indicated by the milestone. I think Eric is right. The PR should be closed since we have no plan to fix it on 3.3.x and it is already fixed in 3.4.x -- Gaby -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9209 --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You reported the bug, or are watching the reporter.
[Bug c++/13081] [3.3 regression] forward template declarations in let inlining fail
--- Additional Comments From gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2004-01-01 00:22 --- Subject: Re: [3.3/3.4 regression] forward template declarations in let inlining fail Matthias Klose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | > Module name:gcc | > Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2003-12-29 02:42:17 | > | > Modified files: | > gcc/cp : ChangeLog decl.c | > gcc/testsuite : ChangeLog | > Added files: | > gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/opt: inline6.C | > gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/parse: error9.C | > | > Log message: | > PR c++/13081 | > * decl.c (duplicate_decls): Preserve inline-ness when redeclaring | > a function template. | > | > PR c++/13081 | > * g++.dg/opt/inline6.C: New test. | | backported to the gcc-3_3-branch, no regressions on an i486-linux | bootstrap. Ok for the branch? Yes, thanks. -- Gaby -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13081 --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You reported the bug, or are watching the reporter.
[Bug c++/13544] [3.3.3 regression] "conflicting types" for enums in different scopes
--- Additional Comments From gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2004-01-09 04:27 --- Subject: Re: [3.3.3 regression] "conflicting types" for enums in different scopes "neroden at gcc dot gnu dot org" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | This is biting Debian rather badly. Can this possibly be fixed quickly? :-/ Someone had the bright idea to steal my laptop in my office this afternoon, 1-2 days delay may be expected. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13544 --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You reported the bug, or are watching the reporter.
[Bug target/13634] [3.3 regression] ICE in emit_move_insn_1
--- Additional Comments From gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2004-01-10 18:42 --- Subject: Re: [3.3 regression] ICE in emit_move_insn_1 "ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | My patch for PR opt/13472 happens to make the ICE go away. Good! :-) -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13634 --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
[Bug target/7618] [3.3/3.4/3.5 Regression] GCC 3.x vararg disallowed in virtual function
--- Additional Comments From gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2004-01-18 11:48 --- Subject: Re: [3.3/3.4/3.5 Regression] GCC 3.x vararg disallowed in virtual function "rsandifo at gcc dot gnu dot org" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | Patch for MIPS committed. Given Andrew's comment: | | The only major target in this is MIPS. | | and given that this PR is specifically against the MIPS port, I'll go | ahead and close it. Do you intend to have it fixed on gcc-3_3-branch too? -- Gaby -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=7618 --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
[Bug target/7618] [3.3/3.4/3.5 Regression] GCC 3.x vararg disallowed in virtual function
--- Additional Comments From gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2004-01-18 16:02 --- Subject: Re: [3.3/3.4/3.5 Regression] GCC 3.x vararg disallowed in virtual function "rsandifo at redhat dot com" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | > Also, as Gaby have just asked, is it possible/feasable to backport | > this to the 3.3 branch as well? | | Not really. The port has changed too much in the meantime. OK. Thanks! -- Gaby -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=7618 --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
[Bug target/18987] [3.3/3.4 regression] [ia64] Extra '.restore sp' in tail call
--- Additional Comments From gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2005-01-11 19:46 --- Subject: Re: [3.3/3.4/4.0 regression] [ia64] Extra '.restore sp' in tail call "wilson at specifixinc dot com" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | Subject: Re: [3.3/3.4/4.0 regression] [ia64] Extra | '.restore sp' in tail call | | On Fri, 2005-01-07 at 20:47, gdr at integrable-solutions dot net wrote: | > I must have missed that patch then. | | On second thought, I think I forgot to ask about it. The patches aren't | in gcc-3.4 yet, but I just asked Mark for permission, and if he OKs it I | will add to both gcc-3.4 and gcc-3.3. That is fine. -- Gaby -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18987 --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[Bug c++/13857] nested namespaces error msg
--- Additional Comments From gdr at integrable-solutions dot net
2004-01-25 15:55 ---
Subject: Re: New: nested namespaces error msg
"debian-gcc at lists dot debian dot org" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| [forwarded from http://bugs.debian.org/229088]
|
| seen in 3.3.3 and 3.4 CVS
|
| In this example the error message mentions the wrong namespace:
|
|
| namespace outer { namespace inner { void foo(); } }
|
| void outer::foo()
| {
| // error: `void outer::foo()' should have been declared inside `outer'
| }
I don't understand this report. As far as I can tell, the error
message is correct. You cannot define something as being part of a
namespace (using a qualified-id) if it wasn't previously declared
there. You can perfectly have outer::foo and outer::inner::foo.
The compiler is not telepathic.
-- Gaby
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13857
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You reported the bug, or are watching the reporter.
[Bug c++/13857] nested namespaces error msg
--- Additional Comments From gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2004-01-25 16:00 --- Subject: Re: nested namespaces error msg "pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | Confirmed but not a regression. It is not even a bug. -- Gaby -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13857 --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You reported the bug, or are watching the reporter.
[Bug target/13918] [3.3.3 regression] [ia64] bootstrap comparision failure
--- Additional Comments From gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2004-02-22 17:01 --- Subject: Re: [3.3.3 regression] [ia64] bootstrap comparision failure "schwab at suse dot de" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | FWIW, I'm using this patch in the daily regression test and haven't seen a | comparison failure since then. That is good to know. Would mind going ahead and apply it to gcc-3_3-branch? Thanks, -- Gaby -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13918 --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You reported the bug, or are watching the reporter.
[Bug c++/13944] [3.3/3.4/3.5 Regression] exception in constructor of a class to be thrown is not caught
--- Additional Comments From gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2004-02-24 19:57 --- Subject: Re: [3.3/3.4/3.5 Regression] exception in constructor of a class to be thrown is not caught "jason at redhat dot com" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | To match this behavior, we need to treat cases where we elide the copy | constructor differently, as discussed in my comment in build_throw. Jason, Can we have this patch on gcc-3_3-branch too? Thanks, -- Gaby -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13944 --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You reported the bug, or are watching the reporter.
[Bug c++/13944] [3.3 Regression] exception in constructor of a class to be thrown is not caught
--- Additional Comments From gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2004-03-02 20:44 --- Subject: Re: [3.3 Regression] exception in constructor of a class to be thrown is not caught "pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | Only a 3.3 regression now. Jason, Do you think, the patch can be backported to gcc-3_3-branch? It seems to be a patch chasing party... -- Gaby -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13944 --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You reported the bug, or are watching the reporter.
[Bug c++/13944] [3.3 Regression] exception in constructor of a class to be thrown is not caught
--- Additional Comments From gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2004-03-02 21:06 --- Subject: Re: [3.3 Regression] exception in constructor of a class to be thrown is not caught "jason at redhat dot com" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | Subject: Re: [3.3 Regression] exception in constructor of a | class to be thrown is not caught | | On 2 Mar 2004 20:44:22 -, "gdr at integrable-solutions dot net" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | | > Do you think, the patch can be backported to gcc-3_3-branch? It | > seems to be a patch chasing party... | | Here's the backport; I'm testing it now. ah so, it is that easy? Thanks! -- Gaby -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13944 --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You reported the bug, or are watching the reporter.
[Bug debug/11983] [3.3 Regression] ICE in dwarf-2 on code using altivec
--- Additional Comments From gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2004-03-09 03:13 --- Subject: Re: [3.3 Regression] ICE in dwarf-2 on code using altivec "amodra at bigpond dot net dot au" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | 3.4.0 fix committed. Could you commit correponding versions for gcc-3_3-branch? -- Gaby -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11983 --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
[Bug libstdc++/14493] No std::bad_alloc::what() const
--- Additional Comments From gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2004-03-11 10:05 --- Subject: Re: No std::bad_alloc::what() const "pme at gcc dot gnu dot org" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | > Especially compared to "bad allocation"? | | Sure, we could change that. I don't think "bad allocation" is any | better than the demangled type name, but we shouldn't be printing | a mangled typeid. Others felt differently. I agree with Phil that we should not have been printing the mangled typeid. -- Gaby -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14493 --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You reported the bug, or are watching the reporter.
[Bug c++/14710] Warning about useless casts
--- Additional Comments From gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2004-03-24 16:50 --- Subject: Re: Warning about useless casts "pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | Confirmed, but I do not know how useful this is. Please can you make it an enhancement with low priority? -- Gaby -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14710 --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You reported the bug, or are watching the reporter.
[Bug middle-end/14711] [3.3 regression] ICE in final.c:2117 when compiling a huge source file
--- Additional Comments From gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2004-03-24 16:53 --- Subject: Re: ICE in final.c:2117 when compiling a huge source file "pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | int rtint; | #define XINT(RTX, N)(RTL_CHECK2 (RTX, N, 'i', 'n').rtint) | #define NOTE_LINE_NUMBER(INSN) XCINT (INSN, 5, NOTE) | if (NOTE_LINE_NUMBER (insn) <= 0) | abort (); | | So maybe we should using hwint instead? He he, someone a long time ago argued that no real programs have such lines number. Amusing :-) -- Gaby -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14711 --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You reported the bug, or are watching the reporter.
[Bug optimization/14640] [3.3/3.4/3.5 regression] miscompilation of mozilla-firefox (deallocator problems?)
--- Additional Comments From gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2004-03-30 15:53 --- Subject: Re: [3.3/3.4/3.5 regression] miscompilation of mozilla-firefox (deallocator problems?) "bangerth at dealii dot org" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | Gaby: are you aware of this regression on the 3.3 branch due to a | backported patch? Yes, I got two copies of each message since I'm added to the CC list (and no, don't remove me :-)). However, I disagree with your conclusion as you stated below and phrased on gcc@gcc.gnu.org | We could avoid this is we undo the regression | by reverting the backport and simply stick with the breakage | of PR 10776. I suppose that is one way of closing this PR. The original patch was to solve a problem. Reverting the patch will not solve it; it would just hide this problem and unsolve the other one. I would prefer digging up and find ways to solve the regression. Reverting this patch would be the case only if there is no way to get rid of this problem. For what it worths, this problem also affects 3.4.0 and (I think 3.5.0). Thanks for your inputs and monitoring the PR. -- Gaby -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14640 --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You reported the bug, or are watching the reporter.
[Bug c/1027] slightly misleading printf format warning
--- Additional Comments From gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2004-06-01 15:04 --- Subject: Re: slightly misleading printf format warning "bangerth at dealii dot org" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | I also find the message overly terse. The abbreviated form "arg" for Agreed. -- Gaby -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1027 --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
[Bug c/1027] slightly misleading printf format warning
--- Additional Comments From gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2004-06-01 16:07 --- Subject: Re: slightly misleading printf format warning "jsm at polyomino dot org dot uk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | Subject: Re: slightly misleading printf format warning | | On Tue, 1 Jun 2004, bangerth at dealii dot org wrote: | | > I also find the message overly terse. The abbreviated form "arg" for | > argument sounds too much like an unquoted reference to a variable. | > Why can't we speak English as in most other messages, for example | > "The format contains a char*, but argument 2 is a float." | > ? | | How about something like | | warning: format '%s' expects a char *, but argument 2 has type float * | | (i.e., giving the particular format with bad argument type)? | | The %T format isn't yet hooked up to the pretty-printer code for printing | types, once it is then improving these warnings will be straighforward. Absolutely. Apart from not using the GNU coding style, the pretty-printer in gcc/c-pretty-printer.[hc] is ready for used in the C front-end. If you plan to use it before I complete the new C++ pretty-printer, please don't lose the style :-) [Note: The current pretty-printer will print "char*" (C++ style) as opposed to "char *" (GNU style). ] -- Gaby -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1027 --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
