--- Comment #4 from falk at debian dot org 2007-04-28 14:21 ---
Not a problem in 4.1 anymore, so let's close it.
--
falk at debian dot org changed:
What|Removed |
--- Comment #5 from falk at debian dot org 2006-10-29 09:57 ---
Zdenek,
do you think this patch (or another fix) can be backported to 4.1?
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-01/msg01259.html
--
falk at debian dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #3 from falk at debian dot org 2006-10-22 12:50 ---
This bug is still there in 4.1, but not in mainline.
Janis, can you perhaps do a regression hunt to see what fixed this and whether
it is feasible to backport?
--
falk at debian dot org changed:
What
--- Comment #2 from falk at debian dot org 2006-08-10 21:11 ---
Confirmed. This is a smaller test case:
int vformat(char *buffer) {
return buffer[32767];
}
This needs -mcpu=ev45. It is triggered by the synthetization
of the 8-bit load by 64-bit loads. ldb v0, x(a0) is done as
lda
--- Comment #2 from falk at debian dot org 2006-07-14 12:26 ---
This is a duplicate of PR 26881.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 26881 ***
--
falk at debian dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #13 from falk at debian dot org 2006-07-14 12:26 ---
*** Bug 28379 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
falk at debian dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from falk at debian dot org 2006-03-19 09:04 ---
It's still not fixed in 4.0.2-9 (SVN 20060212 gcc-4_0-branch).
http://buildd.debian.org/fetch.php?&pkg=swingwt&ver=0.87-2&arch=hppa&stamp=1140460231&file=log&as=raw
--
falk at debian dot
--- Comment #9 from falk at debian dot org 2006-03-04 14:35 ---
Is this really fixed? I can still reproduce it with the original testcase
(but not the reduced one) with
g++ (GCC) 4.0.3 20060212 (prerelease) (Debian 4.0.2-9)
--
falk at debian dot org changed:
What
--- Comment #3 from falk at debian dot org 2005-10-16 08:43 ---
Created an attachment (id=10001)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10001&action=view)
Reduced test case
This is an auto-reduced test case, can probably be reduced more.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/b
--
What|Removed |Added
CC||debian-gcc at lists dot
||debian dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bug
--- Additional Comments From falk at debian dot org 2004-08-31 21:29
---
Hi,
I've reported the GUI lockup as PR 17254.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16121
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You reported the bug, or are watching the reporter.
--- Additional Comments From falk at debian dot org 2004-08-31 12:20
---
(In reply to comment #29)
> If you still can't build the gui-branch, can you file a new report with
> details.
Okay, it's PR 17249.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16121
--- Additional Comments From falk at debian dot org 2004-08-24 21:31
---
(In reply to comment #1)
> I'm sorry but I got this wrong. The compiler is allocating 12 bytes of
> headroom
> unconditionally so it is actually safe.
Okay, let's close this then.
As a side n
--- Additional Comments From falk at debian dot org 2004-08-09 08:19
---
(In reply to comment #26)
> You shouldn't have any problem building the java-gui-branch. Have you tried
> updating your tree and doing a clean build?
Yes. I still get the error with CVS from today.
--- Additional Comments From falk at debian dot org 2004-08-02 10:39
---
(In reply to comment #24)
> I just added DEBUG_LOCKING in gtkpeer.h on java-gui-branch, so you may need to
> update your tree.
The java-gui-branch doesn't build:
/src/gcc-java-gui-branch-2004.08.02/bui
--- Additional Comments From falk at debian dot org 2004-07-31 21:05
---
The TestAWT program mostly works now, except it hangs after a while if I
resize the main dialog with a "solid resize" window manager.
The testswing program outputs
DEBUG: Trying to lo
--- Additional Comments From falk at debian dot org 2004-07-31 19:18
---
(In reply to comment #21)
> The peer library, lib-gnu-java-awt-peer-gtk.la is not being found.
Whoops. I didn't have libart-dev installed, and awt didn't get built, but
the bootstrap still returned
--- Additional Comments From falk at debian dot org 2004-07-31 16:03
---
Created an attachment (id=6860)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=6860&action=view)
strace output
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16121
--- You are receiving th
--- Additional Comments From falk at debian dot org 2004-07-31 16:02
---
(In reply to comment #18)
> The class lookup for gnu.java.awt.peer.gtk.GtkToolkit is failing. First, are
> you sure you're using the version of gcj you just built?
Pretty much, otherwise I wouldn'
--- Additional Comments From falk at debian dot org 2004-07-31 12:00
---
With the debug patch, output looks like this:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/tmp% gcj TestAWT.java --main=TestAWT && ./a.out
DEBUG: Trying to load toolkit: gnu.java.awt.peer.gtk.GtkToolkit
DEBUG: finding class
Exce
--- Additional Comments From falk at debian dot org 2004-07-30 23:18
---
I built a compiler with this, it built fine. When I try to run the two
mentioned programs, I get:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/tmp% gcj TestAWT.java --main=TestAWT && ./a.out
Exception in thread "main"
--- Additional Comments From falk at debian dot org 2004-07-30 15:52
---
Okay, I will try to build a compiler with this patch. Can you suggest
any simple AWT program that I might try to run?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16121
--- You are receiving this mail
--
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #6834 is|0 |1
obsolete||
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16121
---
--- Additional Comments From falk at debian dot org 2004-07-30 09:40
---
(In reply to comment #7)
> Are you actually testing AWT programs on the alpha? I'd be interested to know
> if they run.
I would like to try it, but the second patch doesn't apply:
[EMAIL PROTECT
--- Additional Comments From falk at debian dot org 2004-04-27 12:46
---
No, the message really means what it says. This warning was designed for people
who also use compilers which do not support prototypes. Nowadays, it is very
unlikely to be useful for anybody; IMHO we might as well
--- Additional Comments From falk at debian dot org 2004-03-24 16:24
---
When I tried to reformat it for delta debugging, the problem went away.
Therefore,
I think it's purely caused by too large line numbers (limit at 2^19 = 524288?).
Maybe somebody can try to verify th
--- Additional Comments From falk at debian dot org 2004-01-08 15:52
---
*** Bug 13613 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From falk at debian dot org 2003-12-30 18:02
---
String literals are in fact a sspecial case in the C++ standard, since
there is an implicit conversion to (non-const) char*. It is deprecated though,
and g++ should probably warn about it.
Aso for the error
--
What|Removed |Added
CC||debian-gcc at lists dot
||debian dot org
Status|UNCO
--- Additional Comments From falk at debian dot org 2003-11-19 23:28
---
The same ICE has also been reported for another program in the Debian bug
tracking system. See http://bugs.debian.org/221738
--
What|Removed |Added
--
What|Removed |Added
CC||debian-gcc at lists dot
||debian dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bug
--- Additional Comments From falk at debian dot org 2003-11-16 03:50
---
Created an attachment (id=5144)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=5144&action=view)
Test case (30 lines)
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12158
--- You are receivi
--- Additional Comments From falk at debian dot org 2003-11-16 03:49
---
Confirmed with 3.3.2, will attach test case
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
--- Additional Comments From falk at debian dot org 2003-11-16 03:05
---
Created an attachment (id=5143)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=5143&action=view)
Reduced to 30 lines
--
What|Removed
PLEASE REPLY TO [EMAIL PROTECTED] ONLY, *NOT* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11793
falk at debian dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
PLEASE REPLY TO [EMAIL PROTECTED] ONLY, *NOT* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11717
--- Additional Comments From falk at debian dot org 2003-08-19 20:20
---
I can still reproduce the ICE with 3.3.2 20030819 and both fork.i with the
mentioned options and
PLEASE REPLY TO [EMAIL PROTECTED] ONLY, *NOT* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11717
--- Additional Comments From falk at debian dot org 2003-08-11 22:03
---
Created an attachment (id=4594)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=4594&
PLEASE REPLY TO [EMAIL PROTECTED] ONLY, *NOT* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1823
--- Additional Comments From falk at debian dot org 2003-07-06 18:09
---
Created an attachment (id=4354)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=4354&
PLEASE REPLY TO [EMAIL PROTECTED] ONLY, *NOT* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1823
falk at debian dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
PLEASE REPLY TO [EMAIL PROTECTED] ONLY, *NOT* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1823
falk at debian dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
PLEASE REPLY TO [EMAIL PROTECTED] ONLY, *NOT* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9067
falk at debian dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
41 matches
Mail list logo
