--- Additional Comments From lerdsuwa at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-28
10:46 ---
Work postponed to GCC 4.1. This bug is tricky to fix.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=4882
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug, or ar
--- Additional Comments From rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-28
11:36 ---
Created an attachment (id=7620)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=7620&action=view)
A bit simplified testcase
A bit sim
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18694
--- Yo
--- Additional Comments From rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-28
11:40 ---
A bit simpler testcase; no longer segfaults, but produces wrong output. The
reason seems to be the same (both are due to fields of t after the second
one not being initialized).
.vars dump is misscompiled
--
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot
|dot org |org
Status|UNCONFIRME
--
What|Removed |Added
CC|ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot|
|org |
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18615
---
--- Additional Comments From ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-28
13:37 ---
simplify_gen_subreg was seriously shaken recently. Would you mind updating and
trying again?
--
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Additional Comments From ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-28
13:37 ---
simplify_gen_subreg was seriously shaken recently. Would you mind updating and
trying again?
--
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Additional Comments From rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-28
18:08 ---
The misscompilation appears in the .t54.dom3 dump. With
-fno-tree-dominator-opts the testcase is not misscompiled.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18694
--- You are receiving this ma
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-28
18:13 ---
This is most likely related to PR 18241.
--
What|Removed |Added
BugsThisDependsOn|
Your message dated Sun, 28 Nov 2004 22:11:50 +0100
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line gcc-snapshot upgraded
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibili
Your message dated Sun, 28 Nov 2004 22:14:53 +0100
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line gcc-snapshot/gcc-4.0 using updated libtool
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is
Your message dated Sun, 28 Nov 2004 22:24:20 +0100
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line bugs fixed in gcc-4.0-4.0-0pre1
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your re
Your message dated Sun, 28 Nov 2004 22:24:20 +0100
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line bugs fixed in gcc-4.0-4.0-0pre1
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your re
Your message dated Sun, 28 Nov 2004 22:24:20 +0100
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line bugs fixed in gcc-4.0-4.0-0pre1
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your re
Your message dated Sun, 28 Nov 2004 22:24:20 +0100
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line bugs fixed in gcc-4.0-4.0-0pre1
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your re
Your message dated Sun, 28 Nov 2004 22:24:20 +0100
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line bugs fixed in gcc-4.0-4.0-0pre1
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your re
Your message dated Sun, 28 Nov 2004 22:21:44 +0100
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#281382: FTBFS in experimental
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-28
22:13 ---
{ .__data = { .__kind = PTHREAD_MUTEX_RECURSIVE_NP } }
This is a bug in glibc's headers, there is a dup of this bug somewhere.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18709
--- You are recei
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-28
22:16 ---
Yes there is PR 17364.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 17364 ***
--
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-28
22:16 ---
*** Bug 18709 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
What|Removed |Added
/gcc-3.4-3.4.3/build/gcc/xgpc version 20040516, based on
gcc-3.4.4 20041128 (prerelease) (Debian 3.4.3-2)
=== acats tests ===
FAIL: c64105a
=== acats Summary ===
# of expected passes2321
# of unexpected failures1
=== g++ tests
LAST_UPDATED: Sat Nov 27 06:59:15 UTC 2004
Native configuration is mipsel-linux (solitude)
=== gpc tests ===
Running target any
FAIL: adam3i.pas
FAIL: adam3j.pas
FAIL: adam3o.pas
FAIL: adam3p.pas
FAIL: assumptions.pas
FAIL: binrdwt.pas
FAIL: bitfields.pas
FAIL: chris4.pas
FAIL:
LAST_UPDATED: Sat Nov 27 06:59:15 UTC 2004
Native configuration is mips-linux (hattusa)
=== gpc tests ===
Running target any
FAIL: adam3i.pas
FAIL: adam3j.pas
FAIL: adam3o.pas
FAIL: adam3p.pas
FAIL: assumptions.pas
FAIL: binrdwt.pas
FAIL: bitfields.pas
FAIL: chris4.pas
FAIL: chu
23 matches
Mail list logo
