On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 10:48 PM, Diego Novillo wrote:
> On 11-09-19 23:32 , Sandeep Soni wrote:
>
>> It gives me a internal compiler error saying:
>> gimple1: internal compiler error: tree check: expected
>> identifier_node, have var_decl in gimple_symtab_entry_hash
>
> As Balaji said, the proble
The release of GNU MPFR 3.1.0 ("canard à l'orange") is imminent.
Thanks very much to those who tested the first release candidate.
The main changes since this first release candidate are:
- Fixed --enable-gmp-internals.
- Handle the special cases in mpfr_cmp_q and mpfr_cmp_f (fixing
the problem
This merge brings google/main up to rev 178863 in
google/integration.
Several changes were required for this merge. In particular, I
had to re-apply all the libgcov changes we have done in
google/main since libgcov.c moved to libgcc.
I also had to disable support for annotalysis attributes. Th
Snapshot gcc-4.4-20110920 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.4-20110920/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.4 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches
On 11-09-19 23:32 , Sandeep Soni wrote:
It gives me a internal compiler error saying:
gimple1: internal compiler error: tree check: expected
identifier_node, have var_decl in gimple_symtab_entry_hash
As Balaji said, the problem is that you need to pass
DECL_NAME(base->decl) to IDENTIFIER_HASH
"Paulo J. Matos" writes:
> The following code:
> static const unsigned int foo = 1;
> unsigned int test( void )
> {
> const volatile unsigned int *bar = &foo;
> return ( *bar );
> }
>
> in GCC45 works as expected:
> $test:
> ld AL,#foo ;; AL is return register
> bra 0,X ;; end functi
HI Sandeep,
I think what it is saying is that it is requiring an identifier, but
you are passing in a variable declaration. Please try to do the following and
see if it works.
+ return IDENTIFIER_HASH_VALUE (base->decl); }
With
return IDENTIFIER_HASH_VALUE (DECL_NAME (base->decl));
Hi,
I am noticing a very concerning change of behaviour from GCC45 to GCC46
on our applications.
The following code:
static const unsigned int foo = 1;
unsigned int test( void )
{
const volatile unsigned int *bar = &foo;
return ( *bar );
}
in GCC45 works as expected:
$test:
ld AL,#foo
On 09/15/2011 06:26 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
There's no reference to a GCC bug report about this in the thread.
Did the folks over at the libdispatch project never think to file one?
I asked them to attach a preprocessed testcase somewhere, but they
haven't done so yet. :(
They now attached
