--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-23
06:37 ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> Notice how we take the address of a CONSTRUCTOR this is wrong and we should
> never do that.
Which makes this a front-end bug.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-23
06:33 ---
I think this is the same failure as the current bootstrap problem on ppc-darwin.
For the bootstrap problem we have the following CONST_DECL:
static struct gnat__strings__string_access C.828 = {.P_ARRAY=(ch
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-23
06:14 ---
Mine. I am testing a patch right now.
--
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned a
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-23
06:05 ---
The problem is that block_may_fallthru does not handle try_catch_expr and
eh_filter_expr.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19583
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-23
05:48 ---
The problem is not related eh_spec_block as we are gimple at this point.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19583
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-23
05:29 ---
Fixed.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-23
05:28 ---
Fixed.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-23
05:22 ---
I think the problem is that we don't look passed eh_spec_block trees.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19583
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-23
05:21 ---
Here is the simplified testcase:
static inline bool f() throw()
{
return 0;
}
bool ff()
{
return f();
}
--
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-23
05:16 ---
Subject: Bug 8555
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Branch: gcc-3_3-branch
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-01-23 05:16:15
Modified files:
gcc: ChangeL
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-23
05:16 ---
Subject: Bug 18402
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Branch: gcc-3_3-branch
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-01-23 05:16:15
Modified files:
gcc: Change
--- Additional Comments From zack at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-23 05:11
---
Created an attachment (id=8040)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=8040&action=view)
shorter test case
--
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Additional Comments From zack at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-23 05:08
---
Created an attachment (id=8039)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=8039&action=view)
test case
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19583
$ /scratch/zack/i/gcc-vanilla/bin/g++ -v
Using built-in specs.
Configured with: /home/zack/src/gcc/HEAD/vanilla/configure
--prefix=/scratch/zack/i/gcc-vanilla --disable-checking --enable-languages=c,c++
--disable-multilib
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.0.0 20050122 (experimental)
$ /scratch
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-23
04:51 ---
Subject: Bug 19378
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-01-23 04:51:29
Modified files:
gcc: ChangeLog
gcc/config/avr : a
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-23
04:39 ---
Note this is not a register allocator problem any more but a missed
optimization.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19580
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-23
04:38 ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> Caused by this patch:
And I was right this was caused by the store motion rewrite.
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2003-02/msg02090.html
--
What|Removed
--- Additional Comments From belyshev at depni dot sinp dot msu dot ru
2005-01-23 04:34 ---
Caused by this patch:
2003-04-01 Zdenek Dvorak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* gcse.c (struct ls_expr): Added pattern_regs field.
(ldst_entry): Initialize it.
(extract_mentioned_
--- Additional Comments From ncm-nospam at cantrip dot org 2005-01-23
03:52 ---
Somebody mentioned that using unions for type punning was described
in the textbooks as extremely bad form. That's how I always thought
of it, too, but it seems, at least in Gcc, unions are now the right
wa
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-23
03:00 ---
This is invalid, see the prototype for strtok{,_r}:
strtok_r(char *str, const char *sep, char **last);
And from the man page (from *BSD, well from darwin):
The strtok() function is used to isolate
$ cat test.c
#include
#include
int main(void) {
char *tmp;
const char * const delim=" ";
tmp=strtok("a b c", delim);
printf("%s\n",tmp);
return 0;
}
$ gcc -Wall test.c
$ ./a.out
Segmentation fault (core dumped)
$ gcc -Wall -fwritable-strings test.c
cc1:
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-23
02:20 ---
Subject: Bug 19451
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-01-23 02:18:34
Modified files:
gcc/testsuite : ChangeLog
libgfortran: C
--- Additional Comments From dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-23
02:08 ---
Subject: Re: [3.4/4.0 Regression] poor register
allocation
On Sat, 23 Jan 2005, steven at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
>
> --- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-23
> 01
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-23
01:56 ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> > I was about to send the following patch out for this.
>
> Thanks Andrew, I have already implemented and tested AJ original suggestion,
> will
> wait a bit for the list opinion.
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-23
01:53 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> This is a tree-optimization bug for 4.0 and later. I think the problem
> is that we don't catch the store motion opportunity at the tree level
> because to the tree alias analys
--- Additional Comments From hp at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-23 01:52
---
I think you need to spell it __noreturn__, as a user should be free to
#define noreturn
in the program, before the include.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19343
--- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-23
01:49 ---
This is a tree-optimization bug for 4.0 and later. I think the problem
is that we don't catch the store motion opportunity at the tree level
because to the tree alias analyses arrays are opaque objects. O
--- Additional Comments From dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-23
01:47 ---
This needs more alias analysis
Structure aliasing could do this with a little work, so i'll take this for now
--
What|Removed |Added
-
--
What|Removed |Added
OtherBugsDependingO||19580
nThis||
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19581
--- Additional Comments From belyshev at depni dot sinp dot msu dot ru
2005-01-23 01:43 ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> This looks like a different bug because with 3.3.3 we get the good code but
not with 3.4.0.
this is now bug 19580
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19
This is like PR 19580 but a request to optimize it on the tree level instead of
just on the RTL level.
Mainly because we don't catch it for PPC (with 3.3.3 or with -fno-gcse).
int r[6];
void f (int n)
{
while (-- n)
{
r [0] += r [5];
r [1] += r [0];
r [2] += r [1];
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-23
01:36 ---
Confirmed, only a regression from 3.3.3 which gave the following good code:
.L5:
addl%edi, %ebp
addl%ebp, %esi
addl%esi, %ecx
addl%ecx, %edx
addl%e
--
int r[6];
void f (int n)
{
while (-- n)
{
r [0] += r [5];
r [1] += r [0];
r [2] += r [1];
r [3] += r [2];
r [4] += r [3];
r [5] += r [4];
}
}
---
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-23
01:17 ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> (In reply to comment #4)
> > This can be fixed at the tree level without any gcse or ra hacking:
> > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-01/msg01462.html
>
> GCC generates po
--- Additional Comments From belyshev at depni dot sinp dot msu dot ru
2005-01-23 00:42 ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> This can be fixed at the tree level without any gcse or ra hacking:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-01/msg01462.html
GCC generates poor code for this functio
--
What|Removed |Added
Component|c |target
Keywords||wrong-code
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id
The following program:
/*--8<---*/
int printf(const char *, ...);
int f(void)
{
return 0;
}
void g(int a[])
{
int n3, n0;
int even;
int diff = a[1] - a[0];
n3 = 3;
if ((n0 = f()) > 0) {
even = dif
--- Additional Comments From schlie at comcast dot net 2005-01-23 00:25
---
(In reply to comment #10)
have you had a chance to look at Roger's more recient patch:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-01/msg01181.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19378
--
Bug 19292 depends on bug 19052, which changed state.
Bug 19052 Summary: unit 0 not preconnected to standard error
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19052
What|Old Value |New Value
--- Additional Comments From dje at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-23 00:24
---
Patch committed.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
--- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-23
00:24 ---
The mgrid score on AMD64 jumps 30% with my patch for PR19464 applied.
--
What|Removed |Added
--
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |dje at gcc dot gnu dot org
|dot org |
Status|NEW
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-23
00:15 ---
Subject: Bug 19052
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-01-23 00:14:32
Modified files:
libgfortran: ChangeLog libgfortran.h
libg
--- Additional Comments From marekm at amelek dot gda dot pl 2005-01-23
00:14 ---
I think the proposed avr_hard_regno_mode_ok patch may need a small fix for
QImode in r29 - possible problem with frame pointer (see removed comment):
- if (regno <= REG_Y && (regno + GET_MODE_SIZE (mod
--- Additional Comments From rth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-22 23:23
---
(In reply to comment #10)
> Should patch to sse_comparison_operator [...] be reverted in this case?
Nah. As I said in that message, allowing these operators in this manner
doesn't actually give the register al
--- Additional Comments From pcarlini at suse dot de 2005-01-22 23:16
---
> I was about to send the following patch out for this.
Thanks Andrew, I have already implemented and tested AJ original suggestion,
will
wait a bit for the list opinion.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_b
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-22
23:09 ---
I was about to send the following patch out for this.
Index: include/bits/functexcept.h
===
RCS file: /cvs/gcc/gcc/libstdc++-v3/include/bits/f
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-22
23:08 ---
Subject: Bug 19506
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-01-22 23:07:57
Modified files:
gcc: ChangeLog
gcc/config/i386: i
--
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |pcarlini at suse dot de
|dot org |
Status|NEW
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-22
22:47 ---
Turns out this is correct warning and this is a dup of bug 19343 which has a
way to fix it.
pointer
allocate(size_type __n, const void* = 0)
{
if (__builtin_expect(__n > this->m
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-22
22:47 ---
*** Bug 19573 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-22
22:38 ---
Confirmed.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
E
--- Additional Comments From pbrook at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-22
22:33 ---
Fixed.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
--
Bug 19292 depends on bug 18982, which changed state.
Bug 18982 Summary: open(status="new") does not generate an error if the file
exists
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18982
What|Old Value |New Value
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-22
21:37 ---
If I have a smaller testcase but the loop is still looks like what is in mgrid
can I paste it here, it is only
30 lines?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18048
--- Additional Comments From joel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-22 21:28
---
I just assigned it to one AVR maintainer and cc'ed the other. Could one of
you review this patch and commit it per Mark's request.
--
What|Removed |Added
--
--
What|Removed |Added
CC||denisc at overta dot ru
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |denisc at overta dot ru
--- Additional Comments From sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot
edu 2005-01-22 20:00 ---
Patch to fix the nonstandard issue with -std=f95.
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-01/msg01596.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19575
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-22
19:49 ---
Subject: Bug 18982
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-01-22 19:49:18
Modified files:
gcc/testsuite : ChangeLog
libgfortran: C
--- Additional Comments From mark at codesourcery dot com 2005-01-22 19:44
---
Subject: Re: [4.0 Regression] ICE during bootstrap compiling
__fixdfdi
joel at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> --- Additional Comments From joel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-22
> 13:02 ---
> (In re
--- Additional Comments From mark at codesourcery dot com 2005-01-22 19:43
---
Subject: Re: [4.0 regression] missing ra.h
joel at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> --- Additional Comments From joel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-22
> 12:57 ---
> (In reply to comment #10)
>
>>Mark
--- Additional Comments From sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot
edu 2005-01-22 19:25 ---
Part of the problem is due to the following from intrinsic.c
add_sym_1 ("zabs", 1, 1, BT_REAL, dd, GFC_STD_GNU,
NULL, gfc_simplify_abs, gfc_resolve_abs,
a, BT_
--- Additional Comments From bangerth at dealii dot org 2005-01-22 18:37
---
Why? The function you want is inline. I would rather claim that the
instantiation of the function in the general template is wrong,
although arguably it doesn't matter since it is marked weak.
You will have
--- Additional Comments From kazu at cs dot umass dot edu 2005-01-22 18:34
---
This is what I get at the end of tree-ssa optimizations.
foo (flag)
{
int D.1318;
_Bool D.1317;
:
D.1317_2 = *flag_1;
if (D.1317_2 != 0) goto ; else goto ;
:;
bar ();
:;
D.1317_4 = *flag_1;
i
--- Additional Comments From schlie at comcast dot net 2005-01-22 18:28
---
Subject: Re: [4.0 Regression] libgcc2.h Improperly
determines required built-in function size requirements.
Any reason that the milestone was removed vs. moved to 4.1 for tertiary
platforms?
> From: mmitchel
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-22
18:14 ---
Just a note with gfortran we get a warning, not a error though.
Closing as invalid as requested by the submitter.
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From kazu at cs dot umass dot edu 2005-01-22 18:14
---
Still not fixed at tree level.
sum (p)
{
unsigned int D.1166;
unsigned int D.1161;
int result;
int i;
:
result = 0;
i = 0;
goto ();
:;
if (i < 0) goto ; else goto ;
:;
result = 0;
:;
--- Additional Comments From ilias at utcpd dot sk 2005-01-22 18:02 ---
Created an attachment (id=8038)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=8038&action=view)
This is NOT bug
I returned to this programm, and realized that this is NOT a bug, but this is
good restrictive beh
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-22
18:00 ---
Just for the record (and for lazy people aka me), here is the testcase:
extern void foo (void) __attribute__((noreturn));
void g (void)
{
void (*f) (void) = foo;
f ();
f ();
}
--
http://gcc.gnu.org
--
Bug 19578 depends on bug 19484, which changed state.
Bug 19484 Summary: [4.0 Regression] function pointer propagation fails for
noreturn functions
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19484
What|Old Value |New Value
--
--
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.0.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19578
--- Additional Comments From rsandifo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-22
17:58 ---
Patch committed for the first testcase. Using PR19578 to track the second.
--
What|Removed |Added
--
--
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |rsandifo at gcc dot gnu dot
|dot org |org
Status|UNCONFIRMED
I'm opening this issue to track the second testcase from PR19484:
http://gcc.gnu.org/PR19484
since it needs a different patch from the first (original) testcase.
--
Summary: [4.0 Regression] function pointer propagation fails for
noreturn functions (part 2)
--
What|Removed |Added
OtherBugsDependingO||19578
nThis||
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19484
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-22
17:54 ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> Actually I think the remaining issues of the mgrid performance regression are
> caused by PR 19038.
Well I looked the assembly and it looks like a regresiter allocator problem no
/testsuite : ChangeLog
Added files:
gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/compile: 20050122-1.c 20050122-2.c
Log message:
PR tree-optimization/19484
* tree-cfg.c (remove_fallthru_edge): New function.
(cleanup_control_flow): Remove fallthru edges from calls that are
now
--- Additional Comments From dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-22
17:21 ---
Subject: Re: source doesn't compile with -O0 but they
compile with -O3
>
>
>>
>> The reason is dead simple: register allocation is NP-complete, so it
>> is even *theoretically* not possible to write reg
The reason is dead simple: register allocation is NP-complete, so it
is even *theoretically* not possible to write register allocators that
always find a coloring.
register allocation in general is NP-complete, yes, but it seems u forget
that
this is about finding the optimal solution while gcc
--- Additional Comments From michaelni at gmx dot at 2005-01-22 17:10
---
(In reply to comment #14)
> In any case, just because code is syntactically "valid"
> GNU C doesn't mean gcc can always compile it. With this kind of inline asm,
> you're bound to confuse the register allocator.
--
Bug 18048 depends on bug 19038, which changed state.
Bug 19038 Summary: [4.0 Regression] tree-ssa causing loops to have more than
one BB
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19038
What|Old Value |New Value
--- Additional Comments From dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-22
16:49 ---
Fixed
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-22
16:48 ---
Subject: Bug 19038
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-01-22 16:48:24
Modified files:
gcc: ChangeLog tree-ssa-dom.c
Log messag
Hello, short fortran software:
===
Program TEST_COMMON_BLOCKS
implicit real*8 (a-h,o-z)
common /common_block/ a,i
a=1.25
i=-4
write(*,*) "main prog:", i,a
call subr
stop 0
end
subroutine
--- Additional Comments From stian at nixia dot no 2005-01-22 15:58 ---
if you resolve all memory-referenses to temporary variables
void *a=(src + 0*stride)
and use those instead. Doesn't that lessen the stress the register-allocator is
given?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.c
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-22
15:48 ---
sub (specific__abs_c8);
sub (specific__abs_c4);
Hmm, I don't know what should be happening with intrinsics at all in this case
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19575
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-22
15:23 ---
With --disable-checking, we get the correct code but we don't get an ICE.
--
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Additional Comments From falk at debian dot org 2005-01-22 15:23
---
(In reply to comment #5)
> Second, both PRs concern a basically overly constrained asm. I am
> sure I mentioned in PR11203 that any success in compiling such asm
> is just luck.
>
> Not a GCC bug
We do in f
--- Additional Comments From tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-22 14:40
---
Fixed.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-22
14:37 ---
Subject: Bug 19194
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-01-22 14:37:39
Modified files:
libgfortran: ChangeLog
libgfortran/io : i
--- Additional Comments From ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-22
13:32 ---
Please don't put ICE in the summary.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRME
--- Additional Comments From Thomas dot Koenig at online dot de 2005-01-22
13:30 ---
Same thing on i686-pc-linux-gnu.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19576
--- Additional Comments From joel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-22 13:02
---
(In reply to comment #6)
> AVR is not a primary or secondary platform; removing target milestone.
Understood but there is a patch from Rager Sayle and all it needs is to be
reviewed and approved. He posted te
--- Additional Comments From joel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-22 12:57
---
(In reply to comment #10)
> Mark, while you're using your RM powers to move the target milestone on
> this one, could you also please use your GWP powers to approve the simple
> patch http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gc
--- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-22
12:19 ---
Mark, while you're using your RM powers to move the target milestone on
this one, could you also please use your GWP powers to approve the simple
patch http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-01/msg01258.htm
The following code:
program achar_test
implicit none
integer i
character(*), parameter :: y(0:31) = (/(achar(i),i=64,95)/)
write(*,*) y
end program achar_test
causes ICE on i686-mingw and powerpc-apple-darwin:
$ gfortran achar_test.f90
achar_test.f90: In function 'MAIN__':
achar_tes
--- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-22
12:14 ---
Martin, you should realize that this problem *cannot* be solved. Yes,
there will perhaps be a time when this particular test case compiles,
though I think that is unlikely. But anyway, then there will be
--- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-22
12:07 ---
Falk, sorry but Andrew is right.
First of all, it *does* compile for me at -O[123] on i686, but not
at -O0 because reload can't find a register. I tried GCC 3.3, 3.4,
and 4.0, and -march={i386,i686,ath
--- Additional Comments From jack at cs dot york dot ac dot uk 2005-01-22
12:06 ---
Thankyou, that's most helpful. The problem is in the ARM simulator I am using.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19571
The following code:
program abs_test1
implicit none
intrinsic cdabs
! write(*,*) cdabs((4,3)) ! Causes ICE, as well
call sub(cdabs)
end program abs_test1
subroutine sub(f)
implicit none
interface
elemental function f(x)
complex(kind(1.0d0)), intent(in) :: x
1 - 100 of 107 matches
Mail list logo
