[Bug ada/22301] [4.1 Regression] Ada does not build into a clean prefix when unwind.h is not installed

--- Additional Comments From charlet at adacore dot com 2005-07-06 06:06 --- Subject: Re: [4.1 Regression] Ada does not build into a clean prefix when unwind.h is not installed > Ada is very confused it looks like as raise.c is both a host and target > file which seems to me wrong. A

[Bug target/20583] [4.0/4.1 regression] ICE in output_operand: invalid expression as operand

--- Additional Comments From dank at kegel dot com 2005-07-06 05:11 --- Still seeing this on gcc-4.0.1-20050702. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20583

[Bug fortran/22304] gfortran silently changes values in equilvanence'd variables

--- Additional Comments From albertm at uphs dot upenn dot edu 2005-07-06 05:09 --- Created an attachment (id=9212) --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=9212&action=view) minimal test case The bug persists in gcc version 4.1.0 20050702 (experimental) If I replace: E

[Bug bootstrap/20462] Make bootstrap fails with "out of memory"

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-06 04:58 --- How much memory do you have? -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20462

[Bug libstdc++/20448] locale testsuite fails when GCC is configured with --disable-nls

-- What|Removed |Added GCC build triplet|i686-pc-linux-gnu, hppa-| |unknown-linux-gnu | GCC host triplet|i686-pc-linux-gnu, hppa-|

[Bug libfortran/22298] libgfortran init() constructor isn't called if executable is statically linked

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-06 04:45 --- Confirmed. I hate static linking. -- What|Removed |Added Severity|normal

[Bug tree-optimization/22320] -ftree-dominator-opts documentation is the same as -ftree-dce

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-06 04:12 --- Confirmed, still wrong on the mainline. -- What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRME

[Bug other/22320] New: -ftree-dominator-opts documentation is the same as -ftree-dce

The GCC 4.0.0 documentation, page 71 in the PostScript version, in the HTML version, says the following: -ftree-dce Perform dead code elimination (DCE) on trees. This flag is enabled by default at -O and higher.

[Bug c/17645] Add a warning for potentially unsafe unsigned operations

--- Additional Comments From mathieu at malaterre dot com 2005-07-06 03:00 --- Using gcc --version: g++ (GCC) 4.1.0 20050607 (experimental) I can still reproduce the same unsafe operation: #include int main() { unsigned int l = (unsigned int)-1; const int a = l/2; const int b =

[Bug c++/17645] Add a warning for potentially unsafe unsigned operations

--- Additional Comments From mathieu at malaterre dot com 2005-07-06 02:59 --- Using gcc --version: g++ (GCC) 4.1.0 20050607 (experimental) I can still reproduce the same unsafe operation: #include int main() { unsigned int l = (unsigned int)-1; const int a = l/2; const int b =

[Bug c/17645] Add a warning for potentially unsafe unsigned operations

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-06 02:33 --- (In reply to comment #6) > It looks like -ftrapv only works on signed overflow. Yes because signed overflow is undefined. unsigned overflow wraps by both the C and C++ standards. -- What|R

[Bug c++/17645] Add a warning for potentially unsafe unsigned operations

--- Additional Comments From mathieu at malaterre dot com 2005-07-06 02:32 --- Using gcc --version: g++ (GCC) 4.1.0 20050607 (experimental) I still cannot get anything using the -ftrapv: Ex is: #include int main() { const unsigned int a = 11; const unsigned int b = 10; const d

[Bug tree-optimization/22319] [4.1 Regression] tree check: expected integer_cst, have cond_expr tree-ssa-structalias.c:2410

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-06 02:05 --- This looks like PR 22140. -- What|Removed |Added BugsThisDependsOn|

[Bug tree-optimization/22319] [4.1 Regression] tree check: expected integer_cst, have cond_expr tree-ssa-structalias.c:2410

-- What|Removed |Added CC||dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot ||org http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/sh

[Bug tree-optimization/22319] [4.1 Regression] tree check: expected integer_cst, have cond_expr tree-ssa-structalias.c:2410

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-06 01:59 --- And I just ran into this too. -- What|Removed |Added CC|

[Bug tree-optimization/22319] New: tree check: expected integer_cst, have cond_expr tree-ssa-structalias.c:2410

../../xgcc -B../../ -c -g -O2 -fPIC -DELF=1 -DLINUX=1 -W -Wall -gnatpg g- socket.adb -o g-socket.o +===GNAT BUG DETECTED==+ | 4.1.0 20050705 (experimental) (hppa-unknown-linux-gnu) GCC error:| | tree check: expected integer_cst

[Bug debug/22318] debug info wrong for doubles followed by bools

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-06 01:30 --- Fixed in 3.4.0 and above. 3.3.x is only gcc releases which are effected so closing as fixed as 3.3.6 was the last release of 3.3. -- What|Removed |Added --

[Bug c++/16829] default parameter can be not one of the last in template function

--- Additional Comments From charles at kde dot org 2005-07-06 01:26 --- I should point out that fixing the actual bug in question will fix the ICE itself. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16829

[Bug debug/22318] debug info wrong for doubles followed by bools

--- Additional Comments From charles at kde dot org 2005-07-06 01:24 --- Oh, and to add, if you change the double to an int, it works. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22318

[Bug debug/22318] New: debug info wrong for doubles followed by bools

This is a problem in gcc's default debug format. It works fine with -gstabs. struct X { bool x; double d; }; int main() { X x; x.d = 42.0; } When debugging with gdb, x.d will contain something wrong, (often something like 5.3014

[Bug tree-optimization/21407] [4.1 Regression] wrong code with downcast in C++

--- Additional Comments From gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2005-07-06 01:16 --- Subject: Re: [4.1 Regression] wrong code with downcast in C++ "dberlin at dberlin dot org" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | Subject: Re: [4.1 Regression] wrong code with | downcast in C++ | | |

[Bug tree-optimization/21407] [4.1 Regression] wrong code with downcast in C++

--- Additional Comments From dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-06 00:58 --- Subject: Re: [4.1 Regression] wrong code with downcast in C++ > | Nathan queried the C++ committee, and they actually *don't* think > | it's legal in C++, > > It is more accurate to say that Nat

[Bug tree-optimization/21407] [4.1 Regression] wrong code with downcast in C++

--- Additional Comments From gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2005-07-06 00:42 --- Subject: Re: [4.1 Regression] wrong code with downcast in C++ "dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | Nathan queried the C++ committee, and they actually *don't* think | it's l

[Bug tree-optimization/21407] [4.1 Regression] wrong code with downcast in C++

--- Additional Comments From dnovillo at redhat dot com 2005-07-06 00:23 --- Subject: Re: [4.1 Regression] wrong code with downcast in C++ On Wed, Jul 06, 2005 at 12:16:20AM -, dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote: > > --- Additional Comments From dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot or

Re: [Bug tree-optimization/21407] [4.1 Regression] wrong code with downcast in C++

On Wed, Jul 06, 2005 at 12:16:20AM -, dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote: > > --- Additional Comments From dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-06 > 00:16 --- > It's in the ml archives, i'll try to find it. > Thanks. I remember the discussion, but I need some URL so that we can

[Bug tree-optimization/21407] [4.1 Regression] wrong code with downcast in C++

--- Additional Comments From dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-06 00:16 --- It's in the ml archives, i'll try to find it. Basically, Mark and friends believe that in C, it's legal to add or subtract some bytes from a pointer to a field of a structure and have a valid pointer to so

[Bug tree-optimization/21963] [4.1 Regression] ICE (seg fault) with -m64 (in IV-OPTS)

--- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2005-07-05 23:17 --- Approved here already: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-07/msg00293.html -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21963

[Bug tree-optimization/21963] [4.1 Regression] ICE (seg fault) with -m64 (in IV-OPTS)

--- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2005-07-05 23:16 --- Zdenek, is the patch still valid? If so, maybe it's time to ping it? -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21963

[Bug tree-optimization/21407] [4.1 Regression] wrong code with downcast in C++

--- Additional Comments From dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-05 23:07 --- (In reply to comment #13) > Fixed > Have the URL for the aliasing discussion? Thanks. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21407

[Bug ada/22301] [4.1 Regression] Ada does not build into a clean prefix when unwind.h is not installed

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-05 22:30 --- (In reply to comment #8) > Subject: Re: [4.1 Regression] Ada does not build into a clean prefix when > unwind.h is not installed I will try this patch later tonight after testing PR 18692. -- http://gc

[Bug c/22308] [3.4/4.0 Regression] Failure to diagnose violation of constraint 6.516p2

--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-05 21:19 --- Subject: Bug 22308 CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc Module name:gcc Branch: gcc-3_4-branch Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-07-05 21:19:17 Modified files: gcc: Change

[Bug java/19674] Empty declaration through semicolon (;) causes compile failure

--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-05 21:10 --- Subject: Bug 19674 CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc Module name:gcc Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-07-05 21:09:58 Modified files: gcc/java : ChangeLog parse.y libjava

[Bug target/22317] c99_classification_macros_c.cc fails on darwin

--- Additional Comments From pcarlini at suse dot de 2005-07-05 20:54 --- Also, this test should be really xfailed everywhere and only passes "by chance" on some systems due to complex interactions with PCHs: given the current structure of the library the test cannot meaningfully pass.

[Bug testsuite/22316] 4.0.1 ObjC regression compared to 4.0.0

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-05 20:48 --- Not really a regression. This test was broken for 4.0.0 also. This was fixed already for 4.1.0. -- What|Removed |Added --

[Bug objc/22316] 4.0.1 ObjC regression compared to 4.0.0

--- Additional Comments From lars dot sonchocky-helldorf at hamburg dot de 2005-07-05 20:46 --- Executing on host: /Volumes/Data/Users/lars/GCC/FSF/gcc-4.0.1-20050702-build/gcc/xgcc -B/ Volumes/Data/Users/lars/GCC/FSF/gcc-4.0.1-20050702-build/gcc/ /Users/lars/GCC/FSF/gcc-4.0.1- 2005070

[Bug target/22317] c99_classification_macros_c.cc fails on darwin

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-05 20:42 --- This is a problem with darwin's headers really and not really a regression. libstdc++'s testsuite was not running it correctly before for some reason. -- What|Removed

[Bug libstdc++/22317] New: 4.0.1 libstdc++ regression compared to 4.0.0

FAIL: 26_numerics/cmath/c99_classification_macros_c.cc (test for excess errors) fails now, which did not fail for 4.0.0 see: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2005-04/msg00797.html and: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2005-07/msg00264.html regards, Lars -- Summary: 4.0

[Bug objc/22316] 4.0.1 ObjC regression compared to 4.0.0

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-05 20:38 --- What is the "excess errors"? -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22316

[Bug objc/22316] New: 4.0.1 ObjC regression compared to 4.0.0

FAIL: objc.dg/selector-2.m (test for excess errors) fails now, which did not fail for 4.0.0 see: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2005-04/msg00797.html and: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2005-07/msg00264.html regards, Lars -- Summary: 4.0.1 ObjC regression compared

[Bug tree-optimization/21963] [4.1 Regression] ICE (seg fault) with -m64 (in IV-OPTS)

--- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-05 20:25 --- *** Bug 22315 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- What|Removed |Added

[Bug middle-end/22315] [4.1 regression] ICE in IVopts

--- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-05 20:25 --- Yes it is a dup, the backtraces are identical. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 21963 *** -- What|Removed |Added

[Bug middle-end/22315] [4.1 regression] ICE in IVopts

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-05 20:14 --- I want to say this is a dup of bug 21963 which has a patch. -- What|Removed |Added

[Bug middle-end/22315] [4.1 regression] ICE in IVopts

--- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-05 20:10 --- Zdenek, this is ICE in IVopts. Can you give it a look? It'd be nice if we can get galgel to compile again. -- What|Removed |Added ---

[Bug middle-end/22315] New: [4.1 regression] ICE in IVopts

The following code ICEs at -O2 on amd64. It was reduced from galgel, which is broken at the moment because of this bug. SUBROUTINE FOO (N, A, LDA, X, INCX) INTEGER :: INCX, LDA, N REAL*8 :: A(LDA,*), X(*) REAL*8 :: TEMP INTEGER :: I, J, IX, JX, KX IF

[Bug bootstrap/22314] [4.1 regression] ICE in make profiledbootstrap: corrupted profile info for gcc/dominance.c

-- What|Removed |Added Severity|critical|normal Keywords||build, ice-on-valid-code Summary|ICE in make

[Bug bootstrap/22314] ICE in make profiledbootstrap: corrupted profile info for gcc/dominance.c

--- Additional Comments From greenrd at greenrd dot org 2005-07-05 19:54 --- Created an attachment (id=9210) --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=9210&action=view) gzipped testcase -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22314

[Bug bootstrap/22314] New: ICE in make profiledbootstrap: corrupted profile info for gcc/dominance.c

Tried to build the gentoo ebuild for gcc head pulled from CVS on 20050702. Got this error: stage1/xgcc -Bstage1/ -B/usr/i686-pc-linux-gnu/bin/ -c -save-temps -march=athlon-xp -O2 -pipe -fprofile-use -freorder-blocks-and-partitio n -DIN_GCC -W -Wall -Wwrite-strings -Wstrict-prototypes -Wmissing

[Bug c/22013] [4.0 Regression] ICE in gimple_add_tmp_var, at gimplify.c:535

-- What|Removed |Added Summary|[4.0/4.1 Regression] ICE in |[4.0 Regression] ICE in |gimple_add_tmp_var, at |gimple_add_tmp_var, at

[Bug c/22098] [4.0 Regression] ICE in compound literal gimplification

-- What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |4.0.2 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22098

[Bug tree-optimization/18589] could optimize FP multiplies better

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-05 19:37 --- I think PR 22312 mentions what the current problem with reassoc is (well once I submit the patch to introduce reassociation for fp). -- What|Removed |Added

[Bug tree-optimization/22312] reassoc does not handle (i+j)+(k+l) well

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-05 19:35 --- Confirmed then. -- What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW

[Bug bootstrap/22313] [4.1 Regression] gcc HEAD as of 2005/07/05 fails to profiledbootstrap

-- What|Removed |Added Keywords||wrong-code Summary|gcc HEAD as of 2005/07/05 |[4.1 Regression] gcc HEAD as |fai

[Bug tree-optimization/22312] reassoc does not handle (i+j)+(k+l) well

--- Additional Comments From dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-05 19:02 --- Subject: Re: New: reassoc does not handle (i+j)+(k+l) well On Tue, 2005-07-05 at 18:33 +, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote: > take the following example: > int f(int i, int j, int k, int l)

[Bug bootstrap/22313] gcc HEAD as of 2005/07/05 fails to profiledbootstrap

--- Additional Comments From bero at arklinux dot org 2005-07-05 18:39 --- Created an attachment (id=9209) --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=9209&action=view) Generated asm code -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22313

[Bug bootstrap/22313] gcc HEAD as of 2005/07/05 fails to profiledbootstrap

--- Additional Comments From bero at arklinux dot org 2005-07-05 18:37 --- Created an attachment (id=9208) --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=9208&action=view) preprocessed source -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22313

[Bug bootstrap/22313] New: gcc HEAD as of 2005/07/05 fails to profiledbootstrap

SSIA. Building with gcc 3.4.4, binutils 2.16.1 (tried 2.16.91.0.1 too, same behavior) results in stage1/xgcc -Bstage1/ -B/usr/i586-ark-linux/bin/ -c -g -O2 -fprofile-use -freorder-blocks-and-partition -DIN_GCC -W -Wall -Wwrite-strings -Wstrict-prototypes -Wmissing-prototypes -pedantic

[Bug tree-optimization/22312] New: reassoc does not handle (i+j)+(k+l) well

take the following example: int f(int i, int j, int k, int l) { int r1 = (i+j)+(k+l); int r2 = (j+k)+(l+i); return r1 == r2; } This should return 1 all the time. I found this while making testcases for reassoc working fp (well I just change one little thing to make it work really). --

[Bug tree-optimization/22310] [4.1 Regression] ICE in in first_vi_for_offset

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-05 18:10 --- (In reply to comment #3) > Confirmed, reduced as far as I can get it: One more thing, this testcase also fails on 32bit ppc-darwin and 64bit ppc-darwin. -- What|Removed

[Bug tree-optimization/22310] [4.1 Regression] ICE in in first_vi_for_offset

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-05 18:06 --- Confirmed, reduced as far as I can get it: struct location { int x, y; }; struct defensive_position { int chance_to_hit; long long vulnerability, support; }; template struct pair { _T1 first; _T2 s

[Bug c/22098] [4.0/4.1 Regression] ICE in compound literal gimplification

--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-05 17:50 --- Subject: Bug 22098 CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc Module name:gcc Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-07-05 17:50:24 Modified files: gcc: ChangeLog c-objc-common.h c-tree.h c-

[Bug c/22013] [4.0/4.1 Regression] ICE in gimple_add_tmp_var, at gimplify.c:535

--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-05 17:50 --- Subject: Bug 22013 CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc Module name:gcc Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-07-05 17:50:24 Modified files: gcc: ChangeLog c-objc-common.h c-tree.h c-

[Bug ada/22301] [4.1 Regression] Ada does not build into a clean prefix when unwind.h is not installed

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu 2005-07-05 17:37 --- Subject: Re: [4.1 Regression] Ada does not build into a clean prefix when unwind.h is not installed On Jul 5, 2005, at 10:19 AM, pbrook at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote: > The other alternative is ada is

Re: [Bug ada/22301] [4.1 Regression] Ada does not build into a clean prefix when unwind.h is not installed

On Jul 5, 2005, at 10:19 AM, pbrook at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote: The other alternative is ada is very confused about host vs. target, and raise.c shouldn't be in the compiler at all. Ada is very confused it looks like as raise.c is both a host and target file which seems to me wrong. --

[Bug tree-optimization/22310] [4.1 Regression] ICE in in first_vi_for_offset

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-05 17:35 --- This is 64bit targets only. -- What|Removed |Added CC|

[Bug c/22308] [3.4/4.0/4.1 Regression] Failure to diagnose violation of constraint 6.516p2

--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-05 17:34 --- Subject: Bug 22308 CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc Module name:gcc Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-07-05 17:34:29 Modified files: gcc: ChangeLog c-decl.c gcc/tests

[Bug rtl-optimization/11261] Weak code generated for JPEG compression

--- Additional Comments From amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-05 17:24 --- (In reply to comment #4) > This bug hasn't been modified in more than 18 months. What is the > current status of this bug? And is this not really a target specific > issue for SH with its silly r0, or ca

[Bug ada/21952] Many attribute directive ignored warnings during Tru64 UNIX Ada bootstrap

--- Additional Comments From ro at techfak dot uni-bielefeld dot de 2005-07-05 17:15 --- Subject: Re: Many attribute directive ignored warnings during Tru64 UNIX Ada bootstrap pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu writes: > It is a latent bug in Ada front-end. RTH just exposed the latent

[Bug ada/21952] Many attribute directive ignored warnings during Tru64 UNIX Ada bootstrap

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu 2005-07-05 17:13 --- Subject: Re: Many attribute directive ignored warnings during Tru64 UNIX Ada bootstrap > > > --- Additional Comments From ro at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-05 17:11 > --- > Richard, maybe y

Re: [Bug ada/21952] Many attribute directive ignored warnings during Tru64 UNIX Ada bootstrap

> > > --- Additional Comments From ro at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-05 17:11 > --- > Richard, maybe you could have a look since this seems to be caused by your > patch? It is a latent bug in Ada front-end. RTH just exposed the latent bug. -- Pinski

[Bug ada/21952] Many attribute directive ignored warnings during Tru64 UNIX Ada bootstrap

--- Additional Comments From ro at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-05 17:11 --- Richard, maybe you could have a look since this seems to be caused by your patch? Thanks. Rainer -- What|Removed |Added ---

[Bug target/18434] [4.0/4.1 Regression] Cannot build gnattools on Tru64 UNIX V5.1B

--- Additional Comments From ro at techfak dot uni-bielefeld dot de 2005-07-05 17:04 --- Subject: Re: [4.0/4.1 Regression] Cannot build gnattools on Tru64 UNIX V5.1B charlet at gcc dot gnu dot org writes: > Given your last comment (a variable set to 4), it still looks very much like >

[Bug debug/21828] [4.0/4.1 Regression] debug info omitted for uninitialized variables

--- Additional Comments From hjl at lucon dot org 2005-07-05 16:56 --- Patches for mainline and 4.0 are posted at http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-07/msg00270.html I hope they lead to the proper fixes and this critical regression is fixed in 4.0.1. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzil

[Bug libstdc++/22309] mt allocator doesn't pthread_key_delete it's keys

--- Additional Comments From pcarlini at suse dot de 2005-07-05 16:55 --- > Yes, that's the same thing apparently. Thanks. And now we have also a compact testcase. > I'm pretty sure a reproducer can be written even for libstdc++ not configured > to default to the mt allocator, by inclu

[Bug libstdc++/22309] mt allocator doesn't pthread_key_delete it's keys

--- Additional Comments From jakub at redhat dot com 2005-07-05 16:48 --- Yes, that's the same thing apparently. I'm pretty sure a reproducer can be written even for libstdc++ not configured to default to the mt allocator, by including etc. or however you explicitely choose a specific

[Bug libstdc++/22309] mt allocator doesn't pthread_key_delete it's keys

-- What|Removed |Added CC||pcarlini at suse dot de http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22309

[Bug libstdc++/21193] provide better std::tr1::hash for std::string and std::wstring

--- Additional Comments From pcarlini at suse dot de 2005-07-05 16:30 --- Also investigate a better hashing of floating point values. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21193

[Bug libstdc++/20534] Erroneous #include of

--- Additional Comments From pcarlini at suse dot de 2005-07-05 16:29 --- Not a regression, completely fixed for 4.1.0. -- What|Removed |Added Status|NEW

[Bug libstdc++/22309] mt allocator doesn't pthread_key_delete it's keys

--- Additional Comments From pcarlini at suse dot de 2005-07-05 16:27 --- Jakub, is this issue related to libstdc++/19265? -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22309

[Bug c/22311] [4.0/4.1 Regression] internal compiler error: in c_common_type (-fshort-enums)

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-05 16:04 --- Confirmed, reduced testcase: typedef enum { IssueItemFlag_Discard = 0x1 } IssueItemFlag; void BlockRegion_findInvariants(IssueItemFlag invariant, unsigned char a) { a |= invariant; } Only -fshort-enums

[Bug c/22311] internal compiler error: in c_common_type, at c-typeck.c:531

--- Additional Comments From christophe dot monat at st dot com 2005-07-05 15:52 --- Created an attachment (id=9207) --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=9207&action=view) Preprocessed input file to reproduce bug -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22311

[Bug tree-optimization/22310] ICE in in first_vi_for_offset

--- Additional Comments From falk at debian dot org 2005-07-05 15:52 --- Created an attachment (id=9206) --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=9206&action=view) test case (use -O) -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22310

[Bug c/22311] New: internal compiler error: in c_common_type, at c-typeck.c:531

$ /apa/gnu/Linux-RH-7.2/gcc/gcc-4.0.0/bin/gcc -O3 -march=pentium4 -mfpmath=sse -fomit-frame-pointer -ffast-math -std=c99 -fshort-enums -Wall -Wno-unused BlockRegion.i /home/compwork/monat/Open64-1-7-0-B-Linux/CVSTop-LAO2/LAO_PRO/lao/PFA/BlockRegion.xcc: In function 'BlockRegion_findInvariants': /

[Bug tree-optimization/22310] New: ICE in in first_vi_for_offset

% g++ -v -O -c min4.cc Using built-in specs. Target: alphaev68-unknown-linux-gnu Configured with: ../configure --disable-nls --enable-languages=c++ Thread model: posix gcc version 4.1.0 20050705 (experimental) /usr/local/stow/gcc-2005.07.05/bin/../libexec/gcc/alphaev68-unknown-linux-gnu/4.1.0

[Bug c++/20746] Incorrect return value for covariant return function returning null ptr

--- Additional Comments From mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-05 15:40 --- This is OK for 4.0.2, once the branch re-opens. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20746

[Bug c/22308] [3.4/4.0/4.1 Regression] Failure to diagnose violation of constraint 6.516p2

--- Additional Comments From jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-05 15:19 --- Testing a patch. -- What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |jsm28

[Bug libgcj/22283] Fail to build libjava under zh_TW.UTF-8 locale.

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-05 15:10 --- This is a dup of bug 21058. The problem is not in libgcj but in libtool. We semi worked around it in 4.0.0 by sorting but that does not always work as shown here. *** This bug has been marked as a dupli

[Bug libgcj/21058] [4.1 Regression] fragile libgcj link process omits some inner classes

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-05 15:10 --- *** Bug 22283 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- What|Removed |Added

[Bug rtl-optimization/21970] [3.4 only] Inline keyword causes computation to erroneously reduce to a constant

--- Additional Comments From rsandifo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-05 14:51 --- > The analysis is slightly flawed. For example: > > UINT32 r0045025C = opt_and(ic, r004501D4); // N = and (_, M) :00022108 > UINT32 r00450994 = opt_not(r0045025C); // b = not (N)

[Bug fortran/18022] problem with structure and calling a function

--- Additional Comments From gruel at astro dot ufl dot edu 2005-07-05 14:51 --- the problem is still there with the actual version of gfortran. The result is totally incoherent. I don't know for the bug 15553 but this one is still present. -- What|Removed

[Bug rtl-optimization/21970] [3.4 only] Inline keyword causes computation to erroneously reduce to a constant

--- Additional Comments From para at cfl dot rr dot com 2005-07-05 14:40 --- The analysis is slightly flawed. For example: UINT32 r0045025C = opt_and(ic, r004501D4);// N = and (_, M) :00022108 UINT32 r00450994 = opt_not(r0045025C);// b = not (N) :fffddef7 Sin

[Bug ada/22301] [4.1 Regression] Ada does not build into a clean prefix when unwind.h is not installed

--- Additional Comments From pbrook at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-05 14:19 --- In that case this may be a darwin bug. IIUC gnat1 uses exceptions, and needs the host unwind.h to do so. These exceptions may be different to the exceptions on the target system. If darwin doesn't have this

[Bug ada/22301] [4.1 Regression] Ada does not build into a clean prefix when unwind.h is not installed

--- Additional Comments From hainque at adacore dot com 2005-07-05 14:08 --- Subject: Re: [4.1 Regression] Ada does not build into a clean prefix when unwind.h is not installed charlet at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote: > Hmm, so it means that there is no way for a compiler front-end to us

[Bug ada/18692] Ada should have a dg testsuite

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-05 13:55 --- Mine. -- What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |pinskia at gcc

[Bug libstdc++/22309] New: mt allocator doesn't pthread_key_delete it's keys

With libstdc++ configured with --enable-libstdcxx-allocator=mt (on 4.0 branch or on HEAD for linux even without it, as mt is the default there), following testcase crashes: cat > O.c < #include void * tf (void *arg) { void *h = dlopen ("./libO.so", RTLD_LAZY); void (*fn) (void); if (!h) re

[Bug tree-optimization/19055] Minor bit optimization with or and xor

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-05 13:53 --- Patch posted here: . -- What|Removed |Added -

[Bug libgcj/22283] Fail to build libjava under zh_TW.UTF-8 locale.

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-05 13:26 --- Here is reference to the problem back in 2002: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2002-11/msg00896.html I thought I had saw another mail in the last year about this but I cannot find it any more. -- http://gcc.

[Bug libfortran/22307] Missing tests for actual library functions

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-05 13:13 --- Confirmed, what about using temporary variables which should solve this problem. This does not look that critical. -- What|Removed |Added -

[Bug fortran/22306] ICE: segmentation fault

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-05 13:04 --- Confirmed, reduced testcase: module stackmod type stack_node integer :: intval=0 type(stack_node), pointer :: next end type stack_node contains subroutine push() type(

[Bug tree-optimization/22135] The gcc-4.1-20050611 compiler ICE's using -ftree-vectorize in conjunction with -fdump-tree-all-details-stats

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-05 12:56 --- (In reply to comment #6) > Sorry, I didn't understood your answer fully (stupid me :-) > So is it entered in the BugZilla database, shall I enter it or shall we leave > it > alone? It is known meaning peop

[Bug c/22308] [3.4/4.0/4.1 Regression] Failure to diagnose violation of constraint 6.516p2

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-05 12:53 --- Confirmed, a regression from 2.95.3. -- What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED

  1   2   >