--- Additional Comments From mark at codesourcery dot com 2005-07-22 06:52
---
Subject: Re: [4.0/4.1 Regression] debug info omitted for
uninitialized variables
mark at codesourcery dot com wrote:
> Unfortunately, it failed -- gcc.dg/pch/global-1.c fails at -O3.
>
> I have not yet fi
--- Additional Comments From mark at codesourcery dot com 2005-07-22 06:25
---
Subject: Re: [4.0/4.1 Regression] debug info omitted for
uninitialized variables
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> I will try a test run with my patch reverted; if that passes, and still fixes
> the
--- Additional Comments From hjl at lucon dot org 2005-07-22 05:51 ---
It looks like the unwind info in libstdc++.so is bad.
(gdb) r
Starting program:
/export/build/gnu/gcc-next/build-ia64-linux/gcc/testsuite/cond1.exe
Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault.
0x201b9
--- Additional Comments From igodard at pacbell dot net 2005-07-22 05:50
---
# 1 "opClock.cc"
# 1 "/home/ivan/ootbc/members/src//"
# 1 ""
# 1 ""
# 1 "opClock.cc"
include "core.hh"
# 1 "../../members/include/opClock.hh" 1
# 1 "/mnt/export/local/bin/../lib/gcc/i686-pc-linux-gnu/3.4.0/../..
--- Additional Comments From uros at kss-loka dot si 2005-07-22 05:46
---
I was trying to trigger the "unrecognizable insn" bug with gcc-4.1, because
this bug should be fixed by the patch in PR22576.
I have tested:
gcc -O2 -mno-ieee-fp fractal.c
gcc -O2 -ffast-math fractal.c
gcc -O2 fr
--- Additional Comments From hjl at lucon dot org 2005-07-22 05:45 ---
I have identified that
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-06/msg01149.html
is the cause.
--
What|Removed |Added
---
Hi,
gcc 4 seems quite a bit smarter at keeping the stack smaller, and as you can see
below allocates the 8 byte structure across two stack slots.
It did break something, which drew this to my attention, and James Wilson
already some analsysis in
http://www.gelato.unsw.edu.au/archives/linux-ia64/0
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-22
04:03 ---
No feedback in 3 months.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-22
04:00 ---
I should mention this was started after 20050225 which was when the branch
happened.
And here is the backtrace:
#0 fancy_abort (file=0x1197880 "../../gcc/cp/name-lookup.c", line=380,
function=0x1197904
"
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-22
03:58 ---
I should mention this started to happen after 20041124 but before 20050225.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22604
--- Additional Comments From gnu at the-meissners dot org 2005-07-22 03:54
---
I forgot to mention, the patch was against the mainline, sources current as of
July 20th.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22599
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-22
03:53 ---
Confirmed.
Here is the backtrace:
#0 0x080b94b6 in dfs_modify_vtables (binfo=0xb7d11840, data=0xb7cbe398) at
/home/peshtigo/
pinskia/src/gnu/gcc/src/gcc/cp/class.c:2032
#1 0x08122b40 in dfs_walk_all (binf
--- Additional Comments From flash at pobox dot com 2005-07-22 03:38
---
Created an attachment (id=9327)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=9327&action=view)
BBinder_segfault.ii
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22604
The invalid code below results in "internal compiler error: Segmentation fault"
with a checking version of GCC 4.0.1. Does not happen with GCC 3.3.4 or Apple
GCC 4.0.0.
Like the code for bug 22603, this is a greatly-reduced and anonymized excerpt,
found by Daniel
Wilkerson's Delta, from a real
--- Additional Comments From bangerth at dealii dot org 2005-07-22 03:16
---
I believe you, though I can't reproduce with a simple set of include files.
Can you try to reduce your program to something more reasonable that still
shows the same problem?
W.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/b
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-22
02:43 ---
Confirmed, only a 4.0 regression. We do not get an ICE on the mainline.
--
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Additional Comments From flash at pobox dot com 2005-07-22 02:35
---
This sounds like bugs 9777 and 5402, but those were supposedly fixed.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22603
--- Additional Comments From flash at pobox dot com 2005-07-22 02:32
---
Created an attachment (id=9326)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=9326&action=view)
104911_HtmlView_min.ii
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22603
The invalid code below results in "internal compiler error: in pop_binding, at
cp/name-lookup.c:380"
with a checking version of GCC 4.0.1. Does not happen with GCC 3.3.4.
class NameOne : public static_small_value
{
inline NameOne(T v) {
}
{
};
template
class NameTwo : private NameThree
{
--- Additional Comments From igodard at pacbell dot net 2005-07-22 01:25
---
Then Andrew's test case is not showing the problem. In the original, although
the message is the same as Andrew's, the line/file reference is deep inside a
system include that contains the first program text aft
--- Additional Comments From pcarlini at suse dot de 2005-07-22 01:24
---
For the moment, I give up: in my opinion, a miscompilation is still the most
likely possibility. Meaningless behaviors are taking place: for instance, the
testcase passes if I exchange the arguments of swap to (my_
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-22
01:01 ---
Are you filing via the web?
If so attach the preprocessed source after you submitted the bug.
The reason for the limit is so we don't get the preprocessed source inlined and
have to copy and paste.
I see yo
--- Additional Comments From dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-22
00:59 ---
Subject: Re: New: I can't enter a bug here
On Fri, 2005-07-22 at 00:57 +, jacob dot navia at ants dot com
wrote:
> Because there is a size limitation to 64K in this software.
> I prepared a single file
On Fri, 2005-07-22 at 00:57 +, jacob dot navia at ants dot com
wrote:
> Because there is a size limitation to 64K in this software.
> I prepared a single file with no includes that faithfully reproduced the bug:
> bug0.cpp: In member function 'double AtomicDouble::CompareExchange(double,
> dou
Because there is a size limitation to 64K in this software.
I prepared a single file with no includes that faithfully reproduced the bug:
bug0.cpp: In member function 'double AtomicDouble::CompareExchange(double,
double) volatile':
bug0.cpp:4999: internal compiler error: in create_tmp_var, at gimp
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-22
00:33 ---
Subject: Bug 22504
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-07-22 00:33:48
Modified files:
gcc: ChangeLog tree-complex.c
Log messag
--- Additional Comments From bangerth at dealii dot org 2005-07-22 00:18
---
Oh, I apparently didn't read closely enough. I see the problem now.
For others -- take this:
-
template void f(T) {}
template void f(T) {}
template void f (int);
-
--- Additional Comments From pcarlini at suse dot de 2005-07-21 23:34
---
> The test case passes for me on powerpc-linux with GCC 3.4.x and fails with
> everything later.
Mainline doesn't fail for me on x86-linux, but I have it configured with a
different allocator (new).
Typing the command "gnat" results in the following output (note this is Centos
4.1 but I am pretty sure this is not target specific) :
GNAT 3.4.3 20050227 (Red Hat 3.4.3-22.1) Copyright 1996-2004 Free Software Found
ation, Inc.
List of available commands
GNAT BIND gnatbind
GNAT CH
--- Additional Comments From phenning at lanl dot gov 2005-07-21 23:26
---
(In reply to comment #5)
> Your explicit instantiation
> template int foo< A_class >(A_class a);
> obviously matches both the declarations of foo. I'm unsure which
> one the compiler should choose, but if you
--- Additional Comments From mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-21
23:26 ---
Jakub --
Thank you for finding the patch that fixed this problem.
Richard's patch changed things to mark the problematic variable as
DECL_IGNORED_P earlier, so my patch is no longer necessary.
As for J
--- Additional Comments From danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-21
23:19 ---
I won't have time to test until early next week.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22577
--- Additional Comments From bangerth at dealii dot org 2005-07-21 23:17
---
Your explicit instantiation
template int foo< A_class >(A_class a);
obviously matches both the declarations of foo. I'm unsure which
one the compiler should choose, but if you want to instantiate the
secon
--- Additional Comments From bangerth at dealii dot org 2005-07-21 23:11
---
With Andrew's little testcase, I get
g/x> cat > x.cc
include "core.hh"
typedef unsigned int size_t;
namespace std
{
using ::size_t;
}
g/x> /home/bangerth/bin/gcc-4.1-pre/bin/c++ -c x.cc
x.cc:1: er
--- Additional Comments From bangerth at dealii dot org 2005-07-21 23:00
---
No, icc puts it into bss and runs code to initialize it with 7:
.bss
.align 4
.globl _ZN3obj5sevenE
_ZN3obj5sevenE:
.type _ZN3obj5sevenE,@object
.size _ZN3obj5
--- Additional Comments From janis at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-21 22:25
---
Fixed on the 3.4 branch.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-21
22:14 ---
One more thing usually ICEs have better error messages than just Segmentation
fault.
some give the line number in GCC's source where it occurred.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22600
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-21
22:12 ---
I don't see why it should be different than 1. It would only be helpful when
you have automated builds
but even then you need to look at the errors.
and for recursive crash testing you need to look for a
Steps:
93> /opt/gcc401chk/bin/g++ -pass-exit-codes
../cpp/bugfiles/error/EckelRob_104822.ii
../jammed/Barney/eckel.cpp:2039: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault
Please submit a full bug report,
with preprocessed source if appropriate.
See http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs.html> for inst
: ChangeLog
gcc/config/rs6000: rs6000.md
gcc/testsuite : ChangeLog
Added files:
gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/compile: 20050721-1.c
Log message:
PR target/20191
Backport from mainline:
2004-04-23 Dale Johannesen <[EMAIL PROTEC
--- Additional Comments From pbrook at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-21
21:06 ---
gcc4 behaviour seems fine to me.
A slightly simpler example
int foo(int a)
{
int b;
asm ("" : "+r" (b) : "r" (a));
return b;
}
Can be (and is) legitimately be transformed into
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-21
20:38 ---
Confirmed, only the second example fails from 4.0.0 upwards.
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-21
20:33 ---
Fixed.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-21
20:33 ---
Fixed.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
--- Additional Comments From sebor at roguewave dot com 2005-07-21 20:33
---
(In reply to comment #13)
...
> * g++.dg/lookup/two-stage2.C: New.
FWIW, the following comment in this patch is wrong:
+ g(2);// f(char) followed by f(int)
^^
--
What|Removed |Added
Component|c |target
Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_b
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-21
20:14 ---
Confirmed, reduced testcase:
extern "C" void abort(void);
int t = 0;
struct point
{
point( const point& o ) {}
explicit point(){}
point __attribute__((pure)) operator/(const double m
I triggered a segfault on a i386 target with a piece of code intented to be
compiled for avr target. I get a more descriptive message by modifiying the code
a little bit. Here is the source, messages and versions :
typedef unsigned long uint32_t;
typedef unsigned char uint8_t;
int
main (void)
{
--
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Summary|23_containers/set/explicit_i|[4.1 Regression]
|nstantia
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-21
19:59 ---
Subject: Bug 21149
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-07-21 19:59:09
Modified files:
gcc: ChangeLog
gcc/config/i386: s
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-21
19:58 ---
Subject: Bug 21149
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Branch: gcc-4_0-branch
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-07-21 19:58:31
Modified files:
gcc: Change
FAIL: 23_containers/set/explicit_instantiation/3.cc (test for excess errors)
is still present on mainline on i686-pc-linux-gnu on 20050721 (07:00 UTC). This
was related to bugs 22444, 22416, 22483 which have been closed (1.cc and 2.cc do
indeed now pass).
/scratch/gcc/nightly-2005-07-21
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-21
19:56 ---
Subject: Bug 22576
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Branch: gcc-4_0-branch
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-07-21 19:56:30
Modified files:
gcc: Change
--- Additional Comments From eda-qa at disemia dot com 2005-07-21 19:55
---
Created an attachment (id=9325)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=9325&action=view)
demostration of the error
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22597
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-21
19:55 ---
Subject: Bug 22576
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-07-21 19:55:03
Modified files:
gcc: ChangeLog
gcc/config/i386: i
--- Additional Comments From eda-qa at disemia dot com 2005-07-21 19:54
---
Using built-in specs.
Target: i486-linux-gnu
Configured with: ../src/configure -v
--enable-languages=c,c++,java,f95,objc,ada,treelang --prefix=/usr--enable-shared
--with-system-zlib --libexecdir=/usr/lib --enable
In the attached code the pure attribute is causing the result to be random/junk
on the final calculation in main. According to the docs the function seems to
qualify for pure status -- it uses only the parameters given. It does however
create a temporary (but as this exists on the stack I assume
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-21
19:36 ---
Subject: Bug 21180
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-07-21 19:36:51
Modified files:
gcc: ChangeLog fold-const.c
Log message:
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-21
19:36 ---
Fixed.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
--
Bug 19987 depends on bug 19055, which changed state.
Bug 19055 Summary: Minor bit optimization with or and xor
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19055
What|Old Value |New Value
---
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-21
19:34 ---
Subject: Bug 19055
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-07-21 19:33:50
Modified files:
gcc: ChangeLog fold-const.c
gcc/t
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-21
19:34 ---
Subject: Bug 19055
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-07-21 19:33:50
Modified files:
gcc: ChangeLog fold-const.c
gcc/t
--- Additional Comments From phenning at lanl dot gov 2005-07-21 19:16
---
(In reply to comment #2)
> void g(void)
> {
> A_class a;
> foo >(a);
> }
Right, and I think that it should in that case. It seems that g++ attempts to
call the first definition
when there is usage like:
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-21
18:58 ---
I don't think this is a bug in the front-end.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22596
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-21
18:57 ---
Note both Comeau and ICC have this same behavior.
Even the following code calls the second declaration too:
template struct A_class
{
int do_it(int i){return T::f(i);}
};
template int foo(A a);
template
--- Additional Comments From phenning at lanl dot gov 2005-07-21 18:48
---
Created an attachment (id=9324)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=9324&action=view)
sample code illustrating problem
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22596
Compiling the following code with "g++ -c -fno-implict-templates" always
generates code for the
second definition of foo(). It appears that g++ is automatically deducing the
template parameters from
the function parameters, even though the template parameters are explicitly
given in the expli
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-21
18:29 ---
Subject: Bug 22358
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-07-21 18:29:06
Modified files:
gcc/cp : ChangeLog class.c
gcc/testsu
--
Bug 22368 depends on bug 22358, which changed state.
Bug 22358 Summary: C++ front-end produces mis-match types in MODIFY_EXPR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22358
What|Old Value |New Value
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-21
18:29 ---
Fixed.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-21
18:08 ---
Confirmed.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
E
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-21
18:07 ---
Confirmed.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
E
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-21
18:04 ---
Fixed for 3.4.0 and upwards.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
--- Additional Comments From janis at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-21 17:59
---
The test case passes for me on powerpc-linux with GCC 3.4.x and fails with
everything later. Is the mudflap output enough to track down the problem,
or would the results of a regression hunt still help?
--
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-21
17:58 ---
Confirmed.
Testcase:
include "core.hh"
typedef unsigned int size_t;
namespace std
{
using ::size_t;
}
--
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-21
17:54 ---
I wonder if this is not really a bug in libstdc++. with -fmudflap:
***
mudflap violation 1 (check/write): time=1121968411.144393 ptr=0xbffa2030 size=4
pc=0x226d6d location=`t1.cc:9808 (std::_List_iterat
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-21
17:44 ---
Here is a shorter testcase:
namespace s
{
template struct _List_base
{
int _M_impl;
};
template struct list : _List_base
{
using _List_base::_M_impl;
}
}
s::list<1> OutputModuleListType;
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-21
17:37 ---
*** Bug 22593 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-21
17:37 ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 22514 ***
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-21
17:23 ---
Confirmed.
--
What|Removed |Added
URL||http://gcc
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-21
17:10 ---
This was already decided against being fixed for 4.0.x series.
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-21
17:07 ---
The problem is related to PR22585 where another ICE with long doubles occurs.
Unfortunately Uros' patch doesn't fix the problem there.
--
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Additional Comments From reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-21
17:05 ---
Confirmed (at least the ICE in redirect_branch_edge and extract_insn,
I cannot reproduce the one in expand_simple_unop).
Reduced testcase:
=
struct A
{
long double d;
};
int foo
--- Additional Comments From debian-gcc at lists dot debian dot org
2005-07-21 17:05 ---
Created an attachment (id=9323)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=9323&action=view)
testcase
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22595
--
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||4.0.2
Known to work||3.4.4 4.1.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id
[forwarded from http://bugs.debian.org/319309]
regression from 3.4, fixed in 4.1
Compile the attached example source code with:
g++ -Wall -O3 -c bug.cc
g++ produces the warning:
bug.cc:9: warning: control may reach end of non-void function 'char* f(char*)'
being inlined
This is wrong,
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-21
17:03 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> It would greatly help to identify the patch that broke either this PR or PR
> 22513. One possible offender is the new alias stuff by Diego/Daniel.
Also Paolo said it works on the
--- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2005-07-21
16:59 ---
It would greatly help to identify the patch that broke either this PR or PR
22513. One possible offender is the new alias stuff by Diego/Daniel.
--
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-21
16:56 ---
One thing you don't need gcc-ada-fwrapv.patch any more. The rest except for
20297 I trust are good
as most are my patches.
--
What|Removed |Added
-
--
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #9319|application/octet-stream|text/plain
mime type||
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22590
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-21
16:52 ---
Could you send your patch to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
What|Removed |Added
GCC build triplet|i68
--
What|Removed |Added
CC||wintermute2k4 at ntlworld
||dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla
--- Additional Comments From wintermute2k4 at ntlworld dot com 2005-07-21
16:46 ---
Created an attachment (id=9322)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=9322&action=view)
proposed patch to hwint.h
the attached patch seems to fix the problem
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzi
For mips target hosted on mingw32 building libgcc2 fails.
ccAF.s: Assembler messages:
ccAF.s:19: Warning: expected `$'
ccAF.s:19: Error: junk at end of line, first unrecognized character is `n'
make[2]: *** [libgcc/./_muldi3.o] Error 1
the offending code is the function prologue prod
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-21
16:39 ---
No I think this code is in fact invalid and should error out like this. Note
you also declared operator==
as being hidden too. So if you call that, it would break too.
--
What|Removed
--- Additional Comments From reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-21
16:36 ---
Confirmed.
Appeared with gcc 3.4.0. Only affects 3.4 branch.
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-21
16:35 ---
I think this is a dup of bug 22514. One thing that makes me think it is a dup
of that bug is that the
dates match up to the dates in that bug.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22593
--- Additional Comments From micis at gmx dot de 2005-07-21 16:22 ---
Created an attachment (id=9321)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=9321&action=view)
preprocessed source
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22593
When I compile one of our files with the actual snapshot of gcc41 I get an ICE.
The last snapshot which works is gcc-4.1-20050604,
the first that fails is gcc-4.1-20050611
Michael Cieslinski
g++41g -g -c -o AutoFocus.o AutoFocus.ii
AutoFocus.ii:32394: error: 'CompressDefault' was not declared
--
What|Removed |Added
CC||mueller at kde dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22592
1 - 100 of 154 matches
Mail list logo
