--- Comment #9 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-30 07:28 ---
Fixed by (on both the mainline and the 4.1 branch):
2005-11-24 Bruce Korb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* fixincl.c(write_replacement) "here strings" in AutoGen
often/generally
don't have a terminating newli
--- Comment #4 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-30 07:03
---
The patch in comment #2 causes PR25594.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25419
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-30 07:00 ---
Confirmed, this is obviously should be rejected.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-30 06:57 ---
Confirmed, this is an ICE. Backtrace:
#0 check_operator_interface (intr=0x41d017f0, operator=INTRINSIC_ASSIGN) at
/Users/pinskia/src/gcc/alias/gcc/gcc/fortran/interface.c:508
#1 0x0001b684 in check_operator_interf
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-30 06:50 ---
Confirmed, (this is an ICE), the backtrace:
#0 0x00061f8c in gfc_conv_scalarized_array_ref (se=0xb820, ar=0x41d05504)
at /Users/pinskia/src/gcc/alias/gcc/gcc/fortran/trans-array.c:1884
#1 0x00061f74 in gfc_conv
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-30 06:48 ---
Confirmed.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCON
--- Comment #5 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-30 06:44 ---
*** Bug 25105 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-30 06:44 ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 23091 ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfi
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-30 06:33 ---
You want to use STAGE1_CFLAGS to add -ieee for building with the compiler.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #19 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-30 06:30
---
*** Bug 25599 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-30 06:30 ---
This is a dup of bug 21275.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 21275 ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #2 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-30 06:17
---
This test case does not fail with 4.0.3. That makes this a regression.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25598
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-30 06:01 ---
Do you have the GNU binutils installed or are you using the Sun provided one?
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|blocker |normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25596
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25600
The following functions should produce the same asm (only f3 and f1 produce the
optimial code):
int f(unsigned x)
{
return x >> 31 ? -1 : 0;
}
int f2(int x)
{
return x >> 31 ? -1 : 0;
}
int f1(int x)
{
return (x >> 31);
}
int f3(unsigned x)
{
return (-(x>>31));
}
int f4(unsigned x)
{
x
--- Comment #12 from danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-30 05:54
---
Subject: Bug 25586
Author: danglin
Date: Fri Dec 30 05:54:17 2005
New Revision: 109169
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=109169
Log:
PR fortran/25586
* pa.md: Remove REG_POINTE
--- Comment #11 from danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-30 05:50
---
Subject: Bug 25586
Author: danglin
Date: Fri Dec 30 05:50:44 2005
New Revision: 109168
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=109168
Log:
PR fortran/25586
* pa.md: Remove REG_POINTE
--- Comment #10 from danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-30 05:47
---
Subject: Bug 25586
Author: danglin
Date: Fri Dec 30 05:47:53 2005
New Revision: 109167
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=109167
Log:
PR fortran/25586
* pa.md: Remove REG_POINTE
--- Comment #6 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-30 05:45 ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> int f(int x)
> {
> return x >> 31 ? -1 : 1;
> }
And we are missing an optimization here.
Right now (well before this patch) we optimization it as:
(- (((unsigned)x)>>31))|1
we we can o
--- Comment #9 from danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-30 05:44 ---
Subject: Bug 25586
Author: danglin
Date: Fri Dec 30 05:44:16 2005
New Revision: 109166
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=109166
Log:
PR fortran/25586
* pa.md: Remove REG_POINTER
--- Comment #2 from deji_aking at yahoo dot ca 2005-12-30 04:50 ---
While I now have a better understanding of this code, and can work around this
particular bug; all reduced testcases I'have been coming up with seems to work,
and the original (attached) code doesn't. So I'm closing this
--- Comment #1 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-30 04:39
---
Confirmed.
--
jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Statu
--- Comment #28 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-30 03:49 ---
Created an attachment (id=10568)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10568&action=view)
mail surrounding namespace association development
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24660
--- Comment #27 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-30 03:48 ---
Created an attachment (id=10567)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10567&action=view)
files from kona meeting
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24660
--- Comment #4 from pbrook at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-30 01:09 ---
Subject: Bug 23482
Author: pbrook
Date: Fri Dec 30 01:09:11 2005
New Revision: 109164
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=109164
Log:
2005-12-30 Paul Brook <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR target/
--- Comment #9 from eedelman at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-29 22:35
---
Patch posted here: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2005-12/msg00511.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22607
--- Comment #2 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-29 21:54 ---
Are you seeing the same problem with more recent compilers, like GCC 4.0 or a
GCC 4.1 snapshot?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24376
--- Comment #7 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-29 21:52 ---
This bug report is for a really old compiler.
Would I hurt anyone's feelings if I just close this bug as WONTFIX? :-)
--
steven at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Ad
--- Comment #3 from paragw at excite dot com 2005-12-29 21:46 ---
20583 and 18592 seem to be similar to this but I am leaving this open as the
platform (m68K vs WinXP) and component (gcc vs g++) are different. Will try
4.1.0 snapshot and close this one if found fixed.
--
http://gcc.
--- Comment #2 from paragw at excite dot com 2005-12-29 21:36 ---
C:\Qt\4.1.0\src\gui>gcc -v
Using built-in specs.
Target: mingw32
Configured with: ../gcc-4.0.2/configure --host=mingw32 --build=mingw32
--prefix=
e:/mingw4 --without-gnu-ld --without-gnu-as --disable-nls
--disable-win32-re
--- Comment #1 from paragw at excite dot com 2005-12-29 21:36 ---
Created an attachment (id=10566)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10566&action=view)
Preprocessed Source
Preprocessed source for the failing file.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=255
G++ fails with an internal compiler error while compiling Qt 4.1 on Windows XP.
g++ -c -include tmp\obj\release_shared\qt_gui_pch.h -O2 -O2 -Wall -frtti
-fno-ex
ceptions -DQT_SHARED -DQT_THREAD_SUPPORT -DUNICODE -DQT_LARGEFILE_SUPPORT
-DQT_E
DITION=QT_EDITION_DESKTOP -DQT_BUILD_GUI_LIB -DQT_MAKEDL
figured with: ../gcc/configure --prefix=/Users/dir/gfortran
--enable-languages=c,f95
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.2.0 20051229 (experimental)
[dranta:~/tests/gfortran-D] dir%
--
Summary: gfortran - Fortran runtime error: Invalid argument
Product: gcc
Version: 4.2.
--- Comment #3 from eedelman at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-29 20:57
---
I think this simple one-liner fixes the bug:
Index: interface.c
===
--- interface.c (revision 109139)
+++ interface.c (working copy)
@@ -1718,6 +1718
--- Comment #8 from eedelman at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-29 20:52
---
It seems my patch fixed pure by-reference functions only for internal
functions. Pure by-ref. module functions still doesn't work:
erik:/home/gcc/head/test$ cat pure_byref_3.f90
module huj_mod
contains
pure
--- Comment #2 from eedelman at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-29 20:01
---
Working on a patch.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25396
--- Comment #2 from roger at eyesopen dot com 2005-12-29 19:42 ---
Investigating further, PR25213 looks like a duplicate of PR23098.
In that bugzilla trail, Andrew correctly identified it as a
regression from gcc 3.2.3 when using -fpic/-fPIC on x86, but the
PR was closed once the fix was
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-29 18:21 ---
Confirmed, not a regression.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-29 18:13 ---
Reduced testcase:
FUNCTION reallocate_hnv(p,n,LEN)
CHARACTER(LEN=LEN), DIMENSION(:), POINTER :: reallocate_hnv
ALLOCATE(reallocate_hnv(n),stat=ierr)
END FUNCTION reallocate_hnv
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/
--- Comment #1 from krange at lhup dot edu 2005-12-29 18:02 ---
Created an attachment (id=10565)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10565&action=view)
self contained (but probably not minimal) source that triggers ICE
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/UMN_Projects/Software/Libraries/YorkLib_test>
gfortran20051228
-v -save-temps -c -g bug.f95
Using built-in specs.
Target: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
Configured with: ../gcc/configure --program-suffix=20051228
--enable-languages=fortran
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.2.0 200512
--- Comment #5 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-29 17:55 ---
Patch installed.
--
ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
--- Comment #4 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-29 17:55 ---
Patch installed.
--
ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
--- Comment #5 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-29 17:54 ---
Patch installed.
--
ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-29 17:21 ---
Patch here: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-12/msg01906.html
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #1 from dir at lanl dot gov 2005-12-29 15:34 ---
Here is another test example that more clearly shows the problem (The f90
output is correct) -
[dranta:~/tests/gfortran-D] dir% f90 -o sage03 sage03.f90
[dranta:~/tests/gfortran-D] dir% sage03
1
--- Comment #8 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-29 12:32 ---
Is this still a problem?
I certainly can't reproduce this on sparc*-linux:
struct B1_m_outer_p_inner {
char c;
double d;
} __attribute__ ((aligned)) __attribute__ ((packed)) s;
extern void abort (void);
int main ()
--- Comment #3 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-29 12:15 ---
This really needs to be investigated by someone with native hpux access.
All that I can add is that the problem is not present on ia64-linux, so it
could
very well be a bug in hpux runtime or in hpux assembler or linke
--- Comment #8 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-29 11:53 ---
I don't think this is a bug, in fact, not honoring the volatile in GCC 4.0.x
and earlier was a bug. If you want to allow byte access rather than word
access, you really need to remove the volatile keyword and then it
--
jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
|dot org
Hi. This is my first "bug" report, so don't shoot at me if it not in the rules
of art, better teach me..
Compiling snapshots gcc-4.1 core & g++ of 20051029 and 20051223 on :
SunOS 5.8 Generic_117350-24 sun4u sparc SUNW,Sun-Fire-880
gave the same error message at the same place : when compili
--- Comment #3 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-29 10:04 ---
Couldn't reproduce, on neither 4way nor UP box, with various OMP_NUM_THREADS
settings in environment. The valgrind output isn't really helpful, because
when it reaches unhandled insn, all bets are off what happens aft
--- Comment #5 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-29 09:56 ---
The patch you identified as "breaking" this, is correct. Your bug is
elsewhere. But, there is no way to tell where without a test case.
Unless you're going to talk about public viewable sources, perhaps you should
--- Comment #10 from martin at mpa-garching dot mpg dot de 2005-12-29
09:12 ---
I just recompiled and everything works nicely again. Thanks!
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25532
56 matches
Mail list logo
