--- Comment #1 from laurent at guerby dot net 2006-01-18 07:27 ---
Confirmed on 4.1 and 4.2:
gcc -c -gnat05 bugs_test.adb
+===GNAT BUG DETECTED==+
| 4.2.0 20060112 (experimental) (i686-pc-linux-gnu) Assert_Failure
einfo.adb:507|
| Erro
--- Comment #8 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-18 06:48
---
Fixed on 4.1 and 4.2
--
jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.1.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25697
--- Comment #14 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-18 06:41
---
Fixed on 4.2, will commit to 4.1 in a few days. PR 25835 remains a separate
problem. Cases in comment #8 and #9 go to PR25835.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25697
--- Comment #13 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-18 06:23
---
Subject: Bug 25697
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Wed Jan 18 06:23:24 2006
New Revision: 109872
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=109872
Log:
2006-01-17 Jerry DeLisle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Comment #12 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-18 06:21
---
Subject: Bug 25697
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Wed Jan 18 06:21:28 2006
New Revision: 109870
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=109870
Log:
2006-01-17 Jerry DeLisle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Comment #8 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-18 05:47 ---
Dale,
I have calmed down a bit now! As I said, I put a lot into trying to get this
right; trunk is, of course, experimental and one should reasonably expect
problems of this kind to get ironed out on the fly. That it
--- Comment #7 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-18 04:57 ---
Hmm, I get (but that looks like different branch predictions):
_testf:
fldl4(%esp)
ftst
fnstsw %ax
testb $64, %ah
jne L10
ftst
fnstsw %ax
fs
This patch
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-01/msg00463.html
breaks libjava on Linux/x86-64. I got many libjavaa failures:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] testsuite]$ gdb ./PR9577
GNU gdb Red Hat Linux (6.3.0.0-1.63rh)
Copyright 2004 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
GDB is free software, covered by the GN
--- Comment #8 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-18 05:07 ---
We get now:
movb(%eax), %al
andl$1, %eax
xorl$1, %eax
andl$1, %eax
ret
(insn 23 22 24 4 (parallel [
(set (reg:QI 63)
(and:QI (mem/s
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-18 04:45 ---
The problem here is that we don't split up the subregister early before
register allocation.
If we split it up before combine, we would be able to combine the or and get
the more optimial results.
A patch like
http:
--- Comment #7 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-18 04:32
---
Subject: Bug 25631
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Wed Jan 18 04:32:16 2006
New Revision: 109869
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=109869
Log:
2006-01-17 Jerry DeLisle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Comment #6 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-18 04:27
---
Subject: Bug 25631
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Wed Jan 18 04:27:31 2006
New Revision: 109868
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=109868
Log:
2006-01-17 Jerry DeLisle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Comment #19 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-18 03:44
---
*** Bug 25839 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-18 03:44 ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 20548 ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
There are three test failures as shown below.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] build-4.1.0]$ make -C gcc check-ada
make: Entering directory `/home/voax/build-4.1.0/gcc'
test -d testsuite/ada/acats || mkdir -p testsuite/ada/acats
testdir=`cd ../../gcc-4.1-20060106/gcc/testsuite/ada/acats; ${PWDCMD-pwd}`; \
export
gnatmake -c -u -P/home/voax/gps-prj/ada-2005/bugs/assert_failure.gpr
bugs_test.adb -d
gcc -c -gnat05 -I- -gnatA /home/voax/gps-prj/ada-2005/bugs/bugs_test.adb
+===GNAT BUG DETECTED==+
| 4.1.0 20060106 (prerelease) (i686-pc-linux-gnu) Assert_Failur
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-18 03:19 ---
Could you do a regression hunt on this bug?
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-18 03:17 ---
Confirmed, this is a weird failure.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #11 from dick_guertin at yahoo dot com 2006-01-18 03:10 ---
I think I've found the 'smoking gun'. Here is a listing of NSCAN
void NSCAN()
{
unsigned char *token;
long token_length;
long r[16];
r[3] = htonl(R2);
r[4] = htonl(R3);
r[5]
--- Comment #1 from jjamison at cs dot berkeley dot edu 2006-01-18 03:03
---
Also, the behavior is the same for gcc versions 4.0.1, 4.0.0, 3.4.4, and 3.4.3.
gcc version 3.3.4 does not appear to have the bug.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25836
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ~/harmonia/src-main/langs2/java/delta]$
/usr/misc/pkg/gcc-4.0.2/bin/g++ -v
Using built-in specs.
Target: i686-pc-linux-gnu
Configured with: ../gcc-4.0.2/configure --prefix=/usr/misc/pkg/gcc-4.0.2
--enable-shared --enable-threads=posix --with-system-zlib --with-gnu-as
--with-as=/us
--- Comment #1 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-18 02:12
---
The following chunk from fd_alloc is where the problem occurs. Get rid of
setting active to zero and the error goes away, but regression occurs in
direct_io_2.f90. Perhaps active needs to be set to zero somewhe
This PR is branched from PR25697 and appears to be a problem in fd_alloc
related to setting s->active = 0 when it should not for buffer sizes greater
than 8192 bytes. The following test case appears to not fail when the data
array is 2044 elements ans gives a runtime when 2045. This is the 8192 b
--- Comment #5 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-18 01:06
---
Subject: Bug 25631
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Wed Jan 18 01:06:08 2006
New Revision: 109860
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=109860
Log:
2006-01-17 Jerry DeLisle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Comment #17 from hjl at lucon dot org 2006-01-18 00:58 ---
An updated patch is posted at
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-01/msg01061.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24419
--- Comment #1 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2006-01-18
00:52 ---
Subject: Re: New: CXF3A01 core dump
cxf3a02 also fails at the same place:
Core was generated by `cxf3a02'.
Program terminated with signal 4, Illegal instruction.
warning: The shared libraries were not p
--- Comment #4 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-18 00:52
---
Subject: Bug 25631
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Wed Jan 18 00:52:21 2006
New Revision: 109858
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=109858
Log:
2006-01-17 Jerry DeLisle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Comment #16 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-18 00:35
---
What seems the resolution of this bug, from what I gather from RTH, this is not
a bug.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24419
--- Comment #10 from cvs-commit at developer dot classpath dot org
2006-01-18 00:19 ---
Subject: Bug 20198
CVSROOT:/cvsroot/classpath
Module name:classpath
Branch:
Changes by: Tom Tromey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>06/01/18 00:19:13
Modified files:
.
--- Comment #9 from tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-18 00:19 ---
Fixed in classpath cvs; also in gcc 4.1.
--
tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #13 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2006-01-18
00:14 ---
Subject: Re: ACATS ce3810b segfaults at runtime
> cxf3a02 also fails at the same place:
Oops, this was misdirected. It should have gone to PR ada/25819.
Dave
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bu
--- Comment #12 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2006-01-18
00:09 ---
Subject: Re: ACATS ce3810b segfaults at runtime
>What|Removed |Added
>
> GCC target triple
--- Comment #11 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2006-01-17
23:49 ---
Subject: Re: ACATS ce3810b segfaults at runtime
cxf3a02 also fails at the same place:
Core was generated by `cxf3a02'.
Program terminated with signal 4, Illegal instruction.
warning: The shared librarie
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-17 23:33 ---
Coonfirmed.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCO
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-17 23:33 ---
Confirmed.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCON
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-17 23:33 ---
Confirmed.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCON
--- Comment #8 from tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-17 23:25 ---
Subject: Bug 20198
Author: tromey
Date: Tue Jan 17 23:25:12 2006
New Revision: 109844
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=109844
Log:
PR classpath/20198:
* java/net/URLClassLoader.j
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-17 23:23 ---
This one is because you did not read the instructions.
http://gcc.gnu.org/install/prerequisites.html
GNU tar version 1.12 (or later)
Necessary (only on some platforms) to untar the source code. Many systems' tar
pr
The command:
bzcat ../images/gcc-4.0.2/gcc-4.0.2.tar.bz2 | tar xf -
causes these errors
tar: can't create
gcc-4.0.2/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/tr1/4_metaprogramming/primary_type_categories/is_member_function_po:
Is a directory
tar: can't create
gcc-4.0.2/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/tr1/4_metaprogramming/
On sh64-elf, the program
void
foo (float *dest_y, const float *abase_n, float bbase_yn,
int count, int xcount, int ycount)
{
int x, y, n;
for (y = 0; y < ycount; y++)
for (n = 0; n < count; n++)
for (x = 0; x < xcount; x++)
dest_y[x] += abase_n[x] * bbase_yn;
}
causes
--- Comment #7 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-17 22:34 ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> This bug has now migrated into the 4.1 tree. Sometime after the 20060104
> version Would it not be easier to elminate the offending updates rather than
> debug them ?
>
Yes, it might be easi
--- Comment #28 from matz at suse dot de 2006-01-17 22:31 ---
And indeed with this testcase:
typedef int BOOL;
typedef unsigned int UINT;
typedef struct {
BOOL fFullPathTitle:1;
BOOL fSaveLocalView:1;
BOOL fNotShell:1;
BOO
--
rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot
|dot org
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-17 22:27 ---
This was PR 24107 which was only fixed in 4.1.0.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|FAIL: gcc.dg/20050922-1.c |[4.0 only] FAIL:
|(test for excess errors)|gcc.
Executing on host: /test/gnu/gcc-4.0/objdir/gcc/xgcc
-B/test/gnu/gcc-4.0/objdir/
gcc/ /test/gnu/gcc-4.0/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/20050922-1.c -O1 -std=c99
-lm
-o ./20050922-1.exe(timeout = 300)
/test/gnu/gcc-4.0/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/20050922-1.c:8:20: error: stdint.h:
N
o such file or
--- Comment #12 from simon at pushface dot org 2006-01-17 22:14 ---
Subject: Re: Dividing fixed point number by zero returns zero.
On 17 Jan 2006, at 21:31, listor1 dot rombobeorn at comhem dot se wrote:
> Excuse me, what's the reason for marking this bug as invalid? That an
> excepti
--- Comment #27 from matz at suse dot de 2006-01-17 22:12 ---
Funnily I've also looked at stor-layout.c a bit, and basically came to
a similar conclusion and patch like Steven. I agree that as per documentation
PCC_BITFIELD_TYPE_MATTERS overrides EMPTY_FIELD_BOUNDARY. But that was
also
--- Comment #1 from jb at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-17 22:10 ---
Switched dependencies to the correct order.
--
jb at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from jb at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-17 22:07 ---
Change severity to enhancement.
--
jb at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Sev
Currently the gfortran IO library is supposed to be thread safe. Additionally,
allowing multiple processes to access the same file could be useful, and if we
eventually want to support co-arrays with multiple processes, it will be needed
as co-arrays specify that multiple images can access a single
--- Comment #8 from pedz at easesoftware dot net 2006-01-17 22:02 ---
Note that 25824 is a close cousin to this bug report.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25823
--- Comment #4 from pedz at easesoftware dot net 2006-01-17 22:01 ---
No, I did not. Since your update, I've looked for some documentation and can
not find any. If you can point me to some, then I will be happy to investigate
futher.
I assume that LIBCXXFLAGS or LIBCFLAGS may be able
--- Comment #7 from gdr at cs dot tamu dot edu 2006-01-17 22:00 ---
Subject: Re: "pure virtual" destructors accepted by GCC, but cause link
failure
"lloyd at randombit dot net" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| I'm now not quite sure what purpose a pure virtual destructor has,
the useful
F2003 supports the ASYNCHRONOUS='YES' specifier in some IO statements, as well
as the WAIT io-unit statement.
--
Summary: [F2003] Asynchronous IO support
Product: gcc
Version: 4.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priorit
ACCESS='STREAM' is IO without any record structure, i.e. it's similar to how IO
is done in C and many other languages.
--
Summary: [f2003] ACCESS='STREAM' io support
Product: gcc
Version: 4.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
--- Comment #6 from lloyd at randombit dot net 2006-01-17 21:39 ---
Thank you for the reference Gaby. I'm now not quite sure what purpose a pure
virtual destructor has, or why it should be legal, but neither the apparent
language oddity nor my confusion about same is a GCC problem, so...
--- Comment #11 from listor1 dot rombobeorn at comhem dot se 2006-01-17
21:31 ---
Subject: Re: Dividing fixed point number by zero returns zero.
Excuse me, what's the reason for marking this bug as invalid? That an
exception on division by zero isn't required?
--
http://gcc.gnu.
--- Comment #5 from gdr at cs dot tamu dot edu 2006-01-17 21:12 ---
Subject: Re: "pure virtual" destructors accepted by GCC, but cause link
failure
"lloyd at randombit dot net" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Ah, I misread it, but the bug should stay open IMO - the invalidity
| of the c
--- Comment #4 from gdr at cs dot tamu dot edu 2006-01-17 21:11 ---
Subject: Re: New: "pure virtual" destructors accepted by GCC, but cause link
failure
"lloyd at randombit dot net" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| The following code:
|
| class A
|{
|public:
| virtual ~A(
"lloyd at randombit dot net" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| The following code:
|
| class A
|{
|public:
| virtual ~A() = 0;
You still need to *define* the destructor. See ยง12.4/7.
-- Gaby
--- Comment #26 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-17 21:07
---
Hi,
I've looked into it for some time, so here is my POV of this ugly issue.
It seems to me that from documentation of EMPTY_FIELD_BOUNDARY in gccint it is
clear that it
should be ignored when PPC_BITFIELD_TYPE_MAT
--- Comment #17 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-17 21:02
---
*** Bug 25827 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-17 21:02 ---
See http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-3.4/changes.html
and PR 12970
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 12970 ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Adde
The following code compiles perfectly with gcc 3.3.3 (xlc,icc):
g++ (GCC) 3.3.3 20040412 (Red Hat Linux 3.3.3-7)
With gcc 4.0.2:
> g++ -v
Using built-in specs.
Target: i486-linux-gnu
Configured with: ../src/configure -v
--enable-languages=c,c++,java,f95,objc,ada,treelang --prefix=/usr
--with-gxx-i
--- Comment #6 from hjl at lucon dot org 2006-01-17 20:58 ---
The patch doesn't work on Linux/ia64. --gc-sections is ignored on Linux/ia64:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] tmp]$ gcc -Wl,--gc-sections x.c
/usr/local/bin/ld: Warning: gc-sections option ignored
I got many
/usr/local/bin/ld: Warning: g
--- Comment #10 from dick_guertin at yahoo dot com 2006-01-17 20:55 ---
I rebuilt with -O2 AND -g, and got the following trace. Notice the while-loop
in nscan, statements 1141 thru 1147 are four single statements. The "next"
trace by gdb shows them occuring multiple times. This should
--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-17 20:55 ---
Lets close it as fixed then.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #7 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-17 20:53 ---
Confirmed, this looks obviously broken.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #8 from rearnsha at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-17 20:32
---
Fixed
--
rearnsha at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|SUSPEN
--- Comment #4 from rearnsha at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-17 20:32
---
Closing as WORKSFORME. I didn't have to change anything in the middle-end in
order to fix the ARM back-end.
Maybe the documentation should be updated to reflect this status.
--
rearnsha at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-17 20:23 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> i) The reason why you are able to set a breakpoint here is the consequence of
> the testclass having only one single (non-trivial) constructor and no base
> class. The problem becomes apar
--- Comment #7 from rearnsha at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-17 20:22
---
Subject: Bug 592
Author: rearnsha
Date: Tue Jan 17 20:22:19 2006
New Revision: 109839
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=109839
Log:
PR target/592
PR middle-end/11135
*
--- Comment #3 from rearnsha at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-17 20:22
---
Subject: Bug 11135
Author: rearnsha
Date: Tue Jan 17 20:22:19 2006
New Revision: 109839
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=109839
Log:
PR target/592
PR middle-end/11135
--- Comment #3 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2006-01-17 20:18 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> Does this work now since the bug which I pointed to has beend fixed?
I think so, everything is fine in all my tests.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25787
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-17 20:15 ---
Does this work now since the bug which I pointed to has beend fixed?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25787
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P5
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25785
--- Comment #6 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-17 20:14 ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> This bug has now migrated into the 4.1 tree. Sometime after the 20060104
> version Would it not be easier to elminate the offending updates rather than
> debug them ?
It might but since I
--- Comment #6 from laurent at guerby dot net 2006-01-17 20:13 ---
Dave reported the patch fixed the problem
--
laurent at guerby dot net changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #5 from dir at lanl dot gov 2006-01-17 20:07 ---
This bug has now migrated into the 4.1 tree. Sometime after the 20060104
version Would it not be easier to elminate the offending updates rather than
debug them ?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25785
--- Comment #7 from tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-17 19:59 ---
Subject: Bug 20198
Author: tromey
Date: Tue Jan 17 19:59:29 2006
New Revision: 109837
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=109837
Log:
PR classpath/20198:
* java/net/URLClassLoader.j
--- Comment #30 from bero at arklinux dot org 2006-01-17 19:36 ---
Created an attachment (id=10665)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10665&action=view)
asm code generated by current 4.1 SVN
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22313
--- Comment #29 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-17 19:36
---
(In reply to comment #27)
> Still breaks for me on 4.1 branch too (4.1 branch SVN ID 109831).
> Linux x86, binutils 2.16.91.0.4
Can you file a different bug and attach the .s file? Because I don't see this
at all
--- Comment #28 from bero at arklinux dot org 2006-01-17 19:35 ---
Created an attachment (id=10664)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10664&action=view)
Preprocessed source of code triggering this in current 4.1 SVN
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22
--- Comment #27 from bero at arklinux dot org 2006-01-17 19:34 ---
Still breaks for me on 4.1 branch too (4.1 branch SVN ID 109831).
Linux x86, binutils 2.16.91.0.4
The error is related but slightly different and on a different file these days:
c-errors.c -o c-errors.o
stage1/xgcc -Bst
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-17 19:33 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> Ah, I misread it, but the bug should stay open IMO - the invalidity of the
> code
> reduces it to "GCC doesn't reject invalid code", which is obviously a low
> priority, but still a bug, n
--- Comment #2 from lloyd at randombit dot net 2006-01-17 19:32 ---
Ah, I misread it, but the bug should stay open IMO - the invalidity of the code
reduces it to "GCC doesn't reject invalid code", which is obviously a low
priority, but still a bug, no?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-17 19:31 ---
Did you try LIBCXXFLAGS and LIBCFLAGS?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25825
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-17 19:27 ---
You still need to declare A::~A().
That is what the following passage from that doc means:
Of course, any derived class' destructor must call the base class' destructor,
and so the destructor must still be defined
The following code:
class A
{
public:
virtual ~A() = 0;
};
class B : public A
{
public:
~B() {}
};
int main()
{
B b;
}
compiles with GCC 4.0.2 (clean with -ansi -Wall -Wextra) but does not link due
to an undefined reference to ~A(). Herb Sutter claims this
--- Comment #6 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2006-01-17 19:08 ---
If it's not abvious already to everyone, the reason the issue didn't show up
before on linux is that, when _GLIBCXX_HOSTED is not defined we are *not*
including an no declaration conflicts with the wrong one.
--
http:
--- Comment #13 from laurent at guerby dot net 2006-01-17 19:02 ---
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2006-01/msg00663.html
cdda01 fails on s390-linux on 4.1 with tree-sra disabled.
,.,. CDD2A01 ACATS 2.5 06-01-16 19:32:21
CDD2A01 Check that the Read and Write attributes for a
--- Comment #9 from dick_guertin at yahoo dot com 2006-01-17 19:01 ---
First, I inherited this code from a co-worker who left the University. My
assignment was to keep this code working because the University relies on it.
Everything was fine until we went from 3.3.1 to 3.4.4, and then
--- Comment #5 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2006-01-17 18:50 ---
I have just completed succesfully a build on linux with both patches applied.
Look fine to me.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25823
--- Comment #4 from pedz at easesoftware dot net 2006-01-17 18:40 ---
I have not tried it and do not have the equipment to try it except on a Mac. I
can do that if it would help.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25823
--- Comment #2 from pedz at easesoftware dot net 2006-01-17 18:38 ---
Created an attachment (id=10663)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10663&action=view)
Suggested patch to ppc64-fp.c
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25825
--- Comment #1 from pedz at easesoftware dot net 2006-01-17 18:37 ---
Created an attachment (id=10662)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10662&action=view)
Suggested patch to t-aix52
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25825
On AIX, a device driver or kernel extension can not use floating point. I did
not see a way via the configure options to get libstdc++ built with a
-msoft-float option. But there is an option to remove libraries from the list.
So I changed t-aix52 to create versions of libstdc++ to use soft floa
--- Comment #18 from bero at arklinux dot org 2006-01-17 18:25 ---
If I compile without the compiler flag settings and make bootstrap instead of
profiledbootstrap, it throws the exception as expected rather than causing a
SIGABRT.
The cause is probably somewhere else in gcc; 4.0.2 works
1 - 100 of 143 matches
Mail list logo
