--- Comment #2 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-28 07:13
---
I have confirmed this failure is in 4.1 as well.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26001
--- Comment #1 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-28 07:12
---
Created an attachment (id=10746)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10746&action=view)
Source file that fails.
Attached is the source file.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=260
The LAPACK testsuite fails with the following error message with -O3
-march=pentium4 -funroll-loops:
At line 1162 of file schkee.f
Fortran runtime error: Bad integer for item 1 in list input
This is not a gfortran frontend problem because LAPACK passes fine without
optimization.
Using built-in s
--- Comment #11 from kazu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-28 05:25 ---
Just checked in a patch to mainline.
--
kazu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #10 from kazu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-28 05:19 ---
Subject: Bug 19606
Author: kazu
Date: Sat Jan 28 05:19:44 2006
New Revision: 110321
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=110321
Log:
gcc/
PR c/19606.
* c-typeck.c (build_binary_op): P
--- Comment #10 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-28 04:31
---
noreturn vs sibcall:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2000-10/msg00180.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2002-09/msg00211.html
PR 10837
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25957
--- Comment #14 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-28 04:13
---
For the code in Comment #4, there are two questions:
1. Which of the three template functions is called by main?
2. Which of the three template functions is specialized by the explicit
specialization?
The type
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-28 04:09 ---
Confirmed.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCON
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-28 04:09 ---
Confirmed.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCON
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-28 04:07 ---
No feedback in 3 months (well 5 in this case).
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-28 04:06 ---
We should be able to create a PHI for this case.
Hmm, maybe I don't understand load PRE but for some reason I thought it would
be able to do this case:
int *t;
int g(int);
int f(int tt)
{
int *t1 = t;
if (*t1)
--- Comment #81 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-28 03:56
---
*** Bug 26000 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 2006-01-28 03:56 ---
this is a dup of bug 323. The issue is more complex than you think, even
though in this case you get the same answer for the optimized case and not for
the unoptimized case. Using -ffloat-store will get you a zero
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |mark at codesourcery dot com
|dot org
Platform: i686 Linux 2.6.11
gcc version:
> gcc -v
Using built-in specs.
Target: i386-redhat-linux
Configured with: ../configure --prefix=/usr --mandir=/usr/share/man
--infodir=/usr/share/info --enable-shared --enable-threads=posix
--enable-checking=release --with-system-zlib --enable-__cxa_atexit
--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-28 00:54 ---
Nobody can reproduce your failure and it has been over 6 months now. Closing
as worksforme.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #5 from dtemirbulatov at gmail dot com 2006-01-28 00:52 ---
Created an attachment (id=10745)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10745&action=view)
fix
this patch allows testcases to get passed
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20036
--- Comment #8 from amodra at bigpond dot net dot au 2006-01-28 00:17
---
There is no reason to say that wrong long double -> float conversion code
emitted by gcc is some fault of the long double design. It is relatively easy
to convert correctly:
float long_double_to_float (long doub
--- Comment #43 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-27 23:25
---
Can we have an update on this or post the patch to get review please?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22275
--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-27 23:10 ---
Fixed in 4.1.0.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|
--- Comment #5 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-27 22:34 ---
Fixed on trunk and 4.1
Paul
--
pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-27 22:33 ---
Fixed on trunk and 4.1
Paul
Andrew, I have not forgotten the type checking - I am working on it for
internal procedures first; gfortran might be OK but the standard is quite
convoluted here and I have not got it comp
--- Comment #6 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-27 22:31 ---
Fixed on trunk and 4.1
Paul
--
pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #13 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-27 22:30 ---
Fixed on trunk and 4.1
Paul
--
pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-27 22:29 ---
Fixed on trunk and 4.1
Paul
--
pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #13 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-27 22:29 ---
> Can someone explain me why a fortran commit shows up as a C++ releated
> commit?
>
> -- Gaby
>
'cos I seem to have goofed on a couple of PR numbers. Sorry.
Paul T
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cg
--- Comment #12 from gdr at cs dot tamu dot edu 2006-01-27 22:27 ---
Subject: Re: [4.0/4.1/4.2 Regression] Fails to compile C++ code when -frepo is
specified.
"pault at gcc dot gnu dot org" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
| URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=110
"pault at gcc dot gnu dot org" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
| URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=110310
| Log:
| 2005-01-28 Paul Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
|
| PR fortran/25964
| * resolve.c (resolve_function): Exclude statement functions from
|
--- Comment #9 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-27 22:24 ---
Fixed on trunk and 4.1
Paul
--
pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #18 from zadeck at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-27 22:23 ---
Subject: Bug 24762
Author: zadeck
Date: Fri Jan 27 22:23:32 2006
New Revision: 110312
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=110312
Log:
2006-01-27 Daniel Berlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Ken
--- Comment #4 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-27 22:23 ---
Fixed on trunk and 4.1
Paul
--
pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-27 22:23 ---
Fixed on trunk and 4.1
Paul
--
pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-27 22:22 ---
Fixed on trunk and 4.1
Paul
--
pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-27 22:21 ---
Fixed on trunk and 4.1
Paul
--
pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-27 22:16 ---
Subject: Bug 25901
Author: pault
Date: Fri Jan 27 22:16:04 2006
New Revision: 110310
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=110310
Log:
2005-01-28 Paul Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR fortran/
--- Comment #5 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-27 22:16 ---
Subject: Bug 25538
Author: pault
Date: Fri Jan 27 22:16:04 2006
New Revision: 110310
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=110310
Log:
2005-01-28 Paul Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR fortran/
--- Comment #3 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-27 22:16 ---
Subject: Bug 25086
Author: pault
Date: Fri Jan 27 22:16:04 2006
New Revision: 110310
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=110310
Log:
2005-01-28 Paul Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR fortran/
--- Comment #12 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-27 22:16 ---
Subject: Bug 23308
Author: pault
Date: Fri Jan 27 22:16:04 2006
New Revision: 110310
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=110310
Log:
2005-01-28 Paul Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR fortran
--- Comment #4 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-27 22:16 ---
Subject: Bug 24276
Author: pault
Date: Fri Jan 27 22:16:04 2006
New Revision: 110310
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=110310
Log:
2005-01-28 Paul Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR fortran/
--- Comment #8 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-27 22:16 ---
Subject: Bug 25416
Author: pault
Date: Fri Jan 27 22:16:04 2006
New Revision: 110310
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=110310
Log:
2005-01-28 Paul Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR fortran/
--- Comment #11 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-27 22:16 ---
Subject: Bug 25625
Author: pault
Date: Fri Jan 27 22:16:04 2006
New Revision: 110310
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=110310
Log:
2005-01-28 Paul Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR fortran
--- Comment #2 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-27 22:16 ---
Subject: Bug 25710
Author: pault
Date: Fri Jan 27 22:16:04 2006
New Revision: 110310
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=110310
Log:
2005-01-28 Paul Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR fortran/
--- Comment #6 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-27 22:16 ---
Subject: Bug 25964
Author: pault
Date: Fri Jan 27 22:16:04 2006
New Revision: 110310
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=110310
Log:
2005-01-28 Paul Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR fortran/
--- Comment #3 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-27 22:16 ---
Subject: Bug 25085
Author: pault
Date: Fri Jan 27 22:16:04 2006
New Revision: 110310
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=110310
Log:
2005-01-28 Paul Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR fortran/
--- Comment #3 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-27 22:16 ---
Subject: Bug 20881
Author: pault
Date: Fri Jan 27 22:16:04 2006
New Revision: 110310
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=110310
Log:
2005-01-28 Paul Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR fortran/
--- Comment #3 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-27 22:16 ---
Subject: Bug 20852
Author: pault
Date: Fri Jan 27 22:16:04 2006
New Revision: 110310
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=110310
Log:
2005-01-28 Paul Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR fortran/
--- Comment #3 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-27 22:16 ---
Subject: Bug 25084
Author: pault
Date: Fri Jan 27 22:16:04 2006
New Revision: 110310
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=110310
Log:
2005-01-28 Paul Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR fortran/
--- Comment #4 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-27 22:01 ---
Fixed in trunk and, in about 15 minutes, on 4.1
Thanks, Steve, for noticing that I had accidentally fixed this.
Paul
--
pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Adde
--- Comment #5 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-27 21:20 ---
Subject: Bug 25964
Author: pault
Date: Fri Jan 27 21:20:12 2006
New Revision: 110307
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=110307
Log:
2005-01-27 Paul Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR fortran/
--- Comment #19 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-27 21:17
---
(In reply to comment #18)
> Created an attachment (id=10564)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10564&action=view) [edit]
> patch against gcc-4.1-20051223
>
> As requested, I am posting Rob's patc
--- Comment #19 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-27 20:59
---
Fixed in 4.1.0.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Statu
--- Comment #6 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-27 20:54 ---
transfer could be converted over to use VIEW_CONVERT_EXPR of the constant but
then again this is in non trans part of the fortran front-end.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-27 20:46 ---
I now get:
end module test_module
1
Internal Error at (1):
write_symbol(): bad module symbol 'UCS-2BE//'
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #29 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-27 20:40
---
Updated patch, which also implements a compile-time option.
Hopefully, this will be reviewed some day.
--
tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-27 20:40 ---
Fixed.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-27 20:13 ---
Confirmed, on the mainline too.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
jason at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |jason at gcc dot gnu dot org
|dot org
--- Comment #7 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-27 19:59 ---
Subject: Bug 25864
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Jan 27 19:59:49 2006
New Revision: 110303
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=110303
Log:
2006-01-27 Jakub Jelinek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR target
The following short program generates the mangled symbol "_Z3Foov" instead of
the expected "Foo" when built with -DBUG. Without -DBUG and the "#pragma weak
Random_Symbol" line, or if using g++ 3.2.3, the expected thing happens.
extern "C" {
void Foo();
}
#ifdef BUG
#pragma weak Random_Symbol
#en
--- Comment #3 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-27 20:04 ---
Subject: Bug 25324
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Jan 27 20:03:59 2006
New Revision: 110305
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=110305
Log:
PR fortran/25324
* Make-lang.in (fortran/scanner.
--- Comment #2 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-27 20:02 ---
Subject: Bug 25324
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Jan 27 20:01:55 2006
New Revision: 110304
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=110304
Log:
PR fortran/25324
* Make-lang.in (fortran/scanner.
--- Comment #4 from alex at milivojevic dot org 2006-01-27 19:34 ---
Some additional info (there's always something else that pops up).
Seems the problem is present only on machine where both of the following are
true:
- processor is UltraSPARC-IIe
- "uname -i" returns SUNW,UltraAX-e
--- Comment #6 from kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-27 19:11 ---
I working on a patch for this.
--
kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #7 from uweigand at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-27 18:43
---
Thanks for fixing this!
Any chance of getting the fix into 4.1, or this is too risky?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25416
--- Comment #6 from tbptbp at gmail dot com 2006-01-27 18:12 ---
Subject: Re: [gomp] transient ICE, c++
On 27 Jan 2006 18:06:23 -, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That is a dup of bug 25990, then.
Technically, it's the other way around ;)
Anyway, it's s
--- Comment #5 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-27 18:06 ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> I'm not sure it's a dupe & fixed, because it also triggered with exceptions
> disabled.
>
> I don't know if the patch for PR/25873 has been applied to the gomp branch or
> not, if not ple
--- Comment #4 from tbptbp at gmail dot com 2006-01-27 18:04 ---
I'm not sure it's a dupe & fixed, because it also triggered with exceptions
disabled.
I don't know if the patch for PR/25873 has been applied to the gomp branch or
not, if not please ignore the spam, but with a fresh svn
--- Comment #10 from markus at oberhumer dot com 2006-01-27 18:03 ---
What is the status of this bug for gcc 4.0.3 ?
According to the thread at
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-01/msg00542.html it seems it has been
approved a while ago.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug
--- Comment #7 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-27 18:03 ---
But this is by design and not a bug in GCC.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-27 18:02 ---
So closing as invalid.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from dje at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-27 17:59 ---
The IBM 128-bit extended floating point format is not fully compliant with IEEE
754. It is functioning as designed.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25960
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-27 17:15 ---
Why do you think this is a GCC bug?
libc_psr is linked in via black magic and not really referenced in the binaries
see:
http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2003-08/msg00343.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/sh
--- Comment #7 from reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-27 17:39
---
Even more compact (because an ostringstream contains a locale as member):
#include
int main()
{
std::locale L;
return 0;
}
This alredy crashes with "-fop
--- Comment #3 from alex at milivojevic dot org 2006-01-27 17:26 ---
I said it might be a bug with gcc. After all, gcc is the only application that
doesn't work correctly on this box. I guess maintainers of any other component
mentioned (gmp, mpfr, binutils, Sun) can say the same thing
--- Comment #18 from eedelman at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-27 17:19
---
Subject: Bug 25716
Author: eedelman
Date: Fri Jan 27 17:19:36 2006
New Revision: 110302
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=110302
Log:
fortran/
2005-01-27 Erik Edelmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Comment #1 from alex at milivojevic dot org 2006-01-27 17:11 ---
Created an attachment (id=10743)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10743&action=view)
test program
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25998
--- Comment #3 from sje at cup dot hp dot com 2006-01-27 17:06 ---
This testsuite failure has been fixed on the main line and in the 4.1 branch by
using long long instead of just long. The test failure does not occur prior to
4.1 because the test is not run on HP-UX prior to 4.1.
--
This might be a bug in any of the following:
- gcc/f951
- gmp
- mpfr
- Sun system libraries
- binutils
- UltraSPARC-IIe (not likely, but you never know)
Of course, there is always possibility it was just me doing something stupid.
If there is any way (or test) to check if bug is in f9
--
jason at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |jason at gcc dot gnu dot org
|dot org
--- Comment #6 from reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-27 16:47
---
Even shorter testcase:
=
#include
int main()
{
std::ostringstream s;
return 0;
}
=
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25527
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-27 16:43 ---
I have a patch.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-27 16:31 ---
Fixed in 4.0.3, This is a dup of bug 19253.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 19253 ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #18 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-27 16:31
---
*** Bug 25997 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
The following code causes an ICE. This code is certainly invalid as it stands,
though it is derived from something larger which I think is valid.
namespace SArray {
class ColumnMajor;
template class Array;
}
template
void xxx(const SArray::Array & arr)
{
SArray::Array arr_contiguous = a
--- Comment #5 from reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-27 16:25
---
I can reproduce the problem on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
with the following testcase:
===
#include
#include
int main()
{
std::complex c;
std::cout << c << std::endl;
}
=
--- Comment #1 from amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-27 16:17 ---
Fixed by:
r110275 | zack | 2006-01-26 21:21:42 + (Thu, 26 Jan 2006) | 11 lines
* genconditions.c (write_header): In generated code, #ifdef out
all includes and fake declarations, except includes
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-27 16:08 ---
Confirmed.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
Compiling the following invalid testcase with -fopenmp causes an ICE:
===
void foo()
{
#pragma omp parallel for
for ( i=0; i<1; ++i ) ;
}
===
bug.c: In function 'foo':
bug.c:4: error: 'i' undeclared (first use in this function)
bug
--- Comment #3 from reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-27 16:00
---
*** Bug 25983 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-27 16:00
---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 25873 ***
--
reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #2 from dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-27 15:49
---
This is actually:
2006-01-26 Diego Novillo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* tree-cfg.c (move_block_to_fn): Call
remove_stmt_from_eh_region for each moved statement.
which I need to move to trunk when the
--- Comment #4 from reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-27 15:45
---
Even shorter C-testcase (compile with -fopenmp -O):
void foo();
inline void bar()
{
int i;
for ( i=0; i<1; ++i )
#pragma omp parallel
foo();
}
void baz()
{
#pragma omp pa
--- Comment #1 from reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-27 15:33
---
Fixed with the recent merge from mainline.
--
reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #6 from reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-27 15:18
---
Even simpler testcase:
==
void foo()
{
int i;
for ( i=0; i<1; i++ ) ;
for ( i=0; i<1; i++ ) ;
for ( i=0; i<1; i++ ) ;
for ( i=0; i<1; i++ ) ;
for ( i=0; i<1;
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-27 14:52 ---
The problem here is that the C++ front-end produces IF_STMT and not COND_EXPR.
I am going to mark this as a memory hog as it does cause excessive trees for
bigger testcases.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org ch
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-27 14:36 ---
Confirmed.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCON
--- Comment #6 from danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-27 14:28 ---
Fixed.
--
danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRM
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-27 13:59 ---
I have not looked into the standard yet but if GCC's warning message is correct
this is valid but deprecated code which allows for a compiler to accept it or
not.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2
--- Comment #3 from dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-27 14:26
---
Mine.
--
dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassi
--- Comment #5 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-27 14:22 ---
Reduced testcase:
__strcspn_c2 (__const char *__s, int __reject1, int __reject2)
{
int m = 1,n = 1,s = 1;
int DD,EE,num_s;
int m_max = 99;
int n_max = 00;
for ( n = 1 ; n <= 99 ; n++ )
for ( m = 1 ; m <
1 - 100 of 119 matches
Mail list logo
