--- Comment #13 from paul dot richard dot thomas at cea dot fr 2006-03-07
07:28 ---
Subject: RE: EQUIVALENCE broken in 32-bit code with optimization -O2
Andrew,
Oh, I did miss something, then!
> The symptom of this testcase passing might work but the bug
> is still there and
> most
--- Comment #14 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-07 07:16
---
(In reply to comment #12)
> Did I scare everyone off?
> I have a feeling that the GCC-4.x Fortran code may
> have never worked on the Alpha... I could be wrong...
We have had reports of successful building on a
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-07 04:43 ---
This works in 3.3.2 with the FSF GCC. Please report this bug to Apple first
since it is their modified version of gcc.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
I compiled this trivial function on the OS X 10.3.9 g++ compiler, which is
still only version 3.3. With the optimizer enabled -O2, the compiler hangs.
Without optimization, the compile succeeds.
Code:
int f(int x) {
return 1 / (x ? 1 : 0) ;
}
GCC VERSION:
gcc version 3.3 20030304 (Ap
--- Comment #13 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2006-03-07 04:17 ---
Subject: Re: ../.././libgfortran/mk-kinds-h.sh: Unknown type
On Tue, Mar 07, 2006 at 04:12:10AM -, diskman at kc dot rr dot com wrote:
>
> Did I scare everyone off? I have a feeling that the
--- Comment #12 from diskman at kc dot rr dot com 2006-03-07 04:12 ---
Did I scare everyone off? I have a feeling that the GCC-4.x Fortran code may
have never worked on the Alpha... I could be wrong...
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26564
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.2.0 |4.1.1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24519
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.2.0 |4.1.1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25395
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.1.1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26393
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.1.1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26107
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.1.1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24557
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.1.1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20938
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.1.1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25089
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.1.1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25054
--- Comment #1 from billingd at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-07 02:22
---
I am testing this.
2006-03-07 David Billinghurst ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
PR target/26588
* config/i386/cygwin.h (GOMP_SELF_SPECS): Define.
--- cygwin.h~ 2006-02-01 14:17:44.0 +1100
+++ cy
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-07 02:08 ---
This is interesting because the mainline works with or without
-fno-strict-aliasing.
Confirmed a regression, hopefully someone will reduce the testcase further.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
--
billingd at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Last r
On cygwin, gfortran -fopenmp gives the warning
gfortran: unrecognized option '-pthread'
which gives a heap of failures in the testsuite.
This is set in gcc.c:
/* Adding -fopenmp should imply pthreads. This is particularly important
for targets that use different start files and suchlike. */
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-07 02:03 ---
Hmm -O2 -fno-ivopts allows for it to work.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26587
--- Comment #1 from solar at openwall dot com 2006-03-07 01:50 ---
Created an attachment (id=10979)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10979&action=view)
testcase
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26587
I _think_ I understand C strict aliasing - it's based on the type of
expressions. In the testcase below, the type of expressions is the same, which
is why I think it's a compiler bug.
The bug is reproducible with gcc 4.1.0 on multiple platforms. I've tried i386
(i686) and alpha myself and am abl
--- Comment #12 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-07 01:07
---
In the interim, use the iostat= and test for the error you are looking for. I
am still digging around on this one to make sure I am not in a standard
compliance conflict if I implement this feature.
--
http
--- Comment #5 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-07 00:06 ---
Subject: Bug 25054
Author: pault
Date: Tue Mar 7 00:06:37 2006
New Revision: 111796
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=111796
Log:
2006-03-07 Paul Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR fortran/
--- Comment #3 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-07 00:06 ---
Subject: Bug 25089
Author: pault
Date: Tue Mar 7 00:06:37 2006
New Revision: 111796
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=111796
Log:
2006-03-07 Paul Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR fortran/
--- Comment #8 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-07 00:06 ---
Subject: Bug 20938
Author: pault
Date: Tue Mar 7 00:06:37 2006
New Revision: 111796
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=111796
Log:
2006-03-07 Paul Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR fortran/
--- Comment #6 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-07 00:06 ---
Subject: Bug 24557
Author: pault
Date: Tue Mar 7 00:06:37 2006
New Revision: 111796
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=111796
Log:
2006-03-07 Paul Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR fortran/
--- Comment #6 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-07 00:06 ---
Subject: Bug 26107
Author: pault
Date: Tue Mar 7 00:06:37 2006
New Revision: 111796
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=111796
Log:
2006-03-07 Paul Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR fortran/
--- Comment #7 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-07 00:06 ---
Subject: Bug 26393
Author: pault
Date: Tue Mar 7 00:06:37 2006
New Revision: 111796
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=111796
Log:
2006-03-07 Paul Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR fortran/
--- Comment #5 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-07 00:06 ---
Subject: Bug 25395
Author: pault
Date: Tue Mar 7 00:06:37 2006
New Revision: 111796
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=111796
Log:
2006-03-07 Paul Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR fortran/
--- Comment #7 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-07 00:06 ---
Subject: Bug 24519
Author: pault
Date: Tue Mar 7 00:06:37 2006
New Revision: 111796
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=111796
Log:
2006-03-07 Paul Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR fortran/
--- Comment #10 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-06 23:25 ---
HJ
Will you port this to 4.1 or should it be closed? My preference would be the
former
Paul
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26041
--- Comment #8 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-06 23:21 ---
This will only be fixed on 4.2. The 4.1 and 4.2 trees have diverged so much in
gfc_get_fake_result_decl that it will be a lot of work to bring it up to the
point where it will take the patch for this PR.
Paul
--
--- Comment #5 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-06 23:03 ---
Fixed on mainline and will be fixed tomorrow on 4.1.
Paul
--
pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #7 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-06 22:56 ---
Subject: Bug 19546
Author: pault
Date: Mon Mar 6 22:56:39 2006
New Revision: 111793
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=111793
Log:
2006-03-06 Paul Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR fortran/
--- Comment #4 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-06 22:56 ---
Subject: Bug 26107
Author: pault
Date: Mon Mar 6 22:56:39 2006
New Revision: 111793
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=111793
Log:
2006-03-06 Paul Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR fortran/
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-06 22:56 ---
Fixed in 4.0.0 with the gfortran rewrite. 3.4.6 is about to be released and
there is almost no way to get a non regression fixed.
So closing as fixed for 4.0.0.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
The following Fortran 77 program declares and uses a statement function
I2C(M). When compiled with these options:
g77 -pedantic -v -save-temps
it is misread as a character substring with its : missing, but IMHO
this statement function is valid in Fortran 77. The program compiles
and runs OK if
--- Comment #9 from kkojima at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-06 22:40 ---
Subject: Bug 22553
Author: kkojima
Date: Mon Mar 6 22:40:49 2006
New Revision: 111792
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=111792
Log:
PR target/23706
Backport from 4.1:
*
--- Comment #15 from kkojima at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-06 22:40
---
Subject: Bug 23706
Author: kkojima
Date: Mon Mar 6 22:40:49 2006
New Revision: 111792
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=111792
Log:
PR target/23706
Backport from 4.1:
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-06 21:05 ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> I believe that 24406 has fixed itself and that both can be closed.
See my reply in PR 24406 to the message that it is fixed, it is just harder to
expose.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
--- Comment #12 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-06 21:03
---
(In reply to comment #11)
> > Even though the final tree dump looks correct this is a still a front-end
> > issue
> > as the front-end communicates the aliasing sets to the rtl optimizers.
> > I am going to take i
--- Comment #1 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-06 20:58 ---
(In reply to comment #0)
> There are currently two equivalenced variable problems but I suspect there are
> more which is why I am
> creating this meta-bug.
>
I believe that 24406 has fixed itself and that both can b
--- Comment #7 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-06 20:44 ---
Are you sure? forall_8.f90 testcase still fails for me with gfortran
as of a few days ago.
If the problem is fixed and the testcases aren't invalid, they should be
added to the testsuite, otherwise this needs to be re
--- Comment #6 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-06 20:33 ---
This one was fixed a long time since but does not seem to have been cleared.
The recent flurry of activity on the dependency checking has made keeping it
open unnecessary IMHO.
Paul
--
pault at gcc dot gnu dot or
--- Comment #5 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2006-03-06 18:58 ---
Subject: Re: incomplete (unsized) static array types cannot be
completed
On Mon, 6 Mar 2006, bernard at brenda-arkle dot demon dot co dot uk wrote:
> struct poo; /* declares an incomplete structure type, 6.7.2.3
--- Comment #4 from bernard at brenda-arkle dot demon dot co dot uk
2006-03-06 18:35 ---
Thanks - I'd forgotten that 'static' declarations can be
tentative definitions too. But now I'm even more confused!
As I wrote, unsized arrays do one thing, undefined structs do another
(this is a
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.1.1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26532
--- Comment #9 from paolo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-06 18:06 ---
Subject: Bug 26532
Author: paolo
Date: Mon Mar 6 18:06:47 2006
New Revision: 111789
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=111789
Log:
2006-03-06 Paolo Carlini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR target
--- Comment #8 from patchapp at dberlin dot org 2006-03-06 17:45 ---
Subject: Bug number PR c++/6634
A patch for this bug has been added to the patch tracker.
The mailing list url for the patch is
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-03/msg00334.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
--- Comment #11 from law at redhat dot com 2006-03-06 17:21 ---
Subject: Re: [4.2 Regression] three testsuite
failures in gcc.dg/tree-ssa/
On Mon, 2006-03-06 at 17:10 +, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
>
> --- Comment #10 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006
--- Comment #10 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-06 17:10
---
(In reply to comment #9)
> As I've mentioned at least 3 times now, the Ada mis-compilations
> have priority. I'm working on these between fixing Ada issues.
> When there's status worth mentioning, I'll certainly a
--- Comment #9 from tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-06 17:08 ---
You can read about the java programming language's requirements
for floating point here:
http://java.sun.com/docs/books/jls/third_edition/html/typesValues.html#4.2.3
Relevant quote:
In particular, the Java progra
--- Comment #7 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-06 16:10 ---
Paolo, versioning bits look fine.
lm
cw
ij
are the usual rules you need to keep in mind for this stuff
but fixing this is not a big deal.
-benjamin
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26526
--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-06 15:49 ---
Janis could you do a regression hunt on what caused this testcase to start to
fail?
The C testcase is:
int f(void)
{
int i;
for(i=0;i<256;i++)
{
char a = i;
int ii = a;
if (ii != i) __builtin_abort
--- Comment #9 from law at redhat dot com 2006-03-06 15:35 ---
Subject: Re: [4.2 Regression] three testsuite
failures in gcc.dg/tree-ssa/
On Mon, 2006-03-06 at 15:29 +, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
>
> --- Comment #8 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-0
--- Comment #3 from patchapp at dberlin dot org 2006-03-06 15:30 ---
Subject: Bug number PR bootstrap/26500
A patch for this bug has been added to the patch tracker.
The mailing list url for the patch is
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-03/msg00124.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/
--- Comment #8 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-06 15:29 ---
Any news on these three testsuite failures? It is getting annoying to have
testsuite regressions.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26344
--- Comment #11 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-06 15:24
---
I might look into fix this later this week, the problem is the creating of
loads which could cause an trap/exception but not putting them into different
BB's.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.2.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26582
--- Comment #28 from patchapp at dberlin dot org 2006-03-06 15:07 ---
Subject: Bug number PR bootstrap/18058
A patch for this bug has been added to the patch tracker.
The mailing list url for the patch is
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-03/msg00297.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-06 15:00 ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> (gdb) p debug_rtx (insn)
> (insn 41 39 42 5 (set (reg:DI 71 [ D.775 ])
> (zero_extend:DI (subreg:QI (reg/v:DI 70 [ i ]) 7))) 129 {*pa.md:4636}
> (nil)
> (nil))
> $9 = void
This
--- Comment #8 from patchapp at dberlin dot org 2006-03-06 14:55 ---
Subject: Bug number PR middle-end/26565
A patch for this bug has been added to the patch tracker.
The mailing list url for the patch is
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-03/msg00324.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org
--- Comment #12 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-06 14:41
---
In principle this blocks optimization of tramp3d domain operations (if it were
not structure-aliasing fixing most of the problems).
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #11 from martin at mpa-garching dot mpg dot de 2006-03-06
14:41 ---
> On Comment #9: This is not really a bug depending on how one interprets the
> f95 standard. The three error families, EOR, END, and ERR are each treated
> separately. EOR and END are not considered the
--- Comment #15 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-06 14:39
---
The problem for the original testcase is that we don't even try to build SFTs
required for structure aliasing analysis for incoming pointers:
foo0 (f)
{
int D.1529;
:
# SMT.4_4 = V_MAY_DEF ;
f_1->s = 1;
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-06 14:37 ---
Subject: Re: [4.2 Regression] warning with cross build
>
>
>
> --- Comment #1 from paolo dot bonzini at lu dot unisi dot ch 2006-03-06
> 14:35 ---
> Subject: Re: New: [4.2 Regression] warning with cr
--- Comment #1 from paolo dot bonzini at lu dot unisi dot ch 2006-03-06
14:35 ---
Subject: Re: New: [4.2 Regression] warning with cross
build
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> I get the following warnings when doing a cross (any kind of cross really)
> Makefile:13366: warning:
--- Comment #7 from martin at mpa-garching dot mpg dot de 2006-03-06 14:33
---
When trying to compile the Starlink sources with gfortran I stumbled across
this too. Unfortunately it seems that one of their autoconf tests called
AC_FC_RECL_UNIT relies on the jump to the ERR label when EO
I get the following warnings when doing a cross (any kind of cross really)
Makefile:13366: warning: overriding commands for target `restrap'
Makefile:12658: warning: ignoring old commands for target `restrap'
--
Summary: [4.2 Regression] warning with cross build
Product: gc
--- Comment #16 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-06 14:30
---
Or with a pass recovering loops before vectorization.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #5 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-06 14:26 ---
Just for future reference, here is the C testcase that Eric B. posted to the
list:
/* PR middle-end/26561 */
extern void abort(void);
int always_one_1 (int a)
{
if (a/100 >= -9)
return 1;
else
r
--- Comment #10 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-06 14:22
---
On Comment #8: Yes I will be committing the logical patch to 4.1 branch soon.
On Comment #9: This is not really a bug depending on how one interprets the
f95 standard. The three error families, EOR, END, and
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-06 14:20 ---
Confirmed. Also happens on x86 too.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2006-03-06 14:10 ---
Subject: Re: New: incomplete (unsized) static array types
cannot be completed
On Mon, 6 Mar 2006, bernard at brenda-arkle dot demon dot co dot uk wrote:
> static int thingy2[];
> static int thingy2[1];
This con
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-06 14:06 ---
Not a bug:
>From C99, 6.9.2/3 says:
If the declaration of an identifier for an object is a tentative definition and
has internal
linkage, the declared type shall not be an incomplete type.
--
This is a tentativ
--- Comment #12 from dir at lanl dot gov 2006-03-06 14:06 ---
It works great on the Macintosh. Now, if someone could just get the windows
version of gfortran under MinGW to pass these I/O tests, it might become
usuable. My programs compile under MinGW, but they all crash when I try to ru
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-06 13:53 ---
Comeau C front-end also rejects this code:
Comeau C/C++ 4.3.3 (Aug 6 2003 15:13:37) for ONLINE_EVALUATION_BETA1
Copyright 1988-2003 Comeau Computing. All rights reserved.
MODE:strict errors C99
"ComeauTest.c", li
If this is (as I am fairly sure) a bug, then it will
surely be a bug in the C front end, and as such be
architecture-independent.
The behaviour here complained of is peculiar to -pedantic,
which chucks an error for what I believe is correct code.
It's not even a warning otherwise, and I think righ
in/software/mympfr
--prefix=/home/martin/software/ugcc --enable-languages=c++,fortran
--enable-checking=release
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.2.0 20060306 (experimental)
/home/martin/software/ugcc/libexec/gcc/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/4.2.0/f951
conf.f -ffixed-form -quiet -dumpbase conf.f -mtune=g
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot
|
--- Comment #8 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2006-03-06 13:17 ---
Working on it.
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at g
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-06 13:06 ---
Confirmed.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCON
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-06 13:05 ---
Confirmed.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCON
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-06 13:02 ---
Confirmed.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCON
--- Comment #5 from eedelman at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-06 12:52
---
Works on mainline (will become 4.2). Will (probably) not be backported to 4.1.
--
eedelman at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #7 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-06 12:49 ---
A workaround is to do
memcpy ((char*)outdata + 1, ...);
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26565
--- Comment #5 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-06 12:48 ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> and 2.95.3 ??
All FSF 2.95.x did not have support for Darwin. The 2.95.3 you were referring
to came modified to you from Apple.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26578
--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-06 12:47 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> Related to PR 23167.
One more comment about this, the fix for that PR moved the ICE from
create_tmp_var to cp_expr_size.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26577
--- Comment #4 from mpoirier at laas dot fr 2006-03-06 12:45 ---
and 2.95.3 ??
which one was on panther or Xcode 1 and 1.5
else thanx for the info
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26578
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-06 12:45 ---
Related to PR 23167.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
BugsThisDepen
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-06 12:42 ---
Reduced testcase which shows the real issue:
struct A
{
A(const A&);
A& operator=(const A&);
static void bar();
void baz() volatile;
};
void A::baz() volatile
{
bar();
}
--
pinskia at gcc dot
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-06 12:31 ---
2.9.5.2 did not have support for Darwin as either the host or the target.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #6 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-06 12:23 ---
It also affects ia64 and s390(x)
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
G
--- Comment #5 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-06 12:17 ---
Works with 3.3.3, 3.4.2, fails with 4.1.0 and 4.2.0 (didn't check 4.0.x, but I
guess it's another tree-ssa fallout)
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Add
--- Comment #8 from martin at mpa-garching dot mpg dot de 2006-03-06 12:10
---
Mainline works correctly again, thanks!
Do you plan to commit to the 4.1-branch too?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26554
--- Comment #4 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-06 11:58 ---
I have a patch.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|
--- Comment #2 from mpoirier at laas dot fr 2006-03-06 11:09 ---
Of course I know that gcc 2.95 is out but I need it for some prog that
only compil on gcc 2.95
I used the folloowing command to configure :
../gcc2/configure --program-suffix=-2.95 --enable-shared --enable-threads
--h
--- Comment #3 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-06 10:58 ---
We indeed lose alignment information of outdata->tv. We start expanding
memcpy (&outdataD.1529->tvD.1528, tpD.1530, 4) [tail call]
with
(gdb) print dest_align
$1 = 32
so, builtins.c:get_pointer_alignment return
--- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-06 10:39 ---
gcc_assert (!TYPE_HAS_COMPLEX_INIT_REF (type)
|| !TYPE_HAS_COMPLEX_ASSIGN_REF (type)
/* But storing a CONSTRUCTOR isn't a copy. */
|| TREE_CODE (exp) == CO
--- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-06 10:26 ---
First, 2.95.2 is waay outdated, second, you don't provide any information
on how you configured gcc.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26578
1 - 100 of 107 matches
Mail list logo
