--- Comment #13 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-07 06:37
---
Nothing I have tried so far has worked and I don't understand how we could
remove a node from here.
Oh, I see remove node is correct, we duplicate the nodes which I did not know
about until now.
--
http://gcc
--- Comment #6 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-07 06:19
---
> The idea of this patch seems OK, but let's find a way to avoid duplicating the
> declare_tmp_vars code, perhaps by making another small routine to find the
> outermost BIND_EXPR in a function?
Do you really wan
--- Comment #12 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-07 06:00
---
Wait in tree-inline.c, we do:
/* Update callgraph if needed. */
cgraph_remove_node (cg_edge->callee);
Isn't that wrong as we could inline the callee a couple of times?
Don't we want to do:
/* Update callgra
--- Comment #11 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-07 05:50
---
The dtor for "Ref, std::allocator > > >" is the
node which has been freed.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27882
--- Comment #10 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-07 05:30
---
The last time I ran into this was back in 2005, and I had committed the
following patch:
2005-08-29 Andrew Pinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR middle-end/23408
* ipa-inline.c (cgraph_decide_inlining_in
--- Comment #9 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-07 05:19 ---
Created an attachment (id=11620)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=11620&action=view)
shorest testcase I can reduce to
This is the shorest testcase I could reduce this to, I did it on powerpc-darwi
--- Comment #6 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-07 05:07 ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> This is no longer giving a segfault on i686-pc-linux-gnu.
> end
> 1
> Internal Error at (1):
> gfc_get_default_type(): Bad symbol
> Maybe this is good enough?
There is an internal erro
--- Comment #13 from csm at gnu dot org 2006-06-07 04:49 ---
Very little (I'd assume no) code in Classpath requires that the `volatile'
modifier be properly supported. 0.91 introduced a class that did, that's all.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27908
--- Comment #2 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-07 03:28
---
I would like to work on this one. The range check is only looking for ARITH_OK
when it could also see ARITH_UNDERFLOW or ARITH_OVERFLOW.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19310
--- Comment #12 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-07 03:23
---
(In reply to comment #11)
> Alright, but, it seems strange that code that worked 2 months ago is suddenly
> broken due to a bug filed 6 years ago. The "Regression" status of this
> particular situation and this pa
--- Comment #11 from r_ovidius at eml dot cc 2006-06-07 03:16 ---
Alright, but, it seems strange that code that worked 2 months ago is suddenly
broken due to a bug filed 6 years ago. The "Regression" status of this
particular situation and this particular code seems to get lost when cal
--- Comment #5 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-07 03:13
---
This is no longer giving a segfault on i686-pc-linux-gnu.
In file foo.f90:3
subroutine FOO
1
Error: MODULE attribute conflicts with PROCEDURE attribute at (1)
In file foo.f90:4
in
--- Comment #6 from csm at gnu dot org 2006-06-07 02:52 ---
*** Bug 27908 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
csm at gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #10 from csm at gnu dot org 2006-06-07 02:52 ---
Duplicate of bug 1305. A workaround for this case exists.
The bytecode problem mentioned below has been filed as bug 27925.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 1305 ***
--
csm at gnu dot org changed:
--- Comment #2 from dje at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-07 02:31 ---
Can you provide any information about what initially produces the
(subreg:DF (reg:DI)) ?
--
dje at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #17 from amacleod at redhat dot com 2006-06-07 00:51 ---
Subject: Bug 27793
Author: amacleod
Date: Wed Jun 7 00:51:27 2006
New Revision: 114458
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=114458
Log:
2006-06-06 Andrew MacLeod <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR mid
--- Comment #1 from csm at gnu dot org 2006-06-07 00:42 ---
Created an attachment (id=11618)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=11618&action=view)
Test case.
Test case.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27925
$blargh.foo()V
at xxx.main(xxx.java:5)
$ gcj --version
gcj (GCC) 4.2.0 20060606 (experimental)
--
Summary: Trampolines not generated for private inner class
methods.
Product: gcc
Version: 4.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
--- Comment #3 from Harmon dot Nine at gmail dot com 2006-06-07 00:36
---
Created an attachment (id=11617)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=11617&action=view)
pre-compiled source if imp.cc
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27924
--- Comment #2 from Harmon dot Nine at gmail dot com 2006-06-07 00:35
---
Created an attachment (id=11616)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=11616&action=view)
Stdout and Stderr of gcc command to make pre-processed source
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cg
--- Comment #1 from Harmon dot Nine at gmail dot com 2006-06-07 00:34
---
G++ command used to generate pre-compiled source:
/usr/local/bin/g++ -v -save-temps -I. -I. -DNDEBUG -Wall -ggdb -O3
-fno-strict-aliasing -finline-limit=3000 -ffast-math -mthreads
-DGECODE_BUILD_INT -c -o int/var
--
Summary: internal compiler error: extract_insn, while compiling
Gecode
Product: gcc
Version: 4.1.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
AssignedTo: unassigned at
--
langton at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |langton at gcc dot gnu dot
|dot org
--- Comment #9 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-07 00:14 ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> A workaround is to replace:
>
> while (running)
> counter++;
Is running marked as volatile?
If it is, then this is a dup of bug 1305, otherwise this is a bug in both the
library sou
--- Comment #8 from csm at gnu dot org 2006-06-07 00:08 ---
A workaround is to replace:
while (running)
counter++;
with:
while (isRunning ())
counter++;
And to add a method:
boolean isRunning ()
{
return running;
}
I'm working on a patch for this.
--
http
--- Comment #5 from danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-06 23:31 ---
Reconfirmed in 3.4.6.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19770
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-06 23:27 ---
First is how did you build the shared libraries libjscore.so and
libglib-2.0.so.
Second,
kjs/.libs/testkjs: hidden symbol `__udivsi3' in
/work/jlime/dev/donkey/6xx/build/tmp/cross/lib/gcc/sh3-linux/4.1.1/libgcc.a(_
--- Comment #8 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-06 23:14 ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> Bugfix worked for me. Compilation definitely got farther. However, there's
> another bug. Pls. see bug 26622.
As mentioned in that PR, the problem there is unrelated to your code.
The r
--- Comment #7 from Harmon dot Nine at gmail dot com 2006-06-06 23:02
---
Bugfix worked for me. Compilation definitely got farther. However, there's
another bug. Pls. see bug 26622.
Gecode may be a good compiler test package; it seems to use some advanced C++
features.
--
http:
--- Comment #18 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-06 22:58
---
(In reply to comment #15)
> Hello all. I notice the last comment for this bug was made on May 29th.
> Today
> is June 06 (06-06-06 ). I've *just* (i.e. yesterday) download the latest
> source from the 4_1 b
--- Comment #17 from Harmon dot Nine at gmail dot com 2006-06-06 22:55
---
Created an attachment (id=11615)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=11615&action=view)
Pro-processed source that incurs internal compiler error
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id
--- Comment #16 from Harmon dot Nine at gmail dot com 2006-06-06 22:54
---
Created an attachment (id=11614)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=11614&action=view)
Stdout and Stderr of gcc command to make pre-processed source
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.c
--- Comment #15 from Harmon dot Nine at gmail dot com 2006-06-06 22:52
---
Hello all. I notice the last comment for this bug was made on May 29th. Today
is June 06 (06-06-06 ). I've *just* (i.e. yesterday) download the latest
source from the 4_1 branch and compiled and installed
--- Comment #13 from roger at eyesopen dot com 2006-06-06 22:41 ---
This should now be fixed on all active branches.
--
roger at eyesopen dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #13 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2006-06-06 22:36 ---
(In reply to comment #12)
> At this web page:
> http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2004/n1568.htm
>
> I see this:
>
> "The formatted input functions shall support the additional conversion
> specifica
--- Comment #4 from mark at codesourcery dot com 2006-06-06 22:35 ---
Subject: Re: [4.0/4.1/4.2 regression] ICE with volatile in
conditional expression
reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> --- Comment #3 from reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-06 22:12
> ---
> The f
--- Comment #12 from ian at airs dot com 2006-06-06 22:18 ---
At this web page:
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2004/n1568.htm
I see this:
"The formatted input functions shall support the additional conversion
specifications specified in C99 subclause 7.19.6.2."
--- Comment #3 from reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-06 22:12
---
The following code is accepted. Shouldn't it be rejected then?
===
struct A
{
A(int);
};
void foo(volatile A a) { 1 ? a : a; }
===
--
--- Comment #2 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-06 22:04
---
The code is indeed invalid. (There's no copy constructor for A that accepts a
volatile A as input, but the conceptual expression is an rvalue, so we have to
(conceptually) create a temporary.)
--
mmitchel at g
--- Comment #10 from patchapp at dberlin dot org 2006-06-06 22:00 ---
Subject: Bug number PR23091
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/2006-06/msg00332.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/s
--- Comment #12 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2006-06-06
21:55 ---
Subject: Re: [4.2 Regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/torture/pr24626-1.c -O2 (test for
excess errors)
> All ICEs occur at the same spot. I'd have to go back and retest
> but I'm fairly certain they were all intr
--- Comment #7 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-06 21:42
---
Fixed in 4.1.2, 4.2.0.
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
A
--- Comment #11 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2006-06-06
21:42 ---
Subject: Re: [4.2 Regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/torture/pr24626-1.c -O2 (test for
excess errors)
> Dave, in your last comment you said the patch didn't help but the failure you
> showed was for pr24626-2, no
--- Comment #6 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-06 21:39
---
Subject: Bug 27177
Author: mmitchel
Date: Tue Jun 6 21:39:33 2006
New Revision: 114449
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=114449
Log:
PR c++/27177
* call.c (standard_conversion
--- Comment #5 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-06 21:39
---
Subject: Bug 27177
Author: mmitchel
Date: Tue Jun 6 21:38:54 2006
New Revision: 114448
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=114448
Log:
PR c++/27177
* call.c (standard_conversion
--- Comment #7 from csm at gnu dot org 2006-06-06 21:32 ---
Also note that this test case works fine if compiled to a native binary (C++
ABI) with -O1. So there are likely two bugs here: an optimization issue, and a
bytecode generation issue.
--
csm at gnu dot org changed:
--- Comment #9 from sje at cup dot hp dot com 2006-06-06 21:30 ---
3.39s is not ridiculously slow, 15+ minutes is ridiculously slow. 1.64 seconds
using the constant 1.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27733
--- Comment #6 from csm at gnu dot org 2006-06-06 21:30 ---
Created an attachment (id=11613)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=11613&action=view)
Test case.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27908
7; variable has been
set to false.
The attached test case seems to illustrate the problem, and it looks like a GCJ
bug. This test case:
- Fails to exit when compiled with GCJ 20060606. Command line: gcj -g -O2 -o
PR27908
- Fails to run interpreted when compiled with &#x
--- Comment #8 from falk at debian dot org 2006-06-06 21:04 ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> PR 23971 is closed as fixed, I don't know if alpha is having this problem
> anymore or not.
It takes 3.39s now, which while much faster than it used to be is still
ridiculously slow (with 1 as co
--- Comment #7 from gerald at pfeifer dot com 2006-06-06 21:04 ---
That would be great. I'd really love to see us support parallel
libgcj installations into the same $prefix.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27890
--- Comment #4 from reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-06 21:04
---
> Does the ICE message get translated for different locales?
Yes, see e.g. the results from the testcase from comment #3 of PR 26155
below. That shouldn't impact the testsuite AFAIK, because the dg-error
markers r
--- Comment #10 from sje at cup dot hp dot com 2006-06-06 21:02 ---
Dave, in your last comment you said the patch didn't help but the failure you
showed was for pr24626-2, not pr24626-1 (-2 vs. -1), which is what the original
bug was about. Is pr24626-1 failing for you? It does not fai
--- Comment #7 from sje at cup dot hp dot com 2006-06-06 20:48 ---
This seems to be identical to PR 23971 on alpha. The test case for that PR:
unsigned long long f(unsigned long long x) { return x *
5445825408751490200ULL;}
I changed long to 'long long' to make it 64 bits on hppa1.1 a
--- Comment #3 from janis at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-06 20:48 ---
Gosh, I don't remember ever seeing this stuff about new exit codes for ICEs. I
can rethink how the testsuite detects them, now that we know where to look.
Does the ICE message get translated for different locales?
--- Comment #4 from r_ovidius at eml dot cc 2006-06-06 20:20 ---
Linux RH9 2.4.20 450Mhz
WinXP 2Ghz
I removed the call to VMSecureRandom from SecureRandom and just return length
at the moment, and everything works again. The usage of /dev/random did work
as well, but binaries would not
--- Comment #3 from csm at gnu dot org 2006-06-06 20:14 ---
Also, a good workaround (on Linux and other Unices) is to add this line to your
classpath.security file:
securerandom.source=file:/dev/random
This is generally a good idea. If you have available some file or device that
you
--- Comment #2 from csm at gnu dot org 2006-06-06 20:07 ---
I don't see any pegged CPU usage with 4.2.0 20060606, on a dual AMD Athlon
system, Linux 2.6.6, NPTL threads. The test case does seem to hang, however,
after the seed is generated (it takes about a second for the result
--- Comment #6 from sje at cup dot hp dot com 2006-06-06 19:52 ---
Created an attachment (id=11612)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=11612&action=view)
Cut down test case
Here is a cutdown test case. I reproduced the problem on hppa64-hp-hpux11.11
with this cutdown t
--- Comment #12 from sayle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-06 19:43 ---
Subject: Bug 26223
Author: sayle
Date: Tue Jun 6 19:43:17 2006
New Revision: 114446
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=114446
Log:
PR target/26223
* config/i386/i386.c (construct
--- Comment #16 from amacleod at redhat dot com 2006-06-06 19:41 ---
yes, this appears to fix PR 27894 as well.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27793
Greetings,
Using OpenEmbedded (crosscompilation environment) to port applications from x86
to sh3 (SuperH arch).
GCC
---
Using built-in specs.
Target: sh3-linux
Configured with:
/work/jlime/dev/donkey/6xx/build/tmp/work/i686-linux/gcc-cross-4.1.1-r2/gcc-4.1.1/configure
--build=i686-linux --host=
--- Comment #2 from reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-06 19:30
---
Janis went for the second approach:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-06/msg00324.html
--
reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
I'm adding JNI 1.1 invocation API structures to classpath's jni.h
so David Walluck can compile some existing java application.
libgcj requires some runtime support to make this work properly.
--
Summary: libgcj should support old 1.1-style JNI invocation API
Product: gcc
--- Comment #15 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-06 18:58
---
Can someone check to see if the proposed patch also fixes PR 27894, it is the
same issue as we have:
extern CBaseEntityList *g_pEntityList;
inline IHandleEntity* CBaseHandle::Get() const
{
extern CBaseEntityList *
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot
|dot org
In gfortran 4.2, the frontend always inlines dot_product. Hence it should be
removed from the library.
--
Summary: dot_product should be removed from the library
Product: gcc
Version: 4.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
--- Comment #5 from appfault at hotmail dot com 2006-06-06 18:20 ---
Created an attachment (id=11611)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=11611&action=view)
test case
Attaching relatively bare-bones test case. It could perhaps be whittled down a
bit more, but this was a
--- Comment #4 from r_ovidius at eml dot cc 2006-06-06 18:03 ---
After reading more from http://tangentsoft.net/wskfaq/newbie.html [2.7], it
seems MESSAGE_FROM_MODULE won't really work. A lookup table would be needed
like in http://tangentsoft.net/wskfaq/examples/basics/ws-util.cpp for w
--- Comment #7 from rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-06 17:19 ---
Patch: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-06/msg00313.html
--
rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #9 from uweigand at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-06 17:10
---
Fixed on 4.1 branch and mainline.
--
uweigand at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #8 from uweigand at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-06 17:05
---
Subject: Bug 27842
Author: uweigand
Date: Tue Jun 6 17:04:56 2006
New Revision: 114439
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=114439
Log:
PR target/27842
* config/rs6000/altivec.md
--- Comment #7 from uweigand at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-06 17:01
---
Subject: Bug 27842
Author: uweigand
Date: Tue Jun 6 17:01:27 2006
New Revision: 114438
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=114438
Log:
PR target/27842
* config/rs6000/altivec.md
--- Comment #8 from ayers at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-06 16:57 ---
Fixed for 4.2.0
--
ayers at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSI
--- Comment #14 from mark at codesourcery dot com 2006-06-06 16:37 ---
Subject: Re: [4.1 Regression] num_ssa_names inconsistent
or immediate use iterator wrong
amacleod at redhat dot com wrote:
> --- Comment #13 from amacleod at redhat dot com 2006-06-06 14:43 ---
> Created a
--- Comment #15 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-06 16:35
---
For other reasons it would be nice to be able to place "sync" points in the
pass schedule where we re-start with going over all functions for the remaining
passes. Per function SSA form is requires for this, though
--- Comment #7 from ayers at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-06 16:05 ---
Subject: Bug 13946
Author: ayers
Date: Tue Jun 6 16:05:47 2006
New Revision: 114435
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=114435
Log:
2006-06-06 David Ayers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR libobjc/
--- Comment #14 from richard at codesourcery dot com 2006-06-06 15:53
---
Subject: Re: [4.2 Regression] wrong code in spec tests for -ftree-vectorize
-maltivec
"dje at gcc dot gnu dot org" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> We're performing the auto-vectorization in unit-at-a-time-mode, so
--- Comment #8 from ian at airs dot com 2006-06-06 15:42 ---
As I mentioned in the original submission, I'm pretty sure it is caused by
RTH's patch for PR 23190.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26965
--- Comment #13 from dje at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-06 15:22 ---
We're performing the auto-vectorization in unit-at-a-time-mode, so maybe we
need to recompile the other functions. It seems that we're going to encounter
more problems along these lines with LTO.
--
http://gcc.gnu
--- Comment #12 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-06 15:18
---
(In reply to comment #10)
> The auto-vectorizer is a Tree-SSA pass. The section anchors are an RTL pass.
> I do not understand why the alignment of the vectorized variables is not known
> at section anchor creati
--- Comment #11 from richard at codesourcery dot com 2006-06-06 15:16
---
Subject: Re: [4.2 Regression] wrong code in spec tests for -ftree-vectorize
-maltivec
"dje at gcc dot gnu dot org" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The auto-vectorizer is a Tree-SSA pass. The section anchors are a
--- Comment #10 from dje at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-06 15:10 ---
The auto-vectorizer is a Tree-SSA pass. The section anchors are an RTL pass.
I do not understand why the alignment of the vectorized variables is not known
at section anchor creation time.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/b
--- Comment #9 from richard at codesourcery dot com 2006-06-06 15:02
---
Subject: Re: [4.2 Regression] wrong code in spec tests for -ftree-vectorize
-maltivec
"pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> What about instead of absolute numbers doing label subtraction
--- Comment #13 from amacleod at redhat dot com 2006-06-06 14:43 ---
Created an attachment (id=11609)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=11609&action=view)
assert to add if Jakub's idea is implemented.
So do you want to fix it Jakub's way instead of hacking up the tree
--- Comment #2 from tomdkat at comcast dot net 2006-06-06 14:34 ---
I do not get this problem with gcc 4.1.1.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26614
--- Comment #8 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-06 14:26 ---
What about instead of absolute numbers doing label subtraction for section
anchors and then we can defer the decision for the layout of the section until
after all functions are done compiling?
--
pinskia at gcc
--- Comment #5 from reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-06 14:21
---
Btw, the fix for PR27804 fixed the problem on mainline before Mark's patch
went in. (This might be interesting for a backport to the 4.0 branch.)
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27722
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-06 14:12 ---
make boostrap
This is invalid, you are trying to bootstrap a cross compiler which will never
work.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #6 from fitzsim at redhat dot com 2006-06-06 14:07 ---
On the JDK lib files are stored in $JAVA_HOME/jre/lib. I've recently moved
some files, like libjawt.so, that would conflict for multiple, parallel libgcj
installations to the same prefix, to $(libdir)/gcj-$(gcc_version).
--- Comment #9 from paul dot richard dot thomas at cea dot fr 2006-06-06
14:06 ---
Created an attachment (id=11608)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=11608&action=view)
Patch for this and PR27583
This needs cleaning up and a testcase writing but it is nearly there.
P
make boostrap
(...)
stage1/xgcc -Bstage1/
-B/local/devel/toolchain41/sparc-sun-solaris2.9/sparc-sun-solaris2.9/bin/ -g
-O2 -DIN_GCC -DCROSS_COMPILE -W -Wall -Wwrite-strings -Wstrict-prototypes
-Wmissing-prototypes -pedantic -Wno-long-long -Wno-variadic-macros
-Wold-style-definition -Wmissing-fo
--- Comment #4 from happyarch at gmail dot com 2006-06-06 13:02 ---
Weird, it doesn't fixed.
my gcc version is
4.2.0 20060603 (experimental)
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27909
--- Comment #3 from ro at techfak dot uni-bielefeld dot de 2006-06-06
12:54 ---
Subject: Re: [4.2 Regression] libgcc_s.so.1 causes SEGV on Solaris 10/x86
steven at gcc dot gnu dot org writes:
> Rainer, there is no test case and no description for how to reproduce this.
I couldn't f
--- Comment #15 from laurent at guerby dot net 2006-06-06 12:43 ---
Should be fixed now.
--
laurent at guerby dot net changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
--- Comment #14 from guerby at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-06 12:38 ---
Subject: Bug 27769
Author: guerby
Date: Tue Jun 6 12:37:36 2006
New Revision: 114430
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=114430
Log:
2006-06-06 Laurent GUERBY <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR ad
--- Comment #13 from guerby at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-06 12:37 ---
Subject: Bug 27769
Author: guerby
Date: Tue Jun 6 12:37:01 2006
New Revision: 114429
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=114429
Log:
2006-06-06 Laurent GUERBY <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR ad
--- Comment #4 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2006-06-06
12:14 ---
Subject: Re: FAIL: libgomp.fortran/vla[1-7].f90 -O0 (test for excess errors)
> I wonder what outmode is in emit_library_call_value_1:
> tfom = lang_hooks.types.type_for_mode (outmode, 0);
>
> I mi
--- Comment #14 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2006-06-06 12:10 ---
Patch pr27390-more.patch was bootstrapped/regtested and the approach was
confirmed to be ok by Roger.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27390
--- Comment #1 from benjamin dot reveille at gmail dot com 2006-06-06
12:01 ---
For the fortran mailing list thread on this bug see:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2006-06/msg00096.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27916
1 - 100 of 118 matches
Mail list logo
