[Bug target/19970] Java Disabled for MinGW

--- Comment #5 from ayers at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-12 06:58 --- Subject: Bug 19970 Author: ayers Date: Mon Jun 12 06:58:27 2006 New Revision: 114563 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=114563 Log: 2006-06-12 David Ayers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> PR bootstra

[Bug bootstrap/27963] [4.2 Regression] libjava fails to build if it isn't built by default

--- Comment #8 from ayers at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-12 06:58 --- Subject: Bug 27963 Author: ayers Date: Mon Jun 12 06:58:27 2006 New Revision: 114563 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=114563 Log: 2006-06-12 David Ayers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> PR bootstra

[Bug middle-end/27948] [4.2 Regression] MS -bitfield struct layout test fails

--- Comment #9 from echristo at apple dot com 2006-06-12 06:54 --- 2006-06-11 Eric Christopher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> PR middle-end/27948 * stor-layout.c (place_field): Remove check for

[Bug middle-end/27948] [4.2 Regression] MS -bitfield struct layout test fails

--- Comment #8 from echristo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-12 06:53 --- Subject: Bug 27948 Author: echristo Date: Mon Jun 12 06:53:33 2006 New Revision: 114562 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=114562 Log: 2006-06-11 Eric Christopher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

[Bug target/27542] [4.2 Regression] the ms_struct pragma is not documented

--- Comment #4 from echristo at apple dot com 2006-06-12 06:45 --- 2006-06-11 Eric Christopher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> PR 27542 * doc/extend.texi (Structure-Packing Pragmas): Document ms_struct pragma. -- echristo at apple dot com changed: What|

[Bug target/27542] [4.2 Regression] the ms_struct pragma is not documented

--- Comment #3 from echristo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-12 06:44 --- Subject: Bug 27542 Author: echristo Date: Mon Jun 12 06:44:23 2006 New Revision: 114561 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=114561 Log: 2006-06-11 Eric Christopher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

[Bug target/27158] [4.1/4.2 regression] ICE in extract_insn with -maltivec

--- Comment #19 from sayle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-12 02:10 --- Subject: Bug 27158 Author: sayle Date: Mon Jun 12 02:10:24 2006 New Revision: 114559 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=114559 Log: PR target/27858 Revert incorrect fix for PR tar

[Bug target/27858] [4.2 Regression] ICE in spill_failure, at reload1.c:1911while bootstrapping 4.2 on alpha

--- Comment #6 from sayle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-12 02:10 --- Subject: Bug 27858 Author: sayle Date: Mon Jun 12 02:10:24 2006 New Revision: 114559 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=114559 Log: PR target/27858 Revert incorrect fix for PR targ

[Bug target/27158] [4.1/4.2 regression] ICE in extract_insn with -maltivec

--- Comment #18 from sayle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-12 02:03 --- Subject: Bug 27158 Author: sayle Date: Mon Jun 12 02:02:14 2006 New Revision: 114558 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=114558 Log: PR target/27158 * config/rs6000/rs6000.c (const

[Bug libgomp/27254] FAIL: libgomp.fortran/reduction6.f90

--- Comment #1 from danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-12 00:53 --- In the first call to st_write_done, I see: (gdb) p *((st_parameter_dt *)$r26)->u.p.current_unit $38 = {unit_number = -1, s = 0x193248, left = 0x0, right = 0x0, priority = 0, read_bad = 1, current_record = 1, endfi

[Bug libstdc++/27993] Compile error: .libs/complex_io.o: could not read symbols: Bad value

--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-12 00:34 --- /toolkit/powerpc-ibm-aix5.2/bin/ld /toolkit/powerpc-ibm-aix5.2/bin/nm You say it is the default AIX ld but from the pathes it does not look like it. Can you make sure that you are using AIX's ld and nm to build GCC

[Bug libstdc++/27993] New: Compile error: .libs/complex_io.o: could not read symbols: Bad value

Host: AIX 5.2 Using gcc to compile: bash-3.00# gcc --version gcc (GCC) 3.3.4 ld is the default AIX 5.2 linker. The src and obj directories are different. I am getting the following error: /toolkit/powerpc-ibm-aix5.2/bin/nm -B -X32_64 -Bpg .libs/allocator.o .libs/codecvt.o .libs/complex_io.o .l

[Bug middle-end/27942] [4.2 Regression] packed union doesn't make the unaligned magic on sh64-*

--- Comment #9 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-12 00:24 --- Fixed. -- pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRM

[Bug c/27992] random segfaults

--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-12 00:13 --- If you compiling again works, that means you have some bad hardware and you should replace it. Closing as invalid as mention on the bugs page that you should check your hardware (memory especially) before filing the

[Bug fortran/27954] ICE on garbage in DATA statement

--- Comment #1 from kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-12 00:02 --- Okay, your bug report says gcc 4.0.0 and the reported against field says 4.2.0. Which is correct, because gfortran does the right thing with gcc 4.2.0. -- kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What

[Bug middle-end/27942] [4.2 Regression] packed union doesn't make the unaligned magic on sh64-*

--- Comment #8 from kkojima at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-11 23:10 --- Subject: Bug 27942 Author: kkojima Date: Sun Jun 11 23:09:58 2006 New Revision: 114552 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=114552 Log: PR middle-end/27942 * stor-layout.c (update_a

[Bug c/27992] New: random segfaults

I am encountering random segfaults when compiling sources. If I restart the compilation after such a segfault, everything goes well. I found two older bug reports that describe this phenomenon, namely http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9592 and http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1

[Bug fortran/25058] missing diagnostic about ENTRY dummy argument

--- Comment #6 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-11 22:37 --- Cracked on trunk and 4.1. Paul -- pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added

[Bug fortran/25090] Bad automatic character length

--- Comment #8 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-11 22:37 --- Cracked on trunk and 4.1. Paul -- pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added

[Bug fortran/24168] Problems with SPREAD and/or scalarization

--- Comment #5 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-11 22:36 --- Cracked on trunk and 4.1. Paul -- pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added

[Bug fortran/23091] ICE in gfc_trans_auto_array_allocation

--- Comment #13 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-11 22:36 --- Cracked on trunk and 4.1. Paul -- pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added

[Bug fortran/25047] insert_bbt(): Duplicate key found!

--- Comment #5 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-11 22:35 --- Cracked on trunk and 4.1. Paul -- pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added

[Bug fortran/20877] result may not be entry

--- Comment #5 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-11 22:34 --- Cracked on trunk and 4.1. Paul -- pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added

[Bug fortran/24558] ENTRY doesn't work in module procedures

--- Comment #8 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-11 22:33 --- Cracked on trunk and 4.1. Paul -- pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added

[Bug fortran/25090] Bad automatic character length

--- Comment #7 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-11 22:32 --- Subject: Bug 25090 Author: pault Date: Sun Jun 11 22:32:26 2006 New Revision: 114551 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=114551 Log: 2006-06-12 Paul Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> PR fortran/

[Bug fortran/24558] ENTRY doesn't work in module procedures

--- Comment #7 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-11 22:32 --- Subject: Bug 24558 Author: pault Date: Sun Jun 11 22:32:26 2006 New Revision: 114551 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=114551 Log: 2006-06-12 Paul Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> PR fortran/

[Bug fortran/25058] missing diagnostic about ENTRY dummy argument

--- Comment #5 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-11 22:32 --- Subject: Bug 25058 Author: pault Date: Sun Jun 11 22:32:26 2006 New Revision: 114551 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=114551 Log: 2006-06-12 Paul Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> PR fortran/

[Bug fortran/20877] result may not be entry

--- Comment #4 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-11 22:32 --- Subject: Bug 20877 Author: pault Date: Sun Jun 11 22:32:26 2006 New Revision: 114551 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=114551 Log: 2006-06-12 Paul Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> PR fortran/

[Bug fortran/23091] ICE in gfc_trans_auto_array_allocation

--- Comment #12 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-11 22:32 --- Subject: Bug 23091 Author: pault Date: Sun Jun 11 22:32:26 2006 New Revision: 114551 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=114551 Log: 2006-06-12 Paul Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> PR fortran

[Bug fortran/24168] Problems with SPREAD and/or scalarization

--- Comment #4 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-11 22:32 --- Subject: Bug 24168 Author: pault Date: Sun Jun 11 22:32:26 2006 New Revision: 114551 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=114551 Log: 2006-06-12 Paul Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> PR fortran/

[Bug fortran/25047] insert_bbt(): Duplicate key found!

--- Comment #4 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-11 22:32 --- Subject: Bug 25047 Author: pault Date: Sun Jun 11 22:32:26 2006 New Revision: 114551 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=114551 Log: 2006-06-12 Paul Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> PR fortran/

[Bug bootstrap/18058] [4.2 Regression] Bootstrap fails with BOOTCFLAGS="-O0 -fkeep-inline-functions"

--- Comment #37 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-11 20:58 --- > Re. comment #34: Read comment #31. If one bug is used for (at least) two > different problems, confusion is what you get. My understanding is that there is a unique underlying problem. > Anyway, your patch i

[Bug target/27991] [4.2 regression] ICE in reload_cse_simplify_operands

-- pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot |

[Bug target/27991] [4.2 regression] ICE in reload_cse_simplify_operands

--- Comment #1 from schwab at suse dot de 2006-06-11 20:43 --- Created an attachment (id=11651) --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=11651&action=view) Testcase -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27991

[Bug target/27991] New: [4.2 regression] ICE in reload_cse_simplify_operands

s_ctanhl.c: In function ‘__ctanhl’: s_ctanhl.c:59: error: insn does not satisfy its constraints: (insn 265 149 150 14 (set (mem:XF (pre_dec:SI (reg/f:SI 15 %sp)) [0 S12 A8]) (reg/v:XF 5 %d5 [orig:60 x+12 ] [60])) 51 {*m68k.md:1087} (nil) (nil)) s_ctanhl.c:59: internal compiler error: in

[Bug bootstrap/18058] [4.2 Regression] Bootstrap fails with BOOTCFLAGS="-O0 -fkeep-inline-functions"

--- Comment #36 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-11 20:30 --- (In reply to comment #35) > Re. comment #34: Read comment #31. If one bug is used for (at least) two > different problems, confusion is what you get. Well the problem is the same issue and has been the same issue

[Bug bootstrap/18058] [4.2 Regression] Bootstrap fails with BOOTCFLAGS="-O0 -fkeep-inline-functions"

--- Comment #35 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-11 20:28 --- Re. comment #34: Read comment #31. If one bug is used for (at least) two different problems, confusion is what you get. Anyway, your patch is apparently still unreviewed...? -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show

[Bug fortran/27989] -fbounds-check should check for too small arrays on subroutine calls

--- Comment #1 from tobias dot burnus at physik dot fu-berlin dot de 2006-06-11 20:05 --- This should probably marked as blocking -fbounds-check meta bug 27786. -- tobias dot burnus at physik dot fu-berlin dot de changed: What|Removed |Added -

[Bug ada/27243] FAIL: c37215h

--- Comment #1 from danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-11 19:47 --- Still present as of 20060610 -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27243

[Bug c/27747] [4.2 Regression] ice _Pragma and macros

--- Comment #6 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-11 18:32 --- This test fails on powerpc-darwin and powerpc-aix: /Users/regress/tbox/svn-gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/cpp/_Pragma6.c:8: warning: #pragma pack(push[, id], ) is not supported on this target^M /Users/regress/tbox/svn-gcc/

[Bug libstdc++/26970] -O3 -Wformat=2 complains about floats written to ostream

--- Comment #7 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2006-06-11 17:35 --- I have a patch in testing... -- pcarlini at suse dot de changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|u

[Bug bootstrap/18058] [4.2 Regression] Bootstrap fails with BOOTCFLAGS="-O0 -fkeep-inline-functions"

--- Comment #34 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-11 15:44 --- > Issues in general are not specific enough. The question is, do we still have > a > regression here. Read the subject... -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18058

[Bug ada/27937] [4.2 Regression] Ada bootstrap failure on Solaris 10/x86

--- Comment #3 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-11 15:43 --- > But this seems not to be the case here: > > % grep -i except gcc/auto-host.h > /* Define 0/1 to force the choice for exception handling model. */ > /* #undef CONFIG_SJLJ_EXCEPTIONS */ Right, it's another kind

[Bug middle-end/27733] [4.1 Regression] Large compile time regression

--- Comment #17 from soete dot joel at tiscali dot be 2006-06-11 13:56 --- Yes, it does the drill: I back port this patch against debian gcc-4.1 stock sources (gcc version 4.1.2 20060604 (prerelease) (Debian 4.1.1-2)) and got this excellent improvement of the real case (kernel parisc l

[Bug middle-end/27942] [4.2 Regression] packed union doesn't make the unaligned magic on sh64-*

--- Comment #7 from patchapp at dberlin dot org 2006-06-11 13:55 --- Subject: Bug number PR 27942 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/msg00569.html -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/s

[Bug middle-end/26983] [4.0/4.1/4.2 Regression] Missing label in a nested function with builtin_setjmp/longjmp

--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-11 13:35 --- Still reproducible on powerpc-darwin with 4.2.0 20060608. -- pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added ---

[Bug middle-end/27909] emacs M-x is undefined

--- Comment #6 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-11 13:11 --- Closing as invalid pre reporter request. -- pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added

[Bug bootstrap/18058] [4.2 Regression] Bootstrap fails with BOOTCFLAGS="-O0 -fkeep-inline-functions"

--- Comment #33 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-11 13:10 --- Yes because 4.1.0 was able to compile with Sun's CC. This was caused by: 2006-01-22 Zack Weinberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * genautomata.c: Include vec.h, not varray.h. -- pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org c

[Bug fortran/27989] New: -fbounds-check should check for too small arrays on subroutine calls

This is with GNU Fortran 95 (GCC) 4.2.0 20060608 (experimental) and 4.1.0 (SUSE Linux). The following program has a problem as the passed array is shorter than the array expected by the subroutine. Currently, gfortran does not detect this problem. Expected: Something like Actual argument for du

[Bug target/27861] [4.0/4.1/4.2 regression] ICE in expand_expr_real_1, at expr.c:6916

--- Comment #3 from tbm at cyrius dot com 2006-06-11 10:53 --- I'm really on mipsel. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27861

[Bug target/27531] [4.2 regression] sparc: undefined reference to .LL226 with -O2

--- Comment #14 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-11 09:55 --- This hacks around this particular problem. Not a fix, you know, but it explains what is going wrong here. Index: reload1.c === --- reload1.c (revisi

[Bug middle-end/27909] emacs M-x is undefined

--- Comment #5 from happyarch at gmail dot com 2006-06-11 09:46 --- OOPS! Sorry!! this is NOT a gcc bug!! my emacs-cvs version works fine with --without-x!!! I guess my gnome version(garnome-2.14.2.1) or Xorg(7.0 which is too buggy) is too latest!! Thanks it works again! Yay! -- h

[Bug target/27531] [4.2 regression] sparc: undefined reference to .LL226 with -O2

--- Comment #13 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-11 09:34 --- I spoke too soon. The code_label that is removed for me is code_label 123, which disappears after flow2. Calling rebuild_jump_labels at the end of rest_of_handle_flow2 makes the problem disappear for me, but that i

[Bug target/27531] [4.2 regression] sparc: undefined reference to .LL226 with -O2

--- Comment #12 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-11 09:21 --- The offending insns for me are (using -dAP): !(insn 315 243 316 (set (reg/f:SI 19 %l3 [167]) !(high:SI (label_ref:SI 123))) 40 {*movsi_high} (nil) !(nil)) sethi %hi(.LL20), %l3 ! 315 *movsi_h

[Bug middle-end/26983] [4.0/4.1/4.2 Regression] Missing label in a nested function with builtin_setjmp/longjmp

--- Comment #2 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-11 08:55 --- I can't reproduce this with ToT. -- steven at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added

[Bug target/27531] [4.2 regression] sparc: undefined reference to .LL226 with -O2

--- Comment #11 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-11 08:54 --- This problem may be in some other place than expand. rebuild_jump_labels for example can also add REG_LABEL notes. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27531

[Bug target/27861] [4.0/4.1/4.2 regression] ICE in expand_expr_real_1, at expr.c:6916

--- Comment #2 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-11 08:38 --- Are your host and build machine really mipsel-linux-gnu? Or is this a cross to mipsel? -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27861

[Bug tree-optimization/27882] [4.2 regression] segfault in ipa-inline.c, if (e->callee->local.disregard_inline_limits

--- Comment #18 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-11 08:36 --- A pre-processed C test case would be nice. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27882

[Bug bootstrap/18058] [4.2 Regression] Bootstrap fails with BOOTCFLAGS="-O0 -fkeep-inline-functions"

--- Comment #32 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-11 08:35 --- Issues in general are not specific enough. The question is, do we still have a regression here. -- steven at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added -