--- Comment #5 from daney at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-19 05:58 ---
OK, I finished running make -k check with a i686-linux -> mipsel-linux cross
compiler on my mips board for c, c++, java and there are only the 'normal'
failures (mostly attributable to running the testsuite on a remote
--- Comment #14 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-19 05:49
---
> gcc was built with:
>
> PKG_BUILD_GCC_LANGS=c,c++
> test -d objdir || mkdir objdir
> (cd objdir; ../configure \
> --prefix=/opt/aegis \
> --with-as=/usr/ccs/bin/as \
>
--- Comment #13 from steve at telxio dot com 2006-09-19 05:41 ---
I have tried gcc 4.1.1 and I still have the same problem - I tried it on a
different Solaris10 machine than before, with all the latest patches, and got
the same result.
gcc was built with:
PKG_BUILD_GCC_LANGS=c,c++
test
--- Comment #13 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-19 05:18
---
I don't know the state of this feature in C++0x at all and I don't know if this
means this is now valid code but only with an option like -std=c++0x.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21498
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-19 05:13 ---
This is not a bug but a feature. The reason is that const int usually shows up
in header files and usually are normally unused.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-19 05:07 ---
The patch which I am thinking might had caused this is:
2006-09-13 Andreas Krebbel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* flow.c (calculate_global_regs_live): Invalidate eh registers
on eh edges. Renamed invalidate
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|libstdc++ |middle-end
Keywords||EH, wrong-
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-19 05:03 ---
Does hppa-linux-gnu use dwarf2 eh info?
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-19 05:00 ---
Confirmed, not a regression.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #6 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-19 04:30 ---
This is DR 225 really.
http://www.open-std.org/JTC1/SC22/WG21/docs/cwg_active.html#225
Which means there is a question if this is really invalid code after all.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
--- Comment #8 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-19 04:19 ---
*** Bug 29135 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-19 04:19 ---
char input[((size_t)~0 >> 1)];
hehehehehehehe.
Anyways this has been fixed for 4.1.0 by rejecting this code saying there is a
stack (32bit) overflow.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 21107 ***
--
--- Comment #9 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-19 04:16 ---
*** Bug 25980 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #8 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-19 04:16 ---
I am just going to close this as a dup of bug 17365 which is all the same
issues, finding non functions for ADL.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 17365 ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed
--- Comment #5 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-19 04:15 ---
This is a dup 25980 which has a better simplier example.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 25980 ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Adde
--- Comment #7 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-19 04:15 ---
*** Bug 17045 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #1 from de at cs dot brown dot edu 2006-09-19 04:12 ---
Created an attachment (id=12293)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=12293&action=view)
Preprocessed source.
The preprocessed source file that causes the internal compiler error. Still not
sure exactly w
--- Comment #6 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-19 04:12 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> I believe there alreay is a PR for this. The proper action is to
> suspend it until the issue is completely resolved.
Yes PR 17365.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
/usr/bin/gcc -Wall -pedantic -g -c -o desh.o desh.c
desh.c: In function 'main':
desh.c:256: internal compiler error: in expand_one_stack_var_at, at
cfgexpand.c:515
Please submit a full bug report,
with preprocessed source if appropriate.
gcc -v:
Configured with: ../src/configure -v
--enable-lan
--- Comment #8 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-19 04:09 ---
http://www.open-std.org/JTC1/SC22/WG21/docs/cwg_active.html#218
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #5 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-19 04:06 ---
So GCC does not implement 14.6.4.2/1, part 1:
- For the part of look using unqualified name lookup (3.4.1), only function
declareations with external linkage from the template context are found.
And since ADL on fun
--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-19 03:51 ---
Also "f (i)" is a dependent expression because of 14.6.2/1 as i is (obviously)
dependent so 14.6.3 does not apply.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29131
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-19 03:49 ---
Actually you missed 14.6.4.2. This really has nothing to do with 14.6.3.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29131
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-19 03:47 ---
Actually wait, what is happening here is ADL is happening for fundemantal types
which is a question of a Defect report, I forgot which one now.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29131
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-19 03:33 ---
To mark as a dup of bug 25802, since this is the same issue as that bug.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 25802 ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #6 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-19 03:33 ---
*** Bug 29126 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-19 03:32 ---
Reopening to ...
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status
--- Comment #6 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-19 03:30 ---
*** Bug 29125 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-19 03:30 ---
Mark this as a dup of bug 7948 which is the same issue.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 7948 ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-19 03:30 ---
Reopening to ...
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-19 03:26 ---
Yes how did you configure binutils?
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-19 03:24 ---
Confirmed, a regression from 4.1.2 which we accepted this but gave a warning
saying we don't implement the semantics yet. Since we accepted this with a
warning before and now reject it, I am going to say this is a r
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-19 03:21 ---
I cannot reproduce this with "4.2.0 20060311" or 4.0.3 or 4.1.0 20060208.
Are you sure that you don't have a patch that causes problems?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29124
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.2.0 |4.1.2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=4520
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-19 03:12 ---
Here is a reduced testcase:
int
bar (int b, int c)
{
return 0;
}
int
main ()
{
bar (8, 4);
return bar (7, 4);
}
-
This is due to tail calls.
> The call instruction is corrupted.
No, it is not, it is correc
--- Comment #12 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-18 23:42
---
*** Bug 29123 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #12 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-18 23:42
---
*** Bug 29123 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-18 23:42 ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 21498 ***
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 21498 ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Ad
--- Comment #11 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-18 23:42
---
*** Bug 22047 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-18 23:42 ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 21498 ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #10 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-18 23:42
---
http://anubis.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2003/n1520.pdf
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2005/n1791.pdf
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21498
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21498
--- Comment #1 from fang at csl dot cornell dot edu 2006-09-18 23:38
---
Motion to dupe as PR 21498.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29123
--- Comment #2 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2006-09-18 23:26 ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> And what does the C++ standard say about this case?
As far as I can see, the standard is very vague about the relationship between
the two max_size. About allocator::max_size, it says "the larges
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-18 23:12 ---
And what does the C++ standard say about this case?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29134
I'm using the special GCC that Apple supplies with
Mac OS X 10.4.7 (PowerPC) and XCode 2.4. I just ran
a test case with code like:
std::deque d;
assert( d.max_size() <= d.get_allocator().max_size() );
And it failed. I looked at the definition of deque::max_size
and saw that it blindly return s
--- Comment #11 from sayle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-18 22:56 ---
Subject: Bug 4520
Author: sayle
Date: Mon Sep 18 22:56:44 2006
New Revision: 117042
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=117042
Log:
PR middle-end/4520
Backport from mainline
--- Comment #12 from eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com 2006-09-18 22:42
---
(In reply to comment #11)
> Created an attachment (id=12115)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=12115&action=view) [edit]
> When relocated do not add paths that contain the configured prefix.
--- Comment #8 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-18 22:35 ---
Not fixed just yet.
--
steven at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Statu
--- Comment #10 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-18 22:26 ---
Fixed on trunk and 4.1
Paul
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28526
--- Comment #9 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-18 22:25 ---
integer, allocatable :: x(:)
integer :: i, j(2)
allocate (x(kind(i)), stat=i)
print *, size(x)
allocate (x(size(j)), stat=j(1))
print *, size(x)
end
--
pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed
--- Comment #7 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-18 22:24 ---
Fixed on trunk and 4.1
Paul
--
pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from laurent at guerby dot net 2006-09-18 22:04 ---
(sorry to be guessing, but I don't understand much of what this code is doing.)
Here is another try (probably breaks cross tools, but if it works at least we
know where the problem lies):
--- osint.adb.orig 2006-09
--- Comment #8 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-18 22:02 ---
Subject: Bug 21918
Author: pault
Date: Mon Sep 18 22:02:24 2006
New Revision: 117038
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=117038
Log:
2006-09-18 Paul Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR fortran/
--- Comment #8 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-18 22:02 ---
Subject: Bug 29060
Author: pault
Date: Mon Sep 18 22:02:24 2006
New Revision: 117038
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=117038
Log:
2006-09-18 Paul Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR fortran/
--- Comment #7 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-18 22:02 ---
Subject: Bug 28817
Author: pault
Date: Mon Sep 18 22:02:24 2006
New Revision: 117038
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=117038
Log:
2006-09-18 Paul Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR fortran/
--- Comment #4 from ddaney at avtrex dot com 2006-09-18 21:59 ---
Subject: Re: [4.2 Regression] Mips exception handling broken.
roger at eyesopen dot com wrote:
> --- Comment #1 from roger at eyesopen dot com 2006-09-18 21:27 ---
> Hi David,
>
> I was wondering if you have a
--- Comment #3 from ddaney at avtrex dot com 2006-09-18 21:32 ---
Subject: Re: [4.2 Regression] Mips exception handling broken.
roger at eyesopen dot com wrote:
> --- Comment #1 from roger at eyesopen dot com 2006-09-18 21:27 ---
> Hi David,
>
> I was wondering if you have a
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-18 21:32 ---
The patch also went into the 4.1 branch.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from roger at eyesopen dot com 2006-09-18 21:27 ---
Hi David,
I was wondering if you have a MIPS tree handy, whether you could easily
test the following single line patch:
Index: dwarf2out.c
===
*** dwarf2ou
--- Comment #28 from geoffk at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-18 21:02 ---
The current version of the documentation says, for -fvisibility=,
Be aware that headers from outside your project, in particular system
headers and headers from any other library you use, may not be
expecting to be
The combination of GCC (r116604 or later) and binutils-2.17 creates bad
.eh_frame data causing SIGSEGV at runtime anytime an exception is thrown.
To reproduce just run the g++ testsuite. All exception tests FAIL.
This problem is discussed further in:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-09/msg
--- Comment #6 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-18 20:20 ---
Subject: Bug 29101
Author: pault
Date: Mon Sep 18 20:19:50 2006
New Revision: 117034
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=117034
Log:
2006-09-18 Paul Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR fortran/28
--- Comment #8 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-18 20:20 ---
Subject: Bug 28526
Author: pault
Date: Mon Sep 18 20:19:50 2006
New Revision: 117034
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=117034
Log:
2006-09-18 Paul Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR fortran/28
--- Comment #5 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-18 19:29 ---
Thanks Steven, it was just too obvious, wasn't it?
Index: gcc/fortran/trans-stmt.c
===
--- gcc/fortran/trans-stmt.c(revision 117030)
+++ gcc/fortran/
--- Comment #3 from schwab at suse dot de 2006-09-18 19:29 ---
That didn't change anything.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29127
--- Comment #3 from janis at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-18 19:23 ---
A regression hunt on powerpc-linux using the testcase from comment #2
identified this patch:
http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?view=rev&rev=116468
r116468 | mmitchel | 2006-08-26 16:23:33 + (Sat, 26 Aug 2006)
--- Comment #1 from laurent at guerby dot net 2006-09-18 18:43 ---
Asynchronous abort is implementation defined here since there is no abort
completion point in your loop.
You can make this works portably by adding a "delay 0.0;" statement within your
loop, see ARM 9.8(18).
--
laure
--- Comment #2 from laurent at guerby dot net 2006-09-18 18:30 ---
Arnaud, any socket expert comment on my patch above?
--
laurent at guerby dot net changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #1 from laurent at guerby dot net 2006-09-18 18:29 ---
Confirmed on gcc version 4.2.0 20060915 (experimental)
$ ./bind_socket_bug
Socket bound to: 0.0.0.0: 53558
Connecting to: 127.0.0.2: 53558
Accepted connection from: 127.0.0.2: 36739
With the following patch:
--- g-sock
--- Comment #1 from laurent at guerby dot net 2006-09-18 18:15 ---
Indeed (4.1 and 4.2), Arnaud I assume it's a matter of importing?
--
laurent at guerby dot net changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #2 from laurent at guerby dot net 2006-09-18 18:12 ---
Hi Andreas, could you try this patch? If this works I'll submit it, if not
please let me know what's the next blocking point.
--- osint.adb.orig 2006-09-18 20:05:30.0 +0200
+++ osint.adb 2006-09-18 20:08:3
--- Comment #1 from laurent at guerby dot net 2006-09-18 17:59 ---
Confirmed on GNAT 4.2.0 20060915 (experimental)
Classifying as enhancement request.
--
laurent at guerby dot net changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #3 from jmbnyc at gmail dot com 2006-09-18 17:58 ---
Subject: Re: bad relocation section name
FYI:
I think I found the source of the problem. I am using boost::bind to
create a function pointer to an object. If my class does not have a
default constructor then I get the pr
--- Comment #3 from laurent at guerby dot net 2006-09-18 17:55 ---
Confirmed.
$ gcc -c -gnat05 test_observers.adb
+===GNAT BUG DETECTED==+
| 4.2.0 20060915 (experimental) (x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu) Assert_Failure
atree.adb:812|
| Error
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-18 17:28 ---
(In reply to comment #0)
> The C++ standard clause 14.6.3 states that names should be looked up from the
> point they are used. I.e. functions defined after that point are not visible.
> This is true for regular func
--- Comment #2 from jmbnyc at gmail dot com 2006-09-18 17:24 ---
Subject: Re: bad relocation section name
thanks, will do.
/JMB
On 18 Sep 2006 17:23:33 -, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> --- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-0
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-18 17:23 ---
collect2: ld terminated with signal 11 [Segmentation fault]
That means a bug in binutils and not in GCC.
Report this first to redhat since that is where you got your binutils and GCC.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu do
--
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=29128
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-18 17:20 ---
See comment #6 in PR 864, this is a known bug.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #8 from pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu 2006-09-18 17:19
---
Subject: Re: [4.2 Regression] FAIL:
gcc.dg/torture/pr26565.c -O0 execution test
On Mon, 2006-09-18 at 13:48 +, ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org
wrote:
>
> --- Comment #7 from ebotcazou at gcc
On Mon, 2006-09-18 at 13:48 +, ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org
wrote:
>
> --- Comment #7 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-18 13:48
> ---
> > + /* TER is not run at -O0, so our representation of alignment
> > + information and its propagation is non-existant. */
>
--- Comment #4 from patchapp at dberlin dot org 2006-09-18 17:15 ---
Subject: Bug number PR29101
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/2006-09/msg00715.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/sh
The following C++ code should not compile:
template
int t(T i)
{
return f (i); // error: f not visible here
}
int
f (int i)
{
return i;
}
int
main()
{
return t(1);
}
The C++ standard clause 14.6.3 states that names should be looked up from the
point they are used. I.e. functions defined
--- Comment #2 from laguest at archangeli dot demon dot co dot uk
2006-09-18 16:11 ---
Seems this was an error based on the use of a limited view of a type. I don't
know whether this is actually allowed in the Ada 2005 standard, i.e passing a
reference to a limited view to a container?
--- Comment #9 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-18 15:42 ---
Fix for GCC 4.1 coming later today.
--
steven at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
I am using gcc3.3.5 on solaris2.7. Its a 64 bit compilation
I am compiling a file 'plugin.cpp'. It includes mach.h and the complation
gives the following error.
-
mach.h error: conflicting
types for `typedef vx_u32_t off32_t'
/
--- Comment #7 from micis at gmx dot de 2006-09-18 15:39 ---
I get the same ICE with this short code:
class A;
class B
{
typedef void (*C[5]) (A *);
static C D;
static void E (A*) {}
};
B::C B::D={E};
--
micis at gmx dot de changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #7 from paul dot richard dot thomas at cea dot fr 2006-09-18
15:33 ---
I mixed up my types above; using a gfc_array_index_type seems to
cover every circumstance where missing arguments can be addressed
with legal code.
Regtests on FC5/Athlon.
Index: gcc/fortran/trans-decl.
--- Comment #8 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-18 15:32 ---
Subject: Bug 29087
Author: steven
Date: Mon Sep 18 15:32:43 2006
New Revision: 117026
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=117026
Log:
PR c++/29087
* parser.c (cp_parser_labeled_stat
--- Comment #3 from paul dot richard dot thomas at cea dot fr 2006-09-18
15:29 ---
This is still better and even regtests!
Index: gcc/fortran/resolve.c
===
*** gcc/fortran/resolve.c (révision 116697)
--- gcc/fortran/
I am trying to link some code and I get the following from the link step:
collect2: ld terminated with signal 11 [Segmentation fault]
/usr/bin/ld: build/x86-64.linux/gcc64/cc-O2/clientTest.o: bad relocation
section name `'
I can make this happen with either -O2 or -g compiled code. If I comment o
--- Comment #5 from neil at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-18 15:13 ---
Confirmed
--
neil at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2006-03-05 0
--- Comment #3 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-18 14:34 ---
Because of PR28489. Right.
--
steven at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-18 14:33 ---
And this is a regression because...?
--
steven at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Compile the following with -std=c99 -pedantic-errors
void f(unsigned int [*]);
foo.c:1: error: '[*]' not allowed in other than a declaration
--
Summary: Strictly conforming code rejected
Product: gcc
Version: 4.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Seve
--- Comment #1 from neil at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-18 14:02 ---
Fixed in current SVN.
--
neil at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|
--- Comment #1 from neil at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-18 14:02 ---
Fixed in current SVN.
--
neil at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|
--- Comment #6 from tbm at cyrius dot com 2006-09-18 13:50 ---
Note that this bug is very frequent (compiling the Debian archive).
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29016
--- Comment #7 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-18 13:48
---
> + /* TER is not run at -O0, so our representation of alignment
> + information and its propagation is non-existant. */
> + if (!optimize)
> +return 0;
Perhaps
if (!flag_tree_ter)
return 0;
wo
1 - 100 of 131 matches
Mail list logo
