--- Comment #16 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2007-09-27 06:28 ---
I will implement something along the lines that Jakub discussed. In the
meanwhile, could anybody figure a self-contained execution testcase based on
comment #14?
Thanks!
--
bonzini at gnu dot org changed:
--- Comment #12 from bangerth at dealii dot org 2007-09-27 04:06 ---
(In reply to comment #11)
> /usr/include/c++/4.2.1/bits/cpp_type_traits.h:346: error: expected identifier
> before ‘__is_pod’
__is_pod is only implemented on mainline, not 4.2.1.
W.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugz
--- Comment #11 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-09-27 00:58 ---
(In reply to comment #10)
> Manuel, ping, do you working on it?
> i've posted preprocessed 32-bit testaces for you over month ago ;)
> btw. PR32368 exposes this bug.
>
Sorry, I am probably doing something wrong but I
--- Comment #3 from patchapp at dberlin dot org 2007-09-27 00:11 ---
Subject: Bug number PR33400
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/2007-09/msg01925.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/sh
--- Comment #6 from patchapp at dberlin dot org 2007-09-27 00:11 ---
Subject: Bug number PR31154
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/2007-09/msg01901.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/sh
onfigure --enable-libdetect
--enable-libssp --prefix=/opt/gcc-mainline-dp --enable-docdir --enable-htmldir
--enable-languages=c
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.3.0 20070926 (experimental) (GCC)
COLLECT_GCC_OPTIONS='-B' '../prev-gcc/' '-g' '-fomit-frame-point
--- Comment #12 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-09-26 22:28
---
Documentation added.
--
fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #11 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-09-26 22:27
---
Subject: Bug 30780
Author: fxcoudert
Date: Wed Sep 26 22:27:16 2007
New Revision: 128825
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=128825
Log:
PR fortran/30780
* invoke.texi: Add not
--- Comment #8 from wilson at tuliptree dot org 2007-09-26 22:11 ---
Subject: Re: bogus escape
On Tue, 2007-09-25 at 17:36 +, kai-gcc-bugs at khms dot westfalen
dot de wrote:
> Furthermore, this is most definitely undocumented (and I'd guess
> unintentional)
> behaviour. The docs
--- Comment #15 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-09-26 21:24 ---
The restriction at least not to allow MEM_Ps was posted in:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-07/msg01329.html
but never applied to the trunk. But I believe it should instead check just
for REG_P, instead of !ME
--- Comment #14 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-09-26 21:19 ---
This isn't related to commutative constraints, can be reproduced with:
void
mul_basecase (unsigned long *wp, unsigned long *up, long un,
unsigned long *vp, long vn)
{
long j;
unsigned long prod_low,
--- Comment #18 from rask at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-09-26 21:06 ---
I ran into this with 4.3 a few weeks ago.
--
rask at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #13 from gmills at library dot berkeley dot edu 2007-09-26
21:02 ---
I just wanted to add that I finally got gcc to compile with c, c++, objc and
objc++ front ends. The key apparently was to upgrade to the latest gnu tar. The
previous version was 1.13 (as far as I can tell).
--- Comment #6 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-09-26 20:43 ---
the real question for me is why #pragma GCC system header doesn't work.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33485
--- Comment #9 from hjl at lucon dot org 2007-09-26 19:57 ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> Revision 128810:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2007-09/msg00806.html
>
> doesn't fix 400.perlbench on Linux/x86-64. I am testing revision 128815:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2007-09/msg0
--- Comment #4 from bangerth at dealii dot org 2007-09-26 19:41 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> OK. Now there are tests for all of algorithms for defaultconstructable. As per
> 20.1, this is not required for template arguments unless the standard
> explicitly notes it.
Yay, thanks for ta
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.3.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33421
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.3.0 |4.2.2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33410
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.3.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33434
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[4.2 regression]|[4.2/4.3 regression]
|fvisibility=hidden without |
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.3.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33391
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[4.1 regression] bitfield |[4.1/4.2/4.3 regression]
|constants with multiple
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.2.2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33131
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Target Milestone|--- |4
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.2.2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31174
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.2.2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32891
--
burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu dot
|
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[4.0/4.1 Regression]|[4.2 Regression] Incorrect
|Incorrect type debuggin
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.1.3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32139
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.1.3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30663
--- Comment #7 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-09-26 19:11 ---
Fixed.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.1.3 |4.2.2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31108
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.1.3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31108
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.1.3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25672
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.1.3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30919
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.3.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33410
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.3.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33554
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[4.0/4.1/4.2/4.3 regression]|[4.1/4.2/4.3 regression] C++
|C++ arguments passed
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[4.0/4.1/4.2/4.3 Regression]|[4.1/4.2/4.3 Regression]
|Rejects typedef qualified
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.3.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33545
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.2.2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33506
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.1.3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33501
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.3.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33500
--- Comment #5 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-09-26 19:06 ---
Hmm, __extension__ is lost with templates, see PR 21385.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-09-26 19:04 ---
Confirmed.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCON
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-09-26 19:04 ---
* gcc.dg/tree-ssa/complex-4.c: XFAIL.
is a regression then because the testcase was added back in 2006-02-18 (by me).
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #5 from aldot at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-09-26 18:53 ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> For the fortran frontend, It seems that i have this patch (must be relatively
> old; undetermined status, ATM).
Scratch that. Testing a working version that i will attach when it passes the
--- Comment #4 from aldot at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-09-26 18:43 ---
For the fortran frontend, It seems that i have this patch (must be relatively
old; undetermined status, ATM).
Index: gcc/fortran/Make-lang.in
===
--- gc
--- Comment #5 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-09-26 18:24 ---
Seems due to a trivial thinko in the changes for 27668, 27962, etc..
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
version 4.3.0 20070926 (experimental) (GCC)
--
Summary: fortran : wrong rank of derived type parameters array
components
Product: gcc
Version: 4.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
--- Comment #1 from ian at airs dot com 2007-09-26 17:54 ---
Created an attachment (id=14253)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=14253&action=view)
Patch
I'm testing this patch.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33565
--- Comment #8 from hjl at lucon dot org 2007-09-26 17:39 ---
Revision 128810:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2007-09/msg00806.html
doesn't fix 400.perlbench on Linux/x86-64. I am testing revision 128815:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2007-09/msg00812.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bu
--- Comment #3 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-09-26 17:27 ---
OK. Now there are tests for all of algorithms for defaultconstructable. As per
20.1, this is not required for template arguments unless the standard
explicitly notes it.
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-09/msg01
--- Comment #1 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-09-26 17:17
---
(In reply to comment #0)
> The only problem is that this patch rejects (with -std=gnu/legacy) a
> user-implemented .XOR., which is valid Fortran 90/95/2003.
I suggest we make it conditional on a -fxor-operator, d
--- Comment #5 from daney at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-09-26 16:45 ---
Subject: Bug 33479
Author: daney
Date: Wed Sep 26 16:45:39 2007
New Revision: 128821
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=128821
Log:
2007-09-26 David Daney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR target/3
with -O2 -Wall:
void f (int m, int n)
{
int j;
for (j = m; j < m + 10 && j < n; j ++)
do_something (j);
}
t.c:2: warning: assuming signed overflow does not occur when assuming that (X +
c) >= X is always true
(also note useless line number)
--
Summary: [4.3 regression] sp
--- Comment #8 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-09-26 16:40 ---
Again this is invalid.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #8 from michael dot a dot richmond at nasa dot gov 2007-09-26
15:36 ---
An analogous message appears when I compile the program listed below with the
flag "-fdefault-real-8":
qq.f90:3.15:
rft = TRANSFER('abcd', 0.0)
1
Warning: Intrinsic TRANSFER at (1) has par
--- Comment #3 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-09-26 15:32 ---
Fixed.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-09-26 15:32 ---
Subject: Bug 33563
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Sep 26 15:31:50 2007
New Revision: 128815
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=128815
Log:
2007-09-26 Richard Guenther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR
--- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-09-26 14:49 ---
Fixed in 4.3.0.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|
--- Comment #4 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-09-26 14:47
---
Sorry for the wrong report, and thanks.
--
fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-09-26 14:30 ---
This is a known problem. There is a patch here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-09/msg01735.html
--
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #11 from amodra at bigpond dot net dot au 2007-09-26 14:27
---
We first choose a section here, when decl readonly_flag is false:
#0 get_section (name=0x4cca824 ".data._ZSt15system_category", flags=512,
decl=0x4e44000) at /src/gcc-current/gcc/varasm.c:527
#1 0
This is a duplicate of bug 1601, which I can't reopen.
This bug is still present on 4.1.2-13 (RedHat, 20070626) and 3.4.6-3 (RedHat
20060404). Looking at the produced assembly, f2 and fun are both produced; the
assembly should only produce fun and inline both f1 and f2. I havn't tested it
on 4.2.1
--- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-09-26 13:26 ---
I have a patch.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|
--- Comment #3 from ktietz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-09-26 12:52 ---
This doesn't seems to be an error in gcc. The w64 crt currently does not
implement some math functions proper. May somebody can assist to port the
assemble coded function for this target.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bu
--- Comment #9 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2007-09-26 12:42 ---
Subject: Re: Warning when passing a pointer to a const array
to a function that expects a pointer to a non-cast one
On Wed, 26 Sep 2007, jozef dot behran at krs dot sk wrote:
> And another point: Whether C/C++ ha
For gcc.dg/torture
/* { dg-do run } */
/* { dg-options "--param max-aliased-vops=0" } */
struct T
{
int a, b;
} t, q;
int main (void)
{
struct T *p;
t.a = 1;
t.b = 2;
q = t;
t.a = 3;
if (q.a != 1)
__builtin_abort ();
return 0;
}
the logic behind tree-ssa-dse.c:get_use_of_
--- Comment #8 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2007-09-26 12:38 ---
Subject: Re: Warning when passing a pointer to a const array
to a function that expects a pointer to a non-cast one
On Wed, 26 Sep 2007, jozef dot behran at krs dot sk wrote:
> Could you give me reference in the
--- Comment #7 from jozef dot behran at krs dot sk 2007-09-26 12:33 ---
Hm, I must apologize for argumenting about wrong point of this issue. Now I can
see why other sometimes say "think before you type" :)
The problem here is not whether applying const to "array of int" makes "const
ar
--- Comment #15 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-09-26 12:32 ---
Subject: Bug 25309
Author: jsm28
Date: Wed Sep 26 12:32:27 2007
New Revision: 128811
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=128811
Log:
PR c/25309
* c-common.c (complete_array_type): D
--- Comment #7 from jozef dot behran at krs dot sk 2007-09-26 12:18 ---
> Neither C nor C++ have qualified array types, only arrays of qualified
> element types, but C++ has different rules from C regarding conversions
> involving qualifiers, which allow some conversions (involving arr
--- Comment #6 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-09-26 12:09 ---
When you apply const to "array of int", the resulting type is "array of const
int" not "const array of int"; that's how type qualifiers and arrays interact
in C, there is no such thing as a qualified array type. "arra
--- Comment #6 from jozef dot behran at krs dot sk 2007-09-26 12:06 ---
> Neither C nor C++ have qualified array types, only arrays of qualified
> element types, but C++ has different rules from C regarding conversions
> involving qualifiers, which allow some conversions (involving arr
--
belyshev at depni dot sinp dot msu dot ru changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||belyshev at depni dot sinp
|
--- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-09-26 12:03 ---
There is nothing wrong with the extra asm instructions.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33561
--- Comment #1 from ubizjak at gmail dot com 2007-09-26 12:00 ---
(In reply to comment #0)
> (Notice the extra lines between the call to _sinf and the leave.)
-O2 will remove these lines (as well as the lines above _sinf):
BTW: Could you check if _sinf returns values in %xmm0 reg?
-
--- Comment #5 from jozef dot behran at krs dot sk 2007-09-26 11:58 ---
Section 5.6.2.1, paragraph 2 says "E1[E2] is equivalent to *((E1)+(E2))". This
means if we have "typedef int THostAddr[8]" then the declaration "THostAddr
*Host" declares Host to be a pointer to 8-item arrays of inte
--- Comment #7 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-09-26 11:57 ---
This should now be fixed. Waiting for next results from the spec-tester to
verify.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33383
--- Comment #32 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-09-26 11:56
---
Fixed.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNE
--- Comment #4 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-09-26 11:56 ---
Fixed.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Sep 26 11:55:17 2007
New Revision: 128810
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=128810
Log:
2007-09-26 Richard Guenther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR tree-optimization/30375
PR tree-optimization/33560
...
* gcc.dg/tree-ssa/complex-4.c:
--- Comment #3 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-09-26 11:55 ---
Subject: Bug 33560
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Sep 26 11:55:17 2007
New Revision: 128810
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=128810
Log:
2007-09-26 Richard Guenther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR
--- Comment #31 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-09-26 11:55
---
Subject: Bug 30375
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Sep 26 11:55:17 2007
New Revision: 128810
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=128810
Log:
2007-09-26 Richard Guenther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--
fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Last recon
I have had a bug report from people who tested my gfortran binaries for
mingw-w64 that the float variants of math functions aren't working properly.
The proper report that was sent to me has this example:
C:\gfortran\test\single_bug>type table.f90
program table
real x
integer i
write(*,*) '
--- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-09-26 09:58 ---
get_use_of_stmt_lhs happily skips over calls.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-09-26 09:57 ---
Confirmed. I have a patch.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
BugsTh
--- Comment #30 from belyshev at depni dot sinp dot msu dot ru 2007-09-26
09:46 ---
(In reply to comment #29)
> Another testcase:
Ignore this one, I filed it as a separate report, see bug 33560
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30375
Reduced from 197.parser which failed with -O1:
/* { dg-do run } */
/* { dg-options "-O1 --param max-aliased-vops=0" } */
struct T
{
int a, b;
} t;
__attribute__((noinline)) struct T *f (struct T *p)
{
struct T *q = __builtin_malloc (sizeof (struct T));
*q = *p;
return q;
}
int main (voi
--- Comment #29 from belyshev at depni dot sinp dot msu dot ru 2007-09-26
09:31 ---
Another testcase:
/* { dg-do run } */
/* { dg-options "-O1 --param max-aliased-vops=0" } */
struct T
{
int a, b;
} t;
__attribute__((noinline)) struct T *f (struct T *p)
{
struct T *q = __builtin_
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-09-26 08:59 ---
They are included as far as I can tell:
@item -fstack-protector
Emit extra code to check for buffer overflows, such as stack smashing
attacks. This is done by adding a guard variable to functions with
vulnerable obj
--- Comment #2 from ubizjak at gmail dot com 2007-09-26 08:53 ---
The testcase from comment #1 is fixed:
test_c:
subl$16, %esp
movl24(%esp), %eax
mull20(%esp)
movl%eax, 8(%esp)
movl%edx, 12(%esp)
addl$16, %esp
--- Comment #8 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2007-09-26 08:10 ---
Now I get a bus error, but I have to use:
gfc -m64 -g pr33554.f90 -O0
with
gfc -m64 -g pr33554.f90 -fbounds-check -O0
the bus error disappear.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33554
--- Comment #7 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-09-26 07:53 ---
> I found backups of other gfortran versions:
More tests:
Works: 2007-07-23-r126835
Fails: 2007-07-25-r126902
This probably caused by:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2007-07/msg00745.html
r126885 | pault | 2007-07-24
--- Comment #6 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2007-09-26 07:45 ---
> Failing:
> GNU Fortran (GCC) 4.3.0 20070805 (experimental)
Did you try a more recent version? I don't see the problem with
Target: powerpc-apple-darwin8
gcc version 4.3.0 20070925 (experimental) (GCC) -> revision
--- Comment #5 from anlauf at gmx dot de 2007-09-26 07:10 ---
(In reply to comment #4)
I found backups of other gfortran versions:
Working:
GNU Fortran (GCC) 4.3.0 20070420 (experimental)
Failing:
GNU Fortran (GCC) 4.3.0 20070805 (experimental)
So it's a regression.
--
anlauf at
98 matches
Mail list logo
