--- Comment #13 from paolo dot bonzini at lu dot unisi dot ch 2007-11-07
06:03 ---
Subject: Re: [4.3 Regression] Revision 119502
causes significantly slower results with 4.3 compared to 4.2
> I don't think we want to start playing with the heuristics ;) That patch
> certainly will
--- Comment #11 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2007-11-07
02:48 ---
Subject: Re: ICE optimizing passing long double to abstract method while in
other abstract's impl
> --- Comment #10 from tbm at cyrius dot com 2007-10-19 21:12 ---
> I forgot to mention that this
--- Comment #8 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-07 02:43
---
Subject: Bug 33985
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Wed Nov 7 02:43:44 2007
New Revision: 129955
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=129955
Log:
2007-11-06 Jerry DeLisle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Comment #12 from mrs at apple dot com 2007-11-07 01:06 ---
This patch is wrong. See http://gcc.gnu.org/PR34010 for details.
--
mrs at apple dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
The fix for http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24306 breaks -m64
struct-layout-1.c.
It breaks the abi of every target, which is wrong. On ppc -m64, it results in
a self inconsistent abi.
This correct fix would be to modify ix86_function_arg_boundary function to give
PARM_BOUNDARY for ze
--- Comment #3 from goffster at gmail dot com 2007-11-06 23:40 ---
eric-goffs-computer:/tmp egoff$ g++ --version
g++ (GCC) 4.2.2
Copyright (C) 2007 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This is free software; see the source for copying conditions. There is NO
warranty; not even for MERCHANTABI
--- Comment #7 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-06 23:39
---
All the more reason to take our time with this. Thanks for the testing.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33985
--- Comment #2 from goffster at gmail dot com 2007-11-06 23:39 ---
Created an attachment (id=14493)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=14493&action=view)
This file succeeds
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34009
--- Comment #1 from goffster at gmail dot com 2007-11-06 23:38 ---
Created an attachment (id=14492)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=14492&action=view)
This file fails
In file included from fails.cpp:2:
/usr/include/xercesc/util/XMLEnumerator.hpp:2: error: template wi
+++ This bug was initially created as a clone of Bug #32734 +++
While attempting to compile Xerces 2.7 on MacOS, I discovered what I think
is a bug in gcc, which I'm using for all phases of build. The c++ preprocessor
is emitting line number statements which have an inconsistent number of
argument
--- Comment #8 from goffster at gmail dot com 2007-11-06 23:32 ---
This is clearly not fixed, even in 4.2.2.
In file included from fails.cpp:2:
/usr/include/xercesc/util/XMLEnumerator.hpp:2: error: template with C linkage
--
goffster at gmail dot com changed:
What|Re
--- Comment #7 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-06 23:22 ---
Fixed.
--
jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #6 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-06 23:20 ---
Subject: Bug 33670
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Nov 6 23:20:38 2007
New Revision: 129948
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=129948
Log:
PR middle-end/33670
* haifa-sched.c (check_sched_
--- Comment #3 from andreast at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-06 22:55
---
Patch is posted here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-11/msg00286.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31937
--- Comment #1 from anlauf at gmx dot de 2007-11-06 22:20 ---
Created an attachment (id=14491)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=14491&action=view)
Demo code
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34008
Hi,
there's a bug that shows up when overloading elemental assignments.
The attached code sample crashes with:
gfcbug74.f90: In function 'assign_atm_to_atm':
gfcbug74.f90:33: internal compiler error: in gfc_trans_call, at
fortran/trans-stmt.c:389
When replacing the offending line
y% m = x%
--
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|rsandifo at sources dot |
|redhat dot com |
Statu
--- Comment #9 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-06 22:15
---
Created an attachment (id=14490)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=14490&action=view)
possible patch
I can't produce the bug on x86_64-linux-gnu, but could you give the
attached patch a go? Than
--- Comment #2 from drow at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-06 22:02 ---
Works for me on Debian/unstable using GCC 4.2, GDB 6.7, so I expect this was a
bug in Ubuntu's compiler version.
--
drow at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #9 from zadeck at naturalbridge dot com 2007-11-06 21:52
---
Subject: Re: [4.1/4.2/4.3 Regression] GCC generates
wrong code for infinitely recursive functions
ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> --- Comment #8 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-06 21
--- Comment #12 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-06 21:51
---
I don't think we want to start playing with the heuristics ;) That patch
certainly will cause compile-time and memory usage regressions.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33604
--
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |rsandifo at gcc dot gnu dot
|dot org
--- Comment #7 from rguenther at suse dot de 2007-11-06 21:38 ---
Subject: Re: [4.3 Regression] can't find a register
in class 'GENERAL_REGS' while reloading 'asm'
On Tue, 6 Nov 2007, bonzini at gnu dot org wrote:
> I think P1 is a little too much since this requires -fforce-addr.
I
--- Comment #11 from rguenther at suse dot de 2007-11-06 21:36 ---
Subject: Re: [4.3 Regression] ICE in
ssa_operand_alloc, at tree-ssa-operands.c:487 with -O3
On Tue, 6 Nov 2007, amacleod at redhat dot com wrote:
> Partitioning doesn't really seem to be the root problem.
But partiti
--- Comment #8 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-06 21:33
---
> I just talked to mark mitchell who was wearing his official language
> lawyer hat at the time. He said i had to fix it. i will submit a patch
> in the next day or so.
Thanks in advance.
--
http://gcc.gnu
--
daney at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail|4.2.3 |4.2.1
Target Milestone|--- |4.2.3
--- Comment #9 from tbm at cyrius dot com 2007-11-06 21:24 ---
Just for the record, this bug exists in FSF GCC 4.2.1 (and not just in Debian's
gcc), but is fixed in SVN.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34007
--- Comment #11 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2007-11-06 21:23 ---
michael dot olbrich at gmx dot net wrote:
> --- Comment #10 from michael dot olbrich at gmx dot net 2007-11-06 21:01
> ---
> 4.2 4.3 |
> ---
> 4.4s 15.9s |-O3
> 4.6s 16.3s |-O3 -fno-tree-ve
--- Comment #7 from zadeck at naturalbridge dot com 2007-11-06 21:21
---
Subject: Re: [4.1/4.2/4.3 Regression] GCC generates
wrong code for infinitely recursive functions
ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> --- Comment #6 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-06 19
--- Comment #11 from wvangulik at xs4all dot nl 2007-11-06 21:01 ---
I just realised I did not tried hard enough to find the smallest case:
===
volatile unsigned char bar;
void foo(void) {
unsigned char x;
for(x=0;x<128; x++) {
//bar = x+1
--- Comment #10 from michael dot olbrich at gmx dot net 2007-11-06 21:01
---
4.2 4.3 |
---
4.4s 15.9s |-O3
4.6s 16.3s |-O3 -fno-tree-vectorize
X18.9s |-O3 -fno-predictive-commoning
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33604
--- Comment #1 from wvangulik at xs4all dot nl 2007-11-06 20:41 ---
Well, that would be ok for the AVR. The test is allocating more than the 64K of
adressable space the AVR has. This should be a "expected to fail" for the AVR
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33782
--- Comment #10 from rask at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-06 20:14 ---
Subject: Bug 32787
Author: rask
Date: Tue Nov 6 20:14:22 2007
New Revision: 129944
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=129944
Log:
2007-11-06 Rask Ingemann Lambertsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Comment #9 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2007-11-06 20:08 ---
Can you try -O3 -fno-predictive-commoning and -O3 -fno-tree-vectorize?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33604
--- Comment #3 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-06 19:41 ---
Actually caused by PR23372 fix. Testing a fix.
--
jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #10 from wvangulik at xs4all dot nl 2007-11-06 19:34 ---
(In reply to comment #9)
>
> I think you will also find that if x is changed from ststic to auto the same
> problem appears.
>
Ok, I tried to find the minimum test case.
And it has nothing todo with static/volatile/i
--- Comment #35 from hjl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-06 19:19 ---
Subject: Bug 30961
Author: hjl
Date: Tue Nov 6 19:19:23 2007
New Revision: 129943
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=129943
Log:
gcc/
2007-11-06 Ulrich Weigand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR ta
--- Comment #3 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-06 19:07
---
Investigating.
--
ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assigne
--- Comment #6 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-06 19:04
---
> Eric: do you mean that tail recursive calls are not allowed with
> -fstack-check?
No, they are allowed. Optimizing the Ada testcase into an infinite loop is OK
if you don't consume the stack.
--
http://g
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot
|
--- Comment #8 from michael dot olbrich at gmx dot net 2007-11-06 18:55
---
A rerun with Debian's latest versions:
g++-4.2 (GCC) 4.2.3 20071014 (prerelease) (Debian 4.2.2-3)
g++-4.3 (Debian 4.3-20071020-1) 4.3.0 20071020 (experimental) [trunk revision
129510]
4.2 4.3 |
--- Comment #8 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-06 18:52 ---
Confirmed.
Caused by:
2006-02-18 Richard Sandiford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-06 18:51
---
Yep. Let's call it rtl-optimization since it's the var tracking pass.
--
ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #5 from sam at rfc1149 dot net 2007-11-06 18:50 ---
Eric: do you mean that tail recursive calls are not allowed with -fstack-check?
With the current trunk, the code is ok with -O3 (tail-recursive call) and still
buggy with -O ("rep ret" on x86). This is even stranger :)
--
--- Comment #8 from tbm at cyrius dot com 2007-11-06 18:41 ---
4.2.3 20071106 from SVN works, so I guess this bug can be closed.
--
tbm at cyrius dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from dorit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-06 18:29 ---
> We probably need to call the gimplifier (if we don't already) and also apply
> Zdenek's patch that allows gimplifying rhs cond_exprs -
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-07/msg02052.html.
Yep - I just tried ap
--- Comment #3 from dorit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-06 18:11 ---
I don't think these are related to PR33680. Sounds like we may be generating a
stmt with a cond_expr at the rhs. The data-reference analysis results in:
base_address: &blocks
offset from base address:
--- Comment #7 from tbm at cyrius dot com 2007-11-06 17:58 ---
4.1 and 4.3 work, 4.2 on mipsel also works. Only 4.2 on mips fails. I'll
try the latest 4.2 from SVN now.
--
tbm at cyrius dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #1 from kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-06 17:45 ---
Works for me on trunk. Doesn't work in 4.2.
troutmask:sgk[217] gfc4x -o z -O2 -ftree-vectorize -fdefault-integer-8 z.f
troutmask:sgk[218] ./z
1 2 4 7 11 16 22 29 37 46
troutmask:sgk[219] gfc4x -o z -O2 -ftree-vecto
--- Comment #34 from hjl at lucon dot org 2007-11-06 17:30 ---
An updated patch is posted at
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-11/msg00273.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30961
--- Comment #6 from jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk 2007-11-06 17:26 ---
> I had come to the same conclusion overnight - it is odd that procedures are
> not
> distinguished from non-procedures but there we are
there is nothing odd about that
PROGRAM TEST
INTEGER I
CALL F(I)
END PROGRAM
--- Comment #8 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-11-06 17:24 ---
Thanks a lot, Tom!
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32256
--- Comment #6 from tbm at cyrius dot com 2007-11-06 17:23 ---
and 4.1.3 20071019 works too.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34007
--- Comment #5 from tbm at cyrius dot com 2007-11-06 17:18 ---
Compiling the file with 4.3.0 20071030 works.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34007
--- Comment #4 from daney at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-06 17:17 ---
This is my last known good mips-linux-gnu build:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2007-10/msg01186.html
On mipsel-linux-gnu I am bootstrapping almost daily without problems.
Also last night (with an current but
--- Comment #3 from tbm at cyrius dot com 2007-11-06 17:14 ---
But yeah, I guess you're right that I shouldn't have marked this a "4.3
regression" when 4.2 is producing bad code.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34007
;t see this problem?
Anyway, I can put the assembler file somewhere if that's helpful. I need
to go shopping right now, but I'll try to compile with 4.3 in a bit.
(sid)[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/build/gcc-snapshot-20071106/build/gcc$ as -EB -O2 -g
-no-mdebug -mabi=32 -KPIC -o fold-cons
--- Comment #7 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2007-11-06 17:10 ---
I would also like to know the status, because I would like to get rid of
-fforce-addr. :-)
--
bonzini at gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #1 from daney at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-06 17:08 ---
Perhaps your bootstrap compiler is faulty.
It would seem that no code from the compiler-being-built is run at this point.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34007
--- Comment #6 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2007-11-06 17:05 ---
I think P1 is a little too much since this requires -fforce-addr.
Anyway, here are my findings and thoughts:
1) reduced testcase:
void oc_frag_recon_inter2_mmx(unsigned char *_dst,int _dst_ystride,
const unsigned char *_
ranch from
October 27).
(sid)[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/build/gcc-snapshot-20071106/build/gcc$ gcc -c -g -O
-DIN_GCC -W -Wall -Wwrite-strings -Wstrict-prototypes -Wmissing-prototypes
-Wold-style-definition -Wmissing-format-attribute -pedantic -Wno-long-long
-Wno-variadic-macros
--- Comment #3 from fang at csl dot cornell dot edu 2007-11-06 16:43
---
"Sieben auf einen Streich!" (9 really, but who's counting?) :D
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32253
Hi,
the code (see below) compiled with
gfortran -O2 -Wall -fdefault-integer-8 -ftree-vectorize a.f
gives a complete garbage, since compiler changing the order of execution
inside the loop.
=
DIMENSION Nvec(10),iVEC(10)
do i=1,10
Nvec(i)=i
enddo
--- Comment #6 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2007-11-06 16:17 ---
> Ans a simple patch to fix it:
I have applied the patch, but the test case fails if teststream does not exist
(passes if the file exists).
[karma] f90/bug% gfc streamtest_7.f90
[karma] f90/bug% a.out
[karma] f90/b
--- Comment #6 from tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-06 16:01 ---
Fixed on trunk.
--
tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work|
--- Comment #7 from tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-06 16:01 ---
Fixed on trunk.
--
tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work|3.
--- Comment #5 from tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-06 15:57 ---
Subject: Bug 32368
Author: tromey
Date: Tue Nov 6 15:57:02 2007
New Revision: 129936
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=129936
Log:
gcc
PR c++/32256, PR c++/32368:
* function.c (s
--- Comment #6 from tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-06 15:57 ---
Subject: Bug 32256
Author: tromey
Date: Tue Nov 6 15:57:02 2007
New Revision: 129936
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=129936
Log:
gcc
PR c++/32256, PR c++/32368:
* function.c (s
--- Comment #2 from tbm at cyrius dot com 2007-11-06 15:52 ---
When I change the testcase slightly I get a difference ICE:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ /usr/lib/gcc-snapshot/bin/gcc -c -O2 -ftree-vectorize
vnc-Unwrap2.c
vnc-Unwrap2.c: In function 'XdmcpUnwrap':
vnc-Unwrap2.c:4: error: control f
--- Comment #1 from tbm at cyrius dot com 2007-11-06 15:52 ---
/* Testcase by Martin Michlmayr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> */
void XdmcpUnwrap (unsigned char *input, unsigned char *output, int k)
{
int i;
unsigned char blocks[8][8];
for (i = 0; i < 8; i++)
blocks[k][i] = input[i];
k
With trunk from 20071105:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ /usr/lib/gcc-snapshot/bin/gcc -c -O2 -ftree-vectorize
vnc-Unwrap.c
vnc-Unwrap.c: In function 'XdmcpUnwrap':
vnc-Unwrap.c:4: error: expected an SSA_NAME object
vnc-Unwrap.c:4: error: in statement
base_off.31_46 = iftmp.32;
vnc-Unwrap.c:4: internal comp
--- Comment #10 from amacleod at redhat dot com 2007-11-06 15:28 ---
Partitioning doesn't really seem to be the root problem.
looking at testcase-min.i:
There are about 820 SFTs associated with the giant structure, and we decide
that they *all* can be affected by the memory access and t
--- Comment #45 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-06 15:14 ---
Fixed.
--
jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
--- Comment #10 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-06 15:14
---
Things start to go awry much earlier though, at the end of the first VRP pass
when jumps are threaded. More specifically in update_bb_profile_for_threading
if (prob > taken_edge->probability)
{
if (
--- Comment #2 from dgregor at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-06 14:43 ---
Fixed
--
dgregor at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRME
--- Comment #3 from dgregor at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-06 14:43 ---
Fixed
--
dgregor at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRME
--- Comment #2 from dgregor at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-06 14:43 ---
Fixed
--
dgregor at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRME
--- Comment #3 from dgregor at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-06 14:43 ---
Fixed
--
dgregor at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
--- Comment #4 from dgregor at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-06 14:43 ---
Fixed
--
dgregor at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
--- Comment #2 from dgregor at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-06 14:42 ---
Fixed
--
dgregor at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRME
--- Comment #4 from dgregor at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-06 14:42 ---
Fixed
--
dgregor at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRME
--- Comment #2 from dgregor at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-06 14:42 ---
Fixed
--
dgregor at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #3 from dgregor at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-06 14:40 ---
Fixed
--
dgregor at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRME
--- Comment #5 from dgregor at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-06 14:40 ---
Fixed
--
dgregor at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #4 from dgregor at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-06 14:39 ---
Subject: Bug 33977
Author: dgregor
Date: Tue Nov 6 14:39:41 2007
New Revision: 129929
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=129929
Log:
2007-11-06 Douglas Gregor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR c
--- Comment #2 from dgregor at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-06 14:39 ---
Subject: Bug 33886
Author: dgregor
Date: Tue Nov 6 14:39:41 2007
New Revision: 129929
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=129929
Log:
2007-11-06 Douglas Gregor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR c
--- Comment #3 from dgregor at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-06 14:38 ---
Subject: Bug 32114
Author: dgregor
Date: Tue Nov 6 14:37:56 2007
New Revision: 129928
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=129928
Log:
2007-11-06 Douglas Gregor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR c
--- Comment #2 from dgregor at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-06 14:38 ---
Subject: Bug 32128
Author: dgregor
Date: Tue Nov 6 14:37:56 2007
New Revision: 129928
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=129928
Log:
2007-11-06 Douglas Gregor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR c
--- Comment #1 from dgregor at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-06 14:38 ---
Subject: Bug 32127
Author: dgregor
Date: Tue Nov 6 14:37:56 2007
New Revision: 129928
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=129928
Log:
2007-11-06 Douglas Gregor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR c
--- Comment #1 from dgregor at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-06 14:38 ---
Subject: Bug 32253
Author: dgregor
Date: Tue Nov 6 14:37:56 2007
New Revision: 129928
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=129928
Log:
2007-11-06 Douglas Gregor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR c
--- Comment #1 from dgregor at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-06 14:38 ---
Subject: Bug 32115
Author: dgregor
Date: Tue Nov 6 14:37:56 2007
New Revision: 129928
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=129928
Log:
2007-11-06 Douglas Gregor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR c
--- Comment #2 from dgregor at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-06 14:38 ---
Subject: Bug 32126
Author: dgregor
Date: Tue Nov 6 14:37:56 2007
New Revision: 129928
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=129928
Log:
2007-11-06 Douglas Gregor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR c
--- Comment #1 from dgregor at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-06 14:38 ---
Subject: Bug 31439
Author: dgregor
Date: Tue Nov 6 14:37:56 2007
New Revision: 129928
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=129928
Log:
2007-11-06 Douglas Gregor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR c
--- Comment #3 from dgregor at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-06 14:38 ---
Subject: Bug 32566
Author: dgregor
Date: Tue Nov 6 14:37:56 2007
New Revision: 129928
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=129928
Log:
2007-11-06 Douglas Gregor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR c
--- Comment #3 from dgregor at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-06 14:38 ---
Subject: Bug 32125
Author: dgregor
Date: Tue Nov 6 14:37:56 2007
New Revision: 129928
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=129928
Log:
2007-11-06 Douglas Gregor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR c
--- Comment #3 from jwakely dot gcc at gmail dot com 2007-11-06 14:34
---
Some related discussion:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/libstdc++/2007-10/msg00180.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24347
--- Comment #7 from r dot emrich at de dot tecosim dot com 2007-11-06
14:22 ---
Created an attachment (id=14489)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=14489&action=view)
preprocessed source
gcc-4.2.2 yields the same problem
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi
After PR 33997 turned out to be no bug, there is the following program, which
gfortran wrongly accepts.
A bit oddly the Fortran standard does not distinguish between variables and
functions and subroutines are wild matches. The following is the relevant part
from the Fortran 2003 standard ("16.2.3
--- Comment #2 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-06 14:13 ---
GNU Fortran (GCC) 4.3.0 20070912 (experimental)
Copyright (C) 2007 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
$ cat pr34002.f90
program fred
implicit none
integer,dimension(3),parameter::MaxJ=2
integer,dimension(maxval(MaxJ))::N
--- Comment #8 from irar at il dot ibm dot com 2007-11-06 13:17 ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> (In reply to comment #2)
> > For example vect_get_vec_defs_for_stmt_copy
> > doesn't allocate the VECs which is exactly what causes the problem here.
>
> vect_get_vec_defs_for_stmt_copy is not
1 - 100 of 122 matches
Mail list logo
