--- Comment #11 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-04-11 21:35
---
Raising this up a little since F2003 features are coming up
--
jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #5 from kurt at roeckx dot be 2009-04-11 21:30 ---
It's building now.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39740
--- Comment #3 from css20 at mail dot ru 2009-04-11 21:09 ---
> Are you sure your entire compiler is up to date, not just the library?
No.. it was not lasest snapshot (20090331).
> We solve this by setting up in gcc's source tree a symbolic link "winsup"
> pointing to the sysroot (pref
--- Comment #4 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2009-04-11 20:31 ---
Fixed at revision 145896. Closing.
--
dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #16 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-04-11 19:48
---
Subject: Bug 37377
Author: tkoenig
Date: Sat Apr 11 19:48:19 2009
New Revision: 145965
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=145965
Log:
2009-04-11 Thomas Koenig
PR fortran/37377
--- Comment #4 from ubizjak at gmail dot com 2009-04-11 19:47 ---
Kurt, can you perhaps bootstrap and regression test attached patch?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39740
--- Comment #3 from ubizjak at gmail dot com 2009-04-11 19:46 ---
Created an attachment (id=17622)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=17622&action=view)
patch
This patch declares
(const:DI (plus:DI (label_ref:DI 74)
(const_int 24 [0x18])))
as l
--- Comment #2 from ubizjak at gmail dot com 2009-04-11 19:40 ---
Confirmed with x86_64 cross on 4.3 and 4.4.
--
ubizjak at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from ktietz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-04-11 19:33 ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> Are you sure your entire compiler is up to date, not just the library? And the
> build and install directories are clean? Because your first lines of failure
> involve bits of the library wh
--- Comment #1 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2009-04-11 18:47
---
Are you sure your entire compiler is up to date, not just the library? And the
build and install directories are clean? Because your first lines of failure
involve bits of the library which *require* a consiste
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|blocker |normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39737
--- Comment #8 from ktietz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-04-11 17:33 ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> stdio.h at system level is where it originally was:
>
> /usr/include/stdio.h
> /usr/include/c++/4.2.1/tr1/stdio.h
> /usr/include/bits/stdio.h
Ok, this is what I assumed. You are building a
--- Comment #1 from kurt at roeckx dot be 2009-04-11 17:23 ---
Created an attachment (id=17621)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=17621&action=view)
Reduced test case
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39740
Hi,
r-base is failing to build on alpha with the following error:
gcc -I. -I../../src/include -I../../src/include -DHAVE_CONFIG_H
-mieee-with-inexact -fpic -std=gnu99 -O3 -pipe -g -c deriv.c -o deriv.o
deriv.c: In function 'simplify':
deriv.c:267: error: unrecognizable insn:
(insn 2103 64
--- Comment #27 from rob1weld at aol dot com 2009-04-11 17:01 ---
Ping: gcc version 4.5.0 20090407 trunk revision 145649
gcc_trunk/libiberty/cplus-dem.c:2651: warning: offset 3 outside bounds of
constant string
Noticed while building binutils (with -Werror):
../binutils-2.19.1/bfd/elf
--- Comment #7 from sergstesh at yahoo dot com 2009-04-11 17:01 ---
Regarding "Could you attach the build log?" - isn't it already attached
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=17620
?
The file is gzipped because in plain form it's bigger than 1MB.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/
--- Comment #6 from sergstesh at yahoo dot com 2009-04-11 16:55 ---
Sorry, not
"Also, there were 'binutils' elements in the paths."
, but
Also, there were no 'binutils' elements in the paths.
.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39737
--- Comment #5 from sergstesh at yahoo dot com 2009-04-11 16:54 ---
stdio.h at system level is where it originally was:
/usr/include/stdio.h
/usr/include/c++/4.2.1/tr1/stdio.h
/usr/include/bits/stdio.h
.
Regarding 'gcc' configure options - do you mean normal native 'gcc' or the
'gcc' f
--- Comment #8 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-04-11 16:46 ---
Fixed on trunk.
--
domob at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSI
--- Comment #31 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-04-11 16:45
---
now that 4.5 branch is alive I will try once again to submit patch for
approval.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32784
--- Comment #7 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-04-11 16:44 ---
Subject: Bug 37746
Author: domob
Date: Sat Apr 11 16:44:37 2009
New Revision: 145958
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=145958
Log:
2009-04-11 Daniel Kraft
PR fortran/37746
* gf
--- Comment #4 from ktietz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-04-11 16:36 ---
Where are your headers installed? To which directory?
And of interest is the configure options you are passing to gcc's configure,
too.
Could you attach the build log?
Kai
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bu
--- Comment #24 from rguenther at suse dot de 2009-04-11 16:32 ---
Subject: Re: [4.3/4.4/4.5 Regression] operand of pre-/postin-/decrement
not promoted
On Sat, 11 Apr 2009, joseph at codesourcery dot com wrote:
> --- Comment #23 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2009-04-11 16:
--- Comment #23 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2009-04-11 16:30
---
Subject: Re: [4.3/4.4/4.5 Regression] operand of pre-/postin-/decrement
not promoted
On Sat, 11 Apr 2009, rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> On no-undefined-overflow branch the FE can do the increment/decr
--- Comment #4 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-04-11 16:28
---
Un-assigning, I don't think this is a bug, yet. :)
--
jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-04-11 16:14 ---
Extended patch based on the one from comment #2 posted:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2009-04/msg00148.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22552
--- Comment #22 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-04-11 15:58
---
On no-undefined-overflow branch the FE can do the increment/decrement on the
target type safely (well, there are no NV variants of the
{PRE,POST}{IN,DEC}REMENT
expressions on the branch, so they at the moment all g
--- Comment #7 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-04-11 15:55 ---
Patches to integrate the MPC library posted here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-03/msg00671.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-03/msg00672.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-03/msg00673.html
--- Comment #2 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-04-11 15:46
---
I think gfortran has this right. This is an attempt to read from an internal
unit of length zero. Try the same operation from a zero length file.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39587
--
ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.3.4
Version|4.3.4 |4.3.3
http://gc
--
ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org
|dot org
Bootstrapping with an in-tree copy of mpfr (version 2.4.1) and using an
installed gmp in a directory specified by --with-gmp=foo yields an error when
the bootstrap process gets to configuring the mpfr dir:
> configure: error: Do not use --with-gmp-build and other --with-gmp options
simultaneously
--- Comment #12 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-04-11 15:26
---
gfortran currently accepts asynchronous I/O syntax. The F2003 standard permits
the implementation to actually do synchronous I/O. gfortran run time library
does not actually perform I/O asynchronously, but does
build log from x86_64-pc-mingw32/libstdc++-v3/include:
mkdir -p ./x86_64-pc-mingw32/bits/stdc++.h.gch
x86_64-pc-mingw32-c++
-L/usr/portage/local/overlays/build/x86_64-pc-mingw32/winsup/mingw
-L/usr/portage/local/overlays/build/x86_64-pc-mingw32/winsup/w32api/lib
-
--- Comment #3 from sergstesh at yahoo dot com 2009-04-11 14:00 ---
Created an attachment (id=17620)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=17620&action=view)
'make' screen output
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39737
--- Comment #3 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-04-11 13:58 ---
Working on updating and working out FX's patch.
--
domob at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #2 from sergstesh at yahoo dot com 2009-04-11 13:57 ---
Created an attachment (id=17619)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=17619&action=view)
'configure' screen output
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39737
--- Comment #1 from sergstesh at yahoo dot com 2009-04-11 13:55 ---
Created an attachment (id=17618)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=17618&action=view)
autogenerated script used to run 'configure'
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39737
I've tried to build i686-pc-mingw32 version of gcc-4.3.3 to be used as
cross-compiler on Linux for Windows, and the build failed with this error
message:
"
/mnt/sdb8/sergei/AFSWD_debug/build/gcc-4.3.3/./gcc/xgcc
-B/mnt/sdb8/sergei/AFSWD_debug/build/gcc-4.3.3/./gcc/
-L/mnt/sdb8/sergei/AFSWD_debug/b
--- Comment #1 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2009-04-11 12:51 ---
Subject: Re: New: signed overflow in loop
induction variable: missing warning and wrong code
On Sat, 11 Apr 2009, edwintorok at gmail dot com wrote:
> Testcase:
> #include
> int
> main ()
> {
> int unti
[This bug was discovered by kantorzs...@yahoo.com]
When compiling the testcase below at -O2, using gcc 4.3.3 instead of an infite
loop, where the variable 'from' takes values from -32768 to 32767,
it goes up way beyond that limit:
$ gcc -O2 tes -Wall -W -Wstrict-overflow=5 && ./a.out
0
1
...
225
Currently the validity checks for procedure pointer assignments are limited to
formal/actual arguments and function/subroutine (see proc_ptr_11.f90 and PR
38290), but a check for the return value is missing.
Example:
procedure(real), pointer :: p1
procedure(integer), pointer :: p2
p1 => iabs
p1
--- Comment #3 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-04-11 10:32 ---
Fixed with r145955. Closing.
--
janus at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
janus at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |janus at gcc dot gnu dot org
|dot org
--- Comment #2 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-04-11 10:30 ---
Subject: Bug 39692
Author: janus
Date: Sat Apr 11 10:30:29 2009
New Revision: 145955
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=145955
Log:
2009-04-11 Janus Weil
PR fortran/39692
* symb
--- Comment #5 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-04-11 10:20 ---
Subject: Bug 39732
Author: rguenth
Date: Sat Apr 11 10:19:55 2009
New Revision: 145954
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=145954
Log:
2009-04-11 Richard Guenther
PR middle-end/39732
--- Comment #4 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-04-11 10:20 ---
Fixed.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #15 from dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-04-11 08:33
---
> Could the patches in comments #11 to #13 be applied to trunk too?
They can and will, but there are at least two more coming and I want to have
and test them together before moving them over to trunk.
--
htt
--- Comment #3 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-04-11 08:13 ---
template struct char_traits;
template
_OI __copy_move_a2(_OI __result);
template inline _OI
copy(_OI __result)
{
return __copy_move_a2 (__result);
}
template
class basic_ostream { };
template >
class os
--- Comment #5 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-04-11 07:44 ---
Fixe.d
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-04-11 07:47 ---
Reducing.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39732
--- Comment #5 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-04-11 07:44 ---
Fixed.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #4 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-04-11 07:43 ---
Subject: Bug 39713
Author: rguenth
Date: Sat Apr 11 07:42:52 2009
New Revision: 145952
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=145952
Log:
2009-04-11 Richard Guenther
PR tree-optimization/
--- Comment #140 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-04-11 07:20
---
*** Bug 39734 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-04-11 07:34 ---
Subject: Bug 39713
Author: rguenth
Date: Sat Apr 11 07:34:09 2009
New Revision: 145951
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=145951
Log:
2009-04-11 Richard Guenther
PR tree-optimization/
--- Comment #4 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-04-11 07:33 ---
Subject: Bug 39712
Author: rguenth
Date: Sat Apr 11 07:32:52 2009
New Revision: 145950
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=145950
Log:
2009-04-11 Richard Guenther
PR c/39712
*
--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-04-11 07:20 ---
u_int32_t mask[1] = { 0x };
u_int32_t cfg[1] = { 0x };
u_int16_t *cfg16 = (u_int16_t *)cfg;
u_int16_t *mask16 = (u_int16_t *)mask;
printf("mask16[0]: 0x%04x\n", mask16[0]);
You
57 matches
Mail list logo
