On Linux/ia32, revision 148663:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2009-06/msg00646.html
caused:
FAIL: gcc.dg/20080522-1.c (test for excess errors)
FAIL: gcc.dg/20080528-1.c (test for excess errors)
--
Summary: [4.5 Regression] Revision 148663 caused extra failures
Product: g
--- Comment #29 from mrsam at courier-mta dot com 2009-06-19 00:47 ---
Created an attachment (id=18022)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=18022&action=view)
Revised revised patch
Here's a whack at actually keeping track of different message catalogs. It
compiles, but I
The following input:
class A {
public:
A();
virtual void find() {}
};
static void foo(A &a)
{
a.find();
}
void bar()
{
A a;
foo(a);
}
when compiled with gcc-4.0.3, 4.0.4, 4.3.3 and 4.4.0 on HP-UX with -O
will produce assembly code that contains a call to fi
--- Comment #12 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-19 00:20 ---
Adding at trans-expr.c:2740
&& !(e->symtree && e->symtree->n.sym->attr.pointer)
eliminates the problem in the reduced testcase and allows the original testcase
to run correctly. This has not been regtested
--- Comment #4 from ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-19 00:00 ---
Confirmed that the problem exists.
--
ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from rth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-18 23:35 ---
Fixed.
--
rth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
--- Comment #1 from rth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-18 23:28 ---
Subject: Bug 40488
Author: rth
Date: Thu Jun 18 23:27:40 2009
New Revision: 148685
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=148685
Log:
PR 40488
* tree-pass.h (TDF_ASMNAME): New.
*
--- Comment #6 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2009-06-18 21:49 ---
Subject: Re: -std=c99 does not enable c99 mode in Solaris
C library
On Thu, 18 Jun 2009, heydowns at borg dot com wrote:
> Was looking at modifying the spec to produce the desired results and
> contribute
> patc
--- Comment #5 from heydowns at borg dot com 2009-06-18 21:26 ---
Was looking at modifying the spec to produce the desired results and contribute
patch, however ran into trouble trying to match options containing literal
colons (-std=iso9899:199409) in %{S:X} style spec.
Is there a way
--- Comment #9 from hjl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-18 21:23 ---
Subject: Bug 40470
Author: hjl
Date: Thu Jun 18 21:23:29 2009
New Revision: 148676
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=148676
Log:
gcc/
2009-06-18 H.J. Lu
Backport from mainline:
--- Comment #8 from hjl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-18 21:21 ---
Subject: Bug 40470
Author: hjl
Date: Thu Jun 18 21:21:42 2009
New Revision: 148675
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=148675
Log:
gcc/
2009-06-18 H.J. Lu
Backport from mainline:
--- Comment #11 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-18 21:15 ---
(In reply to comment #10)
> Yes, I understood after a bit of dyslexia about it :-(
>
> Since the function result is a pointer, it is an ultimate component and, I
> think, the deallocation of the allocatable componen
--- Comment #7 from hjl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-18 21:12 ---
Subject: Bug 40470
Author: hjl
Date: Thu Jun 18 21:12:12 2009
New Revision: 148673
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=148673
Log:
gcc/
2009-06-18 H.J. Lu
PR target/40470
* config
--- Comment #5 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2009-06-18 21:08 ---
Subject: Re: definitions of __builtin_abs() and abs() function
in one module not diagnosed
What happened to the patch for PR 32455 to disallow __builtin_*
declarations? That PR indicates it was approved for 4.5.
--- Comment #1 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2009-06-18 20:55 ---
A patch is posted at
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-06/msg01520.html
--
hjl dot tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #10 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-18 20:51 ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> > I am not sure that your testcase should be allowed at all! I am not sure
> > that
> > I understand what it means.
>
> I think it is valid and not different from:
Yes, I understood afte
--- Comment #1 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-18 20:27 ---
Here is a preliminary patch which fixes the test case:
Index: gcc/fortran/trans-expr.c
===
--- gcc/fortran/trans-expr.c(revision 148651)
+++ gcc/fort
--- Comment #11 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-18 20:06 ---
Hopefully now really FIXED.
--
burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #10 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-18 20:06 ---
Subject: Bug 40061
Author: burnus
Date: Thu Jun 18 20:06:04 2009
New Revision: 148668
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=148668
Log:
2009-06-18 Tobias Burnus
Mikael Pettersson
//gcc.gnu.org/bugs.html> for instructions.^M
Starting program: /export/build/gnu/gcc/build-ia64-linux/stage1-gcc/cc1
-fpreprocessed /tmp/x.i -quiet -dumpbase x.i -auxbase x -O2 -version -o x.s
GNU C (GCC) version 4.5.0 20090618 (experimental) [trunk revision 148658]
(ia64-unknown-linux-gnu)
c
--- Comment #5 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2009-06-18 18:39 ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> Created an attachment (id=18017)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=18017&action=view) [edit]
> patch to fix the tests
>
> Thanks. It's misalignment.
> Could you please ch
--- Comment #8 from rlerallut at free dot fr 2009-06-18 18:04 ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> The warning was removed on purpose per user request, so this is WONTFIX.
Keeping an once of compatibility (or adding an option) between two minor
versions would have been appreciated. Or a prag
--- Comment #7 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2009-06-18 17:19
---
Today I can't reproduce it neither with mainline nor with 4_4-branch.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40156
--- Comment #7 from dragan at plusplus dot co dot yu 2009-06-18 17:09
---
(In reply to comment #6)
> Because there were strong objections to those changes at the meeting.
> People have been working on a different solution.
I know this is a bad place to continue the discussion on this
--- Comment #7 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-18 16:43 ---
The warning was removed on purpose per user request, so this is WONTFIX.
We are sorry about the inconvenience this causes to you. We humbly suggest you
consider using a more modern editor, for example emacs, which wil
--- Comment #6 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-18 16:30 ---
This is marked as a 4.4 regression. Does it happen in trunk?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40156
--- Comment #5 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-18 16:28 ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> It is an uninitialized use in an exception handler.
Is it an explicit exception handler? Or a compiler-generated?
In any case, it looks like the code is actually executed, so it may well be
--- Comment #6 from jason at redhat dot com 2009-06-18 16:26 ---
Subject: Re: [c++0x] rvalue-references no longer bind to lvalues
On 06/18/2009 11:39 AM, jwakely dot gcc at gmail dot com wrote:
> Yes, I was just pointing out that the WP currently doesn't have the changes to
> std::forw
--- Comment #15 from dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-18 15:48
---
Subject: Re: [4.4/4.5 Regression] internal
compiler error: in compute_antic, at tree-ssa-pre.c:2501
No, still trying to figure it out.
It's quite tricky.
On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 11:38 AM, rguenth at gc
--- Comment #5 from jwakely dot gcc at gmail dot com 2009-06-18 15:39
---
(In reply to comment #4)
> (In reply to comment #3)
> > Also, n2844 and Doug's patch don't update std::make_pair, so it won't accept
> > lvalues according to the current draft. That needs fixing too.
> >
>
> If
--- Comment #14 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-18 15:38
---
Danny, any news here?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40321
--- Comment #9 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-18 15:17 ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> I'm still convinced that this is a problem of the compiler, since it works
> with the
> NAG and Intel compilers.
Well, compilers can have all bugs - and not all invalid programs can be
dia
--- Comment #9 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-18 15:00 ---
Re-confirmed on the branch.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last
--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-18 14:51 ---
All of __* namespace s reserved for the implementor.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40485
--- Comment #21 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-18 14:50
---
Testing a backport.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assig
--- Comment #2 from tor_rustad at hotmail dot com 2009-06-18 14:47 ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> Works for me.
>
> gcc-4.2 --version
> gcc-4.2 (GCC) 4.2.4 (Debian 4.2.4-6)
The seg fault happened with
gcc version 4.2.4 (Ubuntu 4.2.4-1ubuntu3)
unintentionally I left out two semicolons
--- Comment #8 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-18 14:45 ---
Testing backport.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedT
--- Comment #8 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-18 14:45 ---
> I am not sure that your testcase should be allowed at all! I am not sure that
> I understand what it means.
I think it is valid and not different from:
integer, pointer :: ptr
allocate(ptr)
ptr = 5
call f
--- Comment #6 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-18 14:44 ---
Testing backport.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedT
--- Comment #6 from hp at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-18 14:30 ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> See the difference now?
Thanks, that helped.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40469
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-18 14:29 ---
Also provide the preprocessed source.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #4 from dragan at plusplus dot co dot yu 2009-06-18 14:19
---
(In reply to comment #3)
> Also, n2844 and Doug's patch don't update std::make_pair, so it won't accept
> lvalues according to the current draft. That needs fixing too.
>
If you are referring to:
template
p
--- Comment #35 from eres at il dot ibm dot com 2009-06-18 14:06 ---
Created an attachment (id=18021)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=18021&action=view)
Final version of the patch
I'll submit the following patch -- it contains Ira's latest fix and two syntax
errors f
--- Comment #2 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-18 14:00 ---
Why does the zero-bits machinery in combine not make these redundant extensions
go away?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40487
--- Comment #3 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-18 13:48 ---
The __builtin_ namespace is reserved by GCC. There may be documentation
missing for this fact.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40485
--- Comment #7 from juergen dot reuter at desy dot de 2009-06-18 13:33
---
(In reply to comment #6)
> (In reply to comment #5)
The crucial part is that the return value is a pointer! If I
>
> Ys there is a bug there somewhere. I shall have to think this through.
> I am not s
Revision 148642:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2009-06/msg00625.html
caused:
FAIL: gfortran.dg/bind_c_usage_13.f03 -O scan-tree-dump original "mult
.&.u..1..lb: 1 sz: 1., &.x..1..lb: 1 sz: 1., 1, 1.;"
FAIL: gfortran.dg/bind_c_usage_13.f03 -O scan-tree-dump original "mult_array
.&.abc..1..lb:
--- Comment #3 from jwakely dot gcc at gmail dot com 2009-06-18 13:13
---
Also, n2844 and Doug's patch don't update std::make_pair, so it won't accept
lvalues according to the current draft. That needs fixing too.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40486
--- Comment #2 from jwakely dot gcc at gmail dot com 2009-06-18 13:11
---
I've already done the library parts on trunk, see
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/libstdc++/2009-05/msg00114.html
I'll review Doug's patch to see if I missed anything.
N.B. the changes to std::move and std::forward were *
--- Comment #34 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2009-06-18 12:59 ---
With the patch in comment #33, I get on powerpc-apple-darwin9:
Running target unix
Using /sw/share/dejagnu/baseboards/unix.exp as board description file for
target.
Using /sw/share/dejagnu/config/unix.exp as generic
--- Comment #1 from ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-18 12:58 ---
I'm not sure about the best way of fixing this without looking at bigger trees
at expand time or for combine to be able to do something smart about this one.
Essentially you fold the previous zero extension with the
A colleague at ARM found this a couple of days back.
With trunk as of a few days back configured for arm-none-eabi for cortex-a8
typedef unsigned short ushort;
typedef unsigned char uchar;
ushort foo(uchar data, uchar data1, uchar data2)
{
uchar x = (uchar)(data);
x ^= (x + 5);
x ^= (x
--
redi at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |jwakely dot gcc at gmail dot
|dot org
--- Comment #4 from jwakely dot gcc at gmail dot com 2009-06-18 12:43
---
(In reply to comment #2)
> It seems strange to me that clear() allows memory_order_consume but not
> acquire. I'll ask on the lib reflector if that's an oversight,
I asked and everyone agreed it should disallow c
--- Comment #1 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2009-06-18 11:57
---
Let's CC Jason...
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
I'm surprised this hasn't been implemented already. AFAIK, it was
accepted and is in the current draft.
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2008-10/msg00436.html
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2009/n2844.html
The patch still applies to the compiler itself. However, the patch
doe
--- Comment #1 from ami_stuff at o2 dot pl 2009-06-18 11:27 ---
Anyone can try to reproduce this bug on his system?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40454
--- Comment #26 from matz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-18 11:26 ---
Hmm, yeah, I should probably clean up my hack and formally submit it. But
I had hoped to get some advise from the frontend guys, because I was surprised
that the patch actually worked.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzi
--- Comment #3 from ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-18 09:50 ---
Testing a patch now.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40482
--- Comment #2 from ivan dot glushkov at gmail dot com 2009-06-18 09:48
---
Why invalid? And why non-static is not invalid?
Can you please give me reference to documentation where it's described?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40485
--- Comment #6 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-18 09:44 ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> Juergen: Thanks for the report, but it is not a regression - it might not
> crash
> with 4.3 (or your 4.4) but I think that's just by chance.
>
> Paul, I think also this bug touches code fo
--- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-18 09:35 ---
This is really invalid code, but we should diagnose it.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-18 09:34 ---
GCC 4.2.x is no longer maintained, please try at least GCC 4.3.3.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
Component|regression |target
G
Hello.
gcc always replaces the name of the defined "__builtin_abs()" with "abs()". And
it might cause the error if we also wants to define "abs()" function:
$ cat t.c
int abs(int a) {return 0;}
int __builtin_abs(int a) {return 0;}
int main(void)
{
return (abs(-3) + __builtin_abs(-3));
}
$ gc
--- Comment #2 from ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-18 09:18 ---
I can confirm this for Thumb1 which is what I presume you are interested in.
Also, please note that -O2 -Os is the same as -Os. We have a splitter that
should ideally take care of this case. Digging.
--
ramana at
--- Comment #33 from irar at il dot ibm dot com 2009-06-18 09:14 ---
Created an attachment (id=18020)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=18020&action=view)
fix vect-42.c
OK, now I understand why we need two loops here (we need to pass the arrays as
parameters to avoid v
--- Comment #4 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2009-06-18 09:03 ---
> I close this as INVALID.
Late note: ifort gives an error also
pr40461.f90(19): error #7061: The characteristics of dummy argument 1 of the
associated actual procedure differ from the characteristics of dummy argum
--- Comment #3 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-18 09:00 ---
Patch: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2009-06/msg00188.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40452
--- Comment #3 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-18 08:49 ---
I close this as INVALID. If you have suggestions how to improve the diagnostics
or if you disagree, feel free to reopen the bug.
--
burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #32 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2009-06-18 08:46 ---
With the patch in comment #31 I get:
Running target unix
Using /sw/share/dejagnu/baseboards/unix.exp as board description file for
target.
Using /sw/share/dejagnu/config/unix.exp as generic interface file for target
OS: FreeBSD 7.2
Compiler: g++ (gcc version 4.2.1 20070719 [FreeBSD])
Traceback:
/bin/sh ../libtool --tag=CXX --mode=compile g++ -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I.
-I../confi
g -I/usr/local/include/ -I/usr/local/include/python2.5 -I/usr/local/include
-I
/usr/local/include/ImageMagick -g -O2 -DBOOST_PYTHON_DY
--- Comment #5 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-18 08:16 ---
The difference is what GCC does/does not to detect/hide the warning.
Here, and in 18051, the CCP pass assumes a value for the uninitialized
variable, and hence, the uninit use disappears, so no warning can occur.
In
--- Comment #6 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-18 08:13 ---
Fixed with r148652. Closing.
--
janus at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #5 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-18 08:09 ---
Subject: Bug 40451
Author: janus
Date: Thu Jun 18 08:09:40 2009
New Revision: 148652
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=148652
Log:
2009-06-18 Janus Weil
PR fortran/40451
* reso
--- Comment #31 from irar at il dot ibm dot com 2009-06-18 08:03 ---
Created an attachment (id=18019)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=18019&action=view)
patch to fix vect-42.c
I think the easiest way to fix it is to change the test to have one vetorizable
loop again
SHT_GROUP sections are used to fully support well controlled COMDAT, as
detailed here:
http://www.airs.com/blog/archives/52
The support for SHT_GROUP appeared in the gcc 4.x series. Since Solaris
has supported SHT_GROUP since shortly after it was defined, once might assume
that gcc 4.x would us
--- Comment #1 from carrot at google dot com 2009-06-18 07:34 ---
Created an attachment (id=18018)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=18018&action=view)
test case
command line option is -O2 -Os -mthumb
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40482
One example is 0xff00, we can get it by
mov r1, 255
lsl r1, r1, 24
Gcc generates following code:
ldr r1, .L2
...
.L2
.word -16777216
--
Summary: shift a small constant to get larger one
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.0
Status: UNCONFIRME
--- Comment #4 from irar at il dot ibm dot com 2009-06-18 07:17 ---
Created an attachment (id=18017)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=18017&action=view)
patch to fix the tests
Thanks. It's misalignment.
Could you please check the attached patch?
--
irar at il dot
80 matches
Mail list logo
