--- Comment #4 from phresnel at gmail dot com 2010-07-07 06:55 ---
Little update: I "re-opened" this report at
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11793 .
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44841
--- Comment #3 from phresnel at gmail dot com 2010-07-07 06:29 ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> (In reply to comment #0)
> >
> > undefined reference to `vtable for IFoo'
> > Suggestions:
> >* Ensure that no (pure) member function of `IFoo' became unintentionally
> > non-pure becau
Configured with:
/scratch/julian/2010q1-release-linux-lite/src/gcc-4.4-2010q1/configure
--build=i686-pc-linux-gnu --host=i686-pc-linux-gnu
--target=arm-v7a9-linux-gnueabi --enable-threads --disable-libmudflap
--disable-libssp --disable-libstdcxx-pch --enable-extra-sgxxlite-multilibs
--with-arch=arm
--- Comment #11 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2010-07-07 04:53
---
(In reply to comment #10)
> My mistake. gcc.dg/pr39794.c failed with -m64 on Linux/x86-64, not
> on Linux/ia32. The testcase in comment #7 started to fail between
> revision 161671 and 161840. I am doing a binary s
--- Comment #1 from hp at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-07 04:06 ---
cris-elf too, same range (161866:161871].
I really wish committers would test on 32-bit platforms too, or whatever now is
the systematic failure introducing these obvious and easily observable
regressions. :(
--
hp at
--
hp at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Keywords|
--- Comment #1 from hp at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-07 03:44 ---
Created an attachment (id=21119)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21119&action=view)
test-case suggested for gcc.c-torture/execute
Compile at e.g. -O2, observe code in PR description, also observed for
Revision 161654 compiles the attached test-case correctly at -O2.
Revision 161655 does not (except at -O0).
I guess the bug is apparent for other targets too, but I haven't checked.
Note for cris-elf this bb, correctly compiled (path for *s = '0' to sf return):
.L7:
move.b 48,$r13
--- Comment #10 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2010-07-07 03:22
---
My mistake. gcc.dg/pr39794.c failed with -m64 on Linux/x86-64, not
on Linux/ia32. The testcase in comment #7 started to fail between
revision 161671 and 161840. I am doing a binary search. It may be
the real cause.
--- Comment #1 from bgreen at nas dot nasa dot gov 2010-07-07 02:20 ---
Created an attachment (id=21118)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21118&action=view)
preprocessed test case demonstrating g++ bug
line 27 is present, this program crashes
--
http://gcc.gnu.or
The attached simple test case crashes when compiled with g++ but not with gcc.
Version 4.4.3 of g++ emits the "'' may be used uninitialized"
warning.
The program works fine when one unreachable line is removed from the program.
It seems that the compiler generates incorrect code when the unreachab
--- Comment #11 from amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-07 02:16
---
(In reply to comment #10)
> ;; Function void ix86_expand_vector_init_general(bool, machine_mode, rtx,
> rtx)
> Compiling the reduced testcase in a subdirectory of the r160832 gcc build
> directory with:
> ../g++
--- Comment #10 from amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-07 02:00
---
;; Function void ix86_expand_vector_init_general(bool, machine_mode, rtx, rtx)
Compiling the reduced testcase in a subdirectory of the r160832 gcc build
directory with:
../g++ -B.. -da -march=pentiumpro -mtune=ge
--- Comment #9 from amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-07 01:42 ---
Created an attachment (id=21117)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21117&action=view)
reduced testcase
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44832
--- Comment #9 from sandra at codesourcery dot com 2010-07-07 01:09 ---
Yes, this is on an Ubuntu system, but one of my co-workers says GCC multilibs
work with Ubuntu now; the support is in gcc/config/i386/t-linux64. Me, I'm
clueless about anything configury-related. :-( I can try aga
--- Comment #4 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-07 01:01 ---
Subject: Bug 44813
Author: hubicka
Date: Wed Jul 7 01:00:42 2010
New Revision: 161898
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=161898
Log:
PR middle-end/44813
* tree-ssa-uninit.c (ssa_
--- Comment #4 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2010-07-07 00:50 ---
I also have MANY execution test failures on Linux/x86-64.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44850
--- Comment #8 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2010-07-07 00:48 ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> Hmmm. It's possible I built my toolchain incorrectly, but I'm seeing that it
> aborts when compiled with -m64 but not with -m32. The failure mode looks
> identical to that reported in PR3
--- Comment #2 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-07 00:46 ---
Hi,
can I have a testcase that reproduce on cross compiler? The backtrace seems
rather odd.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44716
--- Comment #3 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2010-07-07 00:44 ---
Mine didn't shown up. In any case, I have 18580+ execution test failures.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44850
--- Comment #7 from sandra at codesourcery dot com 2010-07-07 00:42 ---
Hmmm. It's possible I built my toolchain incorrectly, but I'm seeing that it
aborts when compiled with -m64 but not with -m32. The failure mode looks
identical to that reported in PR39794:
(gdb) print a
$1 = {0, 1
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-07 00:42 ---
Actually it did:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-regression/2010-07/msg00102.html
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #1 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2010-07-07 00:41 ---
There are so many failures that they won't show up at
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2010-07/
nor
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-regression/2010-07/
since the messages are too big.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bu
On Linux/ia32, revision 161877 gave:
FAIL:
/export/gnu/import/svn/gcc-test/bld/i686-pc-linux-gnu/libjava/testsuite/TestEarlyGC.exe
execution -
/export/gnu/import/svn/gcc-test/bld/i686-pc-linux-gnu/libjava/testsuite/TestEarlyGC.exe
revision 161871 is OK. It may be caused by revision 161876:
--- Comment #4 from bernds at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-06 23:46 ---
Fixed.
--
bernds at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
--- Comment #3 from bernds at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-06 23:45 ---
Subject: Bug 44787
Author: bernds
Date: Tue Jul 6 23:44:55 2010
New Revision: 161893
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=161893
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/44787
* config/arm/arm.md (
--- Comment #5 from redi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-06 23:08 ---
Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault.
0x006f25bd in lvalue_p_1 (ref=0x70c4fb98) at
../../gcc-4.x/gcc/cp/tree.c:71
71if (TREE_CODE (TREE_TYPE (ref)) == REFERENCE_TYPE)
--
http://gc
--- Comment #4 from sje at cup dot hp dot com 2010-07-06 22:56 ---
I successfully bootstrapped ToT (after setting flag_partial_inlining to 0 to
work around pr44716) using the patch. Testing also looked good, there are some
new failures but they are all either new tests that may have nev
--- Comment #6 from ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-06 22:39 ---
Created an attachment (id=21116)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21116&action=view)
Actual testcase .
Attached testcase. Configure cross compiler with
--target=arm-eabi or --target=arm-linux-g
--- Comment #5 from ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-06 22:29 ---
The problem essentially is a miscompilation of diagnostic_action_after_output
in this case .
Attached is a testcase that demonstrates this problem with a cross compiler.
Configure just the compiler with arm-linux-
rror -Wold-style-definition
-Wc++-compat -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I. -I../../gcc-4.6-20100706/gcc
-I../../gcc-4.6-20100706/gcc/. -I../../gcc-4.6-20100706/gcc/../include
-I../../gcc-4.6-20100706/gcc/../libcpp/include -I/sw/include -I/sw/include
-I../../gcc-4.6-20100706/gcc/../libdecnumber
-I../../gcc-
--- Comment #4 from chtz at informatik dot uni-bremen dot de 2010-07-06
22:06 ---
I found two possible work-arounds:
either replace:
> template
> void remove(D* t){
> A_list::iterator it = A_list::s_iterator_to(*t);
> a.erase_and_dispose(it, delete_disposer);
> }
by:
te
--- Comment #1 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-06 21:49 ---
==31524== Invalid read of size 1
==31524==at 0x598F12: gfc_trans_cycle (trans-stmt.c:4116)
==31524==by 0x555DCF: trans_code (trans.c:1112)
==31524==by 0x58E6D9: gfc_trans_omp_code (trans-openmp.c:949)
==31
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-06 21:46 ---
Confirmed.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCON
--- Comment #6 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-06 21:40 ---
Confirmed. Fails with -m32 testing on x86_64.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.6.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44839
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.6.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44843
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.6.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44845
Testcase (derived from ffmpeg):
void av_solve_lls(double (*factor)[33], int count, int min_order){
int i,j,k;
for(i=0; i=0; k--)
sum -= factor[i][k]*factor[j][k];
factor[i][i]= sum;
}
}
for(j=count-1; j>=min_order; j--){
for(i=j; i>=0;
--- Comment #1 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-06 21:26 ---
Mine (I'm working on a patch).
--
janus at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #5 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2010-07-06 21:24 ---
Looking closely at my results, this test will only fail with
"-m32 -O2 -funroll-loops" on Linux/x86-64.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44838
--- Comment #6 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-06 21:23 ---
Created an attachment (id=21115)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21115&action=view)
Workaround patch to let mozilla build to proceed.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44846
> cat test.f90
! Purpose : Negative test with a loop construct containing two loops
! associated via a collapse clause, where the innermost associated
! loop contains a CYCLE statement with a label that applies to the
! outer associated loop.
!
! REFERENCES
--- Comment #4 from sandra at codesourcery dot com 2010-07-06 21:10 ---
Well, I'm *trying* to investigate but I haven't been able to reproduce the
problem yet. I checked out r161844 and built for i686-pc-linux-gnu, and the
gcc.dg/pr39794.c execution test passes. If this requires s
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfi
--- Comment #5 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-06 21:09 ---
>Mine is bit more stuble
It might be more subtle but it is the same issue, as we have two FUNCTION_DECL
which are the same:
__attribute__((always_inline)) inline bool
ValueToNumber(JSContext *cx, jsval v, double *o
--- Comment #4 from hubicka at ucw dot cz 2010-07-06 21:06 ---
Subject: Re: Violation of one-definition rule
Mine is bit more stuble since the duplicated decl does nolead to linker error
unless LTO is used, but might be same or smilar problem.
I made workaround for now and can confirm
--- Comment #16 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-06 20:59 ---
FIXED on the trunk (4.6). Thanks for the bugreport.
(The fix is to print an error if the constructor is too large; the error
message points to -fmax-array-constructor= which can be used to modify the
limit.)
--
--- Comment #15 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-06 20:56 ---
Subject: Bug 44742
Author: burnus
Date: Tue Jul 6 20:56:07 2010
New Revision: 161888
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=161888
Log:
2010-07-06 Tobias Burnus
PR fortran/44742
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-06 20:53 ---
PR 20357.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
BugsThisDependsOn|
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-06 20:51 ---
This is a front-end issue. There is another bug about this issue too.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #1 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-06 20:49 ---
Created an attachment (id=21114)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21114&action=view)
testcase
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44846
./xgcc -B ./ -O2 jsnum.ii -fdump-ipa-all
leads to two cgraph nodes to the same asm name:
jsval js::ValueToNumberSlow(JSContext*, jsval, double*)/1083(913)
@0x7613b810 (asm: _ZN2js17ValueToNumberSlowEP9JSContextlPd) analyzed 276
time, 36 benefit 114 size, 27 benefit needed reachable body finali
--- Comment #1 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-06 19:23 ---
Subject: Bug 44703
Author: jason
Date: Tue Jul 6 19:23:01 2010
New Revision: 161880
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=161880
Log:
PR c++/44703
* call.c (is_std_init_list): Look th
--- Comment #3 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-06 19:23 ---
Subject: Bug 44778
Author: jason
Date: Tue Jul 6 19:22:49 2010
New Revision: 161879
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=161879
Log:
PR c++/44778
* init.c (build_offset_ref): If scop
--- Comment #6 from dmitrij dot ledkov at ubuntu dot com 2010-07-06 18:58
---
Yes please. I'm nearing completion of packaging co-installable w64 & w32
toolchains and I'm hitting a clash with this file now =) i'm wondering where to
shuffle it to.
I don't care about the naming but it sho
--- Comment #3 from changpeng dot fang at amd dot com 2010-07-06 18:35
---
Here is the impact of loop unrolling on the compilation time and code size
on polyhedron test_fpu.f90:
-O3 -ftree-vectorize -fno-prefetch-loop-arrays -fno-unroll-loops:
timing: 12.62s, size: 67069 bytes
-O3 -f
--- Comment #8 from amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-06 18:21 ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> Reverting up to r161801 still gets me
>
> > ./g++ -B. -c -O2 -march=pentiumpro -mtune=generic -m32 ii386.i
> > -fcompare-debug
> g++: error: ii386.i: -fcompare-debug failure (length)
Wor
--- Comment #4 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-07-06 18:18
---
Sorry about the delay. The warning emitted by current ICC by default is
exactly:
33801.C(10): warning #21: type qualifiers are meaningless in this declaration
f(const typename C::const_reference value)
On Linux/ia32, revision 161871 gave
FAIL: gcc.c-torture/compile/2009-2.c -O2 -flto (internal compiler error)
FAIL: gcc.c-torture/compile/2009-2.c -O2 -flto (test for excess errors)
FAIL: gcc.c-torture/compile/2009-2.c -O2 -fwhopr (internal compiler
error)
FAIL: gcc.c-torture/comp
--- Comment #2 from changpeng dot fang at amd dot com 2010-07-06 17:58
---
We also need to handle the post loop of unrolling. Suppose the unroll_factor
is 16, then the post-loop should have up to 15 iterations.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44794
--- Comment #1 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2010-07-06 17:46 ---
A patch is posted at
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-07/msg00462.html
--
hjl dot tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #4 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-06 17:41 ---
Too large testcase, no feedback in 3 years, no clear report. Closing...
--
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
RDRAND instruction spec says:
Loads a hardware generated random value and store it in the destination
register. The size of the random value is determined by the destination
register size and operating mode. The Carry Flag indicates whether a random
value is available at the time the instruction i
--- Comment #6 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-06 17:39 ---
No duplicates in 3 years, no new feedback, closing this. Please reopen if
necessary.
--
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #5 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-06 17:35 ---
No feedback, unconfirmed, unreproducible, thus closing.
--
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #3 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-06 17:34 ---
3 years in waiting... I am closing this, we have too many real bugs open to
worry about.
--
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #22 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-06 17:28 ---
The way Clang gets this right is to perform some very-fast bitmap common
constant propagation in the FE. I personally think this would be helpful if
implemented correctly, even if it slows down the FE a little. But do
--- Comment #21 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-06 17:24 ---
*** Bug 44842 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-06 17:24 ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 4210 ***
--
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #5 from bergner at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-06 16:59 ---
Fixed in trunk and the 4.5 branch.
--
bergner at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-06 16:58 ---
Caused by, or exposed by ... in both cases your responsibility to investigate.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44838
--- Comment #4 from bergner at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-06 16:57 ---
Subject: Bug 44195
Author: bergner
Date: Tue Jul 6 16:57:21 2010
New Revision: 161874
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=161874
Log:
Backport from mainline
2010-07-06 Peter Berg
Between 20100628 and 20100705, all 32-bit Fortran execution tests started to
FAIL
on Solaris 2. E.g. achar_1.exe:
Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault.
[Switching to Thread 1 (LWP 1)]
0xff301d98 in *_gfortrani_free_format_hash_table (u=) at
/vol/gcc/src/hg/trunk/solaris/libgfortran
--- Comment #3 from sje at cup dot hp dot com 2010-07-06 16:44 ---
The neccessary UNSPEC seems to be there if you trace the instructions back
far enough. I tried it on my test case and it worked. I am now testing the
patch on ToT to see if I can bootstrap. I also have to turn off part
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gmail dot com 2010-07-06 16:33 ---
Subject: Re: New: gcc should not issue warnings for code that will never be
executed
This is a dup of a much older bug which I cannot find right now.
On Jul 6, 2010, at 8:10 AM, "vincent at vinc17 dot org"
wrote:
> G
This is a dup of a much older bug which I cannot find right now.
On Jul 6, 2010, at 8:10 AM, "vincent at vinc17 dot org" > wrote:
GCC issues warnings like "division by zero" or "right shift count >=
width of
type" even though the corresponding code will never be executed
(under a
condition
--- Comment #2 from mikpe at it dot uu dot se 2010-07-06 16:17 ---
This new FAIL of pr36745.C since r161655 is also seen on sparc64, ia64, arm,
and alpha.
--
mikpe at it dot uu dot se changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #3 from bergner at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-06 16:09 ---
Subject: Bug 44195
Author: bergner
Date: Tue Jul 6 16:09:13 2010
New Revision: 161872
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=161872
Log:
PR testsuite/44195
* gcc.dg/lto/20100518_0.c:
--- Comment #2 from sandra at codesourcery dot com 2010-07-06 15:57 ---
s/caused by/exposed by/ ?
The patch to ivopts likely results in it selecting a different/smaller set of
loop induction variables, but I don't see how this change by itself could have
introduced a wrong-code error.
--- Comment #9 from jojelino at gmail dot com 2010-07-06 15:50 ---
and gcc revision is 161868
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44824
--- Comment #6 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-06 15:47 ---
*** Bug 44841 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 2010-07-06 15:47 ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 42540 ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #8 from jojelino at gmail dot com 2010-07-06 15:44 ---
and error messages combined
gcc -O2 -I. -I. -I./common -I./config -DLOCALEDIR="\"/usr/share/locale\""
-DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I./../include/opcode -I./../opcodes/.. -I./../readline/..
-I../bfd -I./../bfd -I./../include -I../l
--- Comment #3 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-06 15:42 ---
Created an attachment (id=21113)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21113&action=view)
Fix for the PR
This version fixes the problem with channel.f90 and has cleaned-up/extra
comments
--
http://g
--- Comment #7 from jojelino at gmail dot com 2010-07-06 15:41 ---
Created an attachment (id=21112)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21112&action=view)
preprocessed source
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44824
--- Comment #6 from jojelino at gmail dot com 2010-07-06 15:40 ---
Created an attachment (id=2)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=2&action=view)
preprocessed source
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44824
--- Comment #5 from jojelino at gmail dot com 2010-07-06 15:39 ---
Created an attachment (id=21110)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21110&action=view)
preprocessed source
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44824
--- Comment #4 from jojelino at gmail dot com 2010-07-06 15:38 ---
Created an attachment (id=21109)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21109&action=view)
preprocessed source
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44824
--- Comment #19 from paul dot richard dot thomas at gmail dot com
2010-07-06 15:28 ---
Subject: Re: [OOP] Dynamic dispatch uses broken types
Dear Tobias,
> Paul, thanks for the check in. Do you plan to backport it to 4.5, which sems
> to
> use the same code?
Yes, I could do that on
--- Comment #1 from redi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-06 15:26 ---
(In reply to comment #0)
>
> undefined reference to `vtable for IFoo'
> Suggestions:
>* Ensure that no (pure) member function of `IFoo' became unintentionally
> non-pure because of a missing or deleted `= 0'
W
d model: posix
gcc version 4.6.0 20100706 (experimental) (GCC)
COLLECT_GCC_OPTIONS='-O2' '-I.' '-I.' '-I./common' '-I./config'
'-DLOCALEDIR="/usr/share/locale"' '-DHAVE_CONFIG_H' '-I./../include/opcode'
'-I
--- Comment #1 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2010-07-06 15:21 ---
It is caused by revision 161844:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2010-07/msg00198.html
--
hjl dot tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #18 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-06 15:20 ---
Paul, thanks for the check in. Do you plan to backport it to 4.5, which sems to
use the same code?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44596
GCC issues warnings like "division by zero" or "right shift count >= width of
type" even though the corresponding code will never be executed (under a
condition that is always false); it shouldn't do this, at least by default. For
instance:
int tst (void)
{
int x;
x = 0 ? 1 / 0 : 0;
return x
--- Comment #3 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-07-06 15:06
---
Bah, I would commonize these two bugs anyway, really that testcase is badly
broken essentially everywhere.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44839
--- Comment #2 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-07-06 15:04
---
For sure.
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
St
--- Comment #7 from amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-06 15:03 ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> ./g++ -B. -c -O2 -march=pentiumpro -mtune=generic -m32 ii386.i -fcompare-debug
Works with g++ (GCC) 4.6.0 20100613 (experimental), fails with
g++ (GCC) 4.6.0 20100617 (experimental).
--
It was today that I stumbled over the seemingly simple situation of tweaking
some bits of an interface class.
Upon doing that, I got an undefined reference to a vtable.
I made clean and made my application. Nothing changed. Then I checked again the
interface and didn't find anything. Then I chec
--- Comment #14 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-06 14:57 ---
Created an attachment (id=21107)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21107&action=view)
Draft patch
--
burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Adde
1 - 100 of 160 matches
Mail list logo
