http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48830
--- Comment #6 from Hans-Peter Nilsson 2011-05-01
01:52:16 UTC ---
Either patch fixes the test-case. Both should eventually be applied to trunk,
but perhaps just the sparc one to branches.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48830
--- Comment #5 from Hans-Peter Nilsson 2011-05-01
01:50:46 UTC ---
Created attachment 24156
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24156
Tentative patch fixing subreg_get_info, untested.
This likely has fallout for sparc 32-bit, as
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48752
John David Anglin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48830
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[4.4/4.6 Regression]|[4.4/4.5/4.6/4.7
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48830
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot |hp at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48838
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 f
:13:50: error: expected primary-expression before '>' token
kdevtest2.cpp:13:52: error: expected primary-expression before ')' token
fails with
gcc 4.6.1 20110430 rev. 173224
works fine with
gcc 4.5.2
(some people told me that it also works fine with 4.6.1 20110329)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48811
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rwild at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48835
--- Comment #5 from Thorsten Glaser 2011-04-30 22:28:03
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> the caller expects the returned value in %a0.
It’s even worse, __gnat_malloc contains:
jsr malloc
addq.l #4,%sp
move.l %d0,-8(%fp
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48835
--- Comment #4 from Thorsten Glaser 2011-04-30 22:17:36
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> apparently not treated as a pointer, thus the value is returned in %d0. But
> the caller expects the returned value in %a0.
Ah, I see. We both got the sa
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48835
Thorsten Glaser changed:
What|Removed |Added
Host|m68k-linux |
--- Comment #3 from Thorsten Glaser 2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48835
Andreas Schwab changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dewar at gnat dot com
Host
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48837
Summary: Wrong optimization of recursive function calls
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
Ass
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40947
--- Comment #10 from Hin-Tak Leung
2011-04-30 20:46:02 UTC ---
Just upgrading from libtool 2.2 to 2.4 to see if that works. This looks
relevant
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/libtool-patches/2010-08/msg00305.html ?
since the next to current l
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48811
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-04-30
20:00:39 UTC ---
I don't know, but we also want to strip -pipe from the testsuite flags for PR
48565 so we need to figure out some way to do it :)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48811
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jwakely.gcc at gmail dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48829
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-04-30
19:52:08 UTC ---
The string case calls a function (the overloaded operator+ or std::string) so
is actually closer to:
int f(int);
int i = f(i);
which doesn't warn either (although it should do,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48811
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-04-30
19:24:45 UTC ---
Building like that is completely unsupported. If anything is worth fixing here
it would be to strip any -std option from the library build flags, to ensure
the library is built as i
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40947
--- Comment #9 from Hin-Tak Leung
2011-04-30 19:01:44 UTC ---
The last part of the 4.4.6 failure:
--
libtool: link: (cd ".libs" && rm -f "libgcj-tools.so.10" && ln -s
"libgcj-tools.so.10.0.0" "libgcj-tools.so.10")
libtool: link: (cd "
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40947
Hin-Tak Leung changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||4.4.6
--- Comment #8 from Hin-Tak Leung
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48760
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48821
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48821
--- Comment #3 from Tobias Burnus 2011-04-30
16:33:51 UTC ---
Author: burnus
Date: Sat Apr 30 16:33:47 2011
New Revision: 173221
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=173221
Log:
2011-04-30 Tobias Burnus
PR fortran/488
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48821
--- Comment #2 from Tobias Burnus 2011-04-30
16:28:54 UTC ---
The commit went to PR 48800:
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=173219
Log:
2011-04-30 Tobias Burnus
PR fortran/48800
* decl.c (gfc_match_import
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48836
--- Comment #1 from Jan Hubicka 2011-04-30
16:32:30 UTC ---
The reason why we conclude updating is needed is redirecting of callees:
#0 0x006abdd4 in bitmap_element_link (head=0x7539b760,
bit=Unhandled dwarf expression opcode 0xf3
)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48800
--- Comment #7 from Tobias Burnus 2011-04-30
16:24:59 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> New Revision: 173219
> URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=173219
Wrong bug number; that was for PR 48821.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48836
Summary: internal compiler error: in execute_todo, at
passes.c:1261
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Componen
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48835
Mikael Pettersson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikpe at it dot uu.se
--- Comment #1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48774
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-04-30
16:14:52 UTC ---
Tiny bit more simplified, without the GRAPH_IS_EDGE and related macros:
unsigned long int s[12][2]
= { { 12, 2114 }, { 12, 37 }, { 12, 1034 }, { 12, 532 },
{ 12, 296 }, { 12,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48787
--- Comment #10 from Thomas Henlich
2011-04-30 15:56:35 UTC ---
The start to scan is the digit corresponding to d+1.
e.g.
PRINT "(RU,F0.4)", .162548148
-> .1626 because48148 > 0
PRINT "(RU,F0.4)", 3.1415926536
->
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48800
--- Comment #6 from Tobias Burnus 2011-04-30
15:54:52 UTC ---
Author: burnus
Date: Sat Apr 30 15:54:49 2011
New Revision: 173219
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=173219
Log:
2011-04-30 Tobias Burnus
PR fortran/48
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37109
--- Comment #15 from Thorsten Glaser 2011-04-30 15:48:47
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #14)
> (In reply to comment #13)
> > Should we open up another bugreport for _that_ (port GNAT to GNU/Linux/m68k)
> > though, since it doesn’t really belong her
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48835
Summary: Porting GNAT to GNU/Linux/m68k
Product: gcc
Version: 4.4.6
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Component: ada
AssignedTo: unassig...@gcc.g
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37109
--- Comment #14 from Mikael Pettersson 2011-04-30
15:40:54 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #13)
> Should we open up another bugreport for _that_ (port GNAT to GNU/Linux/m68k)
> though, since it doesn’t really belong here?
Yes.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48030
--- Comment #4 from Jerry DeLisle 2011-04-30
15:25:00 UTC ---
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Sat Apr 30 15:24:57 2011
New Revision: 173218
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=173218
Log:
2011-04-30 Jerry DeLisle
Backport from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48030
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37109
--- Comment #13 from Thorsten Glaser 2011-04-30 15:31:06
UTC ---
Ah well. I found out that Ada doesn’t compile if you have a style error õÕ
and that “make clean” doesn’t clean all stampfiles… got a crosscompiler now,
let’s see whether it can cros
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37109
--- Comment #12 from Thorsten Glaser 2011-04-30 15:20:08
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #11)
> It will be an issue, but I got the segfaults even with such a file, so I think
> the problem is more fundamental than that.
OK, I’ll try.
> What you s
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48834
--- Comment #1 from Zdenek Sojka 2011-04-30 15:20:08
UTC ---
It started with r173056, PR40975 fix.
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-04/msg02184.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37109
--- Comment #11 from Mikael Pettersson 2011-04-30
15:09:32 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #10)
> At a first glance, there’s a lot of system-linux-*.ads but none for m68k.
> Should I have a look in that area, or is that not an issue at all?
It will
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37109
--- Comment #10 from Thorsten Glaser 2011-04-30 13:56:23
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #9)
> (In reply to comment #8)
> > to be an issue of bootstrapping from amd64, which platform did you use?
>
> i686-linux.
Ok, then I can continue with tryin
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48834
Summary: [4.7 Regression] -fno-exceptions causes wrong code
generation on C++ code
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37109
--- Comment #9 from Mikael Pettersson 2011-04-30
13:49:37 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> (In reply to comment #7)
>
> > manually. The more serious problem I found is that the final gnat
> > executables
> > segfault on the m68k target.
>
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37109
--- Comment #8 from Thorsten Glaser 2011-04-30 13:36:17
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> manually. The more serious problem I found is that the final gnat executables
> segfault on the m68k target.
Even with no argument, yes. It’s in:
hostp
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48833
Summary: gcc.c-torture/execute/pr34415.c FAILs with -flto
-fipa-cp-clone -fno-merge-all-constants
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48830
Mikael Pettersson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikpe at it dot uu.se
--- Comment #2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48787
--- Comment #9 from Jerry DeLisle 2011-04-30
12:43:47 UTC ---
The trick here is figuring out the limits of the scan on the left end of the
string. We can have things like.
2345638418
^
and we want to start or s
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37109
Mikael Pettersson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikpe at it dot uu.se
--- Comment #7
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48825
--- Comment #4 from Josef Mutzenbacher
2011-04-30 12:33:36 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> xgcc is invoked for target libraries; libiberty is built as a target
> library.
may i ask why this is being built ? it seems as if it is not needed.
is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48746
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48462
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48462
--- Comment #12 from Paul Thomas 2011-04-30 12:00:53
UTC ---
Author: pault
Date: Sat Apr 30 12:00:50 2011
New Revision: 173214
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=173214
Log:
2011-04-30 Paul Thomas
PR fortran/48462
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48746
--- Comment #9 from Paul Thomas 2011-04-30 12:00:53
UTC ---
Author: pault
Date: Sat Apr 30 12:00:50 2011
New Revision: 173214
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=173214
Log:
2011-04-30 Paul Thomas
PR fortran/48462
P
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48832
Summary: -O2 does not imply -fomit-frame-pointer, contrary to
--help=optimizers -v -Q
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48787
--- Comment #8 from Thomas Henlich
2011-04-30 11:58:36 UTC ---
> I think for rounding up we need to test if ALL the cut off digits are zeros.
One more thought: It might be (statistically) faster to scan the digits from
last to first than vice ve
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48746
--- Comment #8 from Paul Thomas 2011-04-30 11:46:34
UTC ---
Author: pault
Date: Sat Apr 30 11:46:31 2011
New Revision: 173213
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=173213
Log:
2011-04-30 Paul Thomas
PR fortran/48746
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48746
--- Comment #7 from Thomas Koenig 2011-04-30
11:12:29 UTC ---
Hi Paul,
the least I can do is to supply you with a more complete test case :-)
program main
implicit none
integer, parameter :: m=4, n=3, count=2
double precision :: a(m, coun
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48752
--- Comment #21 from Jan Hubicka 2011-04-30
11:01:29 UTC ---
Author: hubicka
Date: Sat Apr 30 11:01:26 2011
New Revision: 173211
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=173211
Log:
PR middle-end/48752
* ipa-inline.c (earl
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48752
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44959
Hin-Tak Leung changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||4.5.3
--- Comment #8 from Hin-Tak Leung
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48786
--- Comment #5 from Tobias Burnus 2011-04-30
10:04:59 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> If one modifies the program (cf. attachment 24110 [details]) as follows,
> gfortran 4.7 segfaults
The reason is that in gfc_type_compatible, the ts1 and ts2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48831
Summary: check.c: Constant expression (PARAMETER array element)
rejected as nonconstant
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: rejects-valid
Sev
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48752
--- Comment #19 from Jan Hubicka 2011-04-30 08:46:55
UTC ---
Hi,
i am atesting the attached fix.
Index: ipa-inline.c
===
--- ipa-inline.c(revision 173189)
+++ ipa-inline.c(w
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48752
--- Comment #18 from Jan Hubicka 2011-04-30
08:19:25 UTC ---
Thanks. The missing bit was -std=gnu++0x, now it reproduces for me. Sorry for
the confussion.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48809
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[4.4/4.5/4.6/4.7|[4.4/4.5 Regression] switch
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44959
Hin-Tak Leung changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||4.6.0
--- Comment #7 from Hin-Tak Leung
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48809
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-04-30
06:55:15 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Sat Apr 30 06:55:11 2011
New Revision: 173208
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=173208
Log:
PR tree-optimization/48809
* tree-switch-co
67 matches
Mail list logo
