[Bug c++/12944] [meta-bug] C++ name-lookup problems

-- Bug 12944 depends on bug 17154, which changed state. Bug 17154 Summary: [4.0 Regression] Using declaration of function name ignored inside partial specialization of template class http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17154 What|Old Value |New Value -

[Bug fortran/15553] Array copy operation produces garbage

--- Additional Comments From Thomas dot Koenig at online dot de 2005-01-06 16:10 --- The reduced testcase does not fail with 20050102 snapshot on ia64-unknown-linux-gnu: $ gfortran arrpack.f90 $ ./a.out pack copy -1 -2 -2 -2 copy 0

[Bug fortran/16511] Test 19990905-0.f fails with gfortran

--- Additional Comments From tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-06 16:11 --- (In reply to comment #9) > However, the inital (comment #0) snippet compiles fine on all compilers > mentionned above. So I guess the common block as something to do with it. Indeed, the common block makes thi

[Bug fortran/15553] Array copy operation produces garbage

--- Additional Comments From tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-06 16:28 --- Still fails on i686-pc-linux: [EMAIL PROTECTED] tests]$ ./a.out pack copy -1 -2 -2 -2 copy 9049312 -1 -1 -1 [EMAIL PROTECTED] tests]$ gf

[Bug c++/19244] [4.0 Regression] Typedef of anonymous class incorrectly handled in member function definition

-- What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |mark at codesourcery dot com |dot org | Status|NEW

[Bug target/19293] avr-gcc crashes when using shifts with negative shift count

-- What|Removed |Added Component|c |target http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19293

[Bug tree-optimization/19283] [4.0 Regression] Bad code generated in final_cleanup

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-06 16:56 --- Patch here: .. -- What|Removed |Added ---

[Bug fortran/18977] LAPACK test xeigtsts segfaults with optimization

--- Additional Comments From Thomas dot Koenig at online dot de 2005-01-06 17:01 --- (In reply to comment #5) > I'm no Fortran guru, but could be this related to PR 17675? I don't think this is an alignment problem. Apparently, ia64-unknown-linux-gnu sets up the processor differently f

[Bug fortran/19294] New: intrinsic_transpose.f90 runtime crash with sparc-solaris at -O1

>From my test logs on sparc-sun-solaris2.9, I see: FAIL: gfortran.fortran-torture/execute/intrinsic_transpose.f90 execution, -O1 This does happen only with -O1 (neither -O0, -O2 nor -O3). I tried to determine more precisely the cause by including all optimization switches indicated in the texinf

[Bug fortran/19292] [metabug] g77 features lacking in gfortran

--- Additional Comments From Thomas dot Koenig at online dot de 2005-01-06 17:28 --- I don't think PR 18476 needs to be in there. The test case is invalid (just putting nml instead of nml= into the list). -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19292

[Bug fortran/18476] internal compiler error on strange read

--- Additional Comments From tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-06 17:34 --- This is a regression from g77: [EMAIL PROTECTED] tests]$ g77 pr18476.f [EMAIL PROTECTED] tests]$ ./a.out startint: error in format apparent state: internal I/O last format: Pf@ lately writing sequential formatt

[Bug target/19293] avr-gcc crashes when using shifts with negative shift count

--- Additional Comments From bjoern dot m dot haase at web dot de 2005-01-06 17:35 --- It seems that the standard says that shift operations with negative shift count are supposed to yield an "unspecified" result. Is there some more specific convention for gcc on how to behave in the

[Bug fortran/19292] [metabug] g77 features lacking in gfortran

--- Additional Comments From tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-06 17:35 --- (In reply to comment #1) > I don't think PR 18476 needs to be in there. The test case is > invalid (just putting nml instead of nml= into the list). I don't understand your parenthetical remark. Please see m

[Bug c++/19288] No more possible to have a template function that uses a nested class of a template class

--- Additional Comments From bangerth at dealii dot org 2005-01-06 17:41 --- Nah, that may be your Eurocentric viewpoint. Over here in Texas one thinks differently :-)) -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19288

[Bug fortran/18476] internal compiler error on strange read

--- Additional Comments From tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-06 17:52 --- I think we should issue an error, because nml is not ASSIGNed a FORMAT, but since g77 accepts this code I'm not sure. -- What|Removed |Added

[Bug target/19293] avr-gcc crashes when using shifts with negative shift count

--- Additional Comments From joseph at codesourcery dot com 2005-01-06 18:03 --- Subject: Re: avr-gcc crashes when using shifts with negative shift count On Thu, 6 Jan 2005, bjoern dot m dot haase at web dot de wrote: > It seems that the standard says that shift operations with negat

[Bug fortran/19294] intrinsic_transpose.f90 runtime crash with sparc-solaris at -O1

--- Additional Comments From ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-06 18:16 --- Confirmed on Solaris 8 and 9. Interestingly, on Solaris 2.5.1, 2.6 and 7, it also fails at -O0. -- What|Removed |Added ---

[Bug fortran/18540] Jumping into blocks gives error rather than warning

--- Additional Comments From paulthomas2 at wanadoo dot fr 2005-01-06 18:17 --- Subject: Re: Jumping into blocks gives error rather than warning Hi Tobias, I just received a bunch of messages about gfortran bugs for which nothing has changed, as far as I can tell. Is there a reason

[Bug fortran/18540] Jumping into blocks gives error rather than warning

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-06 18:19 --- (In reply to comment #2) > Subject: Re: Jumping into blocks gives error rather than warning > > Hi Tobias, > > I just received a bunch of messages about gfortran bugs for which nothing > has changed, as

[Bug fortran/19294] intrinsic_transpose.f90 runtime crash with sparc-solaris at -O1

--- Additional Comments From ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-06 18:19 --- > I can reproduce this behaviour on sparc-sun-solaris2.8 using this solaris2.9 > compiler. I can give more details if someone see how to debug this. In > particular, if someone knows the list of -O1 enable

[Bug tree-optimization/19241] [4.0 Regression] ICE in make_decl_rtl, at varasm.c:867

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-06 18:28 --- Hmm, this looks like an inliner bug. (I have it down to about 300 lines). -- What|Removed |Added -

[Bug tree-optimization/19241] [4.0 Regression] ICE in make_decl_rtl, at varasm.c:867

-- What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |nathan at gcc dot gnu dot |dot org |org Status|NEW

[Bug target/19293] avr-gcc crashes when using shifts with negative shift count

--- Additional Comments From bjoern dot m dot haase at web dot de 2005-01-06 18:57 --- If it would be OK for GCC to simply ignore negative constant shift counts, the following patch would do. I have tested this with the test suite for gcc-3.4.3 . Unfortunately avr-gcc is still broken o

[Bug rtl-optimization/13299] Unsafe treatment of extended givs

--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-06 19:11 --- Subject: Bug 13299 CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc Module name:gcc Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-01-06 19:10:57 Modified files: gcc: ChangeLog loop.c Added files:

[Bug rtl-optimization/13299] Unsafe treatment of extended givs

--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-06 19:12 --- Subject: Bug 13299 CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc Module name:gcc Branch: gcc-3_4-branch Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-01-06 19:12:05 Modified files: gcc: Change

[Bug java/19295] New: Incorrect bytecode produced for bitwise AND

This is a boiled-down test case from part of Eclipse. gcj produces this bytecode: Method name:"isArrayType" public final Signature: ()boolean Attribute "Code", length:35, max_stack:3, max_locals:1, code_length:11 0: aload_0 1: getfield 4: i2l which results in a verification failure becau

[Bug java/19295] Incorrect bytecode produced for bitwise AND

--- Additional Comments From overholt at redhat dot com 2005-01-06 19:15 --- Created an attachment (id=7884) --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=7884&action=view) test case -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19295

[Bug rtl-optimization/19296] New: [3.3 regression] Range check on short miscompiled at -O

[forwarded from http://bugs.debian.org/288721] This fails with 3.3.5 at -O and higher. Regression from 2.95. Also doesn't fail on MIPS or Alpha. Debian 3.4.4 20041218 is OK. void abort(void); __attribute__((noinline)) void f(unsigned short ad) { if (ad >= 0x4000 && ad < 0xc000) abort

[Bug c++/19297] New: Internal compiler error when compiling Boost.Python test

gcc CVS mainline, 2005/01/06 09:53 PST Configured with: /net/legless/scratch1/rwgk/gcc_cvs_head/configure -- prefix=/usr/local_cci/gcc_cvs_head_20050106 --enable-languages=c,c++ Red Hat Enterprise Linux WS release 3 (Taroon) Boost CVS mainline, 2005/01/06 10:09 PST % g++ -I/net/legless/scratch1/rw

[Bug c++/19297] Internal compiler error when compiling Boost.Python test

--- Additional Comments From rwgk at yahoo dot com 2005-01-06 19:40 --- Created an attachment (id=7885) --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=7885&action=view) Preprocessed source code -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19297

[Bug middle-end/19296] [3.3/3.4/4.0 regression] Range check on short miscompiled at -O

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-06 19:40 --- It also fails with last nights build of gcc of the mainline. And 3.4.0, 3.3.3, 3.2.3 and 3.0.4. Here is a testcase which also fails too (this is what fold does): void abort (); void f1(unsigned short ad) {

[Bug c++/19297] [4.0 Regression] Internal compiler error when compiling Boost.Python test

-- What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |critical Keywords||ice-on-valid-code Priority|P2

[Bug c++/19297] [4.0 Regression] Internal compiler error when compiling Boost.Python test

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-06 19:45 --- Looks like there are two bugs here, one for rejects valid if it is valid as there is an error message before the ICE and one for an ICE on valid code which is definitely a regression. I will reduce the IC

[Bug c++/19298] New: Error compiling Boost.Python test

gcc CVS mainline, 2005/01/06 09:53 PST Configured with: /net/legless/scratch1/rwgk/gcc_cvs_head/configure -- prefix=/usr/local_cci/gcc_cvs_head_20050106 --enable-languages=c,c++ Red Hat Enterprise Linux WS release 3 (Taroon) Boost CVS mainline, 2005/01/06 10:09 PST % g++ -I/net/legless/scratch1/rw

[Bug c++/19298] Error compiling Boost.Python test

--- Additional Comments From rwgk at yahoo dot com 2005-01-06 19:49 --- Created an attachment (id=7886) --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=7886&action=view) Preprocessed source code -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19298

[Bug c++/19299] New: [4.0 Regression] ICE with volatile non-PODs pointer

struct V { virtual void f() = 0; }; void execute(V volatile* p) { p->V::~V(); } -- Summary: [4.0 Regression] ICE with volatile non-PODs pointer Product: gcc Version: 4.0.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: ice-on-valid-code Severity:

[Bug c++/19299] [4.0 Regression] ICE with volatile non-PODs pointer

-- What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |4.0.0 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19299

[Bug c++/19298] Error compiling Boost.Python test

--- Additional Comments From rwgk at yahoo dot com 2005-01-06 19:51 --- Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2005 14:24:06 -0500 From: David Abrahams Ralf W. Grosse-Kunstleve wrote: > Hi David, > > To ensure that Boost.Python will work with gcc 4 I've checked out the > latest gcc cvs today, along with the

[Bug c++/19298] Error compiling Boost.Python test

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-06 19:55 --- (In reply to comment #2) > > BTW: Do you know what to make of the strange characters (e.g. > > M-CM-"M-bM-^BM-, > M-bM-^DM-")? > > GCC bug? No, just using UTF-8 for the quotes because your LC/LANG include

[Bug c++/19299] [4.0 Regression] ICE with volatile non-PODs pointer

-- What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||19297 nThis|| http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19299

[Bug c++/19297] [4.0 Regression] rejects valid code when compiling Boost.Python test

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-06 19:55 --- Ok, the ICE is filed under PR 19299, reducing the rejects valid right now. -- What|Removed |Added

[Bug c++/19300] New: PCH failuers on sparc-linux

Aurora SPARC Linux Corona (FC3-ish) UltraSparc IIi (Sabre) sun4u: binutils-2.15.92.0.2-5 - sparc bison-1.875c-2 - sparc dejagnu-1.4.4-1 - noarch expect-5.42.1-1 - sparc gcc-3.4.2-6.fc3 - sparc gcc4-4.0.0-0.8sparc - sparc glibc-2.3.3-99 - sparcv9 glibc-2.3.3-99 - sparc64 glibc-headers-2.3.3-99 - sp

[Bug other/19300] PCH failuers on sparc-linux

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-06 19:56 --- This is only host related and nothing else. -- What|Removed |Added Component|c++

[Bug c++/19297] [4.0 Regression] rejects valid code when compiling Boost.Python test

--- Additional Comments From rwgk at yahoo dot com 2005-01-06 19:57 --- > --- Additional Comment #2 From Andrew Pinski 2005-01-06 19:45 [reply] --- > Looks like there are two bugs here ... I've opened another bug report for the second error: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bu

[Bug java/19295] [4.0 regression] Incorrect bytecode produced for bitwise AND

--- Additional Comments From tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-06 20:00 --- I've investigated this a little. The bug does not occur with gcj 3.3 or 3.4, so I am marking it as a regression. The trouble starts in fold_single_bit_test(). Here we transform "tagBits & IsArrayType" into

[Bug c++/19299] [4.0 Regression] ICE with volatile non-PODs pointer

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-06 20:01 --- *** Bug 19297 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- What|Removed |Added

[Bug c++/19297] [4.0 Regression] rejects valid code when compiling Boost.Python test

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-06 20:01 --- (In reply to comment #4) > > --- Additional Comment #2 From Andrew Pinski 2005-01-06 19:45 [reply] > > > --- > > Looks like there are two bugs here ... > > I've opened another bug report for the

[Bug java/19295] [4.0 regression] Incorrect bytecode produced for bitwise AND

-- What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Ever Confirmed||1 Keywords||wrong-co

[Bug c++/19299] [4.0 Regression] ICE with volatile non-PODs pointer

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-06 20:06 --- Confirmed because this was just a reduction of PR 19297 and I had thought we needed two bugs for that but it was kindly already filed. -- What|Removed |Added --

[Bug c++/19298] [4.0 Regression] Error compiling Boost.Python test

-- What|Removed |Added Keywords||rejects-valid Summary|Error compiling Boost.Python|[4.0 Regression] Error |test

[Bug other/19300] PCH failures on sparc-linux

-- What|Removed |Added Summary|PCH failuers on sparc-linux |PCH failures on sparc-linux http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19300

[Bug other/19300] PCH failures on sparc-linux

--- Additional Comments From ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-06 20:20 --- Do you know if the tests pass with GCC 3.4.x? -- What|Removed |Added CC|

[Bug c++/19244] [4.0 Regression] Typedef of anonymous class incorrectly handled in member function definition

--- Additional Comments From mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-06 20:21 --- Fixed in GCC 4.0. -- What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RE

[Bug c++/19244] [4.0 Regression] Typedef of anonymous class incorrectly handled in member function definition

--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-06 20:21 --- Subject: Bug 19244 CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc Module name:gcc Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-01-06 20:21:16 Modified files: gcc/testsuite : ChangeLog gcc/cp : C

[Bug c++/19299] [4.0 Regression] ICE with volatile non-PODs pointer

-- What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |mark at codesourcery dot com |dot org | Status|NEW

[Bug middle-end/19296] [3.3/3.4/4.0 regression] Range check on short miscompiled at -O

--- Additional Comments From ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-06 20:37 --- It only fails on i686, neither on i386 nor i586. -- What|Removed |Added GCC target triple

[Bug libgcj/19301] New: Can't run Eclipse with libgcj until jaxp is merged from classpath

It'd be nice if we could get gnujaxp merged in. That's all :) -- Summary: Can't run Eclipse with libgcj until jaxp is merged from classpath Product: gcc Version: 4.0.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: enhancement P

[Bug middle-end/19296] [3.3/3.4/4.0 regression] Range check on short miscompiled at -O

--- Additional Comments From ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-06 20:56 --- Investigating. -- What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |ebo

[Bug c++/19298] [4.0 Regression] Error compiling Boost.Python test

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-06 21:27 --- Created an attachment (id=7887) --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=7887&action=view) a little more reduced This is as far as I getting, not much but a start, someone else wants to start red

[Bug rtl-optimization/17088] poor fortran optimisation at -O2/3

--- Additional Comments From jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk 2005-01-06 21:30 --- (In reply to comment #8) > On closer inspection this is not a new-ra bug, sorry Joost. > Can you see how the numbers look for you today? Don't use new-ra, it is > known to be very, very broken. timings for -O1

[Bug rtl-optimization/17088] poor fortran optimisation at -O2/3

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-06 21:39 --- Looks like to me the register allocator is f'ing up as on PPC (where there more fp registers) -O2 is faster (by a factor of 2) than -O1. It is also one of the reasons why new-ra could be fucking up too.

[Bug fortran/19294] intrinsic_transpose.f90 runtime crash

--- Additional Comments From coudert at clipper dot ens dot fr 2005-01-06 21:52 --- Playing with this test case to produce a minimal example, I found lots of differents sources that crash at runtime, for different levels of optimization (some at 1 and 2 but not 0 and 3, some only for 0,

[Bug target/17646] [4.0 Regression] xgcc links 64bit objects into a 32bit target

--- Additional Comments From olh at suse dot de 2005-01-06 21:58 --- I tried this: /home/abuild/gcc-4.0.0-20050103/configure --enable-threads=posix --prefix=/usr --with-local-prefix=/usr/local --infodir=/usr/share/info --mandir=/usr/share/man --enable-languages=c,c++,objc,f95,java --

[Bug target/19293] avr-gcc crashes when using shifts with negative shift count

-- What|Removed |Added CC||ericw at evcohs dot com http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19293

[Bug tree-optimization/18792] ICE with -O1 -ftree-loop-linear on small test case

--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-06 22:08 --- Subject: Bug 18792 CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc Module name:gcc Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-01-06 22:08:27 Modified files: gcc: ChangeLog tree-data-ref.c tree-loop-l

[Bug middle-end/19296] [3.3/3.4/4.0 regression] Range check on short miscompiled at -O

--- Additional Comments From ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-06 22:24 --- > The RTL is wrong right away: > (insn 13 11 14 (set (reg:HI 60) > (subreg/u:HI (reg/v:SI 58 [ ad ]) 0)) -1 (nil) > (nil)) > > (insn 14 13 15 (parallel [ > (set (reg:SI 61) >

[Bug tree-optimization/18792] ICE with -O1 -ftree-loop-linear on small test case

--- Additional Comments From dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-06 22:27 --- Fixed -- What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED

[Bug tree-optimization/18792] ICE with -O1 -ftree-loop-linear on small test case

-- What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |4.0.0 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18792

[Bug target/17646] [4.0 Regression] xgcc links 64bit objects into a 32bit target

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-06 22:42 --- (In reply to comment #17) > I tried this: > That appears to work. Only the binaries like cc1 end up in > /usr/libexec/gcc/powerpc64-suse-linux/4.0.0 > This should be /usr/lib64/gcc-lib (at least thats the p

[Bug c++/17401] [3.4/4.0 Regression] ICE with invalid pure specifier

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-06 22:57 --- I tested this again and seems fixed on the mainline, is there a reason why it is still marked as 4.0 regression? -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17401

[Bug tree-optimization/18048] [4.0 Regression] mgrid loop performance regression with ivopts

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-06 23:02 --- Actually I think the remaining issues of the mgrid performance regression are caused by PR 19038. -- What|Removed |Added

[Bug target/19046] [4.0 Regression] MOVE_RATIO should be tweaked on ppc

-- What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |minor Priority|P2 |P3 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19046

[Bug c++/19159] [4.0 Regression] Undefined symbol: vtable for __cxxabiv1::__vmi_class_type_info

--- Additional Comments From dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2005-01-06 23:04 --- Subject: Re: [4.0 Regression] Undefined symbol: vtable for __c > Dave, would you mind testing with this revision to the patch? I'll try this evening. It's taken some time but I believe that the f

[Bug rtl-optimization/19210] [4.0 Regression] not using do-loop for some loops

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-06 23:09 --- I think we can confirm this now. -- What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug fortran/19294] intrinsic_transpose.f90 runtime crash

--- Additional Comments From coudert at clipper dot ens dot fr 2005-01-06 23:12 --- Debugging with puts statements, I confirm that the previously isolated code is the place where the segfault happens. Replacing: *rptr = *sptr; with: puts ("Before"); foo = *sptr; pu

[Bug fortran/19294] intrinsic_transpose.f90 runtime crash

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-06 23:15 --- (In reply to comment #4) > Debugging with puts statements, I confirm that the previously isolated code is > the place where the segfault happens. Replacing: This smell like the alignment is wrong ... --

[Bug libfortran/17992] reading empty line does not return 0

--- Additional Comments From milan at cmm dot ki dot si 2005-01-06 23:16 --- > > we are trying to read 3 things, the '/' which consumes the first /n, then two > numbers (each I2). the file has 2 /n's in it. > I simplified thing and threw out the / from format specification. If I put

[Bug tree-optimization/18650] [4.0 Regression] Failure in tree-ssa/loop-2.c with powerpc64 with biarch

--- Additional Comments From jgrimm2 at us dot ibm dot com 2005-01-06 23:22 --- Seems fixed? Last broken here: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2004-12/msg00804.html Not failing here: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2004-12/msg00844.html Maybe fixed by??: http://gcc.gnu.org

[Bug fortran/19302] New: nearest test case fails

The test intrinsic_nearest.f90 from the fortran testsuite included with gcc fails on sparc-sun-solaris2.9 will all optimization levels. I can reduce it to the following code: --- program test_nearest real inf, max, x integer infi, maxi equivalence (inf

[Bug libfortran/19303] New: Opteron problem when writing binary files: 8-byte record header instead of 4-byte record header

I am trying to read the binary files produced with amd64 on a 32 bit machine. This is not possible because the record header changed from 4-bytes to 8-bytes. Can this be fixed? Example program: write(1)'Z' end produces fort.1 on opteron with the following content if opened in em

[Bug fortran/19302] nearest test case fails

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-06 23:28 --- I think this is a dup of bug 17675. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19302

[Bug middle-end/19304] New: wrong code for spec test from emit_move_change_mode

Benchmark 197.parser from SPEC CPU2000 fails on powerpc64-linux when compiled with "-m32 -O2 -maltivec" or "-m32 -O2 -funroll-loops", producing incorrect results. The failures start with this patch: 2004-12-12 Richar

[Bug middle-end/19304] wrong code for spec test from emit_move_change_mode

--- Additional Comments From janis187 at us dot ibm dot com 2005-01-06 23:39 --- Created an attachment (id=7889) --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=7889&action=view) diffs that worked for me -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19304

[Bug libfortran/19303] Unformatted record header is 8-bytes on 64-bit targets

--- Additional Comments From pbrook at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-06 23:39 --- This is a mis-ferature inherited from g77. It's definitely premitted by the standard, but probably wants "fixing" anyway. Full discussion here: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2004-12/msg00139.html --

[Bug middle-end/19304] [4.0 Regression] wrong code for spec test from emit_move_change_mode

-- What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |critical Keywords||wrong-code Priority|P2

[Bug libfortran/19303] Unformatted record header is 8-bytes on 64-bit targets

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-06 23:41 --- Also note on some targets (like all *BSD's by the way), gfc_offset is always 64bits so really this is a miss feature in the OS rather than in gfortran in my mind. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bu

[Bug libfortran/19303] Unformatted record header is 4-bytes on 32-bit targets

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-06 23:46 --- As I said before this really should be 64bit on all targets instead as we should support LFS (large file support) (which is deafualt really on all *BSD, darwin is included with this *BSD). --

[Bug target/17646] [4.0 Regression] xgcc links 64bit objects into a 32bit target

--- Additional Comments From olh at suse dot de 2005-01-06 23:46 --- Ok, libexec always looked like a sane place, to me. But anyway. I will leave it to Andreas to update our rpm spec file. I still wonder why the same configure options work on x86_64-linux -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzi

[Bug c++/19298] [4.0 Regression] Error compiling Boost.Python test

--- Additional Comments From wanderer at rsu dot ru 2005-01-06 23:47 --- Created an attachment (id=7890) --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=7890&action=view) With removed (mostly) iostreams and some other -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19298

[Bug libfortran/15266] libgfortran doesn't compile on IRIX 5.3

--- Additional Comments From coudert at clipper dot ens dot fr 2005-01-07 00:16 --- As of today, libgfortran compilation fails on mips-sgi-irix6.5 with: ../../../../gcc/libgfortran/generated/exp_c8.c:29: error: conflicting types for 'cabs' /var/tmp/gfortran-20050106/ibin/g

[Bug fortran/19302] intrinsic_nearest.f90 fails

--- Additional Comments From ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-07 00:32 --- Confirmed on all SPARC/Solaris platforms (32-bit or 64-bit). -- What|Removed |Added

[Bug fortran/19302] intrinsic_nearest.f90 fails

--- Additional Comments From ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-07 00:33 --- > I think this is a dup of bug 17675. I'm not sure: I've Steve's patch for PR 17675 in my tree and I still see the failures everywhere. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19302

[Bug rtl-optimization/19296] [3.3/3.4/4.0 regression] Range check on short miscompiled at -O

--- Additional Comments From ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-07 00:46 --- Confirmed, it's the combiner optimistically getting rid of the HImode subreg. -- What|Removed |Added --

[Bug c++/19298] [4.0 Regression] Error compiling Boost.Python test

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-07 00:54 --- I decided to take a different method to reducing this testcase by using the old style copy and paste method which is better sometimes at reducing testcases (in fact much better and faster with C++ code):

[Bug c++/19298] [4.0 Regression] Error compiling Boost.Python test

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-07 00:56 --- It worked with 4.0.0 20041124 so this is a new regression :(. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19298

[Bug target/6077] [alpha-osf].s with -x assembler-with-cpp breaks mips-tfile

--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-07 01:05 --- Subject: Bug 6077 CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc Module name:gcc Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-01-07 01:05:37 Modified files: gcc: ChangeLog gcc.c Log message:

[Bug tree-optimization/18650] [4.0 Regression] Failure in tree-ssa/loop-2.c with powerpc64 with biarch

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-07 01:10 --- So closing as fixed. -- What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |

[Bug c++/19199] [3.3/3.4/4.0 Regression] Wrong warning about returning a reference to a temporary

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-07 01:11 --- Hmm, even though 3.1 did not produce the diagnostic we did produce wrong code. So the only part which is a regression is the diagnostic but producing correct code would be very nice. -- What

[Bug target/6077] [alpha-osf].s with -x assembler-with-cpp breaks mips-tfile

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-07 01:35 --- Fixed. -- What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED

[Bug c/19305] New: internal error: Segmentation fault (magick-6.1.7/convert.c:2255)

[ImageMagick-6.1.7]$ gcc -v -save-temps -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I. -I./magick \ -I./ltdl -I./ltdl -I/usr/local/include/freetype2 -I/usr/local/include \ -I/usr/X11R6/include -I/usr/X11R6/include/X11 -g -Wall -D_THREAD_SAFE \ -pthread -MT magick/magick_libMagick_la-convert.lo -MD -MP -MF \ "magick/.de

<    1   2   3   >