[Bug libgcj/20160] [4.0 Regression] link errors building libgcj tests

-- What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|WAITING http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20160

[Bug c++/20195] Internal compiler error on legal code

--- Additional Comments From romein at astron dot nl 2005-02-25 08:27 --- Probably the bug has already been solved then. I used 4.0.0 20041214 (Red Hat 4.0.0-0.14.EL4), the one that has just been released by RedHat/CentOS. (In reply to comment #1) > I cannot reproduce this with gcc "4.

[Bug c++/20201] requesting -Wfatal-errors=n

--- Additional Comments From reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-25 08:43 --- Confirmed. Would be a Good Thing IMHO. -- What|Removed |Added CC|

[Bug c++/20172] member function template declaration not instantiated during the instantiation of the enclosing class template

--- Additional Comments From reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-25 09:13 --- Confirmed. Accepted since at least gcc 2.95.3. Reduced testcase: template struct A { template void foo(); }; A a; Even A is accepted.

[Bug tree-optimization/17863] [4.0 Regression] threefold performance loss, not inlining as much

--- Additional Comments From kunert at physik dot tu-dresden dot de 2005-02-25 09:52 --- Subject: Re: [4.0 Regression] threefold performance loss, not inlining as much Wow. Many thanks for that analysis. Now I will go and fetch the patch. Since nobody seems to care about improving t

[Bug tree-optimization/17863] [4.0 Regression] threefold performance loss, not inlining as much

--- Additional Comments From rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-25 10:06 --- Patch at http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-02/msg01571.html improves the testcase from 16.2s to 12.1s (3.4: 5.0s) - aka, still not good enough. As we have (with the patch) still size estimates for the

[Bug c++/20206] New: COMDAT broken for C++ thunks

The following testcase fails to link on targets that have TARGET_USE_LOCAL_THUNK_ALIAS_P(DECL) nonzero. // { dg-do run } // { dg-options "-O0" } void bar (int x) { asm ("" : : "g" (x)); } struct S { S () {}; virtual ~S () {}; }; struct T { virtual void foo (int) = 0; }; struct U : public S, pu

[Bug c++/20206] [4.0 Regression] COMDAT broken for C++ thunks

--- Additional Comments From jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-25 11:45 --- Works in 3.4.x and earlier. Patch here: -- What|Removed |Added ---

[Bug tree-optimization/19937] [4.0 regression] Wrong loop exit (causes binutils to fail)

--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-25 12:08 --- Subject: Bug 19937 CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc Module name:gcc Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-02-25 12:07:17 Modified files: gcc: ChangeLog tree-ssa-loop-ivopts.c Lo

[Bug tree-optimization/19937] [4.0 regression] Wrong loop exit (causes binutils to fail)

--- Additional Comments From rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-25 12:10 --- Fixed. -- What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED

[Bug tree-optimization/19938] Missed jump threading opportunity due to signedness difference

-- Bug 19938 depends on bug 19937, which changed state. Bug 19937 Summary: [4.0 regression] Wrong loop exit (causes binutils to fail) http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19937 What|Old Value |New Value ---

[Bug tree-optimization/19938] Missed jump threading opportunity due to signedness difference

-- Bug 19938 depends on bug 19937, which changed state. Bug 19937 Summary: [4.0 regression] Wrong loop exit (causes binutils to fail) http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19937 What|Old Value |New Value ---

[Bug tree-optimization/19937] [4.0 regression] Wrong loop exit (causes binutils to fail)

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-25 12:29 --- Yes but only on the mainline, 4.0 is now branched. -- What|Removed |Added Status

[Bug tree-optimization/19937] [4.0 regression] Wrong loop exit (causes binutils to fail)

-- What|Removed |Added Status|REOPENED|ASSIGNED Known to fail||4.0.0 Known to work|

[Bug rtl-optimization/20117] [4.0 Regression] duplicated labels in PIC

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-25 12:32 --- Fixed in 4.0.0 (before the branch) so closing as fixed. -- What|Removed |Added S

[Bug c++/20195] [4.0 Regression] Internal compiler error on legal code

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-25 12:33 --- So lets close it as fixed. -- What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug c++/20206] [4.0 Regression] COMDAT broken for C++ thunks

-- What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |critical Keywords||wrong-code http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?

[Bug target/20203] [4.0 Regression] unrecognizable insn building binutils

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-25 12:39 --- Patch here: . -- What|Removed |Added

[Bug tree-optimization/20204] [4.0 regression] miscompilation of asm-declared registers

--- Additional Comments From dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-25 13:31 --- Could you show me how to configure a cris-axis-elf target and build a simulator? Have you tried undoing the tree-into-ssa.c change? It should be easy with: $ cvs up -r 2.40 tree-into-ssa.c If there h

[Bug libgcj/20160] [4.0 Regression] link errors building libgcj tests

--- Additional Comments From rearnsha at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-25 14:07 --- The build fails: rm -fr .libs/libgcj.lax/libgcjgc_convenience.a mkdir .libs/libgcj.lax/libgcjgc_convenience.a (cd .libs/libgcj.lax/libgcjgc_convenience.a && /work/rearnsha/gnu/egcs/binutils/ar x /work/rear

[Bug c++/20207] New: null constructor not needed in multiple inheritance

In a "dreaded" diamon hierarchy A0 | A / \ B C \ / D I get a request for a default constructor for A0 from the compiler (gcc 3.4.4 ) If I drop A0, the error desappear. testtemplate2.cpp: In constructo

[Bug c++/20208] New: [4.0 Regression] No array-to-pointer decay happens for template functions

At -O1 and above, the following code ICE because well, the same reason why PR 2892 fails currently really: extern "C" void abort(); template inline void *Foo (T arg) { return &arg[0]; } int main () { int bry[2]; if (Foo(bry) != bry) abort(); } I filed this a seperate bug because well

[Bug c++/2892] No array-to-pointer decay happens for template functions

-- What|Removed |Added BugsThisDependsOn||20208 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2892

[Bug c++/20208] [4.0 Regression] No array-to-pointer decay happens for template functions

-- What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |4.0.0 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20208

[Bug c++/20175] [3.4 Regression] Warnings are issued when initializing struct members with "strings"

--- Additional Comments From gcc at magfr dot user dot lysator dot liu dot se 2005-02-25 14:55 --- (In reply to comment #3) > Patch here: This fixes the obvious case but it also makes the following pass with no warnings and that

[Bug c++/20209] New: [3.3/3.4/4.0 Regression] Missing warnings for "aggregate has a partly bracketed initializer"

The following should have warnings: struct S { char a[6]; int b[2]; }; S S0 = { { "hello" }, { 1, 2 } }; S S1 = { { "hello" }, 1, 2 }; // { dg-warning "" } S S2 = { "hello", { 1, 2 } }; S S3 = { "hello", 1, 2 }; // { dg-warning "" } -- Summary: [3.3/3.4/4.0 Regression] Missing warning

[Bug c++/20175] [3.4 Regression] Warnings are issued when initializing struct members with "strings"

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-25 15:02 --- (In reply to comment #6) > (In reply to comment #3) > > Patch here: > > This fixes the obvious case but it also makes the following pass with no > w

[Bug c++/20209] [3.3/3.4/4.0 Regression] Missing warnings for "aggregate has a partly bracketed initializer"

-- What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |3.4.4 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20209

[Bug c++/20209] [3.3/3.4/4.0 Regression] Missing warnings for "aggregate has a partly bracketed initializer"

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-25 15:04 --- Obviously I compiled with "-W -Wall". I wonder how this regression was missed for so long. -- What|Removed |Added

[Bug tree-optimization/20188] [4.0 Regression] asm and memory operands does not add a V_MAY_DEF

--- Additional Comments From dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-25 15:04 --- (In reply to comment #12) > if (lhs && (TREE_CODE (lhs) == TREE_LIST || EXPR_P (lhs)) > will works for everyone, it works for this testcase too but I have not > bootstrapped or tested it yet. > This is the

[Bug inline-asm/20202] asm("movq %0, %mm0" : : "X"(*a)) generates invalid asm code

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-25 15:07 --- 'X' means "Any operand whatsoever is allowed." so %eax there is fine. -- What|Removed |Added

[Bug c++/20207] null constructor not needed in multiple inheritance

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-25 15:10 --- I think this is invalid code but I don't know how to produce it right now. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20207

[Bug tree-optimization/20188] [4.0 Regression] asm and memory operands does not add a V_MAY_DEF

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-25 15:17 --- (In reply to comment #13) > (In reply to comment #12) > This is the right fix. Could you bootstrap and test it? A test case for this > would need a dg-scan test for two 'if ()' statements (i.e., we should

[Bug tree-optimization/20210] New: asm "=m" not taken into account

The following testcase is miscompiled on {powerpc,i386,x86_64}-redhat-linux (well, any other for which an __asm is written). extern void abort (void); unsigned short v = 0x0300; void foo (unsigned short *p) { *p = v; } int bar (void) { unsigned short x; volatile unsigned short *z; foo (

[Bug tree-optimization/20204] [4.0 regression] miscompilation of asm-declared registers

--- Additional Comments From hp at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-25 15:35 --- In response to comment #6: Building a CRIS toolchain with simulator (but see further below): The general steps are exactly as any other simulator target, follow http://gcc.gnu.org/simtest-howto.html>, though you

[Bug tree-optimization/20188] [4.0 Regression] asm and memory operands does not add a V_MAY_DEF

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-25 15:35 --- *** Bug 20210 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- What|Removed |Added

[Bug tree-optimization/20210] asm "=m" not taken into account

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-25 15:35 --- This is a dup of bug 20188 which I am testing a patch for already. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 20188 *** -- What|Removed |Added --

[Bug c++/20207] null constructor not needed in multiple inheritance

--- Additional Comments From Serge dot Iovleff at univ-lille1 dot fr 2005-02-25 15:43 --- (In reply to comment #1) > I think this is invalid code but I don't know how to produce it right now. Yes you can add an explicit call to the constructor of A0 in B and C, in this case the error des

[Bug target/16350] gcc only understands little endian ARM systems

--- Additional Comments From vapier at gentoo dot org 2005-02-25 15:49 --- this also applies pretty nicely to 3.3.5, 3.4.2, 3.4.3, and even gcc cvs HEAD :( one question though ... going by config/arm/arm.h, wouldnt you want to use this logic instead ? #if TARGET_BIG_ENDIAN_DEFAULT #defi

[Bug tree-optimization/20204] [4.0 regression] miscompilation of asm-declared registers

--- Additional Comments From hp at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-25 15:59 --- I was lucky enough to have a source tree from just before the suspected change in the machine where I test using geoffk's script. (It's a RH9 machine as opposed to FC2, so thus we can supposedly also rule out mi

signed enum bug

[My first time at reporting, so please bear with me if I do something wrong...]   The compiler outputs a bg branch instruction when it should use a bgu. The cause seems to be related to having a negative value in the enumeration. If I just comment out the DummyValue1 line, the code is correct. It

[Bug tree-optimization/20204] [4.0 regression] miscompilation of asm-declared registers

--- Additional Comments From hp at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-25 16:05 --- I've confirmed on this other machine that the update caused the same breakage. -- What|Removed |Added

[Bug other/17652] [meta-bug] GCC 4.1 pending patches

-- What|Removed |Added BugsThisDependsOn||20211 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17652

[Bug rtl-optimization/20211] New: autoincrement generation is poor

When a processor does not allow register+offset addressing for a register class, as for the floating point registers on the SH3E / SH4, the way to avoid excessive reloads and to expose the issue to the rtl optimizers is to disallow this addressing mode for the machine modes for which pseudo registe

Re: signed enum bug

> The compiler outputs a bg branch instruction when it should use a bgu. The > cause seems to be related to having a negative value in the enumeration. Fixed in 3.4.4pre: _Z13DummyFunction10tTestEnum2: .LLFB2: !#PROLOGUE# 0 !#PROLOGUE# 1 add %o0, -2, %o0 cmp

[Bug tree-optimization/19938] Missed jump threading opportunity due to signedness difference

--- Additional Comments From kazu at cs dot umass dot edu 2005-02-25 16:29 --- Yes, this is fixed. -- What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RES

[Bug middle-end/19721] [meta-bug] optimizations that CSE still catches

-- Bug 19721 depends on bug 19938, which changed state. Bug 19938 Summary: Missed jump threading opportunity due to signedness difference http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19938 What|Old Value |New Value --

[Bug tree-optimization/19794] [meta-bug] Jump threading related bugs

-- Bug 19794 depends on bug 19938, which changed state. Bug 19938 Summary: Missed jump threading opportunity due to signedness difference http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19938 What|Old Value |New Value --

[Bug c++/20209] [3.3/3.4/4.0 Regression] Missing warnings for "aggregate has a partly bracketed initializer"

--- Additional Comments From jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-25 16:38 --- Yeah, caused by addition of reshape_init. Bigger testcase: // PR c++/20209 // { dg-do compile } // { dg-options "-Wmissing-braces" } struct S { char a[6]; int b[2]; }; struct T { int a; int b[2]; }; struct U

[Bug target/19019] GCC ldouble format incompatibility with XLC long double

--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-25 16:42 --- Subject: Bug 19019 CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc Module name:gcc Branch: gcc-3_4-branch Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-02-25 16:42:01 Modified files: gcc: Change

[Bug tree-optimization/17863] [4.0 Regression] threefold performance loss, not inlining as much

--- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2005-02-25 16:43 --- Why isn't this a critical regression? We're regressing *badly* on code generation. -- What|Removed |Added

[Bug tree-optimization/20204] [4.0 regression] miscompilation of asm-declared registers

--- Additional Comments From dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-25 16:48 --- (In reply to comment #9) > I've confirmed on this other machine that the update caused the same breakage. > Ah, yes. I see it now. The reorg tickled a bug in the renamer: # n_21 = V_MUST_DEF n = D.1158

[Bug libgcj/20160] [4.0 Regression] link errors building libgcj tests

--- Additional Comments From aoliva at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-25 16:53 --- Hard-linking is an option, although we can't rely on hard-links being available. Soft-linking would require even more pathname tweaking, it's just not worth it. Anyhow, thanks for testing, I see what the pr

[Bug tree-optimization/14703] Inadequate optimization of inline templated functions

--- Additional Comments From rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-25 16:53 --- http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-02/msg01571.html improves this to the extent that the inliner now estimates the size of fibconst to nsize 0,1,2 0 31 42 54 67 etc

[Bug tree-optimization/17863] [4.0 Regression] threefold performance loss, not inlining as much

--- Additional Comments From rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-25 16:56 --- Yes, the regression is even worse on the closed-duplicate #18704. There you can also find some analysis of inline parameter tuning. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17863

[Bug tree-optimization/19937] [4.0 regression] Wrong loop exit (causes binutils to fail)

--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-25 16:58 --- Subject: Bug 19937 CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc Module name:gcc Branch: gcc-4_0-branch Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-02-25 16:56:28 Modified files: gcc: Change

[Bug tree-optimization/19937] [4.0 regression] Wrong loop exit (causes binutils to fail)

--- Additional Comments From rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-25 17:04 --- Also in 4.0. -- What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED

[Bug tree-optimization/19938] Missed jump threading opportunity due to signedness difference

-- Bug 19938 depends on bug 19937, which changed state. Bug 19937 Summary: [4.0 regression] Wrong loop exit (causes binutils to fail) http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19937 What|Old Value |New Value ---

[Bug c++/20212] New: attribute unused vs. member function template

Works with: 3.4.2 Fails with: 4.0.0 For some reason, the attached output warns (oddly) with the attached code: %COMP.sh "-g -O2 -Wunused -Wextra" debug.ii /mnt/hd/src/gcc/libstdc++-v3/src/debug.cc: In instantiation of 'void __gnu_debug::_Error_formatter::_M_format_word(char*, int, const char*, _T

[Bug c++/20212] attribute unused vs. member function template

--- Additional Comments From bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-25 18:15 --- Created an attachment (id=8283) --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=8283&action=view) pre-processed file, bzip2 compressed -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20212

[Bug tree-optimization/19938] Missed jump threading opportunity due to signedness difference

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-25 18:38 --- And in 4.0 also. -- What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |4.0.

[Bug c++/20212] [4.0 Regression] attribute unused vs. member function template

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-25 18:41 --- I will try to reduce this later today. -- What|Removed |Added CC|

[Bug rtl-optimization/20211] autoincrement generation is poor

-- What|Removed |Added CC||pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot ||org http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/sh

[Bug rtl-optimization/20211] autoincrement generation is poor

--- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2005-02-25 18:59 --- What is the compile-time impact of this patch on cc-i compilation, the usual C++ testcases, and SPEC? I am sure this is something worthwile to mention for a review. And BTW, out of curiosity, does the new

[Bug c++/20212] [4.0 Regression] attribute unused vs. member function template

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-25 19:00 --- Actually I figured out an obvious way to reduce it after looking at the error message and seeing that the unused parameter was pointing to the prototype of the function: template void f(int); void g(int i)

[Bug libstdc++/20213] New: cassert header documentation wrong

The cassert header states: * This is the C++ version of the Standard C Library header @c assert.h, * and its contents are (mostly) the same as that header, but are all * contained in the namespace @c std. However, this bug report http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15771 indi

[Bug target/20214] New: [3.3/3.4/4.0 Regression] ICE with register name which is not a register in x86

The following invalid x86 code ICEs on the mainline and has since at least 3.2.3: int main() { register void *return_dst __asm__ ("r13"); return *(int*)(return_dst); } -- Summary: [3.3/3.4/4.0 Regression] ICE with register name which is not a register in x86

[Bug target/20214] [3.3/3.4/4.0 Regression] ICE with register name which is not a register in x86

-- What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |4.0.0 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20214

[Bug target/20214] [3.3/3.4/4.0 Regression] ICE with register name which is not a register in x86

-- What|Removed |Added Known to fail||4.0.0 3.3.3 3.2.3 3.4.0 Known to work||3.0.4 2.95.3 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzi

[Bug java/20215] New: gcj does not accept classes with same name fields

According to the JVM spec, class files can have several fields with the same name. As long as they have different types, they will be distinguished since all field operations specify both the name and the field of the field. Sun's JVM accepts such classes, and correctly distinguishes the fields, as

[Bug target/20214] [3.3/3.4/4.0 Regression] ICE with register name which is not a register in x86

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-25 19:49 --- By the way here is the ICE: t4.c: In function ‘main’: t4.c:5: internal compiler error: in print_reg, at config/i386/i386.c:6241 Please submit a full bug report, with preprocessed source if appropriate. See h

[Bug java/20215] gcj does not accept classes with same name fields

--- Additional Comments From bonniot at users dot sf dot net 2005-02-25 19:50 --- Created an attachment (id=8285) --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=8285&action=view) Testcase -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20215

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

--- Additional Comments From coudert at clipper dot ens dot fr 2005-02-25 19:50 --- I'm no language lawyer, but this works (returns two zeros and no error) for Sun, PGF, IBM, MIPSpro and Intel compilers. I think this should be considered as a bug (I confirm it is still present in CVS).

[Bug middle-end/19956] [4.0/4.1 Regression] ICE copy_tree_r, at tree-inline.c:2320 on simple Ada code

--- Additional Comments From laurent at guerby dot net 2005-02-25 20:42 --- > Someone who has more knowlege about the gimplifier and PLACEHOLDER_EXPRs should look into this Richard, any idea? This is not ACATS but has been reported to affect real Ada code. -- What|Re

[Bug middle-end/19956] [4.0/4.1 Regression] ICE copy_tree_r, at tree-inline.c:2320 on simple Ada code

--- Additional Comments From kenner at vlsi1 dot ultra dot nyu dot edu 2005-02-25 20:44 --- Subject: Re: [4.0/4.1 Regression] ICE copy_tree_r, at tree-inline.c:2320 on simple Ada code Richard, any idea? This is not ACATS but has been reported to affect real Ada code. Not yet

[Bug tree-optimization/20204] [4.0/4.1 regression] miscompilation of asm-declared registers

--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-25 21:10 --- Subject: Bug 20204 CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc Module name:gcc Branch: gcc-4_0-branch Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-02-25 21:10:30 Modified files: gcc: Change

[Bug tree-optimization/20204] [4.0/4.1 regression] miscompilation of asm-declared registers

--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-25 21:12 --- Subject: Bug 20204 CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc Module name:gcc Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-02-25 21:12:34 Modified files: gcc: ChangeLog tree-into-ssa.c gc

[Bug tree-optimization/20204] [4.0/4.1 regression] miscompilation of asm-declared registers

--- Additional Comments From dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-25 21:18 --- Fixed. http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-02/msg01625.html -- What|Removed |Added

[Bug tree-optimization/20204] [4.0/4.1 regression] miscompilation of asm-declared registers

-- What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |4.1.0 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20204

[Bug tree-optimization/20204] [4.0/4.1 regression] miscompilation of asm-declared registers

-- What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|4.1.0 |4.0.0 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20204

[Bug preprocessor/20183] -D option handling doesn't account for character sets

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-25 21:25 --- Confirmed. -- What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW E

[Bug tree-optimization/20216] New: Simple loop runs out of stack at -O1

Following test case runs out of stack space when gcc tries to compute factorial (159). I have a patch which does two simple things. 1) it rewrites tree_fold_factorial function into its non-recursive version, and 2) it sets a limit before deciding to call chrec_evaluate. This limit is arbitr

[Bug tree-optimization/20216] [4.0/4.1 Regression] Simple loop runs out of stack at -O1

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-25 21:30 --- Confirmed. -- What|Removed |Added Keywords||compile-ti

[Bug tree-optimization/20216] [4.0/4.1 Regression] Simple loop runs out of stack at -O1

--- Additional Comments From fjahanian at apple dot com 2005-02-25 21:32 --- Created an attachment (id=8286) --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=8286&action=view) A proposed patch to fix this Note that patch I attached is against the apple-ppc-branch. So, it may not appl

[Bug target/19930] gcc.dg/pr19402-2.c fails on ia64-hpux

--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-25 21:34 --- Subject: Bug 19930 CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc Module name:gcc Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-02-25 21:34:49 Modified files: gcc: ChangeLog libgcc2.h libgcc2.c

[Bug tree-optimization/20216] [4.0/4.1 Regression] Simple loop runs out of stack at -O1

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-25 21:36 --- (In reply to comment #2) > Note that patch I attached is against the apple-ppc-branch. So, it may not > apply to the mainline as is. It looks like it should from my updated sources. -- What

[Bug c/20217] New: Switching off the optimization triggers undefined reference at link time when building Linux kernel.

1. the exact version of GCC; % gcc -v Reading specs from /usr/lib/gcc-lib/i386-redhat-linux/3.2.3/specs Configured with: ../configure --prefix=/usr --mandir=/usr/share/man --infodir=/usr/share/info --enable-shared --enable-threads=posix --disable-checking --with-system-zlib --enable-__cxa_atexit -

[Bug middle-end/20217] Switching off the optimization triggers undefined reference at link time when building Linux kernel.

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-25 22:08 --- Are you sure that this is a GCC bug, IIRC the linux kernel uses extern inline. -- What|Removed |Added

[Bug target/19930] gcc.dg/pr19402-2.c fails on ia64-hpux

--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-25 22:22 --- Subject: Bug 19930 CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc Module name:gcc Branch: gcc-4_0-branch Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-02-25 22:22:45 Modified files: gcc: Change

[Bug target/19930] gcc.dg/pr19402-2.c fails on ia64-hpux

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-25 22:27 --- Fixed. -- What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED

[Bug libstdc++/19664] libstdc++ headers should have pop/push of the visibility around the declarations

--- Additional Comments From bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-25 22:40 --- Personally, I think the better approach for the libstdc++ parts is to allow __attribute__ visibility on namespace declarations. That way, all this goo could be removed, and centralized in one place. Ie, c++co

[Bug middle-end/20217] Switching off the optimization triggers undefined reference at link time when building Linux kernel.

--- Additional Comments From stiriac at oddpost dot com 2005-02-25 22:48 --- (In reply to comment #1) > Are you sure that this is a GCC bug, IIRC the linux kernel uses extern inline. How to judge ? I do change nothing to the Linux kernel but I change a compilation flag and I get undefi

[Bug middle-end/20217] Switching off the optimization triggers undefined reference at link time when building Linux kernel.

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-25 22:51 --- You ask a linux kernel person :) or you read the source to make sure that all extern inline functions have a corresponding normal definition. -- What|Removed |Added ---

[Bug middle-end/20218] New: Can't use __attribute__ ((visibility ("hidden"))) to hide a symbol

When __attribute__ ((visibility ("hidden"))) is used to hide/optimize a symbol, foo, defined in another .o/archive file, foo isn't marked as hidden. As the result, I get either runtime or linktime error. -- Summary: Can't use __attribute__ ((visibility ("hidden"))) to

[Bug middle-end/20218] Can't use __attribute__ ((visibility ("hidden"))) to hide a symbol

--- Additional Comments From hjl at lucon dot org 2005-02-25 23:02 --- Created an attachment (id=8287) --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=8287&action=view) A testcase On ia32 [EMAIL PROTECTED] hidden]$ make gcc -O -g -c -o main.o main.c gcc -O -g -fPIC -c -o foo1.o

[Bug middle-end/20218] Can't use __attribute__ ((visibility ("hidden"))) to hide a symbol

-- What|Removed |Added CC||pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot ||org http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/sh

[Bug middle-end/20217] Switching off the optimization triggers undefined reference at link time when building Linux kernel.

--- Additional Comments From stiriac at oddpost dot com 2005-02-25 23:25 --- You mean this behavior is perfectly normal for the compiler ? This means the optimization flag plays somehow a redundant role with the options enabling/disabling error or warning messages ? I haven't seen any

[Bug rtl-optimization/20219] New: Missed optimisation sin / tan --> cos

GCC knows how to optimise tan * cos --> sin (fold-const line 7734) cos * tan --> sin sin / cos --> tan (fold-const line 8080) cos / sin --> 1.0 / tan (fold-const line 8094) but misses sin / tan --> cos tan

[Bug target/20199] -fvisibility-inlines-hidden broken on powerpc64-linux

--- Additional Comments From janis at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-25 23:53 --- Ah, yes. I haven't come up with a testcase that doesn't use libstdc++, but the following testcase fails without the patch referenced in comment #28 and passes with it:

[Bug rtl-optimization/20219] Missed optimisation sin / tan --> cos

-- What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||19987 nThis|| Severity|normal |enhance

  1   2   >