--- Additional Comments From aj at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-27 08:16
---
glibc needs to be changed for this, for details chech the thread starting at:
http://sourceware.org/ml/libc-hacker/2005-03/msg00061.html
--
What|Removed |Added
---
This error only seems to occur when "-O2 -march=k6-2 -ftracer" are used
together. Removing -ftracer causes the error to go away. This problem does not
seem to exist in the GCC4.0 branch.
i686-pc-linux-gnu-gcc -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I. -I.. -I../include -O20 -ffast-math
-D_REENTRANT -fsigned-char -
--- Additional Comments From halcy0n at gentoo dot org 2005-03-27 08:50
---
Created an attachment (id=8461)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=8461&action=view)
Preprocessed file for above failure
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20653
--- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-27
10:19 ---
Two things:
1) Test case? No test case, no way to reproduce it without re-doing the
investigating you have already done. Stop work duplication, provide
test cases to your fellow GCC hackers. I don
--- Additional Comments From dorit at il dot ibm dot com 2005-03-27 12:36
---
patch: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-03/msg02442.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20626
binutils ar was recently changed to exclude path when comparing object
filenames, to agree with POSIX. This combines with Windows' case-insensitive
filesystem to cause java/lang/Exception.o to replace exception.o in the
following command while creating libgcj.a.
ar rc .libs/libgcj0_convenience
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed||1
Last reconfirmed|-00-00 00:00:00 |2005-03-
--- Additional Comments From andrewhutchinson at cox dot net 2005-03-27
14:33 ---
The problem here is that gcc is using a DImode register to handle 6 byte
(int+long) structure. Why I have no idea!
Since the target has no insn for DI move, gcc turns this into individual QImode
byte move
/*** SNIP ***/
/*
Place this file into `bug.c' (the code between the SNIP comments).
Then try `gcc -c -Wall bug.c'
The compiler silently transforms the type of the structure component
below to some kind of a generic pointer or something.
However it should output a diagnostic on
--- Additional Comments From david dot nospam dot hopwood at blueyonder dot
co dot uk 2005-03-27 15:48 ---
This is particularly bad for some warnings, such as -Wpadded, that really only
make sense when applied to a subset of code. This came up for the Xen virtual
machine manager: we want
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-27
16:15 ---
This is still valid code because the struct could be defined below still.
For an example:
struct a
{
struct b *c;
};
struct b
{
int i;
struct a *c;
};
--
What|Removed
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-27
16:21 ---
This is why POSIX ar is bad. Oh well.
--
What|Removed |Added
Component|java
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-27
16:36 ---
Confirmed, there might be a testcase for 4.0.0 which can reproduce this too but
I don't know of any.
Anyways the problem looks like not taking into counting some alignment or
something into the length
so
--- Additional Comments From ian at airs dot com 2005-03-27 17:14 ---
This bug appears to still exists in mainline. When I compile the test case
without optimization, I get both these lines
.def_Test; .val_Test; .scl2; .type 044;.endef
.def_Te
--
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|3.3.1 |---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9963
--- Additional Comments From schwab at suse dot de 2005-03-27 18:14 ---
Triggered by this patch from PR15242:
2005-02-01 Steven Bosscher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR optimization/15242
* params.def (PARAM_MAX_GOTO_DUPLICATION_INSNS): New param.
* basic-block.h
--
What|Removed |Added
CC||pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot
||org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/sh
--- Additional Comments From ian at airs dot com 2005-03-27 18:54 ---
Patch here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-03/msg02460.html
--
What|Removed |Added
The following two function should be equivalent:
int f(int offset, int len, int num_bytes)
{
int i;
num_bytes = 0;
for (i = 0; i < len; i++) num_bytes ++;
return num_bytes;
}
int f1(int offset, int len, int num_bytes)
{
if (len<0)
return 0;
return len;
}
Why don't we strength reduce the lo
--- Additional Comments From hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-27
19:35 ---
This regression should be solved by the patch so I guess I will close it and
move on the new regression :(
--
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Additional Comments From kazu at cs dot umass dot edu 2005-03-27 19:38
---
Fixed with Diego's recent updates to incremental SSA updates.
--
What|Removed |Added
Consider
int
foo (int a)
{
if (a == 0)
if (a == 0)
return 1;
return 0;
}
Note that the second "if" statement is redundant.
--
Summary: VRP does not get rid of a redundant "if" statement.
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
--
What|Removed |Added
Summary|VRP does not get rid of a |[tcb] VRP does not get rid
|redundant "if" statement. |of a redundant "if"
--- Additional Comments From hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-27
19:41 ---
How this is supposed to be failing? I do get undefined reference to baz, but
same I do get with my system compiler here and it seem to be right as baz is
extern inline function
--
http://gcc.gnu.o
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20635
--- Additional Comments From kazu at cs dot umass dot edu 2005-03-27 19:42
---
Created an attachment (id=8462)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=8462&action=view)
Patch
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20657
long long a=-9223372036854775808ll;
int b=-2147483648;
test2.cpp:1:14: warning: integer constant is so large that it is unsigned
it is not.
test2.cpp:1: warning: this decimal constant is unsigned only in ISO C90
test2.cpp:2: warning: this decimal constant is unsigned only in ISO C90
huh? unsig
++ --no-create --no-recursion
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.1.0 20050327 (experimental)
./cc1 -quiet -v -iprefix
/usr/src/gcc/obj/gcc/../lib/gcc/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/4.1.0/ -isystem
./include pr20635.c -quiet -dumpbase pr20635.c -mtune=k8 -auxbase pr20635 -O2
-version -o /tmp/ccmjI4n7.s
--- Additional Comments From jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-27 20:55
---
Forgot to add, this testcase was meant for gcc.c-torture/compile, i.e. an
compile test only. It of course won't link, because baz is extern inline.
But it should compile.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/sh
gcc version 4.0.0 20041213
javac Bla.java works.
gcj -C Bla.java (or -c)
Bla.java: In class 'Bla$B':
Bla.java: In constructor '(Bla)':
Bla.java:18: error: Can't reference 'this' before the superclass constructor
has been called.
super(doit());
^
1 error
--
--- Additional Comments From hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-27
21:42 ---
I see I forgot my tree with checking enabled. This is obviously latent bug in
handling extern inline functions, I am looking into it.
--
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-27
21:46 ---
No, the warning is correct - is an operator and not part of the number,
--
What|Removed |Added
---
This is Walt Brainerd's fc001.f95
INQUIRE says only units 5, 6 exist,
but open(11... works. This is wrong.
Units 5 and 6 are preconnected, which
means that they are open, but all
units that can be used should exist.
--
Summary: INQUIRE incorrectly reports the existence of UNITS
--- Additional Comments From kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-27 21:56
---
Created an attachment (id=8463)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=8463&action=view)
Walt's program
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20660
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-27
21:59 ---
Confirmed.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
This fc002.f95 from Walt Brainerd.
! End of record is not detected
!on second READ
! iostats should be 0, 0, -2, -1
--
Summary: End of record not detected
Product: gcc
Version: 4.0.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priorit
--- Additional Comments From kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-27 22:00
---
Created an attachment (id=8464)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=8464&action=view)
Walt's program
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20661
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-27
22:02 ---
Confirmed.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
This is Walt Brainerd's fc004.f95. A trace of f951 shows
(gdb) run fc004.f95
Starting program:
/home/kargl/work/41/libexec/gcc/i386-unknown-freebsd6.0/4.1.0/f951 fc004.f95
zero
MAIN__
to_sub
Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault.
0x0809b832 in gfc_conv_intrinsic_bound (se=0xbfbf
--- Additional Comments From kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-27 22:08
---
Created an attachment (id=8465)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=8465&action=view)
Walt's program
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20662
This is Walt Brainerd's fc005.f95.
kargl[227] gfc41 -static -o z fc005.f95
In file fc005.f95:23
if (.not. close(rx, rr)) then
1
Error: Symbol 'close' at (1) has no IMPLICIT type
--
Summary: Generic function is not resolved
Product: gcc
Version: 4.
--- Additional Comments From kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-27 22:12
---
Created an attachment (id=8466)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=8466&action=view)
Walt's program
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20663
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-27
22:13 ---
Confirmed.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
E
This is Walt's fc006.f95. It uses lbound and ubound, so it may
be related to other PRs.
kargl[231] gfc41 -static -o z fc006.f95
fc006.f95: In function 'fcn':
fc006.f95:33: internal compiler error: in gfc_conv_descriptor_dtype, at
fortran/trans-array.c:177
--
Summary: gfc_conv_descri
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-27
22:15 ---
Confirmed, but I think this is a dup of bug 20482.
--
What|Removed |Added
BugsThisDependsOn
--- Additional Comments From kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-27 22:15
---
Created an attachment (id=8467)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=8467&action=view)
Walt's program
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20664
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-27
22:17 ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 4695 ***
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-27
22:17 ---
*** Bug 20659 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-27
22:20 ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 17202 ***
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-27
22:20 ---
*** Bug 20664 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-27
22:32 ---
Small testcase:
int f(double a, double b)
{
int a1 = a;
int b1 = b;
return a1+b1;
}
You can reproduce this on powerpc-darwin with -mcpu=601
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-27
22:34 ---
This was caused by:
2005-03-25 Geoffrey Keating <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* config/rs6000/rs6000.md (UNSPEC constants): Add UNSPEC_STFIWX.
(fix_truncdfsi2): Allow registers or memory as destinat
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-27
22:35 ---
Confirmed.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
- 源邮件 -
主题: [bug fmodulo-sched/gcc]
发件人: "zouq" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
日期: Mon, 三月 28, 2005 8:09 am
收件人: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
1.i build a cross-compiler for powe
On Mar 27, 2005, at 8:06 PM, zouq wrote:
- ~{T4SJ<~~} -
~{VwLb~}: [bug fmodulo-sched/gcc]
~{7"<~HK~}: "zouq" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
~{HUFZ~}: Mon, ~{H}TB~} 28, 2005 8:09 am
~{JU<~HK~}: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
In:
template class foo {}
enum A{b, c};
gets you:
~/ootbc/members/bin$ g++ foo.cc
foo.cc:2: error: template declaration of `enum A'
foo.cc:2: confused by earlier errors, bailing out
The actual error is a missing semicolon.
Ivan
--
Summary: poor diagnostic
Product: gcc
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-28
02:07 ---
On the mainline I get:
t.cc:1: error: template declaration of 'enum'
t.cc:2: error: multiple types in one declaration
There might be a dup of this bug somewhere.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.
Right now now folding opportunities are taken for sparc builtin functions.
This should be fixed by implementing sparc_fold_builtin.
--
Summary: SPARC builtins should be folded if possible
Product: gcc
Version: 4.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Sever
--
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
Keywords||missed-optimization
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/s
--- Additional Comments From phython at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-28
05:57 ---
Created an attachment (id=8468)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=8468&action=view)
ignored result testcase
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20666
--- Additional Comments From phython at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-28
05:58 ---
Created an attachment (id=8469)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=8469&action=view)
fold fexpand
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20666
--- Additional Comments From phython at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-28
06:00 ---
Created an attachment (id=8470)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=8470&action=view)
initial folding of fexpand
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20666
--- Additional Comments From aaronavay62 at aaronwl dot com 2005-03-28
06:09 ---
This also happens with gnu/java/security/OID.o and org/ietf/jgss/Oid.o, again
causing build to break in jv-collect. These files are less easily renamed,
though. I don't know how to fix this.
--
http
--- Additional Comments From aaronavay62 at aaronwl dot com 2005-03-28
07:40 ---
I just checked against "Microsoft (R) Library Manager Version 7.10.3052" and
binutils's case-insensitivity replacement semantics are consistant with
Microsoft's implementation. LIB also has the same path-
64 matches
Mail list logo
