--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-28
02:03 ---
Mark as a dup of bug 14404.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 14404 ***
--
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-28
02:03 ---
*** Bug 13051 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-28
02:03 ---
Reopening to ...
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCO
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-28
02:04 ---
Mark as a dup of bug 14404.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 14404 ***
--
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-28
02:04 ---
*** Bug 15839 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From szehau at gmail dot com 2005-04-28 02:06
---
(In reply to comment #1)
> Do you have a testcase?
> On second thought pthreads and mutex lockes and signals are out of the scope
of a compiler, If this is
> a bug, this is a glibc bug but I really doubt it.
In t
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-28
02:09 ---
(In reply to comment #11)
> Is this optimization valid? Note that it will change the behavior of this c++
> program:
You are correct Chris, this was an invalid optimization.
This is a dup of bug 19320. T
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-28
02:09 ---
*** Bug 21089 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
What|Removed |Added
--
Bug 20912 depends on bug 21089, which changed state.
Bug 21089 Summary: [4.0/4.1 Regression] C++ front-end does not "inline" the
static const double
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21089
What|Old Value |New Value
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-28
02:11 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> In this case, I need to know whether there is a fucntion that I can use to
> check
> whether a mutex is currently locked.
That is a pthread question and not in anyway a bug in any
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-28
02:23 ---
Fixed on the mainline by:
2005-04-27 Sven de Marothy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* java/nio/charset/Charset.java: Cached encoders shouldn't be static.
2005-04-27 Sven de Marothy <[EMAIL PROTECT
--- Additional Comments From belyshev at depni dot sinp dot msu dot ru
2005-04-28 02:34 ---
// reduced testcase, compile with -O1 -free-pre
template inline T klamp (T a, T l, T h)
{
return (a < l)? l : ((a > h)? h : a);
}
int foo (char);
int f (void)
{
float r;
return foo (klam
--- Additional Comments From belyshev at depni dot sinp dot msu dot ru
2005-04-28 02:34 ---
*** Bug 21248 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Additional Comments From matz at suse dot de 2005-04-28 02:46 ---
Uhm, wait. Perhaps the optimization would be invalid for your changed example
from comment #5, but see below. But it will not be invalid for my initial
testcase,
where it missed to propagate 20.0 into setPosition.
--
Bug 20912 depends on bug 21089, which changed state.
Bug 21089 Summary: [4.0/4.1 Regression] C++ front-end does not "inline" the
static const double
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21089
What|Old Value |New Value
--- Additional Comments From mrs at apple dot com 2005-04-28 03:48 ---
I can always reproduce this by touch zlib/configure && make all-target-zlib
The work around, would be to rm /*/config.cache
Also, I posted a patch for this in:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-04/msg02836.html
--- Additional Comments From eschenb at informatik dot uni-frankfurt dot de
2005-04-28 03:58 ---
Subject: Re: [4.0 only] segfault in INQUIRE asking
for SEQUENTIAL status
Was heißt hier Nutte, man muß ja sehen, wo man bleibt, da wird man ja wohl mal
quer durch dei Stadt rumhuren
--
What|Removed |Added
CC||mrs at apple dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18288
--- Additional Comments From bothner at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-28
05:12 ---
Not sure what the right solution is.
We should be consistent as to whether definitions in
have line 0 and line 1, and it wasn't before my change.
One option is to fix gas.
Another if to suppress the # 0 li
program b
write(6,8000)
8000 format(72(1H!))
end
kargl[213] gfc41 -o b b.f
In file b.f:3
8000 format(72(1H!))
1
Error: Unexpected end of format string in forma
--- Additional Comments From kazu at cs dot umass dot edu 2005-04-28 05:45
---
I'm testing a patch.
--
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |ka
101 - 121 of 121 matches
Mail list logo
