--- Additional Comments From reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-09
07:27 ---
Fixed on mainline by Nathan's patch for PR19497.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status
--
What|Removed |Added
Component|c |target
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21973
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-09
07:33 ---
3.3.x is no longer maintained.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21974
--
What|Removed |Added
Component|c++ |libstdc++
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21974
Compiling ipw2100 1.1.0 against linux 2.6.12-rc6 results in an internal compiler
error.
$ gcc -v
Using built-in specs.
Target: i686-pc-linux-gnu
Configured with: ../gcc-4.0-20050602/configure --prefix=/usr
--libexecdir=/usr/lib --infodir=/usr/share/info --mandir=/usr/share/man
--with-arch=pentium2
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-09
07:44 ---
Subject: Bug 20610
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-06-09 07:43:47
Modified files:
gcc: ChangeLog gimplify.c integrate.c tree
--- Additional Comments From j at bitron dot ch 2005-06-09 07:45 ---
Created an attachment (id=9053)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=9053&action=view)
preprocessed source
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21975
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-09
07:46 ---
Subject: Bug 21903
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Branch: gcc-3_4-branch
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-06-09 07:46:23
Modified files:
gcc/cp : Change
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-09
07:46 ---
Subject: Bug 19884
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Branch: gcc-3_4-branch
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-06-09 07:46:23
Modified files:
gcc/cp : Change
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-09
07:46 ---
Subject: Bug 19608
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Branch: gcc-3_4-branch
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-06-09 07:46:23
Modified files:
gcc/cp : Change
--- Additional Comments From nathan at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-09
07:47 ---
Fixed on 3.4
2005-06-08 Nathan Sidwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR c++/21903
* cp-tree.def (DEFAULT_ARG): Document TREE_CHAIN use.
* parser.c (cp_parser_late_parsing_default_args): Propa
--- Additional Comments From nathan at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-09
07:48 ---
Fixed on 3.4
2005-06-08 Nathan Sidwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR c++/19884
* pt.c (check_explicit_specialization): Make sure namespace
binding lookup found an overloaded function.
--- Additional Comments From nathan at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-09
07:49 ---
Fixed on 3.4
2005-06-08 Nathan Sidwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR c++/19608
* parser.c (cp_parser_late_parsing_for_member): Use
current_function_decl as scope to push to and from.
--- Additional Comments From rth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-09 08:14
---
Fixed.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
--- Additional Comments From dorit at il dot ibm dot com 2005-06-09 08:45
---
patch: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-06/msg00850.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21933
--- Additional Comments From dorit at il dot ibm dot com 2005-06-09 08:47
---
this patch: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-06/msg00850.html seems to
fix this ICE.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21884
--- Additional Comments From reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-09
08:51 ---
Confirmed by Dorit.
--
What|Removed |Added
URL|
--- Additional Comments From c dot lemmen at fz-juelich dot de 2005-06-09
09:06 ---
This TODO item prevents successful compilation of the following Numerical
Recipes:
anneal.f90
dftint.f90:39
factln.f90:39
factrl.f90:40
four1_gather.f90:20
fourn_gather.f90:25
pwt.f90:17
savgol.f90:29
--- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-09
09:20 ---
Here is the initial RTL for the call to foo:
(call_insn 44 20 45 (call_placeholder 40 31 22 27 (cond [
(const_string "normal") (sequence [
(insn 40 0 39 (set (reg:SI 63)
(reg/v:SI
--- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-09
09:22 ---
In this case we obviously take the "tail_recursion" sequence, which is
already wrong:
(const_string "tail_recursion") (sequence [
(note 22 0 23 NOTE_INSN_DELETED)
(note 23 22 25 NOTE_INSN_DELE
Hello,
the following should probably be flagged as an error without requiring an
instantiation of the template:
---
struct A;
template struct B {
void foo(void) { A a; }
};
---
GCC accepts the code without complaining.
--
--
What|Removed |Added
CC||mw_adtrap at yahoo dot de
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21976
--- Additional Comments From c dot lemmen at fz-juelich dot de 2005-06-09
09:33 ---
Is this a dup of PR17298 ?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21905
--- Additional Comments From pcarlini at suse dot de 2005-06-09 09:33
---
This issue is in the FAQ, actually:
http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/libstdc++/21_strings/howto.html#5
Recently, we started supporting such usages as (welcome) extensions.
--
What|Removed
--- Additional Comments From c dot lemmen at fz-juelich dot de 2005-06-09
09:34 ---
Another important code ist blocked by this code: numerical recipes library
functions:
bessj.f90
sort_radix.f90:13
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17298
--- Additional Comments From tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-09 09:42
---
*** Bug 21905 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-09 09:42
---
Hm, I had searched.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 17298 ***
--
What|Removed |Added
The file dawson.f90 from the numerical recipes library produces a segfault, in
reduced form:
!--
FUNCTION dawson_v(x)
use nrutil
IMPLICIT NONE
REAL(SP), DIMENSION(:), INTENT(IN) :: x
REAL(SP), DIMENSION(size
--- Additional Comments From martin at mpa-garching dot mpg dot de
2005-06-09 10:16 ---
> Lots of previously working code (somewhere around December 2004) now
> (June 2005) exhibits this bug, it seems that this bug is a side-effect
> of something else. Call it a regression ?
>
> Sorry
hi, i have redhat linux 9.0 installed(everything) in my pc, and i installed
gcc4.0, but when i complied the java program from deitel&deitel it throws
exceptions,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] java test]# ./PopupTest
Exception in thread "main" java.awt.AWTError: Cannot load AWT toolkit:
at java.awt.Toolkit
--- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2005-06-09
10:33 ---
can you binsearch this on the 3.4 branch?
--
What|Removed |Added
CC|
Preprocessing fortran files has some flaws (affects mainline and 4.0 branch):
1) Some command line arguments cause hiccups:
gfortran -pipe -c test.F90
yields
f951: error: unrecognized command line option "-95"
gfortran -pipe -c test.f90
works
2) Files not cleaned up:
gfortran
--- Additional Comments From reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-09
11:06 ---
In addition the command
gfortran -pipe -c test.F90
generates a file named "-95".
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21979
--- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-09
11:25 ---
Why would you want to binsearch this? GCC 3.0.4 was already broken,
according to the "Known to fail" list, while 2.95.3 is "Known to work".
And because the sibcall pass was new in GCC 3.0, the odds are that
--- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2005-06-09
11:52 ---
Ah sorry, for some reason I misread the bug and believed it worked in 3.3.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21964
--- Additional Comments From pluto at agmk dot net 2005-06-09 11:59 ---
hmm, I can't test the 4.1 bootstrap with -fwrapv due to xgcc error.
make -C obj-amd64-pld-linux \
bootstrap \
GCJFLAGS="%{rpmcflags}" \
BOOT_ADAFLAGS="%{rpmcflags} -fwrapv" \
GNATLIBCF
--
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |aldyh at gcc dot gnu dot org
|dot org |
Status|NEW
Take this c++ code:
snip
class Test
{
private:
int val;
static Test func1 ();
static Test func2 ();
static Test (* funcp) ();
public:
Test (int val)
: val (val)
{
}
Test func ()
{
return funcp ();
}
int get () const
{
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-09
12:29 ---
3.4.x is correct. Since this is not a regression (well it does not matter as
3.3.6 was the last 3.3.x
release) I am closing as fixed in 3.4.0.
--
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-09
14:07 ---
Confirmed, this might be hard, I don't know but would be nice as it should
speed up GCC itself.
--
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-09
14:16 ---
Confirmed, ICC returns it in %mm0.
Note this is the testcase which I used:
#include
__m64
aaa (__m64 x, __m64 y)
{
__m64 mm1;
mm1 = _mm_add_pi8 (x, y);
return mm1;
}
int main() {
__m64 mm0;
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-09
14:24 ---
Of course we cannot compile this without the nrutil module.
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-09
14:27 ---
Obvious reduced testcase is the following:
struct A;
template void
f (void) {A b;}
--
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Additional Comments From joseph at codesourcery dot com 2005-06-09
14:36 ---
Subject: Re: GCC should combine adjacent stdio
calls
Another problem case is if the first format has excess arguments (which is
permitted by ISO C) - those arguments must be evaluated but not included
i
--- Additional Comments From dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-09
14:37 ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> If side effects appear in the arguments, that also would be a problem, e.g.:
>
> printf("%d", i++);
> printf("%d", i++);
>
> should not be turned into:
>
> printf("%d%d", i++,
struct base { virtual void foo() = 0; };
struct d1 : public virtual base { virtual void foo() {} };
struct d2 : public virtual base { virtual void foo() {} };
struct der : public d1, public d2 { };
gets you:
~/ootbc/members/src$ g++ foo.cc
foo.cc:4: error: no unique final overrider for `virtual v
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-09
14:40 ---
Hmm, it works just fine on powerpc-darwin (I don't know why) but it ICEs on
i686-pc-linux-gnu.
And it worked just fine with "gcc version 3.5.0 20040909 (experimental)"
I don't know if I can consider this
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-09
14:43 ---
Confirmed, a regression from 3.2.3.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
--
Bug 21861 depends on bug 18403, which changed state.
Bug 18403 Summary: FAILs to vectorize testcases on ppc64-linux
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18403
What|Old Value |New Value
--
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-09
14:44 ---
Fixed in 4.1.0.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOL
--
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.1.0
Last reconfirmed|2005-06-07 12:20:36 |2005-06-09 14:45:12
date|
--- Additional Comments From c dot lemmen at fz-juelich dot de 2005-06-09
15:03 ---
I concur, but you don't need it in this reduced testcase (my fault for leaving
the statement there). Have a go at this:
FUNCTION dawson_v(x)
IMPLICIT NONE
REAL, DIMENSION(:), INT
--- Additional Comments From gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-09 15:05
---
working on it.
--
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |gdr at gcc
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-09
15:16 ---
Confirmed, I think we are picking the wrong __result decl for the outer
function (but I could be wrong, I
have not looked at it much).
--
What|Removed |Added
--
20050609 (experimental) (m68k-linux)
compiled by GNU C version 4.0.1 20050603 (prerelease) (SUSE Linux).
GGC heuristics: --param ggc-min-expand=30 --param ggc-min-heapsize=4096
Compiler executable checksum: 80ebf056a47509c89d7f404fc943abab
Breakpoint 1, fancy_abort (file
--- Additional Comments From schwab at suse dot de 2005-06-09 16:08 ---
Created an attachment (id=9054)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=9054&action=view)
Testcase
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21984
--- Additional Comments From gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-06-09 16:11 ---
Subject: New: GCC should combine adjacent stdio calls
GCC should optimize adjacent stdio calls. For example:
printf("foo %d %d\n", i, j);
printf("bar %d %d\n", x, y);
could instead be emitted a
--- Additional Comments From gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-06-09 16:11 ---
Subject: Segmentation fault while compiling ipw2100
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21975
--- Additional Comments From gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-06-09 16:11 ---
Subject: New: GCC should combine adjacent stdio calls
GCC should optimize adjacent stdio calls. For example:
printf("foo %d %d\n", i, j);
printf("bar %d %d\n", x, y);
could instead be emitted a
--- Additional Comments From gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-06-09 16:11 ---
Subject: Segmentation fault while compiling ipw2100
--- Additional Comments From gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-06-09 16:11 ---
Subject: [4.0/4.1 Regression] Segmentation fault
--- Additional Comments From gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-06-09 16:11 ---
Subject: New: __m64 return value should be returned in %mm0
Calling convetions for x86 specify that __m64 values should be returned in %mm0
MMX register [1]. Gcc returns __m64 values on stack.
The
--- Additional Comments From gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-06-09 16:11 ---
Subject: Segmentation fault while compiling ipw2100
--- Additional Comments From gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-06-09 16:11 ---
Subject: [4.0/4.1 Regression] Segmentation fault
--- Additional Comments From gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-06-09 16:11 ---
Subject: Preprocessing fortran files has some flaws
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-09
14:02 ---
Confirmed, it works fine with t.F but not with t.F90.
-
--- Additional Comments From gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-06-09 16:11 ---
Subject: java.rmi.server.RMIClassLoader.getClassLoader() is private, should be
public
--- Additional Comments From gbenson at redhat dot com 2005-06-09 13:48
---
I need it in Fedora 5. We
--- Additional Comments From gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-06-09 16:11 ---
Subject: class friend declaration doesn't allow use in class scope
--- Additional Comments From lerdsuwa at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-09
13:58 ---
Not a bug. The clause you referred to:
--
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.1.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21984
Hi,
the attached code compiles fine and does calculate the offset between
the current stackpointer and the passed point in gcc versions before 4.0.
In 4.0 the expression is reduced to -16384 even in the t03.generic dump
which makes me suspect a parser problem.
Or it might just be
--- Additional Comments From marcus at jet dot franken dot de 2005-06-09
16:14 ---
Created an attachment (id=9055)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=9055&action=view)
xx.c
gcc -c -O2 xx.c
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21985
--- Additional Comments From dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-09
16:18 ---
Testing patch.
--
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |dnov
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-09
16:26 ---
Confirmed, caused by:
2004-11-10 Zdenek Dvorak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* fold-const.c (fold): Attempt to use ptr_difference_const whenever
one of the arguments of MINUS_EXPR is an address.
--
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.0.2 |4.0.1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21985
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-09
16:32 ---
This has now been fixed.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-09
16:45 ---
Part of this has been fixed, there is only one loading of ex1 now on the
mainline.
--
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Additional Comments From ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-09 16:49
---
(In reply to comment #4)
> (In reply to comment #1)
> > If side effects appear in the arguments, that also would be a problem, e.g.:
> >
> > printf("%d", i++);
> > printf("%d", i++);
> >
> > should not be tu
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-09
16:51 ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> I'm not sure. In my specific example above, after the combination we don't
> know which i++ gets executed first because the order is not guaranteed within
> an argument list of
version 4.1.0 20050609 (experimental)
(This is this morning's CVS snapshot)
Hmf. I don't see how to attach the "bug.f90" so I will place it in-line below.
It's short. If I split into module and main program and compile separately,
boom.f90 ICE's at line zero. Su
--- Additional Comments From dnovillo at redhat dot com 2005-06-09 16:55
---
Subject: Re: GCC should combine adjacent stdio calls
On Thu, Jun 09, 2005 at 04:49:40PM -, ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
>
> --- Additional Comments From ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-09
--- Additional Comments From ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-09 16:55
---
(In reply to comment #3)
> Subject: Re: GCC should combine adjacent stdio
> calls
> Another problem case is if the first format has excess arguments (which is
> permitted by ISO C) - those arguments must be
--- Additional Comments From Pierre dot Asselin at seagate dot com
2005-06-09 16:56 ---
Created an attachment (id=9056)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=9056&action=view)
self-contained test case, compile with "gfortran bug.f90"
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show
--- Additional Comments From aj at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-09 17:01
---
Let me just add the following comment so that searches for "grub miscompilation"
will find this bug:
This snippet is based on code in the grub bootloader which does not work if
compiled by GCC 4.0.0.
--
--- Additional Comments From ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-09 17:02
---
(In reply to comment #10)
> Subject: Re: GCC should combine adjacent stdio calls
> But remember that we are not optimizing C, we are optimizing
> GIMPLE. And in GIMPLE we don't have those problems. Here's
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-09
17:07 ---
(In reply to comment #12)
> Pushing the first printf further down, this could be reordered as:
> int i=0, j=2;
> j++;
> printf("%d", i);
> printf("%d", j);
In fact this is how SSA works, in that the
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-09
17:08 ---
Confirmed.
--
What|Removed |Added
CC||pinskia at
Between 20050414 and 20050606, there occured a new testsuite failure on the
3.4 branch on alpha-dec-osf4.0f and alpha-dec-osf5.1b:
+FAIL: g++.dg/warn/conversion-function-1.C (test for excess errors)
Excess errors:
/vol/gnu/src/gcc/gcc-3.4-branch-dist/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/warn/conversion-function
--- Additional Comments From joseph at codesourcery dot com 2005-06-09
17:11 ---
Subject: Re: GCC should combine adjacent stdio
calls
On Thu, 9 Jun 2005, ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
>
> --- Additional Comments From ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-09
> 16:55 --
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-09
17:15 ---
Weird.
--
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
--- Additional Comments From ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-09 17:21
---
(In reply to comment #14)
> Subject: Re: GCC should combine adjacent stdio
> calls
> On Thu, 9 Jun 2005, ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> >
> > --- Additional Comments From ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-09
17:46 ---
Fixed by:
* config/ia64/ia64.c (update_set_flags): Just return for IF_THEN_ELSE.
Use SCALAR_FLOAT_MODE_P.
* config/ia64/vect.md (vcondv2sf): Remove code check on comparison.
(
GCC should optimize printf("%s",foo) and printf("foo") into fputs(foo,stdout)
and fputs("foo",stdout) respectively. As noted here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2000-09/msg00859.html
We can capture stdout in an inline function using fixincl, perhaps adding the
__always_inline__ attribute.
--- Additional Comments From phython at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-09
18:10 ---
If there are any other builtins that can be folded then they can be filed as
separate bugs.
--
What|Removed |Added
--
--
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.1.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20666
--- Additional Comments From fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-09
18:13 ---
Bug confirmed and patch confirmed (I used to hack the generated Makefiles with
sed, but this is much cleaner).
--
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-09
18:15 ---
Confirmed, and yes we need to do something about stdout :).
--
What|Removed |Added
GCC no longer builds on i686-pc-mingw32 (last successful build I made:
20050519). Error is:
$ /home/FX/ibin/./gcc/xgcc -B/home/FX/ibin/./gcc/ -B/mingw/i686-pc-mingw32/bin/
-B/mingw/i686-pc-mingw32/lib/ -isystem /mingw/i686-pc-mingw32/include -isystem
/mingw/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-include -O2 -I../.
--- Additional Comments From fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-09
18:22 ---
Created an attachment (id=9057)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=9057&action=view)
Preprocessed source
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21989
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-09
18:25 ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 21766 ***
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 21766 ***
--
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-09
18:25 ---
*** Bug 21989 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-09
18:48 ---
With fresh CVS GCC, I get the following errors on libgcov.c:
../../gcc/gcc/libgcov.c: In function 'create_file_directory':
../../gcc/gcc/libgcov.c:110: warning: implicit declaration of function 'access'
.
--- Additional Comments From ro at techfak dot uni-bielefeld dot de
2005-06-09 18:53 ---
Subject: Re: libgfortran doesn't compile on IRIX 5.3
Patch submitted:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-06/msg00902.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15266
--- Additional Comments From ro at techfak dot uni-bielefeld dot de
2005-06-09 18:54 ---
Subject: Re: New: O32 libffi.so fails to link on IRIX 6
Patch submitted:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/java-patches/2005-q2/msg00685.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21943
1 - 100 of 133 matches
Mail list logo
