--- Additional Comments From ro at techfak dot uni-bielefeld dot de
2005-06-14 23:47 ---
Subject: Re: All gfortran execution tests fail on Tru64 UNIX V4.0F: scalbn
unresolved
fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org writes:
> Well, attached patch should clear this point, and hopefully we wil
--- Additional Comments From ro at techfak dot uni-bielefeld dot de
2005-06-14 23:56 ---
Subject: Re: New testsuite failure on Tru64 UNIX V4.0F: g++.dg/eh/cleanup1.C
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org writes:
> A backtrace would be nice.
Sure: after running the test invocation with -save
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-14
23:59 ---
Subject: Bug 15266
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-06-14 23:59:48
Modified files:
fixincludes: ChangeLog inclhack.def fixincl.x
--
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |ro at gcc dot gnu dot org
|dot org |
Status|NEW
--- Additional Comments From ro at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-15 00:02
---
Fixed for 4.1.0, patch pending for 4.0.2, 3.4.5.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15266
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-15
00:10 ---
Subject: Bug 21943
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-06-15 00:10:07
Modified files:
libffi : ChangeLog
libffi/src/mips: n
--- Additional Comments From ro at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-15 00:12
---
Fixed for 4.1.0, queued for 4.0.2.
--
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc do
20050614 (experimental) (i386-pc-solaris2.10) GCC error: |
| tree check: expected ssa_name, have var_decl in verify_ssa, at |
|tree-ssa.c:750|
| Error detected at a-nlcoty.ads:21:1
# g++ -O /tmp/j1.cc
adaptors/lambda/lambda.cc: In function 'void
__static_initialization_and_destruction_0(int, int)':
adaptors/lambda/lambda.cc:15: internal compiler error: in first_vi_for_offset,
at tree-ssa-structalias.c:2506
j1.cc will be attached.
-O is what triggers the ICE. Compiling witho
--- Additional Comments From zlynx at acm dot org 2005-06-15 02:03 ---
Created an attachment (id=9089)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=9089&action=view)
Preprocessed code to reproduce bug
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22071
--- Additional Comments From zlynx at acm dot org 2005-06-15 02:05 ---
Oh, I marked it as a regression because gcc-4.0.1-beta20050526 seemed to work
fine.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22071
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-15
02:29 ---
Confirmed, reduced testcase:
struct empty_class {};
struct class1 : empty_class
{
class1() {}
empty_class value_;
};
struct lambda : class1 { };
lambda _1;
--
What|Removed
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-15
02:59 ---
Confirmed, now that TREE_OVERFLOW should not matter, we should change how we
dump out
INTEGER_CST whos TREE_OVERFLOW is set.
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-15
03:12 ---
Fixed on the mainline (there are work arounds needed to get Ada front-end
building there).
--
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-15
03:17 ---
Confirmed, I might get around to doing this.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCON
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-15
03:17 ---
Could you double check this now, I might have fixed this? Please use the 4.0
branch as the mainline
does not do as much fold checking as it should, PR 21180.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-15
03:18 ---
Confirmed.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
E
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
Ever Confirmed||1
Last reconfirmed|-00-00 00:00:00 |2005-06-
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-15
03:24 ---
Closing as fixed then.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-15
03:24 ---
Fixed.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-15
03:25 ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 21782 ***
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-15
03:25 ---
*** Bug 21872 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21782
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-15
03:29 ---
Fixed.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
--
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||4.0.0
Known to work||4.1.0
Summary|deallocate does not return |[4
--- Additional Comments From fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-15
06:02 ---
Patch submitted for review: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2005-06/msg00292.html
--
What|Removed |Added
-
int triangle(int a,int b) { int c; c=a*b/2; return c; }
emits this very bizarre code (at -O, -O2):
mov a,%edx
mov b,%eax
imull %edx,%eax
movl %eax,%edx
shrl $31,%edx
addl %edx,%eax
sarl %eax
ret
Why are the two instructions after the imull emitted? Shouldn't this become
simply imul
--- Additional Comments From felix-gcc at fefe dot de 2005-06-15 06:12
---
by the way, -Os generates an unnecessary register move:
pushl %ebp
movl$2, %edx
movl%esp, %ebp
movl12(%ebp), %eax
movl%edx, %ecx
imull 8(%ebp),
I would like to build a gcc/3.4.4 installation on RedHat Enterprise Linux 3.0
(AMD64 - Opteron hardware), in which the gcc binaries are 32bit, such that this
gcc installation would also be usable on 32bit (x86) hardware.
I tried all sorts of BOOT_CFLAGS=-m32 and/or CFLAGS_FOR_TARGET=-m32,
unfort
101 - 128 of 128 matches
Mail list logo
