--- Comment #4 from anlauf at gmx dot de 2005-10-31 08:09 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> How can this possibly be a GCC 4.0/4.1 regression?!
It works with a GCC 4.1.0 20050913 snapshot, but not recent ones.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24534
template class A
public:
int i;
};
gets you:
~/ootbc/members/src$ g++ foo.cc
foo.cc:2: error: expected unqualified-id before "public"
foo.cc:2: error: expected `;' before "public"
foo.cc:4: error: expected declaration before '}' token
Actually, I think the only thing that is syntactica
The code:
template
struct b1 {
protected:
voidinc() {}
T* dummy;
};
templateclass F>
struct b2 {
voidf() {
F* s = static_cast*>(this);
s->inc();
}
};
template
struct G : public b1, public b2 {
};
int main() {
G g;
g.f();
--- Comment #1 from igodard at pacbell dot net 2005-10-31 10:32 ---
Sorry, screwed up the explanation. Should be:
The access to "inc" is "s->inc()". "s" is a "F*", which after parameter
substitution is a "G*". "b1" is a public base of G, which after
substitution means that "b1" is a p
--- Comment #23 from jaffe at broad dot mit dot edu 2005-10-31 10:47
---
When is this problem likely to be resolved? I understand that you have to
prioritize. I just want to understand what the prospects are. Thanks.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23835
Following source code doesn't compile using a 64-bit GNU compiler (it
works fine using a 32-bit compiler);
# 1 "va_list_bug.cc"
# 1 ""
# 1 ""
# 1 "va_list_bug.cc"
# 1 "/usr/lib/gcc-lib/x86_64-linux/3.3.5/include/stdarg.h" 1 3 4
# 43 "/usr/lib/gcc-lib/x86_64-linux/3.3.5/include/stdarg.h" 3 4
typede
--- Comment #1 from schwab at suse dot de 2005-10-31 11:04 ---
Why do you think va_list is compatible with pointer to char?
--
schwab at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
hello,
the following program fails to correctly find the right overloaded global
template function f(). clearly ::f() called within test::f() depends on a
template parameter so lookup should be postponed to the point of instantiation
which is not the case.
if template void f(X& x, const char& y)
--- Comment #2 from wh at ciphirelabs dot com 2005-10-31 11:22 ---
Subject: Re: problem with va_list function-parameter [u] [signed]
I don't, but this is a piece of a third-party code we're using and which
compiled fine with the GNU 32-bit compiler so far;
so I'm wondering about the i
Version information:
Using built-in specs.
Target: i486-linux-gnu
Configured with: ../src/configure -v
--enable-languages=c,c++,java,f95,objc,ada,treelang --prefix=/usr
--enable-shared --with-system-zlib --libexecdir=/usr/lib
--without-included-gettext --enable-threads=posix --enable-nls
--program-
--- Comment #1 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2005-10-31 12:06 ---
Humpf, we are missing some free functions! Thanks.
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #6 from gkajmowi at tbaytel dot net 2005-10-31 12:26 ---
Subject: Re: [3.4/4.0/4.1 Regression] invalid inline warning with ctor and
dtor
On October 30, 2005 10:37 pm, mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> --- Comment #5 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-3
--- Comment #1 from aldyh at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-31 12:43 ---
Subject: Bug 24505
Author: aldyh
Date: Mon Oct 31 12:43:44 2005
New Revision: 106269
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=106269
Log:
PR gomp/24505
* c-omp.c (c_finish_omp_for): Canon
--- Comment #20 from aldyh at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-31 12:48 ---
I'll take this.
--
aldyh at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|una
--- Comment #2 from aldyh at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-31 12:52 ---
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-10/msg01718.html
--
aldyh at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #10 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-31 12:52
---
(In reply to comment #9)
> Should this be marked as fixed, or as 4.0-only, given the patch in Comment #8?
No because it still fails after that one with an ICE. See comment #6.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-31 13:16 ---
Patch posted:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-10/msg01783.html
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #5 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-31 13:22 ---
Subject: Bug 23492
Author: pinskia
Date: Mon Oct 31 13:22:20 2005
New Revision: 106270
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=106270
Log:
2005-10-31 Andrew Pinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR mi
--- Comment #6 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-31 13:22 ---
Fixed.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #22 from amacleod at redhat dot com 2005-10-31 13:33 ---
It will be checked in shortly. I got your OK for this stage last week, and I
was merely waiting for the SVN switchover freeze to expire, trying a new build
and getting back to work today.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugz
--- Comment #10 from dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-31 13:53
---
Subject: Re: [4.1 Regression] ICE in
do_simple_structure_copy with some C++ code
On Mon, 2005-10-31 at 06:16 +, mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
wrote:
>
> --- Comment #9 from mmitchel at gcc dot
--- Comment #23 from amacleod at redhat dot com 2005-10-31 14:41 ---
Hmm. This has been committed, but the commit hasn't shown up yet. Perhaps
because I tagged it as a tree-optimization PR and I now notice that its marked
as rtl-optimization?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.
--- Comment #6 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-31 14:49 ---
Subject: Bug 24487
Author: hubicka
Date: Mon Oct 31 14:48:57 2005
New Revision: 106276
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=106276
Log:
PR profile/24487
* predict.c (predict_loops):
--- Comment #7 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-31 14:54 ---
Concerning Mark's comment (I noticed only after committing the patch). I am not
sure what exactly Mark has in mind - this situation is not actually dependend
on inlining - easilly
we might just have funcition with tw
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.1.0 |4.2.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22488
--- Comment #24 from dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-31 15:04
---
I fixed the bug that was preventing it from sending it to this bug, it should
pop up in a second
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19097
--- Comment #25 from amacleod at redhat dot com 2005-10-31 15:19 ---
Subject: Bug 19097
Author: amacleod
Date: Mon Oct 31 13:38:05 2005
New Revision: 106272
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=106272
Log:
2005-10-31 Andrew MacLeod <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR tr
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-31 15:32 ---
No, you cannot get around access checking like this.
b2 does not know anything about its super classes at all, and it should not
know anything about them.
Also the following applies:
b2 cannot access the stuff in a
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-31 15:36 ---
(In reply to comment #0)
> Actually, I think the only thing that is syntactically valid before "public:"
> here is a "{".
No, it could be ": classname".
But anyways confirmed, we should be able to do better.
--
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-31 15:41 ---
I think this is invalid as the name is fully qualified:
::f(*this,y);
So it looks up the overloaded set __while__ parsing. This is required for the
two stage name lookup rule for templates. I think
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-31 15:45 ---
Hmm:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2004-10/msg00038.html
So maybe this is undefined. I think we should wait for the committe to decide
this one before changing anything here.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bu
I'm currently on the way writing a smallish libm for VAX, using GCC from SVN
plus some (mostly configury) patches. The code attached (it's hackish)
doesn't work. Basically, this flow of code is broken:
long double sinl (long double x) {
if (x < 0.0)
return -sin (-x)
:
:
}
Afte
--- Comment #1 from jbglaw at lug-owl dot de 2005-10-31 15:49 ---
Created an attachment (id=10084)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10084&action=view)
My sine and cosine implementation serving as testcase.
The attached .tar.gz contains my start of a libm. Don't laugh
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-31 15:53 ---
Use -fno-builtin-sin as we are expecting at this point to have a full sin
function.
If you don't want optimizations like this for other functions, use
-fno-builtin.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
--- Comment #11 from bangerth at dealii dot org 2005-10-31 16:10 ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> > How do you generate all these snippets?
>
> By sheer determination. I pick some topic like pointers-to-members or
> destructors for example and try to find some bugs. Over time you get
> a
--- Comment #76 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-31 16:47 ---
Created an attachment (id=10085)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10085&action=view)
hidden visibility for __gnu_internal
Without per-namespace visibility attributes, this is what we will have to d
--- Comment #5 from bothner at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-31 16:58 ---
The two test cases appear to be unrelated problems.
The inital report is because an invalid line marker is seen before debug_hooks
is set in process_options. fe_enter doesn't normally see an LC_ENTER during
read_or
--- Comment #77 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2005-10-31 16:59 ---
Thanks Benjamin! Indeed, if you want to take care of this entire issue, you
are welcome (just reassign)! In any case, I'm not sure whether it's suited
for 4.1, at this point...
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.
--- Comment #26 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-31 17:12 ---
Moving back to new, because I don't know if the GCSE CPROP issue with implicit
sets is also already fixed.
--
steven at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #18 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-31 17:14 ---
See comment #16 for a patch.
--
steven at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #19 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-31 17:16
---
(In reply to comment #18)
> See comment #16 for a patch.
More than that, it has been posted:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-10/msg01792.html
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What
--- Comment #10 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-31 17:18
---
Patch posted:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-10/msg01691.html
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #8 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-31 17:31 ---
Right, I didn't know this wasn't opened until July of this year, sorry.
I should have looked.
I still am not sure whether this does break a documented ABI. Relevant
texts in C99 are 6.2.6.1 sub 4, and 6.7.2.1 sub 3.
--- Comment #1 from r dot emrich at de dot tecosim dot com 2005-10-31
17:37 ---
same for gcc-4.1-20051029
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24514
--- Comment #3 from tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-31 17:48 ---
I'll handle this.
I agree, we need this alias.
That particular part of the code is generated by
the script libjava/scripts/encodings.pl.
Looking at the current IANA character-sets file, I see
there is only this:
Al
--- Comment #4 from tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-31 17:51 ---
I'll handle this.
--
tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
--- Comment #6 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-31 18:15 ---
Actually the cited 4.0 sequence do not obey the const int x86_read_modify =
~(m_PENT | m_PPRO);
setting -march=athlon or using -Os makes the move go away. Additionally I get
following sequence out of 4.0 in SUSE dis
--- Comment #2 from echristo at apple dot com 2005-10-31 18:17 ---
Since I don't have access to an irix box anymore I'd really need the
instruction it fails on at the least, some annotated assembly would be a good
start (compile the failing file with -dap and attach the .s output).
--
--- Comment #6 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-31 18:24 ---
I don't have P4 to test handy. Can you re-test whether fixing 23302 (23303 is
invalid) make any difference?
I doubt these two make actual runtime changes - the sequence would translate to
same uops for P4 and should
--- Comment #28 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-31 18:36
---
I get 0m8.052s on 3.4 and 0m8.127s on mainline on Athlon. This hardly counts
as an regression.
This is actually effect of some cost tweaks we did relatie to gimplifier a
while ago.
Reduced testcase fits in limits
--- Comment #78 from ismail at uludag dot org dot tr 2005-10-31 18:37
---
Paolo, this is surely a bug fix. Why can't it make it to 4.1 ? Waiting for 4.2
means that unpatched gcc's will suffer for more.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19664
--- Comment #20 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-31 18:45
---
Patch comitted. For some reason don't seem to appear in logs?
--
hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #11 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-31 18:47
---
I tested only simplified testcase, but the issue should be resolved pretty
safely.
--
hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
GCC needs support for odcctools and --prefix ablity. The finding of libtool is
the main issue.
I don't know what else is needed right now but when my laptop comes back alive,
I will look more into this.
--
Summary: Need to support odcctools and its ablity to use --prefix
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-31 18:58 ---
I will take this for now.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
A
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.1.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20815
--- Comment #29 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-31 19:15
---
Actually I have to reopen this. When playing around on pentiumM or opteron, I
still get roughly 20% regression (6s to 8s), 4.1 and 4.0 scores are about the
same on both machines. For some reason this don't reprodu
--- Comment #11 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-31 19:17
---
And that patch doesn't fix the testcase which is attached.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24351
--- Comment #6 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-31 19:22 ---
Here is a better testcase with only one error:
int f(int c)
{
switch (c)
{
case d: /* { dg-error "'d' was not declared" } */
int optBzip2 = true;
}
}
I am going to fix this one.
--
pinsk
--- Comment #12 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-31 19:31
---
Oh, and this really is a blocker.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #13 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-31 19:34
---
Seems it's not my call.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #14 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-31 19:56
---
Mark, this looks more like a P1 issue. It makes all packages that use
libsigc++ (part of the gtk--) fail to compile. It is related to 24288 but the
patch there doesn't fix this issue.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gn
The following testcase crashes when compiled with -O3.
#include
bool v_2 = true;
bool *v_3 = &v_2;
int idv_2 = 0;
int idv_3 = 0;
int
main (int argc, char **argv)
{
if ((bool)((1527719483 + 1477819644))) {
}
for (idv_2 = 0; idv_2 < 15; ++idv_2) {
for (idv_3 = 0; idv_3 < (v_2
--- Comment #2 from tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-31 20:02 ---
See:
http://people.redhat.com/gbenson/SecurityException-throwers-1.4.2
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21891
--- Comment #21 from aldyh at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-31 20:08 ---
Does anyone have the un-preprocessed source for this bug? I'm seeing some
assignments that should have casts, and I wan't to rule out bogus input.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24230
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-31 20:09 ---
Confirmed, only a 4.0 regression. Back trace:
#0 0x004a1ff2 in find_interesting_uses_cond (data=0x7fc1d340,
stmt=0x2afc0320,
cond_p=0x2afc0358) at
/home/pinskia/src/gcc-4.0/gcc/gcc/tree-ssa
--
aldyh at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|WAITING
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24230
--- Comment #22 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-31 20:10
---
(In reply to comment #21)
> Does anyone have the un-preprocessed source for this bug? I'm seeing some
> assignments that should have casts, and I wan't to rule out bogus input.
comment #13 has an un preprocessed
--- Comment #6 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-31 20:20 ---
I can test the first one since it is an easy one to test.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #23 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-31 20:22
---
Created an attachment (id=10087)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10087&action=view)
original source file from xvid (xvidcore-1.1.0-beta2)
"Source" looks like:
MAKE_PASS_16(V_Pass_Avrg_Up_16_Ad
--- Comment #5 from hubicka at ucw dot cz 2005-10-31 20:25 ---
Subject: Re: [4.1 Regression] 4.1 generates sall + addl instead of leal
>
>
> --- Comment #4 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-31 04:45
> ---
> Jan, what's your analysis on this PR?
Hmm,
I am still no
--- Comment #7 from bothner at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-31 20:53 ---
Created an attachment (id=10088)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10088&action=view)
proposed patch for initial testcase
--
bothner at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #10 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-31 20:55
---
Jeff, you missed the propagation DOM makes that hurts register allocation
indpeendently on whether code sinking does or does not it's job.
In reality code sinking (that appeared in GCC after I reported the bug)
imp
--- Comment #8 from bothner at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-31 20:56 ---
Created an attachment (id=10090)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10090&action=view)
proposed patch for second testcase
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24101
--- Comment #11 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-31 21:07
---
Subject: Bug 24093
Author: hubicka
Date: Mon Oct 31 21:07:29 2005
New Revision: 106291
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=106291
Log:
PR middle-end/24093
* cgraph.c (cgraph_clo
--- Comment #12 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-31 21:10
---
Fixed by my patch (at least works on x86 and originally I reproduced same
failure)
Honza
--
hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
Lots of package failures with
req_track.c:204: error: unrecognizable insn:
(insn 299 61 62 6 (set (reg/f:SI 66)
(plus:SI (reg/f:SI 126 [ server.sv_track ])
--- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-31 21:40 ---
Whoops, s390, not s390x.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
GCC target
--- Comment #79 from geoffk at geoffk dot org 2005-10-31 22:14 ---
Subject: Re: libstdc++ headers should have pop/push of the visibility around
the declarations
On 31/10/2005, at 10:37 AM, ismail at uludag dot org dot tr wrote:
> --- Comment #78 from ismail at uludag dot org dot
--- Comment #80 from mueller at kde dot org 2005-10-31 22:45 ---
- if its not safe for all architectures we'd already run into heaps of problems
because both libsupc++ and libgcc2 already include similiar pragmas.
- not hiding a symbols is better than the resulting issues when hiding a
--- Comment #3 from igodard at pacbell dot net 2005-10-31 22:48 ---
Ys of course; sorry :-(
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24592
--- Comment #9 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-31 23:02 ---
Here is a compile time testcase for easier regression hunting:
typedef int BOOL;
typedef unsigned int UINT;
#pragma pack(1)
typedef struct {
BOOL fFullPathTitle:1;
BOOL fSaveLocalView:1;
BOOL fNotShell:
--- Comment #10 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-31 23:14 ---
I have asked Janis to reghunt this one. The bug also affects ppc.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22275
--- Comment #11 from law at redhat dot com 2005-10-31 23:18 ---
Subject: Re: [4.1 Regression] Slowdown of the
bresenham line drawing by roughly 20%
On Mon, 2005-10-31 at 20:55 +, hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
>
> --- Comment #10 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot
I'm getting an ICE with gcc-4.1-20051001 on the code in attachment. When
compiling with:
% gcc -O2 -march=pentium3 -ftree-vectorize -c cb_search_pre.c
the result is:
cb_search.c: In function 'split_cb_search_shape_sign':
cb_search.c:268: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault
Please submit a f
--- Comment #22 from wilson at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-31 23:24 ---
Subject: Bug 17356
Author: wilson
Date: Mon Oct 31 23:24:36 2005
New Revision: 106297
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=106297
Log:
Rewrite fix for PR 17356, fix for enable checking ada build fa
--- Comment #1 from jean-marc dot valin at usherbrooke dot ca 2005-10-31
23:25 ---
Created an attachment (id=10091)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10091&action=view)
Preprocessed source
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24601
--- Comment #23 from wilson at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-31 23:25 ---
Fixed for gcc-4.1. Won't fix for gcc-4.0.3.
--
wilson at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
>
>
> --- Comment #11 from law at redhat dot com 2005-10-31 23:18 ---
> Subject: Re: [4.1 Regression] Slowdown of the
> bresenham line drawing by roughly 20%
>
> On Mon, 2005-10-31 at 20:55 +, hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> >
> > --- Comment #10 from hubicka a
--- Comment #12 from hubicka at ucw dot cz 2005-10-31 23:25 ---
Subject: Re: [4.1 Regression] Slowdown of the bresenham line drawing by
roughly 20%
>
>
> --- Comment #11 from law at redhat dot com 2005-10-31 23:18 ---
> Subject: Re: [4.1 Regression] Slowdown of the
>
--- Comment #81 from geoffk at geoffk dot org 2005-10-31 23:29 ---
Subject: Re: libstdc++ headers should have pop/push of the visibility around
the declarations
On 31/10/2005, at 2:45 PM, mueller at kde dot org wrote:
> --- Comment #80 from mueller at kde dot org 2005-10-31 22:
--- Comment #13 from law at redhat dot com 2005-10-31 23:36 ---
Subject: Re: [4.1 Regression] Slowdown of the
bresenham line drawing by roughly 20%
On Mon, 2005-10-31 at 23:25 +, hubicka at ucw dot cz wrote:
> See comment #5. The fact that we ended up with more jumps was
I stumbled over a possible bug in g++ (at least it told me to file a bug
report). I'm not exactly sure if the code I tried to compile is correct.
~/bug > g++ -v -save-temps -I/usr/local/include gpp_bug.cpp
Using built-in specs.
Configured with: FreeBSD/i386 system compiler
Thread model: posix
gcc
--- Comment #6 from wilson at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-31 23:39 ---
Subject: Bug 2
Author: wilson
Date: Mon Oct 31 23:39:29 2005
New Revision: 106299
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=106299
Log:
Restore old AT_frame_base code for targets that don't use dwarf
This is the error message I get
../../../im-alias-source/libiberty/regex.c: In function 'byte_regex_compile':
../../../im-alias-source/libiberty/regex.c:4221: error: unrecognizable insn:
(insn 160 159 161 3 ../../../im-alias-source/libiberty/regex.c:284 (set (reg:SI
326 [ ivtmp.838 ])
(cons
--- Comment #7 from wilson at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-31 23:46 ---
This is partially fixed. The debug info is correct enough to make the gdb
testsuite happy, but we are lacking correct info for the frame_base in the
prologue and epilogue. That used to be computed by code in var-tra
--- Comment #1 from xeon at gmx dot ch 2005-10-31 23:46 ---
Created an attachment (id=10092)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10092&action=view)
preprocessed source file
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24602
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot
|
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-01 00:12 ---
This is a target issue. Can you attach regex.i when you add -save-temps to
that command line?
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-01 00:17 ---
Can you try a newer compiler as I cannot reproduce this with 20051026 ?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24601
1 - 100 of 139 matches
Mail list logo
