On i686-pc-linux-gnu with the 4.0 branch, I'm getting a failure in the
following
testcase when running with -fpic or -fPIC:
FAIL: gcc.dg/20050503-1.c scan-assembler-not call
Current testsuite report is here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2005-12/msg00026.html
--
Summary: [4.
--- Comment #1 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-02 00:33 ---
On i686-pc-linux-gnu with the 3.4 branch, I'm getting a failure in the
following testcase when running with -fpic or -fPIC:
FAIL: gcc.dg/i386-local2.c scan-assembler-not sub[^n]*sp
Current testsuite report is her
--- Comment #11 from kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-02 00:35 ---
Subject: Bug 21302
Author: kargl
Date: Fri Dec 2 00:35:41 2005
New Revision: 107850
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=107850
Log:
PR fortran/21302
* lang.opt: New options -ffree-
--- Comment #3 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-02 00:38
---
Subject: Bug 25149
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Fri Dec 2 00:38:36 2005
New Revision: 107851
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=107851
Log:
2005-12-01 Steven G. Kargl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On i686-pc-linux-gnu with the 4.0 branch, I'm getting a failure in the
following testcase when running with -fpic or -fPIC:
FAIL: gcc.target/i386/pr21291.c (test for excess errors)
Current testsuite report is here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2005-12/msg00026.html
--
Summa
--
ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||4.0.3 4.1.0 4.2.0
Target Milestone|--- |4.0.3
--- Comment #1 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-02 00:48 ---
Rth thinks it's an actual bug requiring investigation:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-11/msg01899.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25216
--- Comment #2 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-02 00:50 ---
testsuite logfile says:
FAIL: gcc.target/i386/pr21291.c (test for excess errors)
Excess errors:
.../gcc.target/i386/pr21291.c:18: error: can't find a register in class
'GENERAL_REGS' while reloading 'asm'
--
http
--- Comment #12 from kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-02 00:57 ---
Fixed.
--
kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-02 00:58 ---
As mentioned in the orginal PR where the testcase comes from this is most
likely related to PR 19398.
Also can you stop setting the target milestone?
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-02 01:00 ---
This is exactly the same issue as PR 19278.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-02 01:04 ---
This looks more like a testsuite bug as if you look into the testcase, we
actually will require a stack maninpulation.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |
--- Comment #5 from amodra at bigpond dot net dot au 2005-12-02 01:22
---
The instruction in question looks like this after local reg alloc, both base
and index don't get a hard register.
(insn:HI 289 292 497 28 (set (reg:V4SF 137 [ vect_var_.102 ])
(mem:V4SF (and:SI (plus:SI (
--- Comment #8 from kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-02 01:27 ---
Patch applied.
--
kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
--- Comment #10 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-02 02:12 ---
Subject: Bug 18491
Author: ghazi
Date: Fri Dec 2 02:12:15 2005
New Revision: 107860
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=107860
Log:
2005-12-01 Kaveh R. Ghazi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Backport
--- Comment #4 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-02 02:13
---
Fixed in 4.1 and 4.2
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25149
--- Comment #5 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-02 02:13
---
Closing
--
jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNC
--- Comment #4 from wilson at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-02 02:24 ---
The spurious warning is a problem because binutils is compiled by -Werror by
default now, when compiled by gcc. This spurious warning thus causes a build
failure for binutils. This build failure does not show up in
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-02 03:17 ---
Hmm, this is getting harder (unless I just want to do (a^CST) == CST and (a^b)
== 0. I am still deciding if I want to fix fold_binary from stoping from
returning a new tree if it does nothing except for switch the o
--- Comment #5 from wilson at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-02 04:12 ---
Created an attachment (id=10387)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10387&action=view)
Delay auto-inc generation until after determining which regs live across
setjmp.
This is my proposed untested pa
1. There is a procedure (function/subroutine) call. A variable of derived type
is passed as actual argument to this procedure. One of the components of
derived type is default initialized.
2. Corresponding dummy argument has INTENT(OUT) attribute.
When above two conditions are satisfied then acco
--- Comment #1 from duraid at octopus dot com dot au 2005-12-02 04:48
---
some additional info: the behaviour between 4.0.2-release and:
gcc version 4.0.3 20051202 (prerelease)
is identical.
also, this code is not 64-bit clean, so be sure to build 32-bit when testing.
--
duraid at
--- Comment #8 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-02 06:10
---
Fixed on 4.1 and 4.2
--
jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #5 from amodra at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-02 06:15 ---
Subject: Bug 25176
Author: amodra
Date: Fri Dec 2 06:15:54 2005
New Revision: 107871
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=107871
Log:
PR middle-end/25176
* function.c (expand_functi
--- Comment #6 from amodra at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-02 06:16 ---
Subject: Bug 25176
Author: amodra
Date: Fri Dec 2 06:16:21 2005
New Revision: 107872
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=107872
Log:
PR middle-end/25176
* function.c (expand_functi
--
amodra at bigpond dot net dot au changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|FAIL: Array_3 -O3 execution |[4.0 only] FAIL: Array_3 -O3
|- bytecode->native
--- Comment #4 from amodra at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-02 06:25 ---
Subject: Bug 21017
Author: amodra
Date: Fri Dec 2 06:25:13 2005
New Revision: 107873
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=107873
Log:
PR target/21017
* combine.c (simplify_logical )
Hi,
the following yields an ICE with 4.0.1, 4.0.2 and a recent 4.1 branch (but in a
different location) if compiled at -O3. Compiles at -O2 and at -O3 with gcc
3.3.4:
---
static float rgam;
extern void *jmp(void *);
void drotmg(float d1) {
void *labels[] = { &
--- Comment #9 from uros at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-02 06:43 ---
Subject: Bug 24475
Author: uros
Date: Fri Dec 2 06:43:45 2005
New Revision: 107876
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=107876
Log:
PR target/24475
* lib/target-supports.exp (check_ef
--- Comment #10 from uros at kss-loka dot si 2005-12-02 06:59 ---
Fixed on 4.1 and mainline.
--
uros at kss-loka dot si changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|AS
101 - 130 of 130 matches
Mail list logo
