--- Comment #10 from krebbel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-08 08:32
---
Subject: Bug 25268
Author: krebbel
Date: Thu Dec 8 08:32:34 2005
New Revision: 108216
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=108216
Log:
2005-12-08 Andreas Krebbel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Comment #8 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-08 08:32
---
> Can you test the attached patch?
This kind of trick almost always works...
> Unfortunrately it's relative to autovect-branch, but hopefully it would easily
> apply to mainline/4.1. Unbootstrapped, hardly teste
--- Comment #11 from krebbel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-08 08:33
---
Subject: Bug 25268
Author: krebbel
Date: Thu Dec 8 08:33:39 2005
New Revision: 108217
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=108217
Log:
2005-12-08 Andreas Krebbel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Comment #1 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-08 08:55 ---
Subject: Bug 25246
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Dec 8 08:55:44 2005
New Revision: 108219
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=108219
Log:
PR c/25246
* c-parser.c (c_parser_struct_or_union
--
jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
|dot org
--- Comment #12 from krebbel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-08 08:56
---
Subject: Bug 25268
Author: krebbel
Date: Thu Dec 8 08:56:24 2005
New Revision: 108220
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=108220
Log:
2005-12-08 Andreas Krebbel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Comment #2 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-08 08:57 ---
Fixed in CVS.
--
jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL|
hjl at lucon dot org wrote:
--- Comment #7 from hjl at lucon dot org 2005-12-08 06:55 ---
I have verified that
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-11/msg00874.html
is the cause. Since gcc 4.1 and 4.2 are OK, the problem may be in the backport.
OK, I see now this is not a problem
--- Comment #9 from jvdelisle at verizon dot net 2005-12-08 09:01 ---
Subject: Re: [4.0 regression]: libfortran failed fma3d
in SPEC CPU 2K
hjl at lucon dot org wrote:
> --- Comment #7 from hjl at lucon dot org 2005-12-08 06:55 ---
> I have verified that
>
> http://gcc.gnu.o
--- Comment #24 from rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-08 09:34
---
Subject: Bug 25248
Author: rakdver
Date: Thu Dec 8 09:34:26 2005
New Revision: 108225
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=108225
Log:
PR tree-optimization/25248
* tree-scalar-ev
Hi!
The following program
program test
character(len=10) :: str
str = '123'
read( str, *, end=10 ) i,x
10 continue
print*,i
end program test
aborts at runtime with somewhat unexpected message
gfortran -v -o file file.f90; ./file
Driving: gfortran -v -o file file.f90 -lgfortranbeg
--- Comment #23 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-08 11:24
---
Subject: Bug 24975
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu Dec 8 11:24:07 2005
New Revision: 108226
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=108226
Log:
2005-12-08 Richard Guenther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Comment #10 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-08 11:24
---
Subject: Bug 14024
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu Dec 8 11:24:07 2005
New Revision: 108226
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=108226
Log:
2005-12-08 Richard Guenther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
FAIL: 22_locale/locale/cons/12658_thread-1.cc execution test
FAIL: 22_locale/locale/cons/12658_thread-2.cc execution test
FAIL: ext/mt_allocator/22309_thread.cc execution test
FAIL: thread/pthread3.cc execution test
appeared on mainline between 20051205 and 20051206.
--
Summary: [4.2
--- Comment #3 from paolo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-08 11:32 ---
Subject: Bug 24617
Author: paolo
Date: Thu Dec 8 11:32:37 2005
New Revision: 108227
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=108227
Log:
2005-12-08 Paolo Carlini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* include
--- Comment #4 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2005-12-08 11:34 ---
Done for 4.2.
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--
tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirme
--- Comment #8 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-08 12:30 ---
-Wstrict-aliasing backport has been committed today to gcc-4_1-branch:
http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=108226
For 4.0, it is IMHO a bad idea to backport this, there are tons of programs
built with -We
--- Comment #4 from tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-08 12:41 ---
The lines are padded (see scanner.c:810), but this doesn't make it into the
format string, which could be construed to be a bug, but since this is not
something required by the standard (at least I think this was the co
GCC throws an internal compiler error when compiling the following
C99 code (gcc -std=c99 -c):
static char * name[] = {
[0x8000] = "bar"
};
(GCC reports `internal compiler error: in tree_low_cst, at tree.c:3318'.)
I realize that the above code is quite stupid, as I request t
--- Comment #2 from amodra at bigpond dot net dot au 2005-12-08 13:05
---
Your testcase fails on powerpc64-linux with -malign-power
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25299
--- Comment #11 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-08 13:11 ---
Created an attachment (id=10439)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10439&action=view)
gcc41-pr25293.patch
This patch disallows 16-bit pushes (similarly how x86_64 disallows
16-bit and 32-bit pushes)
We fail to build cupsddk:
/usr/lib64/gcc/s390x-suse-linux/4.1.0/cc1 -quiet espmsg.i -quiet -m64 -mzarch
-march=z900 -O2 -fmessage-length=0 -o /tmp/cc8yapDN.s
espmsg.c: In function translate_messages:
espmsg.c:923: error: insn does not satisfy its constraints:
(insn 715 266 716 25 (set (reg:DI 2
--- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-08 13:35 ---
Created an attachment (id=10440)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10440&action=view)
testcase (unreduced)
testcase. reducing.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25310
--- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-08 13:38 ---
Reduced testcase:
typedef enum { HTTP_FIELD_MAX } http_field_t;
typedef struct { char hostname[256],fields[HTTP_FIELD_MAX][256]; }
http_t;
extern int httpRead(http_t *http, char *buffer, int length);
transla
--- Comment #3 from reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-08 13:42
---
This is now also fixed on the 3.4 branch (probably by the patch for PR19397).
We now get the following error message:
bug.cc:3: error: type/value mismatch at argument 1 in template parameter list
for `template > s
--- Comment #5 from reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-08 13:55
---
Patch posted.
--
reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo
Maybe related to 25310. We fail to build xemacs with:
/usr/lib64/gcc/s390x-suse-linux/4.1.0/cc1 -fpreprocessed window.i -quiet
-dumpbase window.i -m64 -mzarch -march=z900 -auxbase window -g -O2 -Wall
-Wno-switch -Wundef -Wsign-compare -Wno-char-subscripts -Wpacked
-Wunused-parameter -Wall -Wall -
--- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-08 14:02 ---
Created an attachment (id=10441)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10441&action=view)
testcase (unreduced)
testcase. reducing.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25311
--- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-08 14:08 ---
Reduced testcase:
typedef long Lisp_Object;
extern Lisp_Object Qnil;
struct window {
int pixel_top;
int pixel_height;
int pixel_width;
Lisp_Object next;
Lisp_Object parent;
};
static void set_wi
--- Comment #5 from dir at lanl dot gov 2005-12-08 14:16 ---
Your are likely correct - it probability is not in the standard, but for the
first 15 years of FORTRAN, keypunches and card readers were the only way to
create and submit a program and they always pad to 80 characters - by
defi
--- Comment #4 from aph at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-08 14:40 ---
Subject: Bug 25265
Author: aph
Date: Thu Dec 8 14:40:48 2005
New Revision: 108232
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=108232
Log:
2005-12-08 Andrew Haley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR libgcj/2526
--- Comment #5 from aph at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-08 14:44 ---
Subject: Bug 25265
Author: aph
Date: Thu Dec 8 14:44:29 2005
New Revision: 108233
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=108233
Log:
2005-12-08 Andrew Haley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR libgcj/2526
--- Comment #25 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-08 15:11
---
Zdenek, can you please apply to the 4.1 branch, too?
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
Hi Joel,
I have PERL 5.8.7 and still does not work. I used the "--enable-languages" as
you had advised, but now I am getting the following errors:
"Makefile", line 821: make: Dependency line needs colon or double colon
operator.
"Makefile", line 822: make: Dependency line needs colon or doubl
--- Comment #6 from aph at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-08 15:32 ---
Subject: Bug 25265
Author: aph
Date: Thu Dec 8 15:32:44 2005
New Revision: 108235
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=108235
Log:
2005-12-08 Andrew Haley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR libgcj/2526
--- Comment #9 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-08 15:43 ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> For 4.0, it is IMHO a bad idea to backport this, there are tons of programs
> built with -Werror and if we suddenly start issuing a huge amount of new
> warnings (and this warning has somet
--- Comment #26 from rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-08 15:44
---
Subject: Bug 25248
Author: rakdver
Date: Thu Dec 8 15:44:22 2005
New Revision: 108236
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=108236
Log:
PR tree-optimization/25248
* tree-scalar-ev
--- Comment #10 from sebor at roguewave dot com 2005-12-08 15:51 ---
No, I don't. The standard is clear and most of us seem to think it's "by
design." Rather I am suggesting is that we might want to discuss with the whole
LWG changing the return type as an enhancement.
--
http://gcc
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-08 15:54 ---
Confirmed. This is only reproducible on targets where HOST_WIDE_INT is 32bits
(and I still say that HOST_WIDE_INT should be always at least 64bits). Oh and
this is a regression for at least x86.
--
pinskia at g
--- Comment #27 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-08 15:54
---
Fixed.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
--- Comment #11 from gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2005-12-08 16:04
---
Subject: Re: std::fill_n, std::generate_n incorrect signature
"sebor at roguewave dot com" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| No, I don't. The standard is clear and most of us seem to think it's "by
| design." R
--- Comment #12 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2005-12-08 16:11 ---
(In reply to comment #11)
> However, I'm looking at the pratical effect. If libstdc++ changes the
> return types (correcting the bug) then it will be an ABI breakage.
> If LWG considers and agrees on the enhancement, libs
--- Comment #13 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2005-12-08 16:20 ---
(In reply to comment #12)
> 2- As I see the issue, it depends a lot on the actual timeframe of the
> possible
> enhancement to the standard. I mean, if we are thinking about C++0x, seems
> rather far in time. I think mos
--- Comment #14 from gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2005-12-08 16:23
---
Subject: Re: std::fill_n, std::generate_n incorrect signature
"pcarlini at suse dot de" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| 2- As I see the issue, it depends a lot on the actual timeframe of
| the possible enhanc
--- Comment #15 from sebor at roguewave dot com 2005-12-08 16:27 ---
(In reply to comment #11)
Okay, I see your concern.
Well, IMO, your signatures are better than those required by the standard so if
you care about 100% compliance you (or Paolo -- and I promise not to beat him
;-) sho
--- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-08 16:55 ---
HOST_WIDE_INT is what it says. The code should check host_integerp first and
then use TREE_INT_CST_LOW.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25309
--- Comment #2 from eedelman at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-08 16:56
---
Subject: Bug 25292
Author: eedelman
Date: Thu Dec 8 16:56:10 2005
New Revision: 108238
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=108238
Log:
fortran/
2005-12-08 Erik Edelmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Comment #3 from eedelman at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-08 17:00
---
Subject: Bug 25292
Author: eedelman
Date: Thu Dec 8 17:00:26 2005
New Revision: 108239
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=108239
Log:
fortran/
2005-12-08 Erik Edelmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Comment #4 from eedelman at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-08 17:04
---
Subject: Bug 25292
Author: eedelman
Date: Thu Dec 8 17:04:54 2005
New Revision: 108241
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=108241
Log:
fortran/
2005-12-08 Erik Edelmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Comment #16 from gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2005-12-08 17:12
---
Subject: Re: std::fill_n, std::generate_n incorrect signature
"pcarlini at suse dot de" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| + the more general consideration that, delivering a C++0x conforming
| library certainly
--- Comment #3 from berndtrog at yahoo dot com 2005-12-08 17:14 ---
PR 19636 fails only when compiled with -Os, while
this one fails only when compiled with -O2 or -O3.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24894
Hello,
When I try to compile the code:
==
module param
double precision mutdefc(8,5)
data mutdefc(1,1)/0.D0/
data mutdefc(1,1)/0.D0/
end module param
=
--- Comment #1 from segalemb at usp dot br 2005-12-08 17:26 ---
Created an attachment (id=10442)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10442&action=view)
a.s
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25312
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-08 17:49 ---
Fixed in 4.0.3 by allowing this without -pedantic-errors.
This is a dup of bug 17737.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 17737 ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Rem
--- Comment #14 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-08 17:49
---
*** Bug 25312 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17737
--- Comment #15 from segalemb at usp dot br 2005-12-08 18:10 ---
Subject: Re: ICE when variable appears in two data statements
This is not a duplicated bug, because I recently installed the
last version of gcc and recompiled the operational system.
Why is this problem not solved?
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[3.4/4.0/4.1 Regression] ICE|[3.4/4.0/4.1/4.2 Regression]
|on initialization of
The warning available in previous versions of gcc (at least until gcc 3.3)
'unreachable code at beginning of switch statement' is not reported anymore.
This behavior hides programming errors. When compiling this code sample with
'c++ -Wall test.cpp':
int main()
{
int a;
switch(1)
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-08 18:32 ---
Hmm, someone else has to do decide if we only want to warn about this with
-Wunreachable-code or with just -W -Wall because 3.4.0 and above only warn with
-Wunreachable-code.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org cha
--- Comment #16 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-08 18:14
---
(In reply to comment #15)
> Subject: Re: ICE when variable appears in two data statements
> This is not a duplicated bug, because I recently installed the
> last version of gcc and recompiled the operational syst
--- Comment #2 from Uwe dot Seimet at seimet dot de 2005-12-08 18:37
---
Subject: Re: [3.4/4.0/4.1/4.2 Regression] Unreachable code at beginning of
switch statement is not reported anymore
Hello,
> Hmm, someone else has to do decide if we only want to warn about this with
> -Wunreach
I see this regression on two different machines.
Last known to work with: "Wed Dec 7 13:39:51 UTC 2005 (revision 108164M)".
Known to fail with: "Thu Dec 8 09:08:46 UTC 2005 (revision 108221M)".
With LAST_UPDATED: "Thu Dec 8 10:28:12 UTC 2005 (revision 108225M)" I still
get:
FAIL: 27_io/basic_ost
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-08 18:59 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> It would be nice for -Wall to include -Wunreachable-code, similar to how
> it was in gcc 3.3.
-Wunreachable-code was not in included with -Wall in 3.3 but a different
warning was enabled f
--- Comment #4 from Uwe dot Seimet at seimet dot de 2005-12-08 19:05
---
Subject: Re: [3.4/4.0/4.1/4.2 Regression] Unreachable code at beginning of
switch statement is not reported anymore
Hello,
> > It would be nice for -Wall to include -Wunreachable-code, similar to how
> > it was
--
pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |pault at gcc dot gnu dot org
|dot org
--- Comment #12 from rth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-08 19:12 ---
This patch is ok.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25023
A user reported that this:
mrs $ cat > t98.c
struct X {
int a, b;
X() : a(0), b(0) {}
};
static void f(const char *s, ...);
int main()
{
X x;
f("foo!", x);
return 0;
}
--- Comment #1 from mrs at apple dot com 2005-12-08 20:51 ---
Ah, Geoff found it:
The definition of 'aggregate' is in 8.5.1
I new it was there someplace.
--
mrs at apple dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
Some time between 20051118 (trunk revision 107161) and 20051203 (4.1 branch
revision 107994), still present as of 20051206 (4.1 branch revision 108105),
the following FAILs of tests previously PASSing appeared on
hppa64-hp-hpux11.11. This is seen on 4.1 branch only, not on mainline.
FAIL: g++.dg/
FAIL: g++.dg/other/pr22003.C (test for excess errors)
appeared on mainline on ia64-hp-hpux11.23, both -milp32 and -mlp64 (having
previously PASSed) between 20051205 (revision 108044) and 20051206 (revision
108105). It also appeared on 4.1 branch between 20051204 (revision 108010) and
20051206 (rev
$ cat test.f95
program test_namelist
call test1
contains
subroutine test1()
real :: array(6)
namelist /list/array
read (*, nml=list)
write (*, nml=list)
end
$ gfortran test.f95
$ ./a.out
&list array(1:5)=1.5
output
$ &LIST
--- Comment #1 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-08 21:09 ---
Confirmed appearing between revisions 108044 and 108105, at least as regards
12658_thread-2.cc and pthread3.cc. (12658_thread-1.cc also FAILs but is
blacklisted in my regression tester as having been known to pass or
libstdc++ tests using dg-require-sharedlib are wrongly marked UNSUPPORTED when
testing an installed compiler because the test in libstdc++.exp does
[lookfor_file $blddir src/.libs/libstdc++.so]. This does not of course work
when there is an installed libstdc++.so being tested instead of a build
di
--- Comment #2 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-08 21:20 ---
Execution failure also seen on i686-pc-linux-gnu appearing between unmodified
revisions 108044 and 108105 of trunk.
--
jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #1 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-08 21:24 ---
Also seen on ia64-hp-hpux11.23, appearing between revisions 108152 and 108215.
--
jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #6 from anton at mips dot complang dot tuwien dot ac dot at
2005-12-08 21:31 ---
Subject: Re: pessimization of goto * ("computed goto")
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> --- Comment #5 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-06 21:58
> ---
> (In reply t
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-08 21:35 ---
This is only a testsuite failure as -freorder-blocks-and-partition is not
excepted to work on ia64 or any target which emits undwind info by default.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What
--- Comment #2 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2005-12-08 21:44 ---
(In reply to comment #1)
(12658_thread-1.cc also FAILs but is
> blacklisted in my regression tester as having been known to pass or fail at
> random.
In my opinion, assuming some ba
--- Comment #11 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-08 21:47 ---
Subject: Bug 17828
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Dec 8 21:47:10 2005
New Revision: 108245
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=108245
Log:
PR target/17828
* g++.old-deja/g++.other/comdat5
--- Comment #11 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-08 21:49 ---
Subject: Bug 19005
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Dec 8 21:49:17 2005
New Revision: 108246
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=108246
Log:
PR target/19005
* gcc.c-torture/execute/pr19005.
--- Comment #50 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-08 21:50 ---
Subject: Bug 19317
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Dec 8 21:50:38 2005
New Revision: 108247
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=108247
Log:
PR c++/19317
* g++.dg/opt/pr19317-1.C: New test.
--- Comment #12 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-08 21:54 ---
Subject: Bug 17828
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Dec 8 21:53:59 2005
New Revision: 108251
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=108251
Log:
PR target/17828
* g++.old-deja/g++.other/comdat5
--- Comment #12 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-08 21:54 ---
Subject: Bug 19005
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Dec 8 21:54:34 2005
New Revision: 108252
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=108252
Log:
PR target/19005
* gcc.c-torture/execute/pr19005.
--- Comment #51 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-08 21:56 ---
Subject: Bug 19317
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Dec 8 21:56:44 2005
New Revision: 108253
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=108253
Log:
PR c++/19317
* g++.dg/opt/pr19317-1.C: New test.
--- Comment #2 from gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2005-12-08 22:25
---
Subject: Re: New: POD structures can have
"mrs at apple dot com" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| A user reported that this:
|
| mrs $ cat > t98.c
| struct X {
| int a, b;
|
$ cat
program test
integer ::a(2,2)
real :: b(4,4)
a=1
b=2.0
b = b + a
end program test
gfortran doesn't give a "shapes not conformable" error.
There is a PR #19754 and fix for the similar problem when arrays are of the
same type. In this particular case arrays are of different types.
--
$ cat testunion.cpp
// testunion.cpp
static union { struct n { int I2; } S2; }; // Case 1
static union { struct { int I1; } S1; }; // Case 2
struct foo
{
union { struct n { int I2; } S2; }; // Case 3
union { struct { int I1; } S1; }; // Case 4
};
void func()
{
union { st
--- Comment #7 from hp at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-08 23:07 ---
Subject: Bug 23424
Author: hp
Date: Thu Dec 8 23:07:31 2005
New Revision: 108255
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=108255
Log:
PR target/23424
* recog.c (constrain_operands): Strip u
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-08 23:36 ---
Hmm, I actually want to say that case 2, 4, and 6 are actually valid (But I
have not looked at the standard) as anonymous types are special.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #8 from amodra at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-08 23:43 ---
Subject: Bug 24908
Author: amodra
Date: Thu Dec 8 23:43:40 2005
New Revision: 108257
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=108257
Log:
PR debug/24908
* dwarf2out.c (dwarf2out_frame_d
--- Comment #9 from amodra at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-08 23:47 ---
Subject: Bug 24908
Author: amodra
Date: Thu Dec 8 23:47:48 2005
New Revision: 108258
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=108258
Log:
PR debug/24908
* dwarf2out.c (dwarf2out_frame_d
--- Comment #10 from amodra at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-08 23:50 ---
Subject: Bug 24908
Author: amodra
Date: Thu Dec 8 23:50:40 2005
New Revision: 108259
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=108259
Log:
PR debug/24908
* dwarf2out.c (dwarf2out_frame_
--- Comment #11 from amodra at bigpond dot net dot au 2005-12-08 23:51
---
Fixed.
--
amodra at bigpond dot net dot au changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASS
--- Comment #3 from mrs at apple dot com 2005-12-08 23:53 ---
As I said, the prohibition is in 8.5.1 in the definition of aggregate. This is
what makes it not a POD. No DR needed, no gcc bug fix needed, the bug was in
the Metroworks compiler and in the users understanding.
--
http
--- Comment #2 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2005-12-09 00:11 ---
"Component" cannot be libstdc++, nothing changed between those revisions..
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-09 02:08
---
I see that ifort gives identical results to gfortran. I believe the correct
interpretation is that the read is expecting a list of data and when its not
there it ends the read. There are some compilers that migh
--- Comment #11 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-09 02:53
---
Subject: Bug 25039
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Fri Dec 9 02:53:41 2005
New Revision: 108271
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=108271
Log:
2005-12-08 Jerry DeLisle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[1] tmp.hpp contains only include guard
# g++ -Wall -O2 tmp.hpp
tmp.hpp: file not recognized: File format not recognized
collect2: ld returned 1 exit status
[2] tmp.hpp ie empty.
# g++ -Wall -O2 tmp.hpp
/usr/lib/gcc/i686-pld-linux/3.4.5/../../../crt1.o(.text+0x18): In function
`_start':
init.c: un
--- Comment #12 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-09 02:57
---
Subject: Bug 25039
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Fri Dec 9 02:57:13 2005
New Revision: 108272
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=108272
Log:
2005-12-08 Jerry DeLisle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
1 - 100 of 109 matches
Mail list logo
