--- Comment #10 from martin at mpa-garching dot mpg dot de 2005-12-29
09:12 ---
I just recompiled and everything works nicely again. Thanks!
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25532
--- Comment #5 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-29 09:56 ---
The patch you identified as "breaking" this, is correct. Your bug is
elsewhere. But, there is no way to tell where without a test case.
Unless you're going to talk about public viewable sources, perhaps you should
--- Comment #3 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-29 10:04 ---
Couldn't reproduce, on neither 4way nor UP box, with various OMP_NUM_THREADS
settings in environment. The valgrind output isn't really helpful, because
when it reaches unhandled insn, all bets are off what happens aft
Hi. This is my first "bug" report, so don't shoot at me if it not in the rules
of art, better teach me..
Compiling snapshots gcc-4.1 core & g++ of 20051029 and 20051223 on :
SunOS 5.8 Generic_117350-24 sun4u sparc SUNW,Sun-Fire-880
gave the same error message at the same place : when compili
--
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 #8 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-29 11:53 ---
I don't think this is a bug, in fact, not honoring the volatile in GCC 4.0.x
and earlier was a bug. If you want to allow byte access rather than word
access, you really need to remove the volatile keyword and then it
--- Comment #3 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-29 12:15 ---
This really needs to be investigated by someone with native hpux access.
All that I can add is that the problem is not present on ia64-linux, so it
could
very well be a bug in hpux runtime or in hpux assembler or linke
--- Comment #8 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-29 12:32 ---
Is this still a problem?
I certainly can't reproduce this on sparc*-linux:
struct B1_m_outer_p_inner {
char c;
double d;
} __attribute__ ((aligned)) __attribute__ ((packed)) s;
extern void abort (void);
int main ()
--- Comment #1 from dir at lanl dot gov 2005-12-29 15:34 ---
Here is another test example that more clearly shows the problem (The f90
output is correct) -
[dranta:~/tests/gfortran-D] dir% f90 -o sage03 sage03.f90
[dranta:~/tests/gfortran-D] dir% sage03
1
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-29 17:21 ---
Patch here: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-12/msg01906.html
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #5 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-29 17:54 ---
Patch installed.
--
ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
--- Comment #4 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-29 17:55 ---
Patch installed.
--
ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
--- Comment #5 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-29 17:55 ---
Patch installed.
--
ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/UMN_Projects/Software/Libraries/YorkLib_test>
gfortran20051228
-v -save-temps -c -g bug.f95
Using built-in specs.
Target: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
Configured with: ../gcc/configure --program-suffix=20051228
--enable-languages=fortran
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.2.0 200512
--- Comment #1 from krange at lhup dot edu 2005-12-29 18:02 ---
Created an attachment (id=10565)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10565&action=view)
self contained (but probably not minimal) source that triggers ICE
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-29 18:13 ---
Reduced testcase:
FUNCTION reallocate_hnv(p,n,LEN)
CHARACTER(LEN=LEN), DIMENSION(:), POINTER :: reallocate_hnv
ALLOCATE(reallocate_hnv(n),stat=ierr)
END FUNCTION reallocate_hnv
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-29 18:21 ---
Confirmed, not a regression.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from roger at eyesopen dot com 2005-12-29 19:42 ---
Investigating further, PR25213 looks like a duplicate of PR23098.
In that bugzilla trail, Andrew correctly identified it as a
regression from gcc 3.2.3 when using -fpic/-fPIC on x86, but the
PR was closed once the fix was
--- Comment #2 from eedelman at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-29 20:01
---
Working on a patch.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25396
--- Comment #8 from eedelman at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-29 20:52
---
It seems my patch fixed pure by-reference functions only for internal
functions. Pure by-ref. module functions still doesn't work:
erik:/home/gcc/head/test$ cat pure_byref_3.f90
module huj_mod
contains
pure
--- Comment #3 from eedelman at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-29 20:57
---
I think this simple one-liner fixes the bug:
Index: interface.c
===
--- interface.c (revision 109139)
+++ interface.c (working copy)
@@ -1718,6 +1718
figured with: ../gcc/configure --prefix=/Users/dir/gfortran
--enable-languages=c,f95
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.2.0 20051229 (experimental)
[dranta:~/tests/gfortran-D] dir%
--
Summary: gfortran - Fortran runtime error: Invalid argument
Product: gcc
Version: 4.2.
G++ fails with an internal compiler error while compiling Qt 4.1 on Windows XP.
g++ -c -include tmp\obj\release_shared\qt_gui_pch.h -O2 -O2 -Wall -frtti
-fno-ex
ceptions -DQT_SHARED -DQT_THREAD_SUPPORT -DUNICODE -DQT_LARGEFILE_SUPPORT
-DQT_E
DITION=QT_EDITION_DESKTOP -DQT_BUILD_GUI_LIB -DQT_MAKEDL
--- Comment #1 from paragw at excite dot com 2005-12-29 21:36 ---
Created an attachment (id=10566)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10566&action=view)
Preprocessed Source
Preprocessed source for the failing file.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=255
--- Comment #2 from paragw at excite dot com 2005-12-29 21:36 ---
C:\Qt\4.1.0\src\gui>gcc -v
Using built-in specs.
Target: mingw32
Configured with: ../gcc-4.0.2/configure --host=mingw32 --build=mingw32
--prefix=
e:/mingw4 --without-gnu-ld --without-gnu-as --disable-nls
--disable-win32-re
--- Comment #3 from paragw at excite dot com 2005-12-29 21:46 ---
20583 and 18592 seem to be similar to this but I am leaving this open as the
platform (m68K vs WinXP) and component (gcc vs g++) are different. Will try
4.1.0 snapshot and close this one if found fixed.
--
http://gcc.
--- Comment #7 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-29 21:52 ---
This bug report is for a really old compiler.
Would I hurt anyone's feelings if I just close this bug as WONTFIX? :-)
--
steven at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Ad
--- Comment #2 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-29 21:54 ---
Are you seeing the same problem with more recent compilers, like GCC 4.0 or a
GCC 4.1 snapshot?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24376
--- Comment #9 from eedelman at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-29 22:35
---
Patch posted here: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2005-12/msg00511.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22607
--- Comment #4 from pbrook at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-30 01:09 ---
Subject: Bug 23482
Author: pbrook
Date: Fri Dec 30 01:09:11 2005
New Revision: 109164
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=109164
Log:
2005-12-30 Paul Brook <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR target/
--- Comment #27 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-30 03:48 ---
Created an attachment (id=10567)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10567&action=view)
files from kona meeting
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24660
--- Comment #28 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-30 03:49 ---
Created an attachment (id=10568)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10568&action=view)
mail surrounding namespace association development
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24660
--- Comment #1 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-30 04:39
---
Confirmed.
--
jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Statu
--- Comment #2 from deji_aking at yahoo dot ca 2005-12-30 04:50 ---
While I now have a better understanding of this code, and can work around this
particular bug; all reduced testcases I'have been coming up with seems to work,
and the original (attached) code doesn't. So I'm closing this
--- Comment #9 from danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-30 05:44 ---
Subject: Bug 25586
Author: danglin
Date: Fri Dec 30 05:44:16 2005
New Revision: 109166
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=109166
Log:
PR fortran/25586
* pa.md: Remove REG_POINTER
--- Comment #6 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-30 05:45 ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> int f(int x)
> {
> return x >> 31 ? -1 : 1;
> }
And we are missing an optimization here.
Right now (well before this patch) we optimization it as:
(- (((unsigned)x)>>31))|1
we we can o
--- Comment #10 from danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-30 05:47
---
Subject: Bug 25586
Author: danglin
Date: Fri Dec 30 05:47:53 2005
New Revision: 109167
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=109167
Log:
PR fortran/25586
* pa.md: Remove REG_POINTE
--- Comment #11 from danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-30 05:50
---
Subject: Bug 25586
Author: danglin
Date: Fri Dec 30 05:50:44 2005
New Revision: 109168
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=109168
Log:
PR fortran/25586
* pa.md: Remove REG_POINTE
--- Comment #12 from danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-30 05:54
---
Subject: Bug 25586
Author: danglin
Date: Fri Dec 30 05:54:17 2005
New Revision: 109169
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=109169
Log:
PR fortran/25586
* pa.md: Remove REG_POINTE
The following functions should produce the same asm (only f3 and f1 produce the
optimial code):
int f(unsigned x)
{
return x >> 31 ? -1 : 0;
}
int f2(int x)
{
return x >> 31 ? -1 : 0;
}
int f1(int x)
{
return (x >> 31);
}
int f3(unsigned x)
{
return (-(x>>31));
}
int f4(unsigned x)
{
x
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25600
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|blocker |normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25596
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-30 06:01 ---
Do you have the GNU binutils installed or are you using the Sun provided one?
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #2 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-30 06:17
---
This test case does not fail with 4.0.3. That makes this a regression.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25598
--- Comment #19 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-30 06:30
---
*** Bug 25599 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-30 06:30 ---
This is a dup of bug 21275.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 21275 ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-30 06:33 ---
You want to use STAGE1_CFLAGS to add -ieee for building with the compiler.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfi
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-30 06:44 ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 23091 ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #5 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-30 06:44 ---
*** Bug 25105 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-30 06:48 ---
Confirmed.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCON
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-30 06:50 ---
Confirmed, (this is an ICE), the backtrace:
#0 0x00061f8c in gfc_conv_scalarized_array_ref (se=0xb820, ar=0x41d05504)
at /Users/pinskia/src/gcc/alias/gcc/gcc/fortran/trans-array.c:1884
#1 0x00061f74 in gfc_conv
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-30 06:57 ---
Confirmed, this is an ICE. Backtrace:
#0 check_operator_interface (intr=0x41d017f0, operator=INTRINSIC_ASSIGN) at
/Users/pinskia/src/gcc/alias/gcc/gcc/fortran/interface.c:508
#1 0x0001b684 in check_operator_interf
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-30 07:00 ---
Confirmed, this is obviously should be rejected.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-30 07:03
---
The patch in comment #2 causes PR25594.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25419
--- Comment #9 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-30 07:28 ---
Fixed by (on both the mainline and the 4.1 branch):
2005-11-24 Bruce Korb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* fixincl.c(write_replacement) "here strings" in AutoGen
often/generally
don't have a terminating newli
56 matches
Mail list logo
