--- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-13 11:18 ---
Please attach preprocessed source and specify the host you are compiling on.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #27 from yanov at il dot ibm dot com 2006-01-13 13:26 ---
I've checked compiling the code in comment 24 with -mcpu=power5, compiled
without problems. Compiling with -mcpu=power4 (or without -mcpu flag) did
produce the ICE as can be seen below.
gcc was configured as follows
--- Comment #10 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-13 14:30
---
Subject: Bug 24365
Author: pinskia
Date: Fri Jan 13 14:30:08 2006
New Revision: 109667
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=109667
Log:
2006-01-13 Andrew Pinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR
--- Comment #11 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-13 14:38
---
Subject: Bug 24365
Author: pinskia
Date: Fri Jan 13 14:38:03 2006
New Revision: 109668
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=109668
Log:
2006-01-13 Andrew Pinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR
--- Comment #12 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-13 14:38
---
Fixed.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNE
Using gcc 4.0.2, with gcc -v giving:
Using built-in specs.
Target: i686-pc-linux-gnu
Configured with: ../src/configure --disable-nls --enable-languages=c,ada
--prefix=/disc/gbcc/home/allan/play/koala/gcc4/native1 --enable-libada
Thread model: posix
gcc versi
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25781
The appended snippet of code should be able to resolve the member variable
"foo" in both the Foo1 and Foo2 member functions, but it can't ("error: foo
was not declared in this scope"). The "this->" prefix appears to be required
to workaround this problem. The code compiles fine with gcc 3.2.3.
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-13 15:41 ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 12970 ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-13 15:41 ---
*** Bug 25783 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-13 15:41 ---
Reopening to ...
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-13 15:41 ---
Mark as a dup of bug 12970
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 12970 ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-13 15:41 ---
*** Bug 24960 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
In the appended snippet of code, the Foo2 class is only forward-declared in the
context of a "friend" statement ("friend class Foo2"). With gcc 3.2.3 this
sufficed to forward-declare it. With gcc 4.0.2 you must have a forward
declaration without a "friend" qualifier or gcc won't recognize the cla
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-13 15:42 ---
Reopening to ...
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status
--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-13 15:42 ---
To mark as a dup of bug 12970.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 12970 ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #5 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-13 15:42 ---
*** Bug 23976 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #5 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-13 15:43 ---
Reopening to ...
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status
--- Comment #6 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-13 15:43 ---
To close as dup of bug 12970.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 12970 ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #6 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-13 15:43 ---
*** Bug 23908 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-13 15:43 ---
Reopening to ...
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-13 15:44 ---
To close as a dup of bug 12970.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 12970 ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #7 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-13 15:44 ---
*** Bug 23755 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-13 15:44 ---
Reopening to ...
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-13 15:44 ---
To close as a dup of bug 12970.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 12970 ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #8 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-13 15:44 ---
*** Bug 23735 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-13 15:44 ---
Reopening to ...
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status
--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-13 15:45 ---
To close as a dup of bug 12970.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 12970 ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #9 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-13 15:45 ---
*** Bug 22588 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-13 15:45 ---
Reopening to ...
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status
--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-13 15:45 ---
To close as a dup of bug 12970.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 12970 ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #10 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-13 15:45
---
*** Bug 16709 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-13 15:45 ---
Reopening to ...
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status
--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-13 15:46 ---
To close as a dup of bug 12970.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 12970 ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #11 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-13 15:46
---
*** Bug 16577 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-13 15:46 ---
Reopening to ..
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|
--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-13 15:46 ---
close as a dup of bug 12970.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 12970 ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-13 15:46 ---
Reopening to
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Statu
--- Comment #12 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-13 15:46
---
*** Bug 16067 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-13 15:47 ---
Reopening to
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Statu
--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-13 15:47 ---
Close as a dup of bug 12970.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 12970 ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #13 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-13 15:47
---
*** Bug 15372 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #6 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-13 15:47 ---
Reopening to ...
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-13 15:47 ---
To Close as a dup of bug 12970.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 12970 ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #14 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-13 15:47
---
*** Bug 15111 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #7 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-13 15:48 ---
To close as a dup of bug 12970.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 12970 ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #15 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-13 15:48
---
*** Bug 14376 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #16 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-13 15:49
---
Reopening to ...
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Stat
--- Comment #17 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-13 15:50
---
To close as a dup of bug 12970.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 12970 ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #16 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-13 15:50
---
*** Bug 15552 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 2006-01-13 15:54 ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 21971 ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-13 15:54 ---
*** Bug 25784 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #5 from dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-13 16:00 ---
Subject: Bug 25771
Author: dberlin
Date: Fri Jan 13 16:00:13 2006
New Revision: 109669
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=109669
Log:
2006-01-13 Daniel Berlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR tr
--- Comment #2 from eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com 2006-01-13 16:15
---
The host is Windows.
--
eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-13 16:37 ---
Actually I take back my comment about with -ffast-math only as Fortran rules
are way different from C and C++.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #3 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-13 16:44 ---
This needs to be done by the frontend, as the folded 2/3 or 4/3 is not exactly
representable in the target FP format (and such cannot be checked for). Making
this a frontend bug, rather than just closing as WONTFIX
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-13 17:26 ---
This is most likely a divide by zero or some other undefined code inside GCC.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25781
--- Comment #4 from jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk 2006-01-13 17:33 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> This needs to be done by the frontend, as the folded 2/3 or 4/3 is not exactly
> representable in the target FP format (and such cannot be checked for).
> Making
> this a frontend bug, rather
--- Comment #5 from jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk 2006-01-13 17:38 ---
I just note that ifort generates this in the asm
for a**(1./3.):
call cbrtf
and for a**(1.D0/3.D0)
call cbrt
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25620
--prefix=/Users/dir/gfortran
--enable-languages=c,f95
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.2.0 20060113 (experimental)
--
Summary: gfortran - incorrectly issues an error on tests for
optional arguments
Product: gcc
Version: 4.2.0
--- Comment #28 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-13 17:48 ---
I am unable to reproduce the PowerPC SMS ICE with an AMD64 x PowerPC compiler.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24626
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-13 17:47 ---
Confirmed, this is only with assumed length and not with assumed shape or
already known shape.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
Just a meta-bug for assumed length problems since it seems like there are more
than 2 of them and they are semi related.
--
Summary: [meta-bug] assumed length problems
Product: gcc
Version: 4.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: wrong-code, rej
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
BugsThisDependsOn||25785
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever C
--- Comment #29 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-13 17:56 ---
Re. comment #26, Dave: I think that Mustafa's patch is actually correct, but
I'm not sure. I _can_ reproduce the HPPA problem (at least, I used to be able
to reproduce it when I still had access to a HPPA box), but
--- Comment #2 from dir at lanl dot gov 2006-01-13 18:06 ---
It also fails with a "double precision" argument -
[dranta:~/tests/gfortran-D] dir% gfortran -c present02.f90
In file present02.f90:3
if (present(data_c1)) then
1
Error: The upper bound in the last
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-13 18:09 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> It also fails with a "double precision" argument -
Right it is just an assumed size issue and not related at all to character or
any other type. I might take a look soon.
--
pinskia a
--- Comment #4 from berndtrog at yahoo dot com 2006-01-13 18:10 ---
The code compiles OK on 4.0 and newer.
--
berndtrog at yahoo dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #6 from jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk 2006-01-13 18:15 ---
another example:
REAL*8 :: a,b
read(6,*) a
b=a**(3.D0/2.D0)
write(6,*) b
END
gets computed by ifort as
b=a*sqrt(a)
but this is also turned into pow by gfortran at -O3 -ffast-math
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/s
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-13 18:40 ---
It is not just derived types, it is also arrays too:
The following is invalid code and should be rejected.
subroutine my_sio_file_write_common(data_c1)
real, intent(in), optional :: data_c1(4)
--- Comment #7 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-13 18:42 ---
Looking at how we deal with all this, we seem to like pow() very much during
folding, even doing the reverse transformations you suggest. The
transformation
back to sqrt ( x**N ) with N being an integer could be don
--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-13 18:43 ---
I should note I also found a related bug relating to accepting invalid code for
present, see PR 25097.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25785
FAIL: ext/pb_assoc/example/ds_traits.cc (test for excess errors)
WARNING: ext/pb_assoc/example/ds_traits.cc compilation failed to produce
executable
appeared on mainline between 20060112 and 20060113. On x86-linux it's an
internal compiler error.
--
Summary: [4.2 Regression
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-13 18:50 ---
I bet it is related to
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-01/msg00690.html
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #30 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-13 18:51 ---
I wonder if HP-PA should not just make targetm.cannot_modify_jumps_p return
true after reload...
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24626
--- Comment #2 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-13 19:16 ---
I just noticed this one: As of tonight (20061301), trunk gives
In file pr25029.f90:3
a = 1.e0
1
Error: The upper bound in the last dimension must appear in the reference to
the assumed size array 'a' at (1)
T
--- Comment #31 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-13 19:24 ---
First, we need the following patch to try_simplify_condjump.
-
Index: cfgcleanup.c
--- Comment #32 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2006-01-13
19:36 ---
Subject: Re: [4.1/4.2 Regression] internal compiler error: verify_flow_info
failed
> First, we need the following patch to try_simplify_condjump.
Excellent progress.
I was going to say that I can reprod
--- Comment #5 from dje at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-13 19:56 ---
no feedback. apparently the problem was XLC bootstrap.
--
dje at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #8 from kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-13 19:58 ---
Technically, all of the transformations noted by Joost are
a violation of the Fortran standard with the possible
exception of the transformation of x**(1./3.) to cbrt(x).
See 7.1.7.2.
--
kargl at gcc dot gnu dot o
--- Comment #8 from dje at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-13 19:58 ---
no feedback. apparently GNU Binutils is the problem.
--
dje at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #1 from laurent at guerby dot net 2006-01-13 20:09 ---
Confirmed on 4.0.2 release, fixed on 4.1 and trunk:
gcc version 4.1.0 20060102 (prerelease)
gcc version 4.2.0 20060112 (experimental)
--
laurent at guerby dot net changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #2 from laurent at guerby dot net 2006-01-13 20:10 ---
Fixed on 4.1 and trunk
--
laurent at guerby dot net changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
--- Comment #5 from test_code at yahoo dot com dot cn 2006-01-13 20:57
---
Created an attachment (id=10637)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10637&action=view)
preprocessed source
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25781
--- Comment #8 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-13 20:57 ---
As agreed with Tobi, the commit of the patch to 4.1 for this PR will happen
tomorrow morning. As it happens, it is regtesting as I write.
Paul
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25029
--- Comment #8 from kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-13 21:09 ---
Subject: Bug 25756
Author: kargl
Date: Fri Jan 13 21:09:24 2006
New Revision: 109674
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=109674
Log:
2006-01-13 Steven G. Kargl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR fort
--- Comment #9 from kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-13 21:10 ---
Committed the fix to trunk. I'll wait a few days for 4.1.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25756
--- Comment #2 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-13 21:30 ---
I wonder if this problem can also be triggered without using two variables of
the same union type. There is code in add_alias_set_conflicts to avoid the
situation we're running into:
static void
add_alias_set_confli
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25663
--- Comment #33 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-13 21:55
---
Created an attachment (id=10638)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10638&action=view)
dump files for the ppc ICE
Attached dump files for ppc -O -fmodulo-sched -da.
gcc (GCC) 4.1.0 20051211 (prere
--- Comment #3 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-13 22:04 ---
I think we need to add a conflict if type_i and type_j are or contain a union
of the same type.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25654
--- Comment #34 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-13 22:06
---
With gcc (GCC) 4.1.0 20060109 (prerelease) (SUSE Linux) I can no longer
reproduce the PPC ICE.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24626
--- Comment #35 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-13 22:09 ---
After too much trial-and-error, and thinking about it some more, I think we
should approach this as a SMS or powerpc bug. The code that Mustafa changed
makes us reject the RTL equivalent of "if (a) goto b; b: ...",
--- Comment #4 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-13 22:11 ---
Like consider the case of
void foo(void)
{
struct A { union U u; } a; struct B { union U u; } b;
}
with a same-type union wrapped in different structs.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25654
--- Comment #10 from aldot at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-13 22:15 ---
Should the warning be made consistent between fixed- and free form?
Both the gfc_warning vs. gfc_warning_now and the strings are not consistent.
Fixed Form has:
gfc_warning ("Statement label in blank line will be ign
--- Comment #16 from aldot at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-13 22:19 ---
Fix confirmed by Steve Kargl, closing.
--
aldot at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #11 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2006-01-13 22:20 ---
Subject: Re: ICE on valid code with labels
On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 10:15:13PM -, aldot at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
>
> Should the warning be made consistent between fixed- and free form?
>
--- Comment #36 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-13 22:29
---
But this ICE is fixed or papered over on both the 4.1 branch and trunk now.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24626
--- Comment #25 from tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-13 22:44 ---
We could remove the LD_PRELOAD entry during libgcj startup.
Would that work?
I am concerned about comment #23 though -- we can get a list of
all the version numbers we need, I suppose, but it seems awfully
fragile.
--- Comment #37 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-13 23:26 ---
I think I know what the problem is. At the point where we error in cfgrtl, we
have the following basic block:
Breakpoint 3, rtl_verify_flow_info_1 () at cfgrtl.c:2051
2051 error ("wrong amount of branc
1 - 100 of 123 matches
Mail list logo
