--- Comment #5 from amodra at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-23 22:23 ---
Subject: Bug 26607
Author: amodra
Date: Thu Mar 23 22:23:24 2006
New Revision: 112334
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=112334
Log:
PR target/26607
* config/rs6000/darwin-ldouble.
--- Comment #6 from amodra at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-23 22:24 ---
Subject: Bug 26607
Author: amodra
Date: Thu Mar 23 22:23:58 2006
New Revision: 112335
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=112335
Log:
PR target/26607
* config/rs6000/darwin-ldouble.
--- Comment #18 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-23 22:28
---
I don't get it either. Comment #14 makes us not create an SFT for the
structure element, which of course works around the existing problem as
-fno-tree-salias does. How can the addressability of Succ make a diffe
endif
if(n2==2097152)RETURN
STOP
end subroutine testf
$ elm3b11:/home/pawar> /opt/gcc-nightly/trunk-20060323/bin/gfortran -c -o
test.o -ftree-loop-linear -O2 -m32test.f90
gfortran: Internal error: Segmentation fault (program f951)
Please submit a full bug rep
--- Comment #19 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-23 22:33
---
> How can the addressability of Succ make a difference for the testcase?
How do we determine that the SMT of the structure type and the SFT alias?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25737
--- Comment #4 from malitzke at metronets dot com 2006-03-23 22:35 ---
If you are referring to 26781 as opposed to the present 26833; yes, the first
was from linuxkernel-2.6.16 and the present is from yasm-0.4.0.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26833
--- Comment #5 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-23 22:37 ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> If you are referring to 26781 as opposed to the present 26833; yes, the first
> was from linuxkernel-2.6.16 and the present is from yasm-0.4.0.
Actually it was in reference to PR 26806 whi
--- Comment #7 from amodra at bigpond dot net dot au 2006-03-23 22:37
---
fixed
--
amodra at bigpond dot net dot au changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIG
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-23 22:45 ---
Confirmed, PR 25669 and bug 18003 are very closely related (it might turn out
this is a dup of one of them).
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
$ elm3b11:/home/pawar> /opt/gcc-nightly/trunk-20060323/bin/gfortran -O2 -m32
test.f90
test.f90: In function ld_mod:
test.f90:1: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault
Please submit a full bug report,
with preprocessed source if appropriate.
See http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs.html> for instru
This seems to be similar to a really old bug on one of the mailing lists,
assuming that it's actually a bug:
class A
{
protected:
void f(){}
};
class B :
public A
{
int c;
};
class C :
public B
{
protected:
void f()
{
A::f(); // ok - see http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/1997-10/ms
--- Comment #1 from Simon80 at gmail dot com 2006-03-23 23:44 ---
Sorry for double posting, but here's the g++ output:
# g++ testcase.cpp
testcase.cpp: In member function 'void C::f()':
testcase.cpp:4: error: 'void A::f()' is protected
testcase.cpp:20: error: within this context
Also,
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-24 00:02 ---
IIRC (there is a bug about this but I cannot find it) pointer to member
functions are special as you cannot use them to evade accessibility.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26838
--- Comment #4 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-24 01:59 ---
Subject: Bug 20448
Author: jsm28
Date: Fri Mar 24 01:59:35 2006
New Revision: 112346
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=112346
Log:
PR libstdc++/20448
PR libstdc++/20451
* s
--- Comment #1 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-24 01:59 ---
Subject: Bug 20451
Author: jsm28
Date: Fri Mar 24 01:59:35 2006
New Revision: 112346
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=112346
Log:
PR libstdc++/20448
PR libstdc++/20451
* s
--- Comment #5 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-24 02:05 ---
Subject: Bug 20448
Author: jsm28
Date: Fri Mar 24 02:05:46 2006
New Revision: 112347
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=112347
Log:
PR libstdc++/20448
PR libstdc++/20451
* l
--- Comment #2 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-24 02:05 ---
Subject: Bug 20451
Author: jsm28
Date: Fri Mar 24 02:05:46 2006
New Revision: 112347
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=112347
Log:
PR libstdc++/20448
PR libstdc++/20451
* l
--- Comment #3 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-24 02:06
---
I think I have a fix for this. The internal_unit is a single static variable
declared in unit.c. So when we have recursive calls to internal IO we are
stepping on our own feet.
The dtp structure also contains a
The following testcase:
extern int f1 (void **);
extern void f2 (void *);
struct s
{
unsigned char field1;
int field2;
};
static inline struct s *
get_globals (void)
{
struct s * r;
void * rr;
if (f1 (&rr))
return 0;
r = rr;
if (! r)
{
extern struct s t;
r = &t
--- Comment #1 from geoffk at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-24 03:00 ---
Passing -fno-tree-dominator-opts disables sufficient optimisations to avoid the
problem.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26840
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-24 03:03 ---
Caused by:
2006-03-20 Jeff Law <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* tree-pass.h (pass_phi_only_copy_prop): Delete.
(pass_phi_only_cprop): Declare.
* passes.c (init_optimization_passes): Replace pass_phi_o
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-24 03:04 ---
I am adding the build keyword as this source would come from crt3.c which fixes
a different build failure.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #1 from geoffk at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-24 03:14 ---
I'll work around 26840.
--
geoffk at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-24 03:32 ---
This happens also on x86_64-linux-gnu.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #2 from patchapp at dberlin dot org 2006-03-24 03:38 ---
Subject: Bug number pr26026
A patch for this bug has been added to the patch tracker.
The mailing list url for the patch is
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-03/msg01468.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/sh
--- Comment #20 from dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-24 04:00
---
Subject: Re: [4.1/4.2 Regression] ACATS tests
c974001 and c974013 do not terminate with struct aliasing
On Thu, 2006-03-23 at 22:21 +, ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org
wrote:
>
> --- Comment #17
--- Comment #21 from dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-24 04:04
---
Subject: Re: [4.1/4.2 Regression] ACATS tests
c974001 and c974013 do not terminate with struct aliasing
On Thu, 2006-03-23 at 22:33 +, ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org
wrote:
>
> --- Comment #19
--- Comment #6 from law at redhat dot com 2006-03-24 06:43 ---
Subject: Re: [4.2 Regression] ICE
Segmentation fault
On Thu, 2006-03-23 at 22:19 +, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> void yasm_lc3b__parse_insn( int num_info, int *num_operands
> , int *operands, int op)
--- Comment #7 from law at redhat dot com 2006-03-24 06:45 ---
Ultimately this is the same root cause as 26806.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 26806 ***
--
law at redhat dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #11 from law at redhat dot com 2006-03-24 06:45 ---
*** Bug 26833 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
law at redhat dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from Simon80 at gmail dot com 2006-03-24 07:01 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> IIRC (there is a bug about this but I cannot find it) pointer to member
> functions are special as you cannot use them to evade accessibility.
>
I thought of this after I reported the bug, and
--- Comment #12 from law at redhat dot com 2006-03-24 07:49 ---
Subject: Re: New: ICE at
gcc/tree-gimple.c:269
On Wed, 2006-03-22 at 16:47 +, jb at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> The capacita benchmark, part of the polyhedron benchmark suite, fails with the
> ICE in the summ
101 - 132 of 132 matches
Mail list logo
