--- Comment #5 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2006-04-18 08:08 ---
Subject: Bug 26821
Author: bonzini
Date: Tue Apr 18 08:08:47 2006
New Revision: 113025
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=113025
Log:
2006-04-18 Paolo Bonzini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR tree-optim
gcc/ada/gnatvsn.adb assumes that the version_string defined in gcc/version.c
never exceeds a maximum length which it defines to be 32 (in
gcc/ada/gnatvsn.ads). Under certain circumstances (e.g. experimental GCC with
a date, plus a version suffix), this assumption is wrong. The function
GNATVSN.Gn
--- Comment #1 from ludovic at ludovic-brenta dot org 2006-04-18 08:13
---
Created an attachment (id=11290)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=11290&action=view)
Proposed fix for PR 27194
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27194
--- Comment #9 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2006-04-18 08:13 ---
I'm reverting the PR19653 regclass.c patch for now. Joern of course if you
want to post your patch for testing, it'll help reinstating the patch in 4.3.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27117
The C99 standard states (6.4.4.1) that integer constants without a
suffix are converted to the first of the following types that can
represent their value:
decimal constants: 1) int 2) long 3) long long
hex/oct constants: 1) int 2) unsigned int 3) long 4) unsigned long
--- Comment #1 from mhx-perl at gmx dot net 2006-04-18 08:17 ---
Created an attachment (id=11291)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=11291&action=view)
test code to reproduce the described behaviour
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27195
--- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-18 08:21 ---
6.10.1/3
The resulting tokens
compose the controlling constant expression which is evaluated according to the
rules of
6.6, except that all signed integer types and all unsigned integer types act as
if they have
the
--- Comment #10 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2006-04-18 08:23 ---
Subject: Bug 27117
Author: bonzini
Date: Tue Apr 18 08:23:39 2006
New Revision: 113026
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=113026
Log:
2006-04-18 Paolo Bonzini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR target/27
--- Comment #26 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2006-04-18 08:23 ---
Subject: Bug 19653
Author: bonzini
Date: Tue Apr 18 08:23:39 2006
New Revision: 113026
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=113026
Log:
2006-04-18 Paolo Bonzini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR target/27
--- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-18 08:34 ---
Support for this was ripped out of gcc in 3.4 I think. It won't come back.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #6 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-18 09:02 ---
Fixed on the mainline. Btw, this is really wrong-code. Can you apply to the
4.1 branch, too, please?
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #4 from reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-18 10:43
---
Hi Mark,
I was just testing the following btw.:
===
--- gcc/gcc/cp/parser.c (revision 112814)
+++ gcc/gcc/cp/parser.c (working copy)
@@ -10930,6 +109
--
jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-
|
--- Comment #11 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2006-04-18 11:17
---
Subject: Re: function result is dereferenced error
On Tue, 18 Apr 2006, falk at debian dot org wrote:
> Uhm, this has nothing to do at all with evaluation order. Evaluation
> order of arguments is unspecified (n
--- Comment #3 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2006-04-18 11:22 ---
Subject: Re: hex and oct constants are converted to
wrong type
On Tue, 18 Apr 2006, rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> 6.10.1/3
>
> The resulting tokens
> compose the controlling constant expression which i
--- Comment #7 from amodra at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-18 12:34 ---
Subject: Bug 27095
Author: amodra
Date: Tue Apr 18 12:34:07 2006
New Revision: 113030
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=113030
Log:
PR middle-end/27095
* builtins.c: (expand_built
--- Comment #8 from amodra at bigpond dot net dot au 2006-04-18 12:35
---
As Roger requested, I was waiting a few days to apply the patch on the 4.1
branch.
--
amodra at bigpond dot net dot au changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #12 from falk at debian dot org 2006-04-18 12:37 ---
(In reply to comment #11)
> No, this testcase is unspecified, not undefined. There are intervening
> sequence points at the start and end of each call to function
OK.
> However, the evaluation of the
> arguments to pri
On Tue, 18 Apr 2006, falk at debian dot org wrote:
> > However, the evaluation of the
> > arguments to printf may overlap and the order is unspecified, so there are
> > many possible outputs from the program (but "3 2 1" and "3 1 1", for
> > example, are not possible).
>
> I don't understand w
--- Comment #13 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2006-04-18 12:57
---
Subject: Re: function result is dereferenced error
On Tue, 18 Apr 2006, falk at debian dot org wrote:
> > However, the evaluation of the
> > arguments to printf may overlap and the order is unspecified, so ther
--- Comment #4 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2006-04-18
13:14 ---
Subject: Re: [4.2 Regression] libgcc2.c:382: internal compiler error: in
prune_unused_types_update_strings, at dwarf2out.c:14009
> Preprocessed source?
Attached.
Dave
--- Comment #5 from dave at hi
--- Comment #6 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2006-04-18 13:24 ---
Subject: Bug 26821
Author: bonzini
Date: Tue Apr 18 13:24:45 2006
New Revision: 113036
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=113036
Log:
2006-04-18 Paolo Bonzini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR tree-optim
--- Comment #7 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2006-04-18 13:25 ---
patch committed.
--
bonzini at gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #11 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2006-04-18 13:26 ---
bug is latent again :-)
--
bonzini at gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNE
--- Comment #4 from mhx-perl at gmx dot net 2006-04-18 13:26 ---
Subject: Re: hex and oct constants are converted to
wrong type
On 2006-04-18, at 11:22:00 -, joseph at codesourcery dot com wrote:
> 142) Thus, on an implementation where INT_MAX is 0x7FFF and UINT_MAX is
> 0xF
--- Comment #8 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2006-04-18 13:47 ---
Seems similar to PR24230, but cannot be fixed really in the same way.
--
bonzini at gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--
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 #4 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2006-04-18 13:55 ---
richi: if bD.1520 does not have a default def because it is unused, your fix
makes sense. Can you confirm that it is "b" and not "c" that does not have a
default def, i.e. that "c" does have a default def?
--
http://gc
--- Comment #6 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2006-04-18 14:07 ---
pinskia: You're right in some sense but, shudder, this will make things
slw.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26600
--- Comment #5 from rguenther at suse dot de 2006-04-18 14:07 ---
Subject: Re: [4.1/4.2 Regression] Segfault in
find_lattice_value() for complex operands.
On Tue, 18 Apr 2006, bonzini at gnu dot org wrote:
> richi: if bD.1520 does not have a default def because it is unused, your fix
--- Comment #15 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2006-04-18 14:12 ---
running a 4.1 bootstrap.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26643
--- Comment #16 from rguenther at suse dot de 2006-04-18 14:14 ---
Subject: Re: [4.1 Regression] Linux matroxfb_probe
miscompiled
> --- Comment #15 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2006-04-18 14:12 ---
> running a 4.1 bootstrap.
It's been in our SUSE tree for some while and so su
--- Comment #8 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2006-04-18 14:15 ---
Mark, I don't believe there is any chance that it be fixed in 4.0/4.1?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20643
--- Comment #7 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2006-04-18 14:16 ---
Caused by removing ADDRESSOF. :-(
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20983
--- Comment #18 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2006-04-18 14:23 ---
patch committed to 4.1 too.
--
bonzini at gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASS
--- Comment #17 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2006-04-18 14:23 ---
Subject: Bug 26643
Author: bonzini
Date: Tue Apr 18 14:22:59 2006
New Revision: 113041
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=113041
Log:
2006-04-18 Paolo Bonzini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR tree-opti
--- Comment #9 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2006-04-18 14:29 ---
The mem is for a
(const_vector:V4SF [
(const_double:SF -NaN [-NaN])
(const_double:SF -NaN [-NaN])
(const_double:SF -NaN [-NaN])
(const_double:SF -NaN [-NaN])
])
--
http://gcc.gnu.org
--- Comment #10 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2006-04-18 14:39 ---
It's probably two different bugs, since the 4.1 bug is in loop.c. We need to
add a can_assign_to_reg_p call before creating a movable.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27158
--- Comment #6 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-18 14:46 ---
I'll bootstrap & test the obvious patch then.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #7 from paolo dot bonzini at lu dot unisi dot ch 2006-04-18
14:47 ---
Subject: Re: [4.1/4.2 Regression] Segfault in find_lattice_value()
for complex operands.
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> --- Comment #6 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-18 14:46
--- Comment #8 from rguenther at suse dot de 2006-04-18 15:03 ---
Subject: Re: [4.1/4.2 Regression] Segfault in
find_lattice_value() for complex operands.
On Tue, 18 Apr 2006, paolo dot bonzini at lu dot unisi dot ch wrote:
> > I'll bootstrap & test the obvious patch then.
> >
> I
--- Comment #17 from marc dot glisse at normalesup dot org 2006-04-18
15:10 ---
(In reply to comment #15)
> So there's a problem with the multiple-include-protection in glibc!
Yes, the way it is done in solaris is way more convenient. There, stdlib.h
includes a file iso/stdlib_iso.h th
--- Comment #11 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2006-04-18 15:20 ---
... but then anyway the bug pops up in reload. So it is definitely the same
bug as PR24230, and here is a modified version of the PR24230 testcase:
/* Compile with -O2 -maltivec */
#define REGLIST
There is 256 file descriptors limition for fopen(32 bits) under solaris.
Even worse these files descriptions has to be [0,255].
which means if you use open first than fopen, you get even less available file
descriptions for fopen. It is common for a server has more than 256 file
descrptions.
So I w
--- Comment #4 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2006-04-18 15:27 ---
And is the precision only encoded in FIELD_DECLs, for the C front-end as well?
--
bonzini at gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #12 from tbm at cyrius dot com 2006-04-18 15:26 ---
also fails on 4.2.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27158
In ext/new_allocator.h and a few other files that declare things in namespace
__gnu_cxx, size_t and ptrdiff_t are missing a std::. I know it does not break
anything for a standard use, but such corrections will be necessary in order to
clean the global namespace for systems like glibc or solaris wh
--- Comment #6 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-18 16:05 ---
Now it is a blocker if it happens on x86-linux-gnu also.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-18 16:07 ---
These files are for debuging gcc only.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27193
--- Comment #2 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-18 16:10 ---
The fix turns out to be almost insulting: One type and one unnecessary gfc_todo
(not the original one, by the way!)
Index: gcc/fortran/trans-array.c
===
--- Comment #3 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2006-04-18 16:12 ---
Without getting in the merit of the bug, let me point out that GCC is *not*
free to make hard errors at its own will. What is an error and what isn't is
regulated by the standard, and GCC aims at adhering to the standard.
--- Comment #7 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-18 16:15 ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> pinskia: You're right in some sense but, shudder, this will make things
> slw.
No it will not. I and others have sped up the HWI being 64bit case as
PPC-darwin was 32bit until the 64
--- Comment #10 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2006-04-18 16:18 ---
No, except in the unlikely case that the fix is hard to backport to 4.0.x.
Backports to older release branches (in this case 4.0.x) are evaluated on a
case-by-case basis.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id
--- Comment #8 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2006-04-18 16:22 ---
Richard, Roger's patch for VIEW_CONVERT_EXPR folding hit mainline now.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26069
--- Comment #16 from janis at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-18 16:23 ---
I verified that the failure starts with Jeff's patch:
r110705 | law | 2006-02-07 10:31:27 -0800 (Tue, 07 Feb 2006)
http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?view=rev&rev=110705
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2
--- Comment #5 from janis at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-18 16:52 ---
As of mainline 20060417 the test is still failing on powerpc-linux, although it
passes for AIX and Darwin. Until December 2005 when Alan fixed the target
specifier, the test had not been run on powerpc64-linux with -m
--
aph at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|WAITING
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26858
--- Comment #9 from law at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-18 17:22 ---
Subject: Bug 27087
Author: law
Date: Tue Apr 18 17:22:05 2006
New Revision: 113051
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=113051
Log:
PR tree-optimization/27087
* tree-ssa-copy.c (may_pro
--- Comment #10 from law at redhat dot com 2006-04-18 17:24 ---
Patch installed on 4.1 branch too.
--
law at redhat dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Statu
make[5]: Leaving directory `/home/marcus/projects/gcc/build/gcc'
/home/marcus/projects/gcc/build/./gcc/xgcc
-B/home/marcus/projects/gcc/build/./gcc/
-B/home/marcus/projects/gcc/BIN//x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/bin/
-B/home/marcus/projects/gcc/BIN//x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/lib/ -isystem
/home/marcus/pr
--- Comment #1 from marcus at jet dot franken dot de 2006-04-18 17:35
---
this is Revision 113051.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27200
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-18 17:35 ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 27188 ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #7 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-18 17:35 ---
*** Bug 27200 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #23 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-18 17:36
---
> It looks like there was a C testcase, which has now been fixed; is there still
> an issue for languages other than Ada?
I presume you meant is there still an issue for languages where everything is
addressable
--- Comment #18 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2006-04-18 17:49 ---
Probably this PR should be suspended, while waiting for the resolution of DR
456:
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/lwg-active.html#456
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6257
--- Comment #8 from sje at cup dot hp dot com 2006-04-18 18:34 ---
I tried Geoff's patch from
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-04/msg00651.html
and that fixed my bootstrap failure on ia64-hp-hpux11.23.
--
sje at cup dot hp dot com changed:
What|Removed
Right now an external-to-libgcj program can't include
both cni.h and jni.h from the same file.
This is wrong.
--
Summary: can't include cni.h and jni.h in the same file
Product: gcc
Version: 4.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
--- Comment #5 from mark at codesourcery dot com 2006-04-18 19:41 ---
Subject: Re: [4.0/4.1/4.2 regression] ICE with invalid class
name in function template
reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> --- Comment #4 from reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-18 10:43
> ---
>
Consider the following code:
$ cat t.cc
#include
static inline uint32_t delinearize(uint32_t d)
{
return d*0x8088405+1;
}
uint64_t delinearize64(uint64_t d)
{
return (uint64_t(delinearize(d))<<32) | delinearize(d>>32);
}
$ gcc -v
Using built-in specs.
Target: i686-pc-linux-gnu
Co
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-18 20:42 ---
I am 90% sure this is the normal subregister issue with 64bit on 32bit targets.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #3 from patchapp at dberlin dot org 2006-04-18 21:15 ---
Subject: Bug number PR27113
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/2006-04/msg00681.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/sh
--- Comment #6 from reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-18 21:20
---
> For example, I think "friend void T::f();" is valid, even if "T" is a
> template type parameter.
Indeed. Ouch...
We probably should have a testcase to cover this. Apparently, we don't have
one yet. Otherwise, my
--- Comment #3 from reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-18 21:22
---
Testing a patch.
--
reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assigne
--- Comment #2 from reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-18 21:23
---
Testing a patch.
--
reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assigne
[ forwarded from http://bugs.debian.org/361602 ]
I get the following ICE with gcc 4.2.0 20060415:
(sid)4048:[EMAIL PROTECTED]: ~] /usr/lib/gcc-snapshot/bin/g++ -O2 -Werror mini.c
cc1plus: warnings being treated as errors
mini.c: In function 'void do_update(int)':
mini.c:278: warning: deprecated c
--- Comment #1 from tbm at cyrius dot com 2006-04-18 21:27 ---
Created an attachment (id=11296)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=11296&action=view)
test case from delta
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27207
--- Comment #2 from tbm at cyrius dot com 2006-04-18 21:36 ---
For the record, this happens on x86_64, but not on i386 or powerpc.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27207
--- Comment #3 from amodra at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-18 23:45 ---
Subject: Bug 26026
Author: amodra
Date: Tue Apr 18 23:45:47 2006
New Revision: 113060
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=113060
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/26026
* fold-const.c (fold_
--- Comment #4 from amodra at bigpond dot net dot au 2006-04-18 23:46
---
Patch applied mainline
--
amodra at bigpond dot net dot au changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
amodra at bigpond dot net dot au changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|amodra at bigpond dot net |unassigned at gcc dot gnu
|dot au
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27181
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-19 00:36 ---
Well this works with just compiling like:
g++ -O2 -pthread t.ii
With 4.1.0 (4.1.0 20051026).
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27156
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-19 00:38 ---
Are you sure that you are not mixing operator new and deletes up so the
stlport's operator delete is being called on memory allocated from operator new
from libstdc++?
Also is there a reason why you are using stlpor
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-19 00:39 ---
Confirmed.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCON
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-19 00:49 ---
Does Sparc-FreeBSD have working TLS support?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27179
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-19 02:42 ---
Hiroshi-san,
What are you trying to use this dump file for? Is it for other processing or
just debugging GCC itself?
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |A
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-19 02:44 ---
Isn't this really a Solaris bug in that fopen is limited and not really a
libstdc++ bug? And that libstdc++ is just limited by the OS.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27198
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-19 02:45 ---
Confirmed.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCON
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-19 02:50 ---
This is just the normal subreg issue. This is a dup of PR 23812 really. The
problem is the shifts and such and really this is the same issue.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 23812 ***
--
pinskia
--- Comment #5 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-19 02:50 ---
*** Bug 27202 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #3 from bangerth at dealii dot org 2006-04-19 02:57 ---
As usual, a shorter testcase would have been appreciated. However, here there
is really nothing that we can do: the executable doesn't link at all. I
have plenty of missing symbols, for example
hide::notAssembler
hid
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-19 03:00 ---
This worked with "4.2.0 20060409".
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27207
--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-19 03:02 ---
Actually never mind, it is the -Werror I missed which makes this is a dup of
bug 25776.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 25776 ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Re
--- Comment #5 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-19 03:02 ---
*** Bug 27207 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 2006-04-19 03:03 ---
This also can ICE with valid code with -Werror and a warning was emitted, PR
27207 was that case.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
[EMAIL PROTECTED] /tmp]$ /usr/misc/pkg/gcc-4.0.2/bin/g++ -v
Using built-in specs.
Target: i686-pc-linux-gnu
Configured with: ../gcc-4.0.2/configure --prefix=/usr/misc/pkg/gcc-4.0.2
--enable-shared --enable-threads=posix --with-system-zlib --with-gnu-as
--with-as=/usr/misc/pkg/binutils-2.16/bin/as -
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-19 03:24 ---
You missed the template keyword in that the function should look like:
this->template io();
JIG::template io();
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #5 from Simon80 at gmail dot com 2006-04-19 04:54 ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> This is not a bug. While the name in a function call is looked up from
> inside the class, the name of a member function is looked up in the
> global scope. There, the member in question here is
--- Comment #18 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-19 04:59 ---
(In reply to comment #15)
> I can now compile tonto-1.0 without any kludges or tricks. That said, it
> segfaults immediately after reading the input data. I will endeavour to find
> the cause.
This happens in a cal
--- Comment #4 from igodard at pacbell dot net 2006-04-19 06:36 ---
I can send you a linked binary with symbols, for either x86 Linux or Cygwin.
Would that help?
Ivan
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26974
1 - 100 of 101 matches
Mail list logo
