$blargh.foo()V
at xxx.main(xxx.java:5)
$ gcj --version
gcj (GCC) 4.2.0 20060606 (experimental)
--
Summary: Trampolines not generated for private inner class
methods.
Product: gcc
Version: 4.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
--- Comment #1 from csm at gnu dot org 2006-06-07 00:42 ---
Created an attachment (id=11618)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=11618&action=view)
Test case.
Test case.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27925
--- Comment #17 from amacleod at redhat dot com 2006-06-07 00:51 ---
Subject: Bug 27793
Author: amacleod
Date: Wed Jun 7 00:51:27 2006
New Revision: 114458
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=114458
Log:
2006-06-06 Andrew MacLeod <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR mid
--- Comment #2 from dje at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-07 02:31 ---
Can you provide any information about what initially produces the
(subreg:DF (reg:DI)) ?
--
dje at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #10 from csm at gnu dot org 2006-06-07 02:52 ---
Duplicate of bug 1305. A workaround for this case exists.
The bytecode problem mentioned below has been filed as bug 27925.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 1305 ***
--
csm at gnu dot org changed:
--- Comment #6 from csm at gnu dot org 2006-06-07 02:52 ---
*** Bug 27908 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
csm at gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #5 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-07 03:13
---
This is no longer giving a segfault on i686-pc-linux-gnu.
In file foo.f90:3
subroutine FOO
1
Error: MODULE attribute conflicts with PROCEDURE attribute at (1)
In file foo.f90:4
in
--- Comment #11 from r_ovidius at eml dot cc 2006-06-07 03:16 ---
Alright, but, it seems strange that code that worked 2 months ago is suddenly
broken due to a bug filed 6 years ago. The "Regression" status of this
particular situation and this particular code seems to get lost when cal
--- Comment #12 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-07 03:23
---
(In reply to comment #11)
> Alright, but, it seems strange that code that worked 2 months ago is suddenly
> broken due to a bug filed 6 years ago. The "Regression" status of this
> particular situation and this pa
--- Comment #2 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-07 03:28
---
I would like to work on this one. The range check is only looking for ARITH_OK
when it could also see ARITH_UNDERFLOW or ARITH_OVERFLOW.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19310
--- Comment #13 from csm at gnu dot org 2006-06-07 04:49 ---
Very little (I'd assume no) code in Classpath requires that the `volatile'
modifier be properly supported. 0.91 introduced a class that did, that's all.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27908
--- Comment #6 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-07 05:07 ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> This is no longer giving a segfault on i686-pc-linux-gnu.
> end
> 1
> Internal Error at (1):
> gfc_get_default_type(): Bad symbol
> Maybe this is good enough?
There is an internal erro
--- Comment #9 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-07 05:19 ---
Created an attachment (id=11620)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=11620&action=view)
shorest testcase I can reduce to
This is the shorest testcase I could reduce this to, I did it on powerpc-darwi
--- Comment #10 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-07 05:30
---
The last time I ran into this was back in 2005, and I had committed the
following patch:
2005-08-29 Andrew Pinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR middle-end/23408
* ipa-inline.c (cgraph_decide_inlining_in
--- Comment #11 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-07 05:50
---
The dtor for "Ref, std::allocator > > >" is the
node which has been freed.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27882
--- Comment #12 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-07 06:00
---
Wait in tree-inline.c, we do:
/* Update callgraph if needed. */
cgraph_remove_node (cg_edge->callee);
Isn't that wrong as we could inline the callee a couple of times?
Don't we want to do:
/* Update callgra
--- Comment #6 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-07 06:19
---
> The idea of this patch seems OK, but let's find a way to avoid duplicating the
> declare_tmp_vars code, perhaps by making another small routine to find the
> outermost BIND_EXPR in a function?
Do you really wan
--- Comment #13 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-07 06:37
---
Nothing I have tried so far has worked and I don't understand how we could
remove a node from here.
Oh, I see remove node is correct, we duplicate the nodes which I did not know
about until now.
--
http://gcc
101 - 118 of 118 matches
Mail list logo
