--- Comment #2 from reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-15 09:22
---
Subject: Bug 28387
Author: reichelt
Date: Sat Jul 15 09:22:17 2006
New Revision: 115465
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=115465
Log:
PR c++/28387
* decl2.c (cplus_decl_attribu
--- Comment #2 from reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-15 09:29
---
Subject: Bug 28294
Author: reichelt
Date: Sat Jul 15 09:29:32 2006
New Revision: 115466
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=115466
Log:
PR c++/28294
* semantics.c (finish_offseto
--- Comment #3 from reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-15 09:34
---
Subject: Bug 28294
Author: reichelt
Date: Sat Jul 15 09:34:27 2006
New Revision: 115467
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=115467
Log:
PR c++/28294
* semantics.c (finish_offseto
--- Comment #4 from reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-15 09:38
---
Subject: Bug 28294
Author: reichelt
Date: Sat Jul 15 09:38:02 2006
New Revision: 115468
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=115468
Log:
PR c++/28294
* semantics.c (finish_offseto
--- Comment #3 from reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-15 09:44
---
Subject: Bug 28249
Author: reichelt
Date: Sat Jul 15 09:44:36 2006
New Revision: 115469
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=115469
Log:
PR c++/28249
* parser.c (cp_parser_check_d
--- Comment #4 from reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-15 09:54
---
Subject: Bug 28249
Author: reichelt
Date: Sat Jul 15 09:54:25 2006
New Revision: 115470
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=115470
Log:
PR c++/28249
* parser.c (cp_parser_check_d
--- Comment #5 from reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-15 09:58
---
Subject: Bug 28249
Author: reichelt
Date: Sat Jul 15 09:58:47 2006
New Revision: 115471
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=115471
Log:
PR c++/28249
* parser.c (cp_parser_check_d
--- Comment #3 from reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-15 10:08
---
Fixed on mainline.
--
reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
S
--- Comment #5 from reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-15 10:08
---
Fixed on mainline, 4.1 branch, and 4.0 branch.
--
reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #6 from reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-15 10:10
---
Fixed on mainline, 4.1 branch, and 4.0 branch.
--
reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #9 from tbm at cyrius dot com 2006-07-15 10:18 ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> Could I get clarification if the following error is a desired effect of this
> change. Prior to this, the included program gave no error. I believe the
> change was caused by this patch.
>
> e.c
--- Comment #10 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-15 10:27
---
(In reply to comment #9)
> So apparently this is invalid code. However, I feel very strongly that a
> point
> release of GCC should *not* introduce a new error - Mark, please modify the
> patch applied to the 4.1
--- Comment #95 from jakub at redhat dot com 2006-07-15 10:34 ---
Can this be revisited now?
namespaces now can have the visibility attribute, although it has to be
present on each opening namespace.
Guess sticking __attribute__((__visibility__("default"))) into
_GLIBCXX_BEGIN_NAMESPACE
--- Comment #11 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-15 10:41
---
Hmm, actually the defect report about the code in comment #6 is still active so
I agree that we should not reject it on the release branch.
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/cwg_active.html#563
--
h
--- Comment #12 from tbm at cyrius dot com 2006-07-15 10:42 ---
(In reply to comment #10)
> Why? It is better to reject invalid code even than keeping backwards
> compatiblity.
No, it's not - not in a minor point release. Users expect that a minor point
release is backwards compatible
Testcase:
extern int i;
extern "C" int i;
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/cwg_active.html#563
is still active. We currently reject this on the 4.1 branch and the mainline
but that is because of the patch for PR 27227.
--
Summary: [DR 563] linkage and variables
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfi
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-15 10:43 ---
Suspending until the Defect report is really closed.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #13 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-15 10:48
---
(In reply to comment #12)
> Upgrading from 4.1.1 to 4.1.2 should be painless, i.e. fix bugs only. But now
> we suddenly have 13 package build failures in Debian.
It is a bug fix, just not what normal people think
--- Comment #14 from tbm at cyrius dot com 2006-07-15 10:58 ---
(In reply to comment #13)
> > Upgrading from 4.1.1 to 4.1.2 should be painless, i.e. fix bugs only. But
> > now
> > we suddenly have 13 package build failures in Debian.
> It is a bug fix, just not what normal people think
--- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-15 11:40 ---
This is going wrong in RTL land. Tree optimization looks ok - we're merging
the
two IVs and using a wrapping unsigned IV going from 0xff81 to 127:
:
ivtmp.33D.1833 = 0ff81;
jD.1769 = 0;
:;
if (ivtmp.
--- Comment #3 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-15 11:54 ---
Goes away with -floop-optimize2. *sigh*
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-15 13:40 ---
> Index: gcc/fortran/trans-common.c
> ===
> *** gcc/fortran/trans-common.c (revision 115409)
> --- gcc/fortran/trans-common.c (working copy)
> **
--- Comment #2 from ams at gnu dot org 2006-07-15 13:45 ---
Created an attachment (id=11892)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=11892&action=view)
Fixes #28102
(In reply to comment #1)
> Why is GNU target including linux.h header at all?
> TARGET_C99_FUNCTIONS should be
--- Comment #2 from lmillward at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-15 14:45
---
Subject: Bug 28292
Author: lmillward
Date: Sat Jul 15 14:44:48 2006
New Revision: 115474
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=115474
Log:
PR c++/28292
* decl2.c (acceptable_java_
--- Comment #3 from lmillward at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-15 14:46
---
Fixed.
--
lmillward at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSI
On Jul 15, 2006, at 10:45 PM, ams at gnu dot org wrote:
Because the rules in config.gcc say so:
And that is not why, but that is what is causing linux.h being included?
Again why is Linux.h being included?
-- Pinski
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gmail dot com 2006-07-15 14:56 ---
Subject: Re: [4.2 Regression] GNU Hurd bootstrap error: 'OPTION_GLIBC'
undeclared
On Jul 15, 2006, at 10:45 PM, ams at gnu dot org wrote:
> Because the rules in config.gcc say so:
And that is not why, but that is what
--- Comment #2 from lmillward at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-15 15:00
---
Subject: Bug 28269
Author: lmillward
Date: Sat Jul 15 15:00:28 2006
New Revision: 115475
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=115475
Log:
PR c++/28269
* parser.c (cp_parser_elabo
--- Comment #3 from lmillward at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-15 15:01
---
Fixed.
--
lmillward at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSI
--- Comment #4 from ams at gnu dot org 2006-07-15 15:17 ---
Subject: Re: [4.2 Regression] GNU Hurd bootstrap error: 'OPTION_GLIBC'
undeclared
> Because the rules in config.gcc say so:
And that is not why, but that is what is causing linux.h being
included? Again why is Linux
On Jul 16, 2006, at 12:17 AM, ams at gnu dot org wrote:
GNU and GNU/Linux are similar enough not to warrant duplication of the
code from linux.h in gnu.h.
Depends, the duplication is small anyways as linux.h is only 129 lines
(including copyright and comments).
In fact it is way wrong now any
--- Comment #5 from pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu 2006-07-15 15:27
---
Subject: Re: [4.2 Regression] GNU Hurd bootstrap error: 'OPTION_GLIBC'
undeclared
On Jul 16, 2006, at 12:17 AM, ams at gnu dot org wrote:
> GNU and GNU/Linux are similar enough not to warrant duplication of t
--- Comment #6 from ams at gnu dot org 2006-07-15 15:45 ---
Subject: Re: [4.2 Regression] GNU Hurd bootstrap error: 'OPTION_GLIBC'
undeclared
Only the following code will be duplicated which is hardly any
after all:
That is from [gcc]/gcc/config/linux.h, I'm talking about
[gcc]/
On Jul 16, 2006, at 12:45 AM, ams at gnu dot org wrote:
That is from [gcc]/gcc/config/linux.h, I'm talking about
[gcc]/gcc/config/i386/{linux,gnu}.h. Which is also the one causing
problems without the patch I sent.
bzzz, wrong. TARGET_C99_FUNCTIONS is not defined anywhere in
config/i386/linu
--- Comment #7 from pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu 2006-07-15 15:58
---
Subject: Re: [4.2 Regression] GNU Hurd bootstrap error: 'OPTION_GLIBC'
undeclared
On Jul 16, 2006, at 12:45 AM, ams at gnu dot org wrote:
> That is from [gcc]/gcc/config/linux.h, I'm talking about
> [gcc]/gcc
--- Comment #8 from ams at gnu dot org 2006-07-15 16:07 ---
Subject: Re: [4.2 Regression] GNU Hurd bootstrap error: 'OPTION_GLIBC'
undeclared
Can you please just apply the patch and close the bug?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28102
On Jul 16, 2006, at 1:07 AM, ams at gnu dot org wrote:
Can you please just apply the patch and close the bug?
Why it is not obvious and I say the patch is incorrect.
-- Pinski
--- Comment #9 from pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu 2006-07-15 16:10
---
Subject: Re: [4.2 Regression] GNU Hurd bootstrap error: 'OPTION_GLIBC'
undeclared
On Jul 16, 2006, at 1:07 AM, ams at gnu dot org wrote:
> Can you please just apply the patch and close the bug?
Why it is not
On Jul 16, 2006, at 1:10 AM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
Why it is not obvious and I say the patch is incorrect.
Oh did I forget (again) to say you really should be posting
patches to the gcc-patches mailing list. If you want them
be included. And I still say the patch is incorrect. I already
expl
--- Comment #10 from pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu 2006-07-15 16:14
---
Subject: Re: [4.2 Regression] GNU Hurd bootstrap error: 'OPTION_GLIBC'
undeclared
On Jul 16, 2006, at 1:10 AM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
>
> Why it is not obvious and I say the patch is incorrect.
Oh did I forget
--- Comment #11 from ams at gnu dot org 2006-07-15 16:25 ---
Subject: Re: [4.2 Regression] GNU Hurd bootstrap error: 'OPTION_GLIBC'
undeclared
> Can you please just apply the patch and close the bug?
Why it is not obvious and I say the patch is incorrect.
The patch is correct,
--- Comment #12 from ams at gnu dot org 2006-07-15 16:27 ---
Subject: Re: [4.2 Regression] GNU Hurd bootstrap error: 'OPTION_GLIBC'
undeclared
Oh did I forget (again) to say you really should be posting patches
to the gcc-patches mailing list.
Thanks. I'm actually quite aware o
On Jul 16, 2006, at 1:25 AM, ams at gnu dot org wrote:
The patch is correct, that you think that the code we use from
*/linux.h should be in */gnu.h is not related to this bug. This is
the setup we have used for almost 10 years, and I see no reason to
change it. The setup works, it minimises
--- Comment #13 from pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu 2006-07-15 16:29
---
Subject: Re: [4.2 Regression] GNU Hurd bootstrap error: 'OPTION_GLIBC'
undeclared
On Jul 16, 2006, at 1:25 AM, ams at gnu dot org wrote:
> The patch is correct, that you think that the code we use from
> */l
--- Comment #14 from ams at gnu dot org 2006-07-15 16:55 ---
Subject: Re: [4.2 Regression] GNU Hurd bootstrap error: 'OPTION_GLIBC'
undeclared
I think we will have to agree to disagree on this, since neither you
or I will change our minds. :-)
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_b
--- Comment #8 from mrs at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-15 17:03 ---
Subject: Bug 28280
Author: mrs
Date: Sat Jul 15 17:03:44 2006
New Revision: 115479
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=115479
Log:
Revert:
PR c/28280
* c-parser.c (c_parser_typeof_spec
http://en.fon.com/
On 15 Jul 2006 16:14:34 -
"pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> --- Comment #10 from pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu 2006-07-15 16:14
> ---
> Subject: Re: [4.2 Regression] GNU Hurd bootstrap error: 'OPTION_GLIBC'
> undeclared
>
--- Comment #15 from wieseltux23 at gmail dot com 2006-07-15 18:00 ---
Subject: Re: [4.2 Regression] GNU Hurd bootstrap error:
'OPTION_GLIBC' undeclared
http://en.fon.com/
On 15 Jul 2006 16:14:34 -
"pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> --- C
http://en.fon.com/
On 15 Jul 2006 16:25:10 -
"ams at gnu dot org" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> --- Comment #11 from ams at gnu dot org 2006-07-15 16:25 ---
> Subject: Re: [4.2 Regression] GNU Hurd bootstrap error: 'OPTION_GLIBC'
> undeclared
>
>> Can you please just apply
--- Comment #16 from wieseltux23 at gmail dot com 2006-07-15 18:01 ---
Subject: Re: [4.2 Regression] GNU Hurd bootstrap error:
'OPTION_GLIBC' undeclared
http://en.fon.com/
On 15 Jul 2006 16:25:10 -
"ams at gnu dot org" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> --- Comment #11 from
! see OpenMP 2.5 spec, page 64 and A.30 on page 175
program tst_lastpriv
integer nc
parameter (nc=100)
integer a(nc),i
!$omp parallel do lastprivate(i)
do i=1,nc
a(i) = i
end do
if (i.ne.nc+1) then
print *,'failed, i=',i
else
--- Comment #9 from mrs at apple dot com 2006-07-15 18:52 ---
THis bug should be reopened.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28280
--- Comment #10 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-15 18:58
---
Reopening because Mike cannot do it himself as he does not know the trick of
using his @gcc.gnu.org.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #9 from enrico dot scholz at informatik dot tu-chemnitz dot de
2006-07-15 19:22 ---
*** Bug 28362 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
enrico dot scholz at informatik dot tu-chemnitz dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #1 from enrico dot scholz at informatik dot tu-chemnitz dot de
2006-07-15 19:22 ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 27363 ***
--
enrico dot scholz at informatik dot tu-chemnitz dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #10 from enrico dot scholz at informatik dot tu-chemnitz dot de
2006-07-15 19:26 ---
Bug #28362 contains a self contained example. Basically, it needs only
| some_struct = *some_other_struct;
to trigger this bug. I wonder for how much other segfaults/brokeness this bug
is
--- Comment #3 from tbm at cyrius dot com 2006-07-15 20:10 ---
Here's another test case, taken from maxdb:
50015:[EMAIL PROTECTED]: ~/tmp/src/gcc/delta/bin] gcc-4.1 -c -fPIC -O2 28243.c
28243.c: In function âpa01CompareKeywordWâ:
28243.c:25: fatal error: internal consistency failure
--- Comment #9 from paolo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-15 20:30 ---
Subject: Bug 28277
Author: paolo
Date: Sat Jul 15 20:30:50 2006
New Revision: 115485
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=115485
Log:
2006-07-15 Paolo Carlini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR libstd
--- Comment #11 from lmillward at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-15 20:38
---
I've posted a patch which fixes the bug properly on the 4.0 branch and allows
the testcase added to pass.
URL - http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-07/msg00689.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bu
--- Comment #5 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-15 20:39
---
> Eric, do you have any new information on this problem? I cannot reproduce it.
I'm totally at a loss. I don't have any working debugger on the machine, the
system debugger enters an infinite loop:
azuma% /usr
--
ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Last recon
--- Comment #6 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-15 21:47 ---
Created an attachment (id=11893)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=11893&action=view)
Patch for 4.1
Adapted patch for 4.1.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27980
--- Comment #4 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-15 22:58 ---
Probably latent on mainline.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28243
--- Comment #7 from kkojima at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-15 23:12 ---
Fixed.
--
kkojima at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRM
--- Comment #8 from kkojima at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-15 23:13 ---
Fixed.
--
kkojima at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRM
66 matches
Mail list logo
