--- Comment #10 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-14 08:17 ---
Fixed in trunk
Paul
--
pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Statu
--- Comment #3 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-14 08:18 ---
Fixed in trunk
Paul
--
pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status
--- Comment #6 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-14 08:18 ---
Fixed in trunk
Paul
--
pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status
--- Comment #3 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-14 08:19 ---
Fixed in trunk
Paul
--
pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status
--- Comment #4 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-14 08:19 ---
Fixed in trunk
Paul
--
pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status
--- Comment #11 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-14 08:20 ---
Fixed in trunk
Paul
--
pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Statu
--- Comment #5 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-14 08:20 ---
Fixed in trunk
Paul
--
pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status
--- Comment #2 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-14 08:21 ---
Fixed in trunk
Paul
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29428
--- Comment #5 from aph at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-14 08:39 ---
.
--
aph at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING
--- Comment #6 from aph at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-14 08:42 ---
I'm closing this bug. It never was reproducible: I think it was just a
one-off.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21900
--- Comment #10 from franke dot daniel at gmail dot com 2006-10-14 08:46
---
Don't know whether it makes any difference - but if it is the array constructor
that crashes because of unequal string lengths within its arguments, why is
there no problem with this code?
PROGRAM test_constru
--- Comment #9 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-14 09:13 ---
Subject: Bug 29323
Author: rguenth
Date: Sat Oct 14 09:13:43 2006
New Revision: 117727
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=117727
Log:
2006-10-14 Richard Guenther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR
--- Comment #10 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-14 09:14
---
Fixed for 4.1.2.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #7 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-14 09:26 ---
It's a VRP bug :/ Before VRP we have
D.6958_313 = cr_285 * cr_285;
D.6959_314 = (size_t) D.6958_313;
D.6960_315 = cr_285 + 1;
memset (number_287, D.6960_315, D.6959_314);
and after we get introduced a spur
--- Comment #8 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-14 10:18 ---
Confirmed. Reduced testcase, -O -ftree-vrp
int solver_set(int);
void solver(int c, int r, char *number)
{
int cr = c*r;
int x, y, x2, y2, n, ret;
for (x = 0; x < cr; x++)
for (y = 0; y < r; y++)
f
--- Comment #9 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-14 10:40 ---
Much simpler testcase:
void foo(int);
void solver(int cr)
{
int x, y, n;
for (y = 0; y < cr; y++)
for (x = 0; x < cr; x++) {
for (n = 0; n < cr; n++)
;
foo(cr*cr);
}
}
t35.copyprop1
--- Comment #10 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-14 10:59
---
> PA-RISC GNU/Linux is not a primary platform, so I've marked this P5. However,
> PA-RISC HP-UX is a primary platform, so if this bug manifests there, please
> set
> this back to P3 with an explanatory comment.
--
ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot|
|org |
Assigned
--- Comment #10 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-14 11:11
---
If we watch what happens to the multiplication after VRP, we see that it is
possibly an immediate uses problem:
Hardware watchpoint 6: *(union tree_node **) 3082785444
Old value = (union tree_node *) 0xb7c793dc
N
--- Comment #1 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-14 11:13 ---
Please send a question of this type to comp.lang.fortran or, indeed, to the
gfortran list. We would be happy accept bug reports from you on Bugzilla but
not general numerical analysis questions.
Paul
--
pault at
_Bool x;
--
Summary: -ansi -pedantic accepts _Bool without diagnostic
Product: gcc
Version: 4.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
[forwarded from http://bugs.debian.org/392880]
$ gcc t.c
t.c:10: warning: initializer-string for array of chars is too long
#include
char a[]="a";
char string1[2] = "";
char b[]="b";
char string2[2] = "1";
char c[]="c";
char string3[2] = "12"; /* no warning here */
char d[]="d";
char st
--- Comment #1 from neil at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-14 12:25 ---
Not a bug - just 2 elements are initialized, the NUL is dropped.
--
neil at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #4 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-14 13:10 ---
Subject: Bug 29371
Author: pault
Date: Sat Oct 14 13:09:56 2006
New Revision: 117732
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=117732
Log:
2006-10-14 Paul Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR fortran/29
--- Comment #5 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-14 13:19 ---
Fixed on trunk
Paul
--
pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status
--- Comment #3 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-14 13:24 ---
Fixed in trunk - I'll press the fixed button this time!
Paul
--
pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #1 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-14 13:27 ---
I have a regtestable fix for this. I just trying to extend it to include
non-default initialization of variables. If this does not work soon, I will
submit the patch as is.
Paul
--
pault at gcc dot gnu dot org c
--- Comment #19 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-14 14:17 ---
Someone should make gdb understand the DW_AT_calling_convention attribute.
This is the bit necessary to make it work for Fortran. I considered stealing a
bit on FUNCTION_DECL to mark it as the main program but it s
--- Comment #2 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-14 14:19 ---
We should actually emit DW_AT_calling_convention for the main program. The
DW_AT_entry_point attribute is for alternate entries, which, yes, we should
also emit but don't.
G77 also never got this right.
--
steve
--- Comment #3 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-14 14:21 ---
There is support for Fortran module variables in DWARF3, see
http://dwarf.freestandards.org/Dwarf3.pdf.
Unfortunately GDB doesn't seem to support this.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24526
--- Comment #3 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-14 14:47 ---
The patch in http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2005-11/msg00217.html
implements this quite nicely AFAICT. I'll try and take care of the rest.
--
steven at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Remo
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot
|dot org
--- Comment #11 from patchapp at dberlin dot org 2006-10-14 15:05 ---
Subject: Bug number PR28545
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/2006-10/msg00754.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/s
--- Comment #8 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-14 15:06
---
Subject: Bug 19261
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Sat Oct 14 15:06:34 2006
New Revision: 117733
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=117733
Log:
2006-10-14 Jerry DeLisle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Comment #12 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-14 15:13
---
Actually see
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-03/txt00090.txt
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28545
--- Comment #4 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-14 15:15 ---
This works with the patch I mentioned in comment #3. That patch is in the GDB
source tree since 2006-02-24, so this is "fixed" in GDB 6.5. On the GCC side
we seem to do the right thing for scalar components. For ar
--- Comment #9 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-14 15:16
---
Fixed on svn trunk. Note: Could not get a test case to work properly with the
dejagnu machinery.
--
jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-14 15:29 ---
Hmm, isn't _Bool in the implemenation keyword space anyways?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29467
--- Comment #12 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-14 15:38
---
Paul, should this be closed?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18769
--- Comment #13 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-14 16:07
---
I have the correct work around patch which I am testing right now. It is only
local to tree-vrp.c also.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #4 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-14 16:09 ---
I think we're converging on not including these libraries in the GCC tree, but
rather to require the user to be responsible for getting them.
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2006-10/msg00167.html
Either way, GCC can always
--- Comment #14 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-14 16:09
---
Created an attachment (id=12428)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=12428&action=view)
patch which I am testing
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28545
--- Comment #5 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-14 16:10 ---
Won't fix.
--
ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRM
--- Comment #10 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-14 16:12 ---
No longer relying on PR29405. Instead we'll force the person building GCC to
acquire GMP/MPFR themselves.
--
ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #11 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-14 16:13 ---
Updated patch posted here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-10/msg00757.html
--
ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:-
>
>
> --- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-14 15:29
> ---
> Hmm, isn't _Bool in the implemenation keyword space anyways?
It is, so is _Complex, and that is diagnosed. I'm not saying it's
a conformance problem, just that it'
--- Comment #2 from neil at daikokuya dot co dot uk 2006-10-14 16:19
---
Subject: Re: -ansi -pedantic accepts _Bool without diagnostic
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:-
>
>
> --- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-14 15:29
> ---
> Hmm, isn't _Bool
--- Comment #20 from tbm at cyrius dot com 2006-10-14 16:48 ---
Jan, do you intend to apply this to 4.1?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26881
--- Comment #2 from h dot b dot furuseth at usit dot uio dot no 2006-10-14
17:06 ---
Subject: Re: Issues with -Wchar-subscripts
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29455
--- Comment #13 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-14 17:31 ---
Jerry,
See comment #10. The 'problem' is to take the gmp/mpfr representations of the
values in the constructor expression, write them out to form the source, read
then back in binary as the destination, convert the
The following example code compiled fine with 4.1.2 20060901 (Debian 4.1.1-13)
but fails with 4.1.2 20061007 (Debian 4.1.1-16). I'm wondering whether this
change was intentional and whether there's a good reason for this change (in a
stable branch).
$ g++-4.1 -c pair.c
x.c:32: error: non-template
--- Comment #1 from tbm at cyrius dot com 2006-10-14 17:37 ---
Created an attachment (id=12429)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=12429&action=view)
testcase
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29469
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-14 17:48 ---
The real question is avm_map dependent inside the nested class?
I know there are C++ defect reports asking that question so ...
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29469
--- Comment #3 from h dot b dot furuseth at usit dot uio dot no 2006-10-14
17:52 ---
Subject: Re: Issues with -Wchar-subscripts
Sorry about the empty answer.
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org writes:
> 'a' in C is not of the type char but instead int so not warning there
> is correct re
On Sat, 2006-10-14 at 17:52 +, h dot b dot furuseth at usit dot uio
dot no wrote:
> > Also you forgot one thing '%' does not have to match up with the ANSI
> > character set so it could be negative in signed char which means char
> > (which could default to signed char) would be different.
>
>
--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gmail dot com 2006-10-14 18:08 ---
Subject: Re: Issues with -Wchar-subscripts
On Sat, 2006-10-14 at 17:52 +, h dot b dot furuseth at usit dot uio
dot no wrote:
> > Also you forgot one thing '%' does not have to match up with the ANSI
> > character set
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-14 18:11 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> The real question is avm_map dependent inside the nested class?
> I know there are C++ defect reports asking that question so ...
And that is DR 224 which is in WP.
--
http://gcc.gnu.o
--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-14 18:15 ---
I think this is more complicated than just DR 224.
See PR 9634.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29469
--- Comment #5 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-14 18:25 ---
DR 224 says this is invalid code but GDR has mentioned that DR 224 is broken in
really bad way:
template struct B : T
{
void g(void) { B x; x.f(); }
}
struct A
{
void f(void) {}
}
int main(void)
{
B t;
t.
On Sat, 2006-10-14 at 18:25 +, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
>
> --- Comment #5 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-14 18:25
> ---
> DR 224 says this is invalid code
Sorry valid code.
-- Pinski
--- Comment #6 from pinskia at gmail dot com 2006-10-14 18:26 ---
Subject: Re: [DR 224] error: non-template 'pair' used as
template
On Sat, 2006-10-14 at 18:25 +, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
>
> --- Comment #5 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-14 1
--- Comment #17 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-14 18:29
---
GDR,
Any news from the committee on this issue? It has been more than 2 years
since the orginal message about talking to the committee.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9634
In the following class template, the protected using declaration causes the
inherited member to become publicly accessible. The code compiles, even though
it shouldn't.
template struct B
{
protected:
T v;
};
template struct D : B
{
protected:
using B::v;
};
int m
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-14 19:02 ---
Confirmed, a regression from 4.0.4.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
gfortran allows everywhere to use a BOZ.
However, there are constrains in Fortran 95 and 2003 on where to use them.
- Fortran 95: Only in DATA and only integer
- Fortran 2003: Only in DATA or as argument of INT, REAL, DBLE, CMPLX
Expected: An ERROR (or WARNING) is shown, when -std=f95/f2003 is u
--- Comment #10 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-14 19:26
---
A C89 testcase:
struct TSparseEntry
{
int feat_index;
double entry;
};
struct TSparse
{
int vec_index;
int num_feat_entries;
struct TSparseEntry* features;
};
void
get_full_feature_matrix(struct TSparse* spars
--- Comment #14 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-14 19:37
---
Oh, It was comment 11 that threw me off. Thats why I asked. Let me think
about takingthis on before I do so.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18769
--- Comment #15 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-14 19:58 ---
Jerry,
I was not entirely serious - if you want to take it on, great, but... it's a
pain in the beeehind!
Paul
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18769
I get the following ICE on m68k with -O2 -fPIC. It fails with gcc 4.0, 4.1 and
4.2, and works with 3.3/3.4.
(sid)115:[EMAIL PROTECTED]: ~] /home/tbm/tmp/gcc/4.1-m68k/gcc/g++
-B/home/tbm/tmp/gcc/4.1-m68k/gcc -O2 -fPIC blender-IK_QSegment.cpp
blender-IK_QSegment.cpp: In member function 'bool
IK_QSw
--- Comment #1 from tbm at cyrius dot com 2006-10-14 21:06 ---
Created an attachment (id=12430)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=12430&action=view)
testcase
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29472
Here is my test case:
unsigned char Keep4_3Ratio;
unsigned long SMode=0, DSMode=0;
bool CheckTVRatioReq()
{
return(Keep4_3Ratio && (DSMode == 1 || SMode == 1));
}
Compiling on an x86-32 compiler with the following:
g++ -march=athlon64 -masm=intel -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer -o test.o -c test.cpp
--- Comment #1 from nachms+gcc at gmail dot com 2006-10-14 21:43 ---
Oh I just realized one statement of mine was ambiguous.
>I get "cmp" bugs instead of "mov" and I also get the "rep ret" bug from above
when using GCC 4.1 (but not 4.0).
I mean to say that when using a 64 bit GCC 4.0,
--- Comment #2 from nachms+gcc at gmail dot com 2006-10-14 21:51 ---
Oh another thing.
If I change
return(Keep4_3Ratio && (DSMode == 1 || SMode == 1));
to:
return((DSMode == 1 || SMode == 1) && Keep4_3Ratio);
The "rep ret" problem in the 32 bit compilers go away for some strange r
--- Comment #5 from tbm at cyrius dot com 2006-10-14 21:55 ---
Created an attachment (id=12431)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=12431&action=view)
testcase
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ /usr/lib/gcc-snapshot/bin/gcc -c gqmpeg-ui2_display.c
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ /usr/lib/gcc-sn
--- Comment #3 from deathlike_2 at hotmail dot com 2006-10-14 21:56 ---
I am experiencing the same issue. Compiling under MinGW and DJGPP generates the
same error message:
Assembler messages: Error: expecting string instruction after `rep'
Removing the parameter -O3 or -fomit-frame-poi
--- Comment #6 from tbm at cyrius dot com 2006-10-14 22:17 ---
Created an attachment (id=12432)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=12432&action=view)
testcase
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ /usr/lib/gcc-snapshot/bin/gcc -c sfront-readmidi.c
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ /usr/lib/gcc-snaps
--- Comment #7 from tbm at cyrius dot com 2006-10-14 23:29 ---
Created an attachment (id=12433)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=12433&action=view)
testcase
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ /usr/lib/gcc-snapshot/bin/gcc -c nethack-cmd.c
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ /usr/lib/gcc-snapshot/
--- Comment #10 from kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-15 01:20 ---
(In reply to comment #9)
> I managed to trim it down to:
>
> implicit none
> integer :: n, i
> character(len=16),parameter :: s = ""
>
> if (s(9:16) == "90123456") then
> endif
>
--- Comment #11 from kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-15 01:53 ---
I can't reproduce this, so drop assign status.
--
kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29427
--- Comment #4 from dje at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-15 02:58 ---
The problem is the testcase is written in terms of "int". The SUBREGs prevent
the combine pattern from being applied. Yes, the testcase fails, but that
should be expected as written. Using "long" and clzl works fine.
--- Comment #13 from gcc-bugzilla at kayari dot org 2006-10-15 03:24
---
If this ever gets fixed (which I hope it does) then maybe it should depend on
-std=c++98 so this continues to work by default, or it will break a lot of code
that incorrectly passes extern "C++" functions to e.g. p
On Sun, 2006-10-15 at 03:24 +, gcc-bugzilla at kayari dot org wrote:
>
> --- Comment #13 from gcc-bugzilla at kayari dot org 2006-10-15 03:24
> ---
> If this ever gets fixed (which I hope it does) then maybe it should depend on
> -std=c++98 so this continues to work by default, or it
--- Comment #14 from pinskia at gmail dot com 2006-10-15 03:29 ---
Subject: Re: g++ fails to overload on language linkage
On Sun, 2006-10-15 at 03:24 +, gcc-bugzilla at kayari dot org wrote:
>
> --- Comment #13 from gcc-bugzilla at kayari dot org 2006-10-15 03:24
> ---
>
--- Comment #8 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-15 04:04 ---
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2006-10/msg00362.html
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
85 matches
Mail list logo
