--- Comment #4 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-06 08:58 ---
With overflow we end up with Inf or -Inf, with underflow we end up with 0. (or
even -0.?) - but underflow doesn't seem to require a diagnostic errno setting.
I don't see how this relates to PR23572 though.
--
h
Hi,
here's an interface related bug I discovered which is not
yet mentioned in PR 29670.
% gfortran gfcbug46.f90
gfcbug46.f90:25.29:
call random_number (t% x)
1
Error: There is no specific subroutine for the generic 'random_number' at (1)
gfcbug46.f90:20.29:
--- Comment #1 from anlauf at gmx dot de 2006-12-06 09:12 ---
Created an attachment (id=12752)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=12752&action=view)
Interface bug demo code
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30081
> - ceiling
> cvtss2si %xmmMM, %rNN
> cvtsi2ss %rNN, %xmmJJ ;; scratch
> ucomiss %xmmMM, %xmmJJ
> adc $0, %rNN<<
>
> - floor
> cvtss2si %xmmMM, %rNN
> cvtsi2ss %rNN, %xmmJJ ;; scratch
> ucomiss %xmmJJ, %xmmMM
> sbb $0, %rNN
--- Comment #7 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-06 09:52 ---
Ok, so my plan is to go in small steps:
- at gimplification time change calls to sincos (x, &s, &c) to calls to cexp
like
_Complex __typeof__(s) tmp = cexp ( { 0., x } );
s = __imag tmp;
c = __real tmp
--- Comment #15 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-06 09:54
---
Paolo, are you working on this?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17687
--- Comment #16 from paolo dot bonzini at lu dot unisi dot ch 2006-12-06
09:58 ---
Subject: Re: sincos tree representation causes
extra addressable vars
> Paolo, are you working on this?
No. :-(
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17687
--- Comment #17 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-06 10:04
---
So I hope you don't mind...
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #29 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-06 10:04
---
Created an attachment (id=12753)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=12753&action=view)
New patch
Thanks Eric for the testing the non-working previous patch.
I've now had time to test it more th
--- Comment #1 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2006-12-06 10:10 ---
You might have to add a post-reload splitter for something like
(set (match_operand:SI 0 "register_operand" "+r")
(plus (match_dup 0)
(lt:SI (match_operand:SF 1 "register_operand" "x")
(mat
--- Comment #30 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-06 10:55
---
Subject: Bug 29810
Author: fxcoudert
Date: Wed Dec 6 10:55:37 2006
New Revision: 119577
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=119577
Log:
PR libfortran/29810
* intrinsics/c99_fu
--- Comment #15 from cvs-commit at developer dot classpath dot org
2006-12-06 11:37 ---
Subject: Bug 29272
CVSROOT:/cvsroot/classpath
Module name:classpath
Changes by: Chris Burdess 06/12/06 11:36:42
Modified files:
. : ChangeLog
gnu/
--- Comment #3 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-06 11:59 ---
It works for me.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30080
--- Comment #1 from etienne_lorrain at yahoo dot fr 2006-12-06 12:47
---
Was another problem (Initialise the main stack at the top of the reserved
space, without keeping two words safety linked to the calling convention,
so the first call would erase the first static variable at top_st
--- Comment #31 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-06 13:13
---
> I've now had time to test it more thouroughly, after adding protos and
> correcting the mistakes in the floorl logic. Attached is the patch (against
> 4.1) that I intend to commit once testing is done. This new
--- Comment #36 from pluto at agmk dot net 2006-12-06 13:22 ---
(In reply to comment #32)
> The hidden definition in main_skel.o is ignored due to COMDAT group.
could you fill PR?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20218
--- Comment #2 from pluto at agmk dot net 2006-12-06 13:24 ---
this hog blocks xorg-xserver development/testing.
--
pluto at agmk dot net changed:
What|Removed |Added
Hello,
gmake install currently fails for me on mainline on solaris 10 if I use the
default /bin/sh shell. The problem is with this line of gcc/Makefile.in:
SYSTEM_HEADER_DIR = `echo @SYSTEM_HEADER_DIR@ | sed -e :a -e "s,[^/]*/\.\.\/,,"
-e ta`
this variable is used inside double quotes, and solar
--- Comment #5 from aldyh at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-06 14:03 ---
What is the actual triplet, and can you provide a .i file?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30079
--- Comment #37 from hjl at lucon dot org 2006-12-06 14:19 ---
The updated patch is at
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-12/msg00397.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20218
gfortran crashes when compiling teh attached code
(the same segmentation fault occures when compiling with 4.2.0 version of
gfortran)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] /tmp/gfortcrash $ gfortran -c kinds.f90 vamp_bundle.f90
vamp_bundle.f90:3166: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault
Please submit a full bug
--- Comment #1 from trumsko at yahoo dot com 2006-12-06 14:36 ---
Created an attachment (id=12754)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=12754&action=view)
source files to crash gfortran
unpack and execute
gfortran -c kinds.f90 vamp_bundle.f90
to reproduce segmentation vi
--- Comment #38 from hjl at lucon dot org 2006-12-06 14:39 ---
(In reply to comment #36)
> (In reply to comment #32)
>
> > The hidden definition in main_skel.o is ignored due to COMDAT group.
>
> could you fill PR?
>
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3666
--
http://g
Currently debug mode uses ext/hash_map, ext/hash_set et. al for the basis of
the ebug containers. This should be switched to
tr1/unordered_map
tr1/unordered_set
as the older SGI hash containers are deprecated.
Also, maybe these containers should be moved to backward, from ext?
--
--- Comment #6 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2006-12-06
15:34 ---
Subject: Re: [4.3 regression] libgcov.c:785: ICE: in fold_convert, at
fold-const.c:2034
> What is the actual triplet, and can you provide a .i file?
Here's the .i.
Dave
--- Comment #7 from dave at
--- Comment #8 from danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-06 16:03 ---
Do you mean the following:
(gdb) p debug_tree (t)
>
sizes-gimplified unsigned SI
size
unit size
align 32 symtab 21 alias set -1
pointer_to_this >
arg 0
arg 0
When compiling GDB 6.5.90 on x86 (FC5) GCC gives following warning. So it is
needed to initialize tmp_obstack to avoid this warning. This isn't necessary
and GCC should detect this.
/home/user/gdb/6.5.90/gdb-6.5.90/gdb/p-valprint.c: In function
'pascal_object_print_value_fields':
/home/user/gdb/6
--- Comment #4 from irving at cs dot stanford dot edu 2006-12-06 16:36
---
The default version of gcc 4.1.1 from fedora works. The version
that breaks is a separate build of the compiler with different
configuration options. g++ -v from the fedora version follows.
Do you know any way
Running the gfortran testsuite with "-O2 -ftree-vectorize" started giving a
number of failures in the span of the last 3-4 days. Namely, the testcases
gfortran.dg/actual_array_constructor_3.f90
gfortran.dg/array_constructor_8.f90
now lead to ICEs in the compiler.
This blocks my effort to make t
The following C++ program (preprocessed source attached) produces unexpected
results when compiled with -O1 -fstrict-aliasing (as opposed to -O1 only) or
with any higher level of optimization (-O2 or -O3). No compilation warnings
are emitted in any of the cases.
#include
#include
struct A
{
--- Comment #1 from heikki dot tauriainen at tkk dot fi 2006-12-06 17:01
---
Created an attachment (id=12757)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=12757&action=view)
Preprocessed source of test case
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30088
Two testcases will follow, build with -O2.
--
Summary: Compiling FreeFem3d uses unreasonable amount of time and
memory
Product: gcc
Version: 4.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: memory-hog, compile-time-hog
Sever
--- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-06 17:17 ---
Created an attachment (id=12758)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=12758&action=view)
first testcase
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30089
--- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-06 17:18 ---
Created an attachment (id=12759)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=12759&action=view)
second testcase
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30089
--- Comment #3 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-06 17:20 ---
Before the last big regressions on the mainline the first one took 350MB and
52s to build with -O2 on x86_64, the second one 685MB and 147s. That was g++
(GCC) 4.3.0 20061122 (experimental).
--
http://gcc.gnu.o
gcc.c
#v+
[...]
Specs are strings containing lines, each of which (if not blank)
is made up of a program name, and arguments separated by spaces.
The program name must be exact and start from root, since no path
is searched and it is unreliable to depend on the current working directory.
[...]
#v-
It seems to me that neither in the manual nor in the commentary in `gcc.c' it
is documented that one can use [EMAIL PROTECTED]' to introduce a new `LANGUAGE'
to gcc
when using custom specs files via `gcc -specs=FILE'.
Is it advisible to have the specs syntax's documentation both in the Texinfo
m
--- Comment #8 from peter at chocky dot org 2006-12-06 17:37 ---
And it's back, at least in this version:
Using built-in specs.
Target: i686-pc-linux-gnu
Configured with: ../configure --prefix=/usr/local/gcc-4.1
--enable-languages=c,c++,java
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.1.2 2006120
--- Comment #2 from kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-06 17:37 ---
Reduced testcase:
module tao_random_numbers
integer, dimension(10) :: s_buffer
integer :: s_last = size (s_buffer)
end module tao_random_numbers
module linalg
contains
function diag (a) result (d)
real, d
--
tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |tromey at gcc dot gnu dot
|dot org
--- Comment #6 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-06 17:41
---
Subject: Bug 29729
Author: mmitchel
Date: Wed Dec 6 17:41:29 2006
New Revision: 119586
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=119586
Log:
PR c++/29729
* decl2.c (check_member_templ
--- Comment #7 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-06 17:42
---
Fixed in 4.2.0, 4.3.0.
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from marc dot glisse at normalesup dot org 2006-12-06 18:01
---
Actually, the problem seems to be caused by the '^' character, which is the
equivalent of '|' for this shell. The solution is still the same, have single
quotes (or protect the '^' with '\'). There seems to b
--- Comment #1 from tschwinge at gnu dot org 2006-12-06 18:22 ---
It is also not documented that `#COMMENT' can be used to embed comments.
And `\f' (form feed, `^L') could be added to list of white space (in the
skip_whitespace function): it's convenient to separate units in hand-made
--- Comment #5 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-06 18:26
---
Subject: Bug 29728
Author: mmitchel
Date: Wed Dec 6 18:26:44 2006
New Revision: 119588
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=119588
Log:
PR c++/29728
* decl.c (check_array_designa
--- Comment #6 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-06 18:27
---
Fixed in 4.1.2.
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assigned
--- Comment #5 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-06 18:49 ---
Created an attachment (id=12760)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=12760&action=view)
Fix and testcases.
This regtests on Cygwin_NT/amd64.
It is there, up to some adjustments to interpretation of th
--- Comment #39 from jason at redhat dot com 2006-12-06 19:14 ---
Subject: Re: Can't use __attribute__ ((visibility ("hidden")))
to hide a symbol
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> Jason, are you actively working on this? (We are motivated to fix the
> problem,
> so if you're
--- Comment #2 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-06 19:26 ---
Subject: Bug 30056
Author: tkoenig
Date: Wed Dec 6 19:25:44 2006
New Revision: 119592
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=119592
Log:
2006-12-06 Thomas Koenig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR li
--- Comment #13 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-06 19:26
---
Subject: Bug 30009
Author: tkoenig
Date: Wed Dec 6 19:25:44 2006
New Revision: 119592
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=119592
Log:
2006-12-06 Thomas Koenig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR
--- Comment #6 from tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-06 19:35 ---
Subject: Bug 24938
Author: tromey
Date: Wed Dec 6 19:35:05 2006
New Revision: 119593
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=119593
Log:
PR java/24938:
* sources.am, Makefile.in: Rebui
Using current SVN gcc/gfortran, the following program gives a SEGV with
gfortran -ftree-vectorize -O3 -c
but not if I remove the -ftree-vectorize option.
The vectorization of sqrt is PR21466 / PR30032, but afterwards it was still
working. Thus it is probably some interaction between the gimple wo
Following testcase segfaults for x86_64 and i686 sse2 targets with -ffast-math:
double x[256];
void foo(void)
{
int i;
for (i=0; i<256; ++i)
x[i] = sqrt (x[i]);
}
gcc -O2 -ftree-vectorize -ffast-math vect-sqrt.c vect-sqrt.c:
In function foo:
vect-sqrt.c:7: warning: incompatible implici
--- Comment #9 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-06 20:14 ---
I don't know why, but I got again:
Fehler: Bei L referenziertes Symbol »s« nicht im Modul »s« gefunden
for
Error: Symbol 'generic' referenced at (1) not found in module 'mod1'
This is with the current SVN ver
adaint.c contains several lines like
#if defined (_WIN32) && ! defined (__vxworks) && ! defined (CROSS_COMPILE)
which, although completely uncommented, appear to be trying to detect whether
or not the system has an _tfopen function or an fopen function. The function
is present on the target syst
--- Comment #11 from ubizjak at gmail dot com 2006-12-06 20:31 ---
> > > The VLA -> normal array for C should be a different issue, where gcc could
> > > improve.
> > Could you open a new bug for this problem?
> Done: PR 30049.
Thanks!
I think that this bug can be closed as a duplicat
--- Comment #2 from ubizjak at gmail dot com 2006-12-06 20:31 ---
*** Bug 30032 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21466
--- Comment #3 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-06 20:46 ---
This is fixed in GCC 4.3:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2006-12/msg00161.html
It was also working yesterday, but now I get an ICE which I think is due to a
bad interaction of this patch with the gimple etc. import. ->
--- Comment #11 from gnb at melbourne dot sgi dot com 2006-12-06 20:49
---
(In reply to comment #10)
> [...] the employer disclaimer, which will need to go
> back across the Pacific and up through some layers of corporate
> bureaucracy.
I'm told this document was signed yesterday, so I
Hi,
the attached Fortran code ICE's at -Os, -O2 and -O3
but compiles at -O0 and -O1.
% gfortran -c gfcbug47.f90 -Os
gfcbug47.f90: In function 'foo':
gfcbug47.f90:6: internal compiler error: in lhd_set_decl_assembler_name, at
lang
hooks.c:165
Cheers,
-ha
--
Summary: [Optimization] I
--- Comment #1 from anlauf at gmx dot de 2006-12-06 21:04 ---
Created an attachment (id=12761)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=12761&action=view)
Sample code crashing gfortran at -Os, -O2 and -O3
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30095
--- Comment #8 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-06 21:05
---
Subject: Bug 29729
Author: mmitchel
Date: Wed Dec 6 21:04:52 2006
New Revision: 119597
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=119597
Log:
PR c++/29729
* decl2.c (check_member_templ
--- Comment #32 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-06 21:17
---
Subject: Bug 29810
Author: fxcoudert
Date: Wed Dec 6 21:17:35 2006
New Revision: 119598
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=119598
Log:
PR libfortran/29810
* intrinsics/c99_fu
--- Comment #9 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-06 21:17
---
Fixed in 4.1.2.
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assigned
--- Comment #6 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-06 21:30 ---
> Created an attachment (id=12760)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=12760&action=view) [edit]
> Fix and testcases.
Thanks.
> It is there, up to some adjustments to interpretation of the standard.
O
--- Comment #33 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-06 21:50
---
Subject: Bug 29810
Author: fxcoudert
Date: Wed Dec 6 21:49:55 2006
New Revision: 119599
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=119599
Log:
PR libfortran/29810
* intrinsics/c99_fu
--- Comment #34 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-06 21:50
---
Should be completely fixed now. Sorry again.
--
fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
Hi,
the attached legal code fails to compile with gfortran.
% gfortran gfcbug48.f90
gfcbug48.f90:30.76:
use module2, only : inverse ! <-- gfortran does handle this properly
1
Error: Ambiguous interfaces 'inverse_su
--- Comment #1 from anlauf at gmx dot de 2006-12-06 21:58 ---
Created an attachment (id=12762)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=12762&action=view)
Interface bug demo
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30096
--- Comment #35 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2006-12-06
22:04 ---
Subject: Re: [4.1/4.2/4.3 regression] Unsatisfied symbol "fmodl" in
libgfortran shared library
> Should be completely fixed now. Sorry again.
No problem.
Thanks,
Dave
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla
--- Comment #9 from aldyh at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-06 22:10 ---
Fixed here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-12/msg00425.html
--
aldyh at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #11 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-06 22:10 ---
> > I think this was fixed by:
> > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2006-11/msg00427.html
> No it was not.
Thanks for checking. (This was actually the PR, for which I asked yesterday on
IRC whether it was commited or no
--- Comment #2 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-06 22:20 ---
I think this is a doublicate of one of symbol ambiguity bugs, which confuse
Paul and me the last days.
[The problem is not primarily the implementation, the problem is what is right
and what is wrong according to the
--- Comment #12 from dorit at il dot ibm dot com 2006-12-06 22:22 ---
> By the way, you wrote 2006-11-17:
> > Should be submitted this weekend
> Any new ETA?
It was already submitted:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-12/msg00110.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.
--- Comment #2 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-06 22:30 ---
Confirm with x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu.
Shorter test:
program gfcbug47
integer, parameter :: k = size (transfer (1, (/' '/)))
print *, k
end program gfcbug47
#1 0x00703be0 in lhd_set_decl_assembler_nam
--
lmillward at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |lmillward at gcc dot gnu dot
|dot org
--- Comment #3 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-06 22:39 ---
Backtrace:
0x0043abf3 in mio_symtree_ref (stp=0xe2b070) at
gcc/fortran/module.c:2199
2199 if ((*stp)->n.sym && check_unique_name((*stp)->name))
#1 0x0043b526 in mio_expr (ep=0xe2b028) at gcc/
--- Comment #2 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-06 22:55
---
Subject: Bug 29730
Author: mmitchel
Date: Wed Dec 6 22:54:51 2006
New Revision: 119601
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=119601
Log:
PR c++/29730
* parser.c (cp_parser_init_de
--- Comment #3 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-06 22:55
---
Fixed in 4.3.0.
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assigned
--- Comment #10 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-06 22:58 ---
Ok, it is simple why it does not work.
In the attached and tested patch:
+ while (ISDIGIT(*format))
+ format++;
+ format++;
In SVN:
while (ISDIGIT(*format))
/* Skip ov
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-06 23:05 ---
Solaris's /bin/sh is not a POSIX shell, please read http://gcc.gnu.org/install/
and try again.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30083
--- Comment #7 from paulthomas2 at wanadoo dot fr 2006-12-06 23:08 ---
Subject: Re: Ambigous interfaces not detected
Tobias,
>
> c) Gfortran is a bit inconsequent with regards to ", only:"
> use mod1
> use mod2,only: foo
> compiles without an error/warning whereas for
> use mod1
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-06 23:14 ---
Depends how the source looks, it might be actually used uninitialized which
means the code is undefined anyways.
Can you attach the preprocessed source?
I have seen stuff like:
struct a{int t; int t1};
void f(stru
Protected members of a base class are accessible in derived class if nested too
deeply:
class base_t {
protected:
unsigned x;
union {
unsigned y;
struct {
unsigned z;
};
};
};
class child_t : public base_t {
public:
void foo () {
base_t
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-06 23:37 ---
This is an issue with anonymous structs and is a dup of bug 24926.
Oh and anonymous structs are extensions.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 24926 ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-06 23:37 ---
*** Bug 30097 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #2 from patchapp at dberlin dot org 2006-12-07 00:05 ---
Subject: Bug number PR c++/29980
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/2006-12/msg00426.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzil
--- Comment #11 from patchapp at dberlin dot org 2006-12-07 00:05 ---
Subject: Bug number PR29711
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/2006-12/msg00430.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/s
--- Comment #17 from elizabeth dot l dot yip at boeing dot com 2006-12-07
01:37 ---
Paul,
I located the following binary and loaded it on my dell 670 (SUSE 9.3):
gfortran -v
Using built-in specs.
Target: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
Configured with: ../gcc/configure --prefix=/var/tmp/gfor
--- Comment #4 from dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-07 04:48 ---
On my machine, with an unoptimized cc1plus (IE stage1), the first one, at -O2
takes 150meg of memory total, and 221 seconds, with most of the time being
verifiers.
This is with local PTA changes to speed up PTA
TO
The following 2 functions should be compiled to the same thing.
This is a test from Briggs' compiler benchmarks.
void vnum_test8(int *data)
{
int i;
int stop = data[3];
int m = data[4];
int n = m;
for (i=0; ihttp://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30098
The following 2 functions should be compiled to the same assembly.
This is one of Briggs' compiler benchmarks.
void vnum_test10(int *data)
{
int i = data[0];
int m = i + 1;
int j = data[1];
int n = j + 1;
data[2] = m + n;
if (i == j)
data[3] = (m - n) * 21;
}
void vnum_result10(in
The following 2 functions should be compiled to the same assembly.
This is one of Briggs' compiler benchmarks.
void vnum_test11(int *data)
{
int n;
int stop = data[3];
int j = data[1];
int k = j;
int i = 1;
for (n=0; nhttp://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30100
The following 2 functions should be compiled to the same assembly.
This is one of Briggs' compiler benchmarks.
void vnum_test12(int *data)
{
int n;
int stop = data[3];
int j = data[1];
int k = j;
int i = 1;
for (n=0; nhttp://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30101
The following 2 functions should be compiled to the same assembly.
This is one of Briggs' compiler benchmarks.
void strength_test4(int *data)
{
int i;
if (data[1]) {
i = 2;
goto here;
}
i = 0;
do {
i = i + 1;
here:
data[data[2]] = 2;
} while (i * 21 < data[3]);
}
void
The following 2 functions should be compiled to the same assembly.
This is one of Briggs' compiler benchmarks.
void strength_test10(int *data)
{
int stop = data[3];
int i = 0;
do {
data[data[2]] = 21 * i;
i = i + 1;
} while (i < stop);
}
void strength_result10(int *data)
{
int s
The following 2 functions should be compiled to the same assembly.
This is one of Briggs' compiler benchmarks.
void motion_test10(int *data)
{
int j;
int p = data[1];
int i = data[0];
do {
if (p)
j = 1;
else
j = 2;
i = i + j;
data[data[2]] = 2;
} while (i < d
The following 2 functions should be compiled to the same assembly.
This is one of Briggs' compiler benchmarks.
void motion_test2(int *data)
{
int j;
int i = 1;
if (data[1]) {
data[data[2]] = 2;
j = data[0] + data[3];
i = i + j;
}
data[4] = data[0] + data[3];
data[5] = i;
}
--- Comment #40 from mark at codesourcery dot com 2006-12-07 06:35 ---
Subject: Re: Can't use __attribute__ ((visibility ("hidden")))
to hide a symbol
hjl at lucon dot org wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-12/msg00397.html
I'm still not happy with the cgraph_optimize c
--- Comment #2 from bangerth at dealii dot org 2006-12-07 07:17 ---
Confirmed. There are also no warnings with -Wstrict-aliasing.
The code certainly seems ok, so this is either a bug in
gcc or libstdc++...
W.
--
bangerth at dealii dot org changed:
What|Removed
1 - 100 of 101 matches
Mail list logo
