--- Comment #4 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-09 08:21
---
In case someone is still doubtful. :-)
--
ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
[forwarded from http://launchpad.net/bugs/74248]
ICE building kdelibs4 on amd64; i386 works ok. seen with 4.1.2 20061208.
$ g++-4.1 -c -o test.o bug.ii
/home/simon/src/kde/kdelibs/phonon/objectdescription.cpp: In member function
‘Phonon::ObjectDescription& Phonon::ObjectDescription::operator=(con
--- Comment #5 from patchapp at dberlin dot org 2006-12-09 10:01 ---
Subject: Bug number PR30096
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/msg00605.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/sh
because
gcc -c -g -DENABLE_CHECKING -DENABLE_ASSERT_CHECKING -gnatpg -gnata -I-
-I. -Iada -I../../gcc/ada ../../gcc/ada/erroutc.adb -o ada/erroutc.o
erroutc.adb:42:06: warning: redundant with clause in body
make[2]: *** [ada/erroutc.o] Error 1
--
Summary: Cannot bootstrap 4.1.2
--- Comment #1 from doko at ubuntu dot com 2006-12-09 10:20 ---
works with 4.0.3
--
doko at ubuntu dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work|
--- Comment #7 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-09 10:23 ---
I guess it may work to only change
void allocate (void **, size_t, int *)
to
void *allocate (void *, size_t, int *)
and use it like
descriptor.data = allocate (descriptor.data, size, pstat)
the point is t
--- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-09 11:11 ---
works with 4.1.2 r119687. Works with g++ (GCC) 4.1.2 20061115 (prerelease)
(SUSE Linux).
g++-4.1 -v?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30129
[forwarded from http://bugs.debian.org/397341]
seen with 3.4, 4.1, 4.3 SVN 20061022 on hppa-linux-gnu with -O1, -O2, works
with -O0.
$ gcc -c -g -O2 pdvitomp.i
pdvitomp.c: In function `parsearguments':
pdvitomp.c:174: error: Attempt to delete prologue/epilogue insn:
(insn/f 1017 1016 1018 0 pdvi
--- Comment #1 from debian-gcc at lists dot debian dot org 2006-12-09
11:12 ---
Created an attachment (id=12773)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=12773&action=view)
preprocessed source
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30131
--- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-09 11:12 ---
Continues with
gcc -c -g -DENABLE_CHECKING -DENABLE_ASSERT_CHECKING -gnatpg -gnata -I-
-I. -Iada -I../../gcc/ada ../../gcc/ada/s-wchcon.ads -o ada/s-wchcon.o
s-wchcon.ads:41:15: package "System.Wch_Con" does no
--- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-09 11:18 ---
(no idea how to fix the issue in comment #2)
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30130
--- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-09 11:02 ---
This is because for the first line
(*((char *)(p) + 0) = (char) ((dat)) & 0xff)
we do the len + 1 in unsigned char type (we recognize x & 0xff as a
cast to unsigned char). So we have two additions and cannot
[forwarded from http://bugs.debian.org/400484]
seen on i486-linux-gnu with 3.4, 4.1.2, 4.3 20061022, works with -O0
$ gcc -c -O1 complex.c
complex.c: In function 'testit':
complex.c:4: internal compiler error: in find_lattice_value, at
tree-complex.c:133
Please submit a full bug report,
with pre
--- Comment #1 from debian-gcc at lists dot debian dot org 2006-12-09
11:33 ---
Created an attachment (id=12774)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=12774&action=view)
preprocessed source
#include
void testit(double complex* t, double* b)
{
b[0] = t[0]==0.0?0.0:-t[0
--- Comment #3 from doko at ubuntu dot com 2006-12-09 11:39 ---
works in Debian unstable as well; Ubuntu specific.
--
doko at ubuntu dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from charlet at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-09 12:03 ---
This is not something which is supported nor guaranteed to work.
You would need to do all kinds of changes in the 4.1 branch to get this work,
and continue patching as the trunk compiler evolves.
That being said, t
--- Comment #4 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-09 12:11 ---
Err, with 4.2.0 ada actually. I wonder if we can make the stage1 ada flags
more permissive somehow?
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #5 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-09 12:13 ---
I see it's not "supported", but as Ada needs Ada to be bootstrapped how do you
expect maintainance work to work for active release branches? Given PR29127
and PR864 it's not easily possible to switch to an alternate
--- Comment #3 from patchapp at dberlin dot org 2006-12-09 12:15 ---
Subject: Bug number PR29941
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/msg00609.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/sh
--- Comment #6 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-09 12:15 ---
So, I'll just not include Ada in the enabled languages for bootstrapping and
regtesting patches for the 4.1 branch. (As a natural consequence...)
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30130
$gcc -v
Reading specs from /usr/sfw/lib/gcc/i386-pc-solaris2.11/3.4.3/specs
Configured with: /builds1/sfwnv-gate/usr/src/cmd/gcc/gcc-3.4.3/configure
--prefix=/usr/sfw --with-as=/usr/sfw/bin/gas --with-gnu-as
--with-ld=/usr/ccs/bin/ld --without-gnu-ld --enable-languages=c,c++,f77
--enable-shared
Thr
--- Comment #5 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-09 12:57
---
Rainer, I'm interested in helping to port boehm-gc/libgcj to AMD64/Solaris 10,
including investigating the switch to POSIX threads on all architectures.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21942
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-09 13:13 ---
Order of evaulation inside function agruments is not specified by the C
standard as the comma inside the function arguments is not a sequence point.
So the order of the calls to getc could be any order.
--
pinsk
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Known to fail||4.1
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-09 13:20 ---
The gimplifier is messing up ...
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30132
--- Comment #7 from charlet at adacore dot com 2006-12-09 13:55 ---
Subject: Re: Cannot bootstrap 4.1.2 ada with 4.2.0 ada
> I see it's not "supported", but as Ada needs Ada to be bootstrapped how do you
> expect maintainance work to work for active release branches?
By simply using a
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-09 14:20 ---
Note, what we have is invalid gimple which we don't catch until tree-complex.c
which is wrong, I have a patch to catch it earlier.
Confirmed.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Remov
--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-09 14:22 ---
Also note moving catching it earlier makes this a middle-end (gimplifier) issue
rather than an optimization issue.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Adde
--- Comment #5 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-09 14:24 ---
After gimplification:
D.1853 = *t;
if (D.1853 == __complex__ (0.0, 0.0))
{
D.1854 = __complex__ (0.0, 0.0);
iftmp.0 = &D.1854;
}
else
{
D.1855 = *t;
D.1856 = -D.1855;
i
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-09 14:26 ---
Actually we do the strength reduction for t but don't fix it up so we multiply
stop by 21 but instead we add a multiply for the IV to convert back to the
"normal" t. I wonder if this is because of overflow reasons a
--- Comment #2 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-09 14:28 ---
I believe that the culprit is a call to constant_expression_warning at
c-typeck.c (store_init_value). The comment just above this call says "ANSI
wants warnings about out-of-range constant initializers". However, if the
--- Comment #3 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-09 14:34 ---
Uh, indeed the testcase is invalid. Using unsigned int or -fwrapv instead
makes it valid. But we still have
strength_test10 (data)
{
unsigned int ivtmp.31;
int * pretmp.23;
int stop;
:
stop = *(data + 12B
--- Comment #4 from dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-09 14:40 ---
Uh, before declaring it a reassociation issue, why don't you try turning off
reassoc and see if it actually fixes the problem.
As long as reassoc rewrites it the same everywhere, it would still be PRE'd.
--
htt
--- Comment #5 from dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-09 15:06 ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> Confirmed (but it's not PRE).
>
This actually is a case of PRE, because data[0] + data[3] is partially
redundant.
But according to the results, we *did* do the load PRE here.
In fact, P
--- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-09 15:11 ---
Related to PR28282 and PR12535.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Bu
--- Comment #9 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-09 15:17 ---
Subject: Bug 29916
Author: pault
Date: Sat Dec 9 15:17:16 2006
New Revision: 119690
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=119690
Log:
2006-12-09 Paul Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Backports f
--- Comment #10 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-09 15:17 ---
Subject: Bug 30003
Author: pault
Date: Sat Dec 9 15:17:16 2006
New Revision: 119690
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=119690
Log:
2006-12-09 Paul Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Backports
--- Comment #8 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-09 15:17 ---
Subject: Bug 29821
Author: pault
Date: Sat Dec 9 15:17:16 2006
New Revision: 119690
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=119690
Log:
2006-12-09 Paul Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Backports f
--- Comment #10 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-09 15:17 ---
Subject: Bug 29912
Author: pault
Date: Sat Dec 9 15:17:16 2006
New Revision: 119690
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=119690
Log:
2006-12-09 Paul Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Backports
--- Comment #9 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-09 15:20 ---
Fixed in trunk and 4.2. If I have time, I will patch 4.1 someday.
Paul
--
pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #11 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-09 15:21 ---
Fixed in trunk and 4.2. If I have time, I will patch 4.1 someday.
Paul
--
pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #10 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-09 15:21 ---
Fixed in trunk and 4.2. If I have time, I will patch 4.1 someday.
Paul
--
pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #11 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-09 15:22 ---
Fixed in trunk and 4.2. If I have time, I will patch 4.1 someday.
Paul
--
pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #12 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-09 17:48 ---
Subject: Bug 30003
Author: pault
Date: Sat Dec 9 17:47:45 2006
New Revision: 119694
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=119694
Log:
2006-12-09 Paul Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Backports
--- Comment #11 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-09 17:48 ---
Subject: Bug 29916
Author: pault
Date: Sat Dec 9 17:47:45 2006
New Revision: 119694
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=119694
Log:
2006-12-09 Paul Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Backports
--- Comment #12 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-09 17:48 ---
Subject: Bug 29820
Author: pault
Date: Sat Dec 9 17:47:45 2006
New Revision: 119694
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=119694
Log:
2006-12-09 Paul Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Backports
--- Comment #10 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-09 17:48 ---
Subject: Bug 29821
Author: pault
Date: Sat Dec 9 17:47:45 2006
New Revision: 119694
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=119694
Log:
2006-12-09 Paul Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Backports
--- Comment #12 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-09 17:48 ---
Subject: Bug 29912
Author: pault
Date: Sat Dec 9 17:47:45 2006
New Revision: 119694
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=119694
Log:
2006-12-09 Paul Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Backports
--- Comment #23 from jbuck at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-09 18:14 ---
I went and rebuilt everything, ran into the problem again, and determined that
it was because, although there was a correct --with-gmp, gfortran was failing
because gmp wasn't on LD_LIBRARY_PATH. But gmp is now in t
--- Comment #2 from patchapp at dberlin dot org 2006-12-09 18:35 ---
Subject: Bug number PR c++/29731
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/msg00628.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzil
--- Comment #24 from jvdelisle at verizon dot net 2006-12-09 18:45 ---
Subject: Re: kinds.h not generated, causing failure
jbuck at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> --- Comment #23 from jbuck at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-09 18:14
> ---
>
> Anyway, the Fortran library built and
--- Comment #8 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-09 19:03 ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> I guess it may work to only change
>
> void allocate (void **, size_t, int *)
> to
>
> void *allocate (void *, size_t, int *)
> and use it like
> descriptor.data = allocate (desc
With this configure and build:
[descartes:gcc/mainline/objdir] gcc-test% cat ../build-and-check-gcc
#!/bin/tcsh
/bin/rm -rf *; env CC=/pkgs/gcc-4.2.0-64/bin/gcc ../configure
--build=powerpc64-apple-darwin8.8.0 --host=powerpc64-apple-darwin8.8.0
--target=powerpc64-apple-darwin8.8.0 --with-gmp=/pkg
--- Comment #6 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-09 19:11 ---
We have:
if ((fallback & fb_lvalue) == 0)
{
result = tmp2 = tmp = create_tmp_var (TREE_TYPE (expr), "iftmp");
ret = GS_ALL_DONE;
}
But fallback is "fallback=fb_either" so th
--- Comment #7 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-09 19:24 ---
The second issue (the invalid gimple), comes from marking a variable as
ADDRESSABLE late after the orginal gimplification to that variable had
happened:
/* Mark the RHS addressable. */
lang_hooks
--- Comment #51 from danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-09 19:34
---
Created an attachment (id=12775)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=12775&action=view)
File.
The errors go away if I disable HAVE_LD_EH_GC_SECTIONS.
I think this feature exposes a binutils in han
--- Comment #8 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-09 19:36 ---
I now have a fix for both issues (fixing the first problem of ineffient
gimplification is enough to fix this bug but might not be enough to fix
others).
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30132
--- Comment #52 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-09 19:48
---
> The errors go away if I disable HAVE_LD_EH_GC_SECTIONS.
Sure, see comment #3.
> I think this feature exposes a binutils in handling pc-relative
> relocations when this feature is enabled. In particulary, it
--- Comment #25 from jbuck at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-09 20:11 ---
Jerry: no, gmp isn't in the default path, which is why gcc was configured with
--with-gmp and --with-mpfr flags. On this particular machine I do not have
root, and since it's used to build apps for legacy systems it
--- Comment #3 from andreast at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-09 20:23
---
*** Bug 30134 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
andreast at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from andreast at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-09 20:23
---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 29152 ***
--
andreast at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #2 from lucier at math dot purdue dot edu 2006-12-09 20:27
---
This is not the same bug as 21952.
Before, bootstrap would succeed and there would be a lot of test errors.
Now, as of the past few days, bootstrap fails.
This is a configure bug.
--
lucier at math dot pur
--- Comment #4 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-09 20:42 ---
Subject: Bug 29941
Author: pault
Date: Sat Dec 9 20:41:51 2006
New Revision: 119695
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=119695
Log:
2006-12-09 Paul Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR fortran/
--- Comment #4 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-09 20:52 ---
Subject: Bug 29464
Author: pault
Date: Sat Dec 9 20:52:27 2006
New Revision: 119696
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=119696
Log:
2006-11-25 Paul Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR fortran/
--- Comment #3 from andreast at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-09 21:03
---
Ok, in terms of configuration you are correct, this is a new bug.
And the patch which introduced this is here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2006-12/msg00297.html
--
andreast at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
--- Comment #28 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-09 21:13 ---
Subject: Bug 29975
Author: pault
Date: Sat Dec 9 21:13:29 2006
New Revision: 119697
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=119697
Log:
2006-12-09 Paul Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR fortran/
--- Comment #13 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-09 21:13 ---
Subject: Bug 30068
Author: pault
Date: Sat Dec 9 21:13:29 2006
New Revision: 119697
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=119697
Log:
2006-12-09 Paul Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR fortran/
--- Comment #6 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-09 21:13 ---
Subject: Bug 30096
Author: pault
Date: Sat Dec 9 21:13:29 2006
New Revision: 119697
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=119697
Log:
2006-12-09 Paul Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR fortran/2
--- Comment #4 from andreast at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-09 21:20
---
For the time being, this one, on the previous revision would have been the
better approach. NOTE, it's untested!
[wolfram:gcc/head/gcc] andreast% svn diff configure.in
Index: configure.in
--- Comment #5 from andreast at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-09 21:41
---
Created an attachment (id=12776)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=12776&action=view)
patch
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30134
--- Comment #19 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-09 21:42 ---
Promises, promises...
>
> It is regtesting as I write; if all is well, I will submit tonight with a
> testcase based on pr30025.
>
I'll come to this just as soon as the interface stuff is a bit more sorted. -
like n
--- Comment #6 from andreast at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-09 21:43
---
Bah, the attached patch is now under test, i?86-*darwin*, it refuses to
configure for x86_64-*darwin*. So I guess it will not configure libffi under
powerpc64-*darwin* either.
--
andreast at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #5 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-09 21:51 ---
Why is this "accepts-invalid"? Shouldn't it be "diagnostic" instead? I am
trying to understand what is the expected output here: a warning or a pedantic
error?
--
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
Wh
--- Comment #12 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-09 22:39
---
This works for me and many others, I wonder if your machine messed up the tar
ball and not untar all the sources.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Add
--- Comment #10 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-09 22:40
---
No testcase in over 3 months so closing.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-09 22:43 ---
Confirmed.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCON
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-09 22:44 ---
Confirmed.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|norma
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-09 22:48 ---
Fixed for 4.0.0.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-09 22:52 ---
Confirmed.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCON
--- Comment #5 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-09 22:55 ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> 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 fo
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-09 22:59 ---
We have a CONST_DECL.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #5 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-09 23:47 ---
The only patch in that revision frame that could have cause this (as the others
are all target specific patches):
+2006-12-08 Andrew MacLeod <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
+
+ * Makefile.in: Add new file tree-ssa-ter.c.
--- Comment #6 from amacleod at redhat dot com 2006-12-10 01:19 ---
>>Fail in make bootstrap on FC6.
>>Starting on r119634 through at least r119668.
The TER patch pinskia mentions didn't go in until revision 119657 If my notes
are correct (they could be wrong)... so that couldn't cause
--- Comment #7 from pinskia at gmail dot com 2006-12-10 01:25 ---
Subject: Re: [4.3 Regression] ICE
genautomata.c:6060
On Sun, 2006-12-10 at 01:19 +, amacleod at redhat dot com wrote:
>
> --- Comment #6 from amacleod at redhat dot com 2006-12-10 01:19 ---
> >>Fail
--- Comment #6 from irving at cs dot stanford dot edu 2006-12-10 02:41
---
(In reply to comment #5)
> FC's 4.1.1 is really 4.1.2+plus some 4.2 patches.
Yep. I verified again that the bug does occur on x86_x6
with a freshly downloaded version of 4.1.1. It does not
occur on i686 with e
85 matches
Mail list logo
