--- Comment #4 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-16 08:16 ---
As discussed on PR 30009, this is to costly to fix
for 4.1 and risks breaking things. I'm unassigning
myself in case anybody wants to tackle it.
--
tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Re
--- Comment #17 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-16 08:18
---
I'm leaving this open for now, but
unassigning myself. If anybody wants
to tackle this for 4.1, feel free.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30009
--- Comment #5 from simartin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-16 08:51
---
Subject: Bug 29475
Author: simartin
Date: Sat Dec 16 08:51:42 2006
New Revision: 119961
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=119961
Log:
2006-12-16 Simon Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR
--- Comment #1 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2006-12-16 10:45 ---
Yes, this is a known issue:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/libstdc++/2006-12/msg0.html
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #2 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-16 11:44 ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> These seeks actually translate to OS calls, which of course fails
> for pipes.
We could get by for writing if we
- eliminated the seeks as long as we don't actually go past our buffer
-
struct A {};
struct B { virtual ~B(); };
B::~B () {}
struct C { void foo (short &, B &); };
struct D { void *d1; C *d2; virtual void virt (void) {} };
struct E { D *e1; B *e2; };
struct F { void bar (void *, B &); };
F *p __attribute__((weak));
volatile int r;
void C::foo (short &x, B &)
{
if (r
gcc segfaults instead of reporting error on simple source:
int x;
int y;
int z[&y - &x];
--
Summary: Segmentation fault on non-const array size
Product: gcc
Version: 4.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
--- Comment #1 from mikhail dot vorozhtsov at gmail dot com 2006-12-16
12:31 ---
Created an attachment (id=12817)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=12817&action=view)
Preprocessed source
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30231
--- Comment #2 from mikhail dot vorozhtsov at gmail dot com 2006-12-16
12:42 ---
(In reply to comment #0)
BTW, g++ works fine:
> g++ test.c
test.c:3: error: array bound is not an integer constant
> gcc test.c
test.c:3: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault
Please submit a full bug
--
jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
|dot org
Attached are to short example programs (no special includes and options
needed).
Both programs compile and run fine with g++-3.3.5, but fail to compile with
g++-4.1.1 and g++-4.3.0.
The problem seems to be that a function
template inline void foo(SomeType &obj)
prevents another function
inlin
--- Comment #1 from whisp at users dot sf dot net 2006-12-16 13:16 ---
Created an attachment (id=12818)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=12818&action=view)
Test case 1
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30232
--- Comment #2 from whisp at users dot sf dot net 2006-12-16 13:16 ---
Created an attachment (id=12819)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=12819&action=view)
Test case 2
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30232
I tried to compile gimp-2.2.13 with this script:
#!/bin/sh
_cflags="-O3 -m32 -mmmx -msse -m3dnow -msse -funroll-all-loops -floop-optimize2
-ftree-ccp -ftree-ch -ftree-combine-temps -ftree-copy-prop -ftree-copyrename
-ftree-dce -ftree-dominator-opts -ftree-dse -ftree-fre -ftree-loop-im
-ftree-loop
--- Comment #9 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-16 16:34 ---
Subject: Bug 24036
Author: jsm28
Date: Sat Dec 16 16:33:55 2006
New Revision: 119962
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=119962
Log:
2006-12-16 Joseph Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
David E
--- Comment #7 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-16 16:48 ---
Subject: Bug 7651
Author: manu
Date: Sat Dec 16 16:48:01 2006
New Revision: 119963
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=119963
Log:
2006-12-16 Manuel Lopez-Ibanez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR mid
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|major |normal
Component|c |tree-optimizat
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-16 18:27 ---
Can you attach the preprocessed source as requested on:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs.html
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-16 18:31 ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 25161 ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #16 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-16 18:31
---
*** Bug 30231 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-16 18:34 ---
This was a bug in GCC before 4.1.0. See PR 2922.
You are incorrect. This code is invalid because argument dependent namelookup
does not have an effect on fundumental types.
This sentence is where it goes wrong:
--- Comment #27 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-16 18:34
---
*** Bug 30232 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #10 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-16 19:25 ---
Subject: Bug 24036
Author: jsm28
Date: Sat Dec 16 19:24:56 2006
New Revision: 119967
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=119967
Log:
2006-12-16 Joseph Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
David
--- Comment #4 from roger at eyesopen dot com 2006-12-16 19:28 ---
Steve posted his fix at http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-12/msg01012.html
and I came up with an improved version that correctly identifies the
equivalence
of "z" and "z(:)" here http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/200
--- begin test.cc
template class S {
public:
static const T m_value;
};
template const int S::m_value = 1;
int main(int argc, char *argv[]) {
int i = S::m_value;
return 0;
}
--- end test.cc ---
g++ test.cc
test.cc: In function 'int main(int, char**)':
test.cc:9
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-16 20:28 ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 24791 ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #5 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-16 20:28 ---
*** Bug 30234 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #5 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-16 21:21
---
I have tested Rogers patch with the gfortran testsuite and cp2k and no
regressions.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30207
--
tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot
|dot org
Hello Gnu,
I've visited gnu.org today, and really like it. I run a site similar to yours,
and I was wondering if you would like to trade links with me? You can see my
site at "http://money.mirspace.com";.
I will give your site a prominent listing on my page at
http://money.mirspace.com/main/ce
The following code, in which the (contained) subroutine has an alternate return
argument which is not present in the subroutine call, produces a segfault:
--
debian-gfortran:~/test> cat altreturn3.f90
program altreturn3
call altret(
The following code contains a generic interface which has two procedures, one
with an alternate return and one without. This causes a segfault ICE. If
either of the "module procedure" lines are commented out, however, the program
compiles.
Note, however, that adding an alternate return argument
33 matches
Mail list logo
