--- Comment #2 from hjl at lucon dot org 2006-12-31 09:25 ---
It isn't really about cross compiler. It is about the compiler which is used to
compile gcc. Since we don't know if the compiler can handle cpuid asm statement
like gcc, when we are building gcc, there is no way for us to call
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-31 10:26 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> BTW, it is quite rare not to use gcc to build gcc, considering bootstrap.
> The only case I can think of is when we use another compiler to build
> canadian cross compiler where target == h
I just tried to compile Suse package grub-0.97-40
with the new GNU C compiler version 4.3 snapshot 20061230.
The compiler said
gcc: Internal error: Segmentation fault (program cc1)
Please submit a full bug report.
See http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs.html> for instructions.
Here is some help from valgrin
--- Comment #1 from dcb314 at hotmail dot com 2006-12-31 11:40 ---
Created an attachment (id=12849)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=12849&action=view)
C source code
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30338
I just tried to compile Suse package gwc-0.21.07-2
with the new GNU C compiler version 4.3 snapshot 20061230.
The compiler said
drawing.c: In function 'draw_sonogram':
drawing.c:779: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault
Please submit a full bug report,
with preprocessed source if appropria
--- Comment #1 from dcb314 at hotmail dot com 2006-12-31 11:42 ---
Created an attachment (id=12850)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=12850&action=view)
gzipped C source code
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30339
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-31 11:51 ---
#97 0x00453a30 in maybe_canonicalize_comparison_1 (code=GE_EXPR,
type=0x42615540, arg0=0x1057ce0, arg1=0x1056de0) at ../../gcc/fold-const.c:7905
#98 0x00453ca8 in maybe_canonicalize_comparison (code=GT_EXPR, type=0x4
--- Comment #3 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-31 11:57 ---
Mine. Reducing.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|major |normal
Component|pch |other
GCC tar
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-31 12:08 ---
See badvista.fsf.org
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30335
--- Comment #4 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-31 12:28 ---
Reduced testcase:
extern char *grub_scratch_mem;
int testload_func (char *arg, int flags)
{
int i;
for (i = 0; i < 0x10ac0; i++)
if (*((unsigned char *) ((0x20 + i) + (int) grub_scratch_mem))
!=
--- Comment #5 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-31 12:57 ---
It starts as we try to fold
~(grub_scratch_mem.1_5 + 2097152) > 2147483647
from n_of_executions_at_most. The problem is we have here already
a type-mismatch:
(gdb) call debug_tree (op0)
unit size
--- Comment #4 from Christoph_vW at reactos dot org 2006-12-31 13:48
---
What do you want to tell me with this link? Without this patch I can not use
gcc on Vista - which means I can not use other free software either because I
am not able to compile it.
Should I set up a website like
--- Comment #6 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-31 14:05 ---
Fixed.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #5 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-31 14:16 ---
Just ignore comment #3 and post the patch to [EMAIL PROTECTED] please,
indicating which target you configured for and how you tested this patch
(a bootstrap and regtest is required).
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot
--- Comment #10 from gerald at pfeifer dot com 2006-12-31 14:27 ---
(In reply to comment #9)
> Another Testcase (simplier):
> #define f(x) ({ unsigned tmp=x; tmp; })
>
> unsigned foo(unsigned x) {
> return __builtin_constant_p(x) ? 0 : f(x);
> }
Note that this small testc
--- Comment #11 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-31 14:40
---
The patch looks certainly obvious.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #9 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-31 15:00 ---
Subject: Bug 30081
Author: pault
Date: Sun Dec 31 15:00:18 2006
New Revision: 120298
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=120298
Log:
2006-12-31 Paul Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
BACKPORTS fr
--- Comment #7 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-31 15:00 ---
Subject: Bug 29992
Author: pault
Date: Sun Dec 31 15:00:18 2006
New Revision: 120298
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=120298
Log:
2006-12-31 Paul Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
BACKPORTS fr
--- Comment #6 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-31 15:00 ---
Subject: Bug 30236
Author: pault
Date: Sun Dec 31 15:00:18 2006
New Revision: 120298
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=120298
Log:
2006-12-31 Paul Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
BACKPORTS fr
--- Comment #7 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-31 15:00 ---
Subject: Bug 30202
Author: pault
Date: Sun Dec 31 15:00:18 2006
New Revision: 120298
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=120298
Log:
2006-12-31 Paul Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
BACKPORTS fr
--- Comment #5 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-31 15:00 ---
Subject: Bug 30190
Author: pault
Date: Sun Dec 31 15:00:18 2006
New Revision: 120298
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=120298
Log:
2006-12-31 Paul Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
BACKPORTS fr
--- Comment #8 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-31 15:17 ---
Fixed on trunk and 4.2
Paul
--
pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #10 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-31 15:17 ---
Fixed on trunk and 4.2
Paul
--
pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #6 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-31 15:18 ---
Fixed on trunk and 4.2
Paul
--
pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #8 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-31 15:19 ---
Fixed on trunk and 4.2
Paul
--
pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #7 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-31 15:19 ---
Fixed on trunk and 4.2
Paul
--
pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-31 15:54 ---
working patch posted.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from simartin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-31 16:09
---
Subject: Bug 29731
Author: simartin
Date: Sun Dec 31 16:09:07 2006
New Revision: 120299
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=120299
Log:
2006-12-31 Simon Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR
--- Comment #2 from sayle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-31 16:17 ---
Subject: Bug 30322
Author: sayle
Date: Sun Dec 31 16:17:49 2006
New Revision: 120300
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=120300
Log:
PR middle-end/30322
* fold-const.c (fold_binary)
--- Comment #7 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-31 16:49 ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> (that needs to read
>
> return fold_build1 (BIT_NOT_EXPR, type, op1);
No it should read:
return fold_build1 (BIT_NOT_EXPR, type, fold_convert (type, arg1) );
There are a couple m
--- Comment #6 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-31 16:55 ---
This is a host issue only.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
GCC ho
--- Comment #4 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-31 17:27 ---
Subject: Bug 30137
Author: rguenth
Date: Sun Dec 31 17:27:35 2006
New Revision: 120301
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=120301
Log:
2006-12-31 Richard Guenther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR
--- Comment #5 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-31 17:28 ---
Fixed.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #3 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-31 17:59 ---
This, at resolve.c:1578 sems to provide a fix (not regtested)-
for (arg = expr->value.function.actual; arg; arg = arg->next)
{
if (inquiry && arg->next != NULL && arg->next->expr
--- Comment #2 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2006-12-31 19:21 ---
Subject: Re: New: -Wdeprecated is not documented
On Fri, 29 Dec 2006, tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> There is one mention of -Wdeprecated in the manual, but it is
> not documented anywhere.
It's document
--- Comment #12 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-31 19:25
---
Bootstrapped and tested on i686-pc-linux-gnu.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30253
I have an example that illustrates the problem since it is rather hard to
describe in an easy to understand way. Notice how the alternative constructor
for C gives an unrelated compile time error (that may be a separate or related
problem). This could be understood and accepted behavior but it re
--- Comment #1 from mjtruog at fastmail dot ca 2006-12-31 21:37 ---
Created an attachment (id=12851)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=12851&action=view)
example of bug
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30340
--- Comment #2 from mjtruog at fastmail dot ca 2006-12-31 21:44 ---
The example code produces the runtime error:
pure virtual method called
terminate called without an active exception
Abort
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30340
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-31 23:31 ---
"C c(B());" is actually declaring a function which returns a C type and takes a
B type. This is one of the parts of the C++ standard that would be ambious
except they define it as a function.
The runtime issue is
--- Comment #3 from tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-01 00:34 ---
Sorry, I forgot all about that.
It would be convenient if the manual had an @optindex for both
spellings. That way I could use the index to jump to the docs for any
option, not just non-default options.
--
http
--- Comment #26 from mark at codesourcery dot com 2007-01-01 00:41 ---
Subject: Re: [4.0/4.1/4.2/4.3 Regression] placement
new does not change the dynamic type as it should
dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> If we add a placement_new_expr, and not try to revisit our interpretati
--- Comment #7 from dannysmith at users dot sourceforge dot net 2007-01-01
01:53 ---
I am not in position to test this on Vista until next week. Can you please
indicate how you tested.
Danny
--
dannysmith at users dot sourceforge dot net changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #7 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-01 04:58
---
I have formatted named pipe I/O working, at least for the equivalent test cases
given here.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30162
--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-01 05:42 ---
For the last question on this code:
C c(1, B());
What is the life time of the temp that holds B()?
I say it is only for that expression and not for the lifetime of c so you are
now using a temp whos life time e
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-01 07:04 ---
No feedback in 3 months.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
47 matches
Mail list logo
