--- Comment #3 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-04-07 08:50 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> This looks related to 31218, so I'm adding a dependency even though I'm not
> certain it's the same. Also confirming, because it's definitely a bug even if
> it's a duplicate one.
>
It migh
--- Comment #1 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-04-07 08:54 ---
This is fixed by the patch that I submitted for PR29507.
Paul
--
pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #8 from paolo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-04-07 09:38 ---
Subject: Bug 31481
Author: paolo
Date: Sat Apr 7 09:38:39 2007
New Revision: 123637
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=123637
Log:
2007-04-07 Paolo Carlini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR libstd
--- Comment #9 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-04-07 09:39 ---
Fixed.
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
Machine info:
CPU: AMD 4200+ (64 bit)
RAM: 3G DDR
OS info:
Type: Linux
Distro: Ubuntu Edgy 6.10
Kernel: 2.6.17-10-generic #2 SMP Tue Dec 5 22:28:26 UTC 2006 i686 GNU/Linu
Bit: 32 bit OS
Overview of the problem: gcc and g++ would frequently and randomly seg faults,
and this would somet
--- Comment #13 from dave dot korn at artimi dot com 2007-04-07 14:07
---
Manu: "I was not criticizing your patch. [ ... ] "
So sorry, I didn't mean you to think I was offended! I took your comment
completely at face value.
" [ ... ] I hope this helps."
It most certainly does!
--- Comment #2 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-04-07 14:15
---
Created an attachment (id=13337)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=13337&action=view)
Patch
--
fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Adde
Steps to reproduce:
1. Download Pixie 2.1.1 from
https://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=59462
2. untar and configure
3. Try to compile with make, specifically Pixie/src/ri/execute.cpp
Memory usage blows up and g++ gets killed.
Compiling with make CXXFLAGS=-g works.
--
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-04-07 15:30 ---
If GCC is causing your machine to freeze, there is only one possibility, your
machine is over heating and this is not a GCC bug. I think you need to check
your hardware. Also if you are getting messages from the ke
--- Comment #2 from ye dot patrick at gmail dot com 2007-04-07 15:43
---
I did think overheating was an issue, but then I turned off the computer for
half an hour then turned it back on to compile the same code and the same error
occurred. The temperature of my room at the time was belo
--- Comment #4 from patchapp at dberlin dot org 2007-04-07 15:45 ---
Subject: Bug number PR31257
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/2007-04/msg00321.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/sh
--
pbrook at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |dave dot korn at artimi dot
|dot org
--- Comment #6 from danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-04-07 16:10 ---
Subject: Bug 31369
Author: danglin
Date: Sat Apr 7 16:10:06 2007
New Revision: 123638
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=123638
Log:
PR testsuite/31369
* testsuite/libgomp.c++/c+
--- Comment #7 from danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-04-07 16:13 ---
Fixed.
--
danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
--- Comment #2 from bangerth at dealii dot org 2007-04-07 16:23 ---
Confirmed.
I think a patch would be of interest. Maybe one could just tweak
the error to read
x.cc:5: error: invalid use of undefined type 'foobar'
x.cc:1: error: forward declaration of struct or class 'foobar'
--
--- Comment #3 from bangerth at dealii dot org 2007-04-07 16:29 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> I'm willing to accept this as an hardware/OS issue, but then am I really that
> unlikely to be the only person having this kind of problem? In other words,
> has
> this type of problems been s
+===GNAT BUG DETECTED==+
| 4.3.0 20070407 (experimental) (hppa-unknown-linux-gnu) GCC error:|
| in staticp, at tree.c:2017 |
| Error detected at a-exexda.adb:239:40
--- Comment #3 from tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-04-07 16:49 ---
I'll look into this during the next week. The same bug seems to be present
with WHERE. Fix should be trivial.
--
tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
For the attached (unfortunately rather lengthy) file I finally managed
to get a reproducible testcase that spews out several pages of
canonical types warning messages when compiled with -O2 (but not with
-O0):
examples/step-27> /tmp/bangerth/bin/gcc-mainline/bin/g++ -c step-27.ii -O2
step-27.cc: I
--- Comment #3 from tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-04-07 16:54 ---
I verified Tobias' reading of the standard. Closing as invalid. Perhaps the
error message could be more helpful.
--
tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
For the attached (unfortunately rather lengthy) file I finally managed
to get a reproducible testcase that spews out several pages of
canonical types warning messages when compiled with -O2 (but not with
-O0):
examples/step-27> /tmp/bangerth/bin/gcc-mainline/bin/g++ -c step-27.ii -O2
step-27.cc: I
--- Comment #1 from bangerth at dealii dot org 2007-04-07 16:55 ---
Ack, using the "back" button over PR submissions is no good...
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 31505 ***
--
bangerth at dealii dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from bangerth at dealii dot org 2007-04-07 16:55 ---
*** Bug 31506 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31505
--- Comment #2 from bangerth at dealii dot org 2007-04-07 16:59 ---
For some reason, bugzilla gives me an internal error when I try to attach
the file. In any case, it is here:
http://www.math.tamu.edu/~bangerth/step-27.ii.gz
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31505
--- Comment #5 from tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-04-07 17:04 ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> (In reply to comment #3)
> > But even if it is the case, the compiler should report an error.
>
> This is not a requirement of the standard but is a long standing regression,
> relative to g
--- Comment #1 from tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-04-07 17:05 ---
*** Bug 31414 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31251
--- Comment #1 from tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-04-07 17:05 ---
Trying to break PaulT's heart by artificially increasing our bug count, FX? :-)
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 31251 ***
--
tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #2 from tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-04-07 17:09 ---
Waiting for more than 5 weeks should be enough. Please reopen if you come
forth with a testcase.
--
tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-04-07 17:28 ---
> Ack, using the "back" button over PR submissions is no good...
Which has been fixed in bugzilla 3.0 so when we upgrade, that problem will be
fixed.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31506
--- Comment #5 from danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-04-07 17:29 ---
Richard,
Since you added these tests, do you have any thoughts as to what
should be done regarding these fails. Clearly, these tests invoke
undefined behavior, so the compiler can ICE. On the otherhand,
the compil
--- Comment #6 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-04-07 17:35 ---
This is just like PR 12535 where DSE is trying to remove part of the
prologue/epilogue also.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31500
--- Comment #7 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-04-07 17:36 ---
> Simplified testcase. This bug is probably a WONTFIX.
No, it should not be a WONTFIX. The DSE implementation should try not to
delete part of prologue/epilogue .
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id
--- Comment #7 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-04-07 17:38 ---
Basically flow (or really the DSE part of flow) should be taught that the
prologue/epilogue is special and should not be deleted. Maybe a good idea is
to see if the dataflow branch with its new DSE gets this ICE als
--- Comment #8 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2007-04-07
18:01 ---
Subject: Re: FAIL: gcc.dg/Warray-bounds.c (internal compiler error)
> This is just like PR 12535 where DSE is trying to remove part of the
> prologue/epilogue also.
Looks similar. Particularly, the compi
--
jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot
|dot org
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-04-07 20:25 ---
Reducing.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31505
--- Comment #4 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-04-07 21:14 ---
Subject: Bug 31293
Author: pault
Date: Sat Apr 7 21:13:52 2007
New Revision: 123641
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=123641
Log:
2007-04-07 Paul Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR fortran/
--- Comment #4 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-04-07 21:18 ---
Subject: Bug 31424
Author: pault
Date: Sat Apr 7 21:18:17 2007
New Revision: 123642
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=123642
Log:
2007-04-07 Paul Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR fortran/
--- Comment #2 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-04-07 21:18 ---
Subject: Bug 31214
Author: pault
Date: Sat Apr 7 21:18:17 2007
New Revision: 123642
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=123642
Log:
2007-04-07 Paul Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR fortran/
--- Comment #5 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-04-07 21:21 ---
Subject: Bug 31222
Author: pault
Date: Sat Apr 7 21:20:49 2007
New Revision: 123643
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=123643
Log:
2007-04-07 Paul Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR fortran/
The mentioned test cases produce an ICE in reload.c:3737
Attached. Also the preprocessed source for closure_fn3.c
I can not c&p with firefox atm.
--
Summary: libffi regression, many.c, closure_fn2/fn3.c with -Os
Product: gcc
Version: 4.3.0
Status: UN
--- Comment #1 from andreast at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-04-07 21:23
---
Created an attachment (id=13338)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=13338&action=view)
preprocessed source
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31507
--- Comment #4 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-04-07 21:23 ---
Subject: Bug 30872
Author: pault
Date: Sat Apr 7 21:23:40 2007
New Revision: 123644
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=123644
Log:
2007-04-07 Paul Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR fortran/
--- Comment #2 from andreast at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-04-07 21:24
---
Created an attachment (id=13339)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=13339&action=view)
error text
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31507
--- Comment #4 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-04-07 21:25 ---
Subject: Bug 30880
Author: pault
Date: Sat Apr 7 21:25:43 2007
New Revision: 123645
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=123645
Log:
2007-04-07 Paul Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR fortran/
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot
|
--- Comment #5 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-04-07 21:29 ---
Subject: Bug 31257
Author: pault
Date: Sat Apr 7 21:29:13 2007
New Revision: 123646
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=123646
Log:
2007-04-07 Paul Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR fortran/
--- Comment #3 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-04-07 21:31 ---
Fixed on trumk
Paul
--
pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status
--- Comment #5 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-04-07 21:32 ---
Fixed on trumk
Paul
--
pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status
--- Comment #6 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-04-07 21:32 ---
Fixed on trumk
Paul
--
pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status
--- Comment #5 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-04-07 21:33 ---
Fixed on trumk
Paul
--
pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status
--- Comment #5 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-04-07 21:33 ---
Fixed on trumk
Paul
--
pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status
--- Comment #6 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-04-07 21:34 ---
Fixed on trumk
Paul
--
pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status
--- Comment #2 from aesok at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-04-07 23:00 ---
Subject: Bug 30289
Author: aesok
Date: Sat Apr 7 23:00:33 2007
New Revision: 123647
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=123647
Log:
PR target/30289
* config/avr/avr.md (*clrmemqi, *
--- Comment #3 from aesok at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-04-07 23:15 ---
Subject: Bug 30289
Author: aesok
Date: Sat Apr 7 23:14:51 2007
New Revision: 123648
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=123648
Log:
PR target/30289
* config/avr/avr.md (*clrmemqi, *
--- Comment #4 from aesok at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-04-07 23:21 ---
Subject: Bug 30289
Author: aesok
Date: Sat Apr 7 23:21:01 2007
New Revision: 123649
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=123649
Log:
PR target/30289
* config/avr/avr.md (*clrmemqi, *
--- Comment #5 from aesok at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-04-07 23:23 ---
Fixed in 4.1, 4.2 branch, and HEAD.
--
aesok at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-04-07 23:40 ---
See on-list discussion, but basically, it should suffice to simply remove the
assert, which will give the Ada frontend the same behavior it used to get.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31504
--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-04-08 00:05 ---
I bet a beer that this is related to code like:
int a[] = {1,2};
The only reason I am saying that is because the last time I looked into a
failure of giving the same aliasing set to int[] = {1,2} as int[2] was the s
--- Comment #2 from dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-04-08 00:50 ---
Patch was reverted
--
dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Stat
--- Comment #5 from bangerth at dealii dot org 2007-04-08 00:54 ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> ive no idea which part of the standard should imply/allow this. if one
> replaces
> "typename T::privIC * priv" with "T * priv", its valid and it compiles. I
> thought T::privC is equally acce
--- Comment #1 from bangerth at dealii dot org 2007-04-08 00:56 ---
An internal compiler error is always a bug on our side. Please follow
the guidelines at http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs.html and supply us with the
information listed there.
W.
--
bangerth at dealii dot org changed:
--- Comment #2 from bangerth at dealii dot org 2007-04-08 00:58 ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> Do you mean -Woverloaded-virtual? (see man page)
> The diagostic reports when a derived class's method 'hides' the base class's.
>
No, he simply wants to know that "it doesn't matter from
--- Comment #1 from bangerth at dealii dot org 2007-04-08 01:01 ---
I also find this a bit weird:
bug.cc:4: error: parameter packs not expanded with `...':
bug.cc:4: note: 't'
If the error ends with a colon, then the variable name should also be
listed as part of the error mess
--- Comment #1 from bangerth at dealii dot org 2007-04-08 01:03 ---
Please follow the steps outlined at http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs.html . In
particular, we'll need a preprocessed source file. It would also be
of interest how much memory you see that this testcase actually consumes
before it
--- Comment #4 from ye dot patrick at gmail dot com 2007-04-08 04:39
---
The error occurs extremely often on the same files, but not all the time. For
example, if I was to compile snow.c (the file that generated the error in my
initial report) 10 times, it would have the same error 6-8
--- Comment #5 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-04-08 05:55 ---
Reduced testcase (which makes I am correct):
template struct Point
{
Point (const double x, const double y);
};
Point<2> f(void) {}
void create_coarse_grid () {
static const Point<2> vertices_1[]
67 matches
Mail list logo
