--- Comment #3 from stillzhang at tencent dot com 2007-06-11 07:11 ---
I think if "&packet" should be changed, it should change before the function
¡°stmt->set_params¡±. And in fact it is changed after "stmt->set_params¡±, so I
think it's a logical error.
Best wishes,
still
--
still
--- Comment #2 from ubizjak at gmail dot com 2007-06-11 07:35 ---
This is the fault of combine pass. It isn't obvious to me, why it is
converting:
(insn 7 6 13 2 shift.c:6 (set (subreg:TI (reg:V2DI 62) 0)
(ashift:TI (subreg:TI (reg:V2DI 61 [ __a ]) 0)
(const_int 64 [
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-11 07:44 ---
Because you should not be have two patterns that could match (with one differs
via a clobber). The way to fix this is have the sse2_ashlti3 one do what
ashlti3_2 does for "r" constraints also.
This is the normal tw
--- Comment #2 from uros at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-11 09:09 ---
Subject: Bug 32279
Author: uros
Date: Mon Jun 11 09:09:24 2007
New Revision: 125614
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=125614
Log:
PR middle-end/32279
* fold-const (fold_binary) [RDI
--- Comment #3 from ubizjak at gmail dot com 2007-06-11 09:11 ---
Fixed.
--
ubizjak at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #4 from uros at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-11 10:13 ---
Subject: Bug 32280
Author: uros
Date: Mon Jun 11 10:13:00 2007
New Revision: 125615
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=125615
Log:
PR target/32280
* config/i386/sse.md ("sse2_ashlti"
--- Comment #5 from ubizjak at gmail dot com 2007-06-11 10:18 ---
Fixed.(In reply to comment #3)
> Because you should not be have two patterns that could match (with one differs
> via a clobber). The way to fix this is have the sse2_ashlti3 one do what
> ashlti3_2 does for "r" constrain
Hi,
this happens if you cast to an unrelated class. Could you at least give a
warning.
Cheers,
André
--
Summary: dynamic_cast compiles where static_cast fails
Product: gcc
Version: 4.1.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-11 11:18 ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 12277 ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-11 11:18 ---
*** Bug 32282 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #2 from Woebbeking at web dot de 2007-06-11 11:42 ---
Oops, I searched for dynamic_cast but didn't find that.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32282
--- Comment #114 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-11 12:23
---
*** Bug 32281 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21920
--- Comment #4 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-11 12:23 ---
It is still violating aliasing rules. That only -O3 fails is because -O3
enables
-finline-functions, so it should as well fail with lower optimization settings
with -finline-functions. Also -fno-strict-aliasing wil
--- Comment #12 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-11 12:53 ---
I have a fix that I will submit tonight or tomorrow morning. It also fixes
PR31258 and PR31897.
Paul
--
pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #6 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-11 12:54 ---
A fix is coming for this tonight or tomorrow.
Paul
--
pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #7 from hjl at lucon dot org 2007-06-11 13:02 ---
Created an attachment (id=13675)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=13675&action=view)
Assembler codes generated by good and bad compilers
Good.s is generated by good compiler and bad.s is generated by bad
co
--- Comment #33 from pluto at agmk dot net 2007-06-11 13:04 ---
i'm reopening this bug becasue the fix is not complete.
it does fix the xf86ScanPci.i testcase (time/mem hog) and this is great
$ time gcc xf86ScanPci.i -O1 -c ( 2.2GHz amd64, 1GB ram ).
gcc xf86ScanPci.i -O1 -c 4.10s us
--- Comment #34 from rguenther at suse dot de 2007-06-11 13:07 ---
Subject: Re: [4.2 Regression] possible quadratic
behaviour.
On Mon, 11 Jun 2007, pluto at agmk dot net wrote:
>
>
> --- Comment #33 from pluto at agmk dot net 2007-06-11 13:04 ---
> i'm reopening this bug b
--- Comment #35 from pluto at agmk dot net 2007-06-11 13:17 ---
(In reply to comment #34)
> Can you check where the time is spent on?
naturally, i'm building gcc with debuginfo now...
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30052
Consider the following code snippet
static volatile short a[(2048)];
short foo (int len, int v)
{
int i;
for (i = 0; i < len; i++) {
a[i] = v;
}
return a[0];
}
This should generate a post_inc for accessing elements of a. The problem seems
to be in the loop optimizer that fails to ide
--- Comment #1 from pranav dot bhandarkar at gmail dot com 2007-06-11
13:45 ---
Created an attachment (id=13676)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=13676&action=view)
Testcase displaying the said behaviour
Added testcase that exposes the problem
--
http://gcc.gnu.
--- Comment #36 from pluto at agmk dot net 2007-06-11 14:04 ---
Created an attachment (id=13677)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=13677&action=view)
testcase for time-hog.
--
pluto at agmk dot net changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-11 14:06 ---
What if you remove the pointless 'volatile' from a?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32283
--- Comment #37 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-11 14:08
---
Looks like it's still PTA:
tree PTA : 255.00 ( 0%) usr 17.25 ( 0%) sys 278.07 ( 0%) wall
28100 kB ( 0%) ggc
(just a snapshot after a few minutes compile)
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_
--- Comment #38 from pluto at agmk dot net 2007-06-11 14:11 ---
(In reply to comment #34)
> > the patch doesn't fix the sipQtCorepart0.ii time hog, only mem hog is fixed.
> > g++ needs about 300MB of ram and +inf? (canceled after 6 days) of time.
ops little eye damage, the g++ sits on
--- Comment #39 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-11 14:15
---
Created an attachment (id=13678)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=13678&action=view)
unincluded testcase
unincluded testcase that also "works" with mainline. Where the slowness is
also
present.
--- Comment #40 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-11 14:17
---
And again, a 4.2/4.3 regression wrt compile-time _and_ memory-usage. Mainline
needs 1.2GB ram and whatnot time, 4.1 is happy with 500MB and about 10s.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
Wha
This is a regression post 3.4.6.
gcc-4.1.x, gcc-4.2.x, gcc-4.3.x all have it.
ie:
// $ c++ -O -D_GLIBCXX_FULLY_DYNAMIC_STRING str.cc -o str
#include
int main()
{
std::string abc;
return 0;
}
gives:
*** glibc detected *** ./a.out: free(): invalid pointer: 0xb7f3c678 ***
=== Back
--- Comment #1 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-11 14:23 ---
Created an attachment (id=13679)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=13679&action=view)
add checks for empty
Possible patch.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32284
--- Comment #3 from pranav dot bhandarkar at gmail dot com 2007-06-11
14:33 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> What if you remove the pointless 'volatile' from a?
>
No, removing the 'volatile' doesnt help either. The 'volatile' was because this
is part of a bigger test.
--
http://gcc
--- Comment #2 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-06-11 15:25 ---
Hi Benjamin. If you ask me, this issue is INVALID: it is *not* supported
building the library normally and then passing -D_GLIBCXX_FULLY_DYNAMIC_STRING
on the command line, and never was! Simply because basic_string is expo
extern void abort (void);
_Complex v = 3.0 + 1.0iF;
void
foo (_Complex z, int *x)
{
if (z != v)
abort ();
}
_Complex bar (_Complex z) __attribute__ ((pure));
_Complex
bar (_Complex z)
{
return v;
}
int
baz (void)
{
int a, i;
for (i = 0; i < 6; i++)
foo (bar (1.0iF * i), &a);
r
The following occurs with svn head and GNAT GPL 2007.
$ gcc -c -g -gnat05 e.adb
+===GNAT BUG DETECTED==+
| 4.3.0 20070611 (experimental) (i686-pc-linux-gnu) GCC error: |
| in gen_type_die_with_usage, at dwarf2out.c:12921
--- Comment #41 from dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-11 15:40
---
Subject: Re: [4.2/4.3 Regression] possible quadratic behaviour.
On 11 Jun 2007 14:17:46 -, rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> --- Comment #40 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot o
--- Comment #1 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-11 15:43 ---
Looking at http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-09/msg00951.html
I'm slightly worried about backporting this to gcc-4_1-branch though.
Has that been resolved?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32285
--- Comment #2 from appfault at hotmail dot com 2007-06-11 16:01 ---
I wouldn't consider the bugzilla itself to be fixed until a regression test has
been added to the gcc test suite.
Can you confirm that this test case has been added to the gcc regression test
suite? I searched the tes
--- Comment #2 from jconner at apple dot com 2007-06-11 16:06 ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> Looking at http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-09/msg00951.html
> I'm slightly worried about backporting this to gcc-4_1-branch though.
> Has that been resolved?
I recall being told that the
This bug report may be distantly related to but (hopefully) is not a dupe of:
[4.3 Regression] Warnings while compiling libobjc with the uleb128 changes
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30731
When I make gcc 4.3.0 I create a "make log" like so:
make 2>&1 | tee make_1_log.txt
File: gcc
Our C++ program compiled with gcc 4.1.1 on Aix 5.3 terminates abnormally with a
core dump.
This happens in the initialization phase of the program. The program is the
core process of our application.
We can reproduce it at will.
This problem occurs with a binary compiled in the production environ
--- Comment #3 from appfault at hotmail dot com 2007-06-11 16:35 ---
Well here's one example:
http://foo-projects.org/pipermail/lunar-dev/2006-July/005821.html is the error
you get when bootstrapping using binutils 2.17 with gcc 3.4.6 and glibc 2.3.6.
Reverting to binutils 2.15 fixes t
When I compile the following function using the mips version of gfortran I get
the message:
q.f90: In function 'set_numeric_values':
q.f90:3: internal compiler error: in gfc_conv_variable, at
fortran/trans-expr.c:381
Please submit a full bug report,
with preprocessed source if appropriate.
See htt
--- Comment #4 from rob1weld at aol dot com 2007-06-11 17:00 ---
Pardon me. I was not trying to be unobservant.
I'll have a look at gcc and see if _I_ can build a patch to test the version of
mpfr and alter operation / configuration / etc. as needed to allow older
versions of mpfr and t
--- Comment #2 from rob1weld at aol dot com 2007-06-11 17:18 ---
>> "has to be the build compiler".
>OK.
A new error has popped up in this same section of the log between the compiling
and execution of gcc.dg-struct-layout-1 .
Running
/root/downloads/gcc-4_3-trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.
--- Comment #10 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-11 17:51
---
Fixed on trunk.
--
jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
S
--- Comment #1 from rob1weld at aol dot com 2007-06-11 18:01 ---
There is a "`" missing from the end of that line, we need:
+as_ver=`echo $as_ver | grep -o [0-9.+] | tr -d [:cntrl:]`
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32287
This is the output of a valid 60 line source file compile. The preprocessed
source is 30 KB in size and I know that there are no cycles in the code.
$ gcc -v -save-temps reduced-problem.cpp
Using built-in specs.
Target: x86_64-linux-gnu
Configured with: ../src/configure -v
--enable-languages=c,c+
--- Comment #1 from aribrei at arcor dot de 2007-06-11 18:05 ---
Created an attachment (id=13680)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=13680&action=view)
Unpreprocessed source file (informational)
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32290
--- Comment #2 from aribrei at arcor dot de 2007-06-11 18:05 ---
Created an attachment (id=13681)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=13681&action=view)
Preprocessed source file
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32290
--- Comment #1 from kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-11 18:16 ---
(In reply to comment #0)
> When I compile the following function using the mips version of gfortran I get
> the message:
>
> q.f90: In function 'set_numeric_values':
> q.f90:3: internal compiler error: in gfc_conv_var
--- Comment #2 from richard-gccbugzilla at metafoo dot co dot uk
2007-06-11 18:11 ---
Dup of 7046.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21560
--- Comment #3 from aribrei at arcor dot de 2007-06-11 18:30 ---
Created an attachment (id=13682)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=13682&action=view)
The same as #13681 but without those tons of empty lines
$ perl -ne 's/#.*$//; print if /\S/' reduced-problem.ii >
red
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-11 18:36 ---
Actually IIRC the machine's glibc was upgaded at the same time.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #2 from michael dot a dot richmond at nasa dot gov 2007-06-11
18:39 ---
I run Debian Linux 4.0 on my SGI box. When I type "apt-get source gcc-4.1", it
downloads a version of gcc 4.1.2 that appears to be extensively hacked up. This
version produced the referenced error. Could
--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-11 18:45 ---
Note this is most likely a dup of another bug which is talking about PPC.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #5 from rob1weld at aol dot com 2007-06-11 18:46 ---
I just built gcc version 4.3.0 20070611 and noticed this:
# grep -B4 -A2 undefined\ reference\ to
/opt/gcc-4_3-build/gcc/testsuite/gcc/gcc.log | head -n 6
Executing on host: /opt/gcc-4_3-build/gcc/xgcc -B/opt/gcc-4_3
--- Comment #4 from jconner at apple dot com 2007-06-11 18:59 ---
Sorry, yes, reading back I wasn't being very clear. I meant to say that the
impression I was left with was that it wasn't a result of my change, but of the
test environment, an idea which was supported by my own benchmark
--- Comment #3 from kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-11 19:08 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> I run Debian Linux 4.0 on my SGI box. When I type "apt-get source gcc-4.1", it
> downloads a version of gcc 4.1.2 that appears to be extensively hacked up.
> This
> version produced the refe
--- Comment #1 from laurent at guerby dot net 2007-06-11 20:17 ---
gcc -c -g -gnat05 e.adb works on 4.1.2, but it ICEs on 4.2 and 4.3.
+===GNAT BUG DETECTED==+
| 4.2.0 (i686-pc-linux-gnu) in gen_type_die, at dwarf2out.c:12720
Compiling the following snippet with -Wformat (or -Wall) causes the compiler to
complain: "wformat-bug.C:8: warning: format '%u' expects type 'unsigned int',
but argument 2 has type 'uint32_t'"
The problem seems to be that stdint.h defines uint32_t as "long" in cygwin. I
realize that int != long o
--- Comment #4 from aribrei at arcor dot de 2007-06-11 20:40 ---
Reported to crash as well on gcc 3.4 and 4.2, with a message like this:
gcc 4.2: cc1plus: out of memory allocating 385029117 bytes after a total of
155668480 bytes
Reported to compile fine on Microsoft Visual C++ 8.0
--
The following generates a spurious warning about control reaching the end of a
non-void function:
#include
void* foo(void*) {
pthread_exit(1);
}
--
Summary: pthread_exit should have attribute __noreturn__
Product: gcc
Version: 4.2.0
Status: UNCONF
--- Comment #1 from schwab at suse dot de 2007-06-11 20:50 ---
It is not portable to pass a long when an int is expected. But exchanging
unsigned and signed variants of the same type is always possible.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32291
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-11 20:57 ---
pthread.h comes from your libc and not GCC. GCC does have any builtins for
pthread* so closing as invalid.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #2 from mfouts at danger dot com 2007-06-11 20:59 ---
Subject: RE: xgcc invokes as with invalid -m option while assembling
crtbegin.o
#!/bin/sh
exec "$@"
-Original Message-
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-11 21:19 ---
Confirmed, I have not looked into this close enough but this is a front-end bug
as the type (and aliasing set) of the typeid variable is different from
std::type_info's.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
--- Comment #8 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-11 21:28 ---
This testcase is still slow:
WARNING: program timed out. FAIL: gcc.c-torture/compile/limits-fnargs.c -O1
(test for excess errors)
WARNING: program timed out.
FAIL: gcc.c-torture/compile/limits-fnargs.c -O2 (test
--- Comment #2 from cagney at redhat dot com 2007-06-11 21:38 ---
This bug is refering to the command line options parser and how it maps GCC
style options onto ECJ options.
--
cagney at redhat dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
When I was building libbid on Linux/Intel64, I got ICE. Gcc 4.2 is OK.
--
Summary: [4.3 Regression] internal compiler error: in do_SUBST,
at combine.c:502
Product: gcc
Version: 4.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
--- Comment #1 from hjl at lucon dot org 2007-06-11 21:39 ---
Created an attachment (id=13683)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=13683&action=view)
A testcase
[EMAIL PROTECTED] gcc]$ ./xgcc --version
xgcc (GCC) 4.3.0 20070611 (experimental) [trunk revision
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-11 21:40 ---
ecj1 is not part of GCC.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Target Milestone|--- |4.3
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-11 21:43 ---
This works for powerpc64-linux-gnu.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32293
--- Comment #4 from cagney at redhat dot com 2007-06-11 21:44 ---
This is a bug in the GCJ command line parser option parser, not in ECJ.
--
cagney at redhat dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #5 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-11 21:47 ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> This is a bug in the GCJ command line parser option parser, not in ECJ.
Well I say it is not a bug according to the documentation :).
Really you should use -Wno-unused-paramter if you don
--- Comment #6 from cagney at redhat dot com 2007-06-11 21:48 ---
That is something for _java_ developers to decide.
--
cagney at redhat dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #7 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-11 21:53 ---
Not really because this is a standard GCC option and having it different
between java and other languages is wrong.
http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-4.2.0/gcc/Warning-Options.html
Please read the documentation bef
--- Comment #5 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-11 21:57 ---
Yes this is fixed now, thanks.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #5 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-11 21:59 ---
Fixed.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #20 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-11 22:00
---
Fixed.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNE
--- Comment #3 from hjl at lucon dot org 2007-06-11 22:05 ---
Revision 123081 is good and revision 123304 is bad.
--
hjl at lucon dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
T
--- Comment #8 from rask at sygehus dot dk 2007-06-11 22:05 ---
Bug bootstrap/12019 looks similiar to this one.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32154
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.3.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32293
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-11 22:25 ---
binutils's version style changed.
I don't remember if they changed it back or not.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32110
--- Comment #4 from hjl at lucon dot org 2007-06-11 22:38 ---
Revision 123178 is good and revision 123254 is bad.
--
hjl at lucon dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
T
--- Comment #4 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-11 22:39 ---
Subject: Bug 30875
Author: pault
Date: Mon Jun 11 22:39:21 2007
New Revision: 125628
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=125628
Log:
2007-06-12 Paul Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR fortran/
--- Comment #13 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-11 22:39 ---
Subject: Bug 29786
Author: pault
Date: Mon Jun 11 22:39:21 2007
New Revision: 125628
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=125628
Log:
2007-06-12 Paul Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR fortran
--- Comment #14 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-11 22:41 ---
fixed on trunk
Paul
--
pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Statu
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.3.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32293
--- Comment #5 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-11 22:42 ---
Fixed on trunk
Paul
--
pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status
--- Comment #5 from hjl at lucon dot org 2007-06-11 22:49 ---
Revision 123214 is good and revision 123223 is bad.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32293
--- Comment #6 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-11 22:51 ---
I am thinking it was Steven's patch, though most likely just exposed a latent
bug somewhere else.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32293
--- Comment #7 from hjl at lucon dot org 2007-06-11 22:56 ---
I have verified that this patch
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-03/msg01634.html
causes this regression.
--
hjl at lucon dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #5 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-11 23:01 ---
Yes this is fixed.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Stat
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot
|
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-11 23:11 ---
Part of the problem is PR 29478 which causes this warning/error to show up.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-11 23:13 ---
Maybe the assert should be changed to check error count.
/* When guessing was done, the hints should be already stripped away. */
gcc_assert (!flag_guess_branch_prob);
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org chang
--- Comment #8 from tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-11 23:44 ---
I'm reopening this. Andrew P., please leave it open if you would.
We chose what goes into -Wall, and this is a bug in the
implementation of that choice.
--
tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What
--- Comment #9 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-11 23:50 ---
There were a couple of things wrong with the way this was reported, first it
was reported against 4.1 which actually still has a java source compiler but
then it was mentioned it was really for ecj connection.
Can
--- Comment #1 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-12 00:22
---
There are two different code paths in the compiler for implicit and implicit
none. I will see if I can find the spot for this check to be added. I came
across it once before.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
1 - 100 of 117 matches
Mail list logo
