--- Comment #1 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-16 07:05 ---
Work around for Fortran:
- integer :: i, tmp = 1, itmp = 0
+ integer :: i, tmp, itmp
+ tmp = 1; itmp = 0
Reduced C test case below. The problem is that itmp and tmp are static.
#include
int main
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-16 07:15 ---
What version of GCC are you starting with?
This works for me on an i686-linux-gnu machine (a pentium 4D).
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-16 07:20 ---
Related to PR 31325
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32332
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-16 07:23 ---
Confirmed.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCON
--- Comment #1 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-16 08:09 ---
This one should be relatively easy.
I'll take it.
--
tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #2 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-16 08:29 ---
Mine.
--
burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|dfranke at g
subroutine test
use omp_lib
implicit none
integer, parameter :: NT = 4
integer :: a
save
a = 1
!$omp threadprivate(a)
end subroutine test
gfortran:
Error: Unexpected !$OMP THREADPRIVATE statement at (1)
Intel:
Error: A specification statement cannot appear in t
--- Comment #3 from patchapp at dberlin dot org 2007-06-16 09:00 ---
Subject: Bug number PR32359
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/2007-06/msg0.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/sh
--- Comment #28 from uros at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-16 09:53 ---
Subject: Bug 31723
Author: uros
Date: Sat Jun 16 09:52:48 2007
New Revision: 125756
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=125756
Log:
PR middle-end/31723
* hooks.c (hook_tree_tree_bool_null):
--- Comment #3 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-16 11:07 ---
This has been on the books too long - I was hoping that this would be dealt
with as a tyro job:)
.and, yes, a fix is on the way!
Paul
--
pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #2 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-16 11:09 ---
This has been on the books too long - I was hoping that this would be dealt
with as a tyro job:)
.and, yes, a fix is on the way!
Paul
--
pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #1 from hjl at lucon dot org 2007-06-16 12:57 ---
I don't see any regressions with BOOT_CFLAGS set to "-O2 -g -msse2
-ftree-vectorize":
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2007-06/msg00756.html
with 83 loop vectorized vs.
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2007-06/msg
I'm getting the following segfault with current trunk. This compiled
fine with trunk from 20070515 but produces the segfault with 20070604.
(sid)26454:[EMAIL PROTECTED]: ~] /usr/lib/gcc-snapshot/bin/gcc -O
-ftree-vectorize -c
libsamplerate-termination_test.c
libsamplerate-termination_test.c: In
--- Comment #1 from tbm at cyrius dot com 2007-06-16 12:59 ---
Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault.
significand_size (mode=) at gcc/real.c:2572
2572 if (fmt->b == 10)
(gdb) where
#0 significand_size (mode=) at gcc/real.c:2572
#1 0x00679e3f in simplify_unary
--- Comment #2 from tbm at cyrius dot com 2007-06-16 13:00 ---
This segfault shows up on x86_64-linux-gnu, but not on ia64-linux-gnu
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32366
--- Comment #7 from malitzke at metronets dot com 2007-06-16 13:08 ---
It is good to be challenged, as it forces clarification of the issues. It is
also good to let some grass grow instead of just charging ahead.
Putting the legal and philosophical ramifications aside and considering on
--- Comment #2 from dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-16 14:00 ---
A simplified testcase:
$> cat pr32298.f90
PROGRAM ERR_MINLOC
INTEGER, PARAMETER :: N = 7
DOUBLE PRECISION, DIMENSION (N), PARAMETER :: A &
= (/ 0.3D0, 0.455D0, 0.6D0, 0.7D0, 0.72D0, 0.76D0, 0.79D0 /)
INTE
--- Comment #2 from dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-16 14:42 ---
Fixed in trunk and 4.2.1. Backport to 4.1.3 unlikely. Closing.
--
dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #4 from patchapp at dberlin dot org 2007-06-16 16:10 ---
Subject: Bug number PR20863
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/2007-06/msg01127.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/sh
This happens when compiling povray-3.6.1 with gcc version 4.3.0 20070616
(experimental). The testcase (reduced with delta) is attached to the report.
g++ -O2 xxx.cpp
xxx.cpp: In function double pov::Evaluate_TPat(pov::TPATTERN*, double*,
pov::INTERSECTION*):
xxx.cpp:146: internal compiler error
--- Comment #1 from mstein at phenix dot rootshell dot be 2007-06-16 16:57
---
The avr target has the same problem:
/n/07/mstein/svn/trunk/libgcc/../gcc/libgcc2.c: In function '__muldi3':
/n/07/mstein/svn/trunk/libgcc/../gcc/libgcc2.c:566: internal compiler error: in
cselib_record_set,
--- Comment #1 from ubizjak at gmail dot com 2007-06-16 16:58 ---
Created an attachment (id=13713)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=13713&action=view)
reduced testcase
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32367
$ g++ -isystem sys x.cpp -c -Wall -O
sys/x.hpp: In function 'int main()':
sys/x.hpp:7: warning: 'i' is used uninitialized in this function
sys/x.hpp:6: note: 'i' was declared here
i ran into this during playing with new boost libraries.
--
Summary: warnings from system headers not su
--- Comment #1 from pluto at agmk dot net 2007-06-16 17:20 ---
Created an attachment (id=13714)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=13714&action=view)
testcase
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32368
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-16 17:21 ---
This was caued by me.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-16 17:21 ---
combine.c is RTL :).
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Hello,
there seems to be a problem compiling frv-elf-gcc:
gcc -c -g -O2 -DIN_GCC -DCROSS_DIRECTORY_STRUCTURE -W -Wall -Wwrite-strings
-Wstrict-prototypes -Wmissing-prototypes -Wold-style-definition
-Wmissing-format-attribute -pedantic -Wno-long-long -Wno-variadic-macros
--- Comment #2 from zadeck at naturalbridge dot com 2007-06-16 17:37
---
please include the preprocessed source (the .i file) and the command line to
compiler this.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32335
I have a really interesting testcase that fails with current trunk. It's
a piece of C code with some x86 assembler which I'm trying to compile on
IA64. Obviously, this won't work. In the past, GCC happily rejected the
code. Now, however, GCC segfaults after printing an error. In fact, it's
a b
--- Comment #1 from zadeck at naturalbridge dot com 2007-06-16 17:45
---
Subject: Re: New: [frv] macro "DF_LIVE_IN" passed 2 arguments,
but takes just 1
mstein at phenix dot rootshell dot be wrote:
> Hello,
> there seems to be a problem compiling frv-elf-gcc:
>
> gcc -c -g -O2 -DI
--- Comment #1 from tbm at cyrius dot com 2007-06-16 17:48 ---
On powerpc I simply get:
vbetool-thunk.c: In function 'inb_local':
vbetool-thunk.c:10: error: impossible constraint in 'asm'
no segfault.
--
tbm at cyrius dot com changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #3 from mstein at phenix dot rootshell dot be 2007-06-16 17:53
---
Created an attachment (id=13715)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=13715&action=view)
gcc/xgcc -O2 libgcc2.i should trigger the bug
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32335
--- Comment #23 from rob1weld at aol dot com 2007-06-16 18:12 ---
> Comment #17 From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-13 11:30 [reply] ---
>
>>> On Tue, 6 Feb 2007, Florent de Dinechin wrote:
>>> We are the maintainers of the crlibm project, which aims at developping a
>>> modern, correctl
--
zadeck at naturalbridge dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Last reconf
--
dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot
|
--- Comment #13 from jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk 2007-06-16 19:04 ---
(In reply to comment #12)
> note this might get cleared up with pointer_plus.
> I have not tried it there yet but i will be posting a patch and committing
> soon.
I've tried current trunk (which should contain pointer
--- Comment #2 from patchapp at dberlin dot org 2007-06-16 19:10 ---
Subject: Bug number PR31473
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/2007-06/msg01134.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/sh
--- Comment #2 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-06-16 19:19 ---
At variance with c++/32256, this one apparently happens as "C" code too...
Probably should be not categorized as C++-only...
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32368
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-16 20:03 ---
The chrec is
{{&BinomialCoefficients[0], +, 4}_1, +, {0, +, 4}_1}_1
Which looks ok and correct.
the comment before chrec_component_in_loop_num, says:
/* Returns the evolution part of CHREC in LOOP_NUM when RIGHT is
--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-16 20:31 ---
Here is a reduced testcase:
int BinomialCoefficients[17 * 35];
void InitializeBinomialCoefficients ()
{
unsigned n, k;
int *ptr = BinomialCoefficients;
for ( n = 1; n <= 33; ++n)
{
for ( k = 1; k < n;
--- Comment #5 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-16 20:40 ---
Actually I reduced it a little too far (I had fixed the ICE in one case but was
reducing another ICE):
int BinomialCoefficientsInited = 0;
int BinomialCoefficients[17 * 35];
double Evaluate_TPat (void)
{
unsi
--- Comment #6 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-16 20:55 ---
This patch works for me (and I think it is correct):
Index: tree-chrec.c
===
--- tree-chrec.c(revision 125757)
+++ tree-chrec.c(working
--- Comment #5 from dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-16 21:08 ---
Erik,
how did you prepare the attached file? I think I have an idea what's wrong:
Let there be "foo.inc", "bar.inc" and "pr24965.F90". The latter contains:
#include "foo.inc" ! integer :: foo
#include
--- Comment #7 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-16 21:16 ---
But I am not 100% the rest of the correct is correct.
Daniel/Pop,
Could you look into my patch to see if it is correct? My pointer_plus
exposed a latent bug with chrec_component_in_loop_num:
for
initial_condition
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.0.0 |---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18895
--- Comment #8 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-16 21:41 ---
here is a testcase which also crashes for i686 (32bits):
int BinomialCoefficientsInited = 0;
int BinomialCoefficients[17 * 35];
double Evaluate_TPat (void)
{
unsigned short n, k;
if (BinomialCoefficie
The following code doesn't compile with g++:
#include
int time;
int main() {}
Including the header brings the keyword "time" in global namespace. It
gives the following error:
main.cpp:3: error: 'int time' redeclared as different kind of symbol
/usr/include/time.h:187: error: previ
--- Comment #1 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-06-16 22:07 ---
This specific issues doesn't happen anymore in mainline. Otherwise, this is
just 6257
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 6257 ***
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #26 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-06-16 22:07 ---
*** Bug 32371 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #27 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-06-16 22:19 ---
I think the resolution of DR 456 (now [WP]):
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/lwg-defects.html#456
means our behavior is now conforming to the amended Standard.
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
--- Comment #4 from dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-16 22:51 ---
No backport to 4.2. Closing.
--
dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #6 from dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-16 22:53 ---
Not a regression, no backport to 4.2. Closing.
--
dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #3 from dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-16 22:54 ---
Not a regression, no backport to 4.2. Closing
--
dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #2 from dirtyepic at gentoo dot org 2007-06-16 23:51 ---
i'm wondering if this could be related to a problem we're seeing with segfaults
caused by misaligned movdqa instructions in zlib compiled with
-ftree-vectorize.
https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=151394#c13
--
--- Comment #11 from malitzke at metronets dot com 2007-06-17 00:14 ---
Thank you Mrs Johnson for putting in (by my reckoning) an inordinate amount of
hours to put some bounds on this problems.
I am sure you are aware of the old adage "A stitch in time saves nine". If some
developer/mai
--- Comment #2 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-17 00:23
---
I think I have a fix for this. Testing.
--
jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #1 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-17 00:40
---
I think I have a patch for this. Testing
--
jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #4 from zadeck at naturalbridge dot com 2007-06-17 01:23
---
Subject: Re: libgcc build failure, ICE in cselib_record_set,
at cselib.c:1508
zadeck at naturalbridge dot com wrote:
the new dse code is failing during a call to cselib. However I do not
believe that the new d
--- Comment #3 from patchapp at dberlin dot org 2007-06-17 01:35 ---
Subject: Bug number PR32360
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/2007-06/msg01148.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/sh
--- Comment #2 from patchapp at dberlin dot org 2007-06-17 01:40 ---
Subject: Bug number PR32361
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/2007-06/msg01150.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/sh
--
ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org
|dot org
--- Comment #5 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-17 03:03
---
With valgrind, I am detecting a huge memory leak on x86-64. I am reruning and
will post a log shortly. It takes a while to run the example in comment #1,
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32310
--- Comment #6 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-17 03:14
---
Created an attachment (id=13716)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=13716&action=view)
Valgrind leak check on example code
This shows the huge memory leak. 39 Mbytes! on x86-64 (Intel)
--
h
--- Comment #2 from mavdzee at yahoo dot co dot uk 2007-06-17 03:33 ---
Created an attachment (id=13717)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=13717&action=view)
output preprocessor
Attached you will find the output of the preprocessor.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla
--- Comment #8 from daney at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-17 05:05 ---
Good news and bad news.
My 32313-v2.patch allows c,c++,java to bootstrap except for at the very end of
the libjava build gcj-dbtool gets stuck in an endless loop. Luckily killing it
allows the build to complete succe
--- Comment #16 from rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-17 06:38
---
(In reply to comment #12)
> So this is now an enhancement request for sccp to honor loop roll count or
> basic-block frequency and cost of the replacement.
we used to take the cost of the replacement into account.
--- Comment #2 from jb at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-17 06:39 ---
Assigning to myself, this should be easy to fix.
--
jb at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #8 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-17 06:54 ---
> Size of the compilers, efficiency of both compiler and generated code are
> clearly secondary
Do you even know why I added POINTER_PLUS_EXPR? Did you even read my reply to
Jeff Law on why I started working on thi
68 matches
Mail list logo
