--- Comment #3 from jkherciueh at gmx dot net 2007-10-19 10:13 ---
> Actually, the problem happens only for some specific values of the range, like
> eng.max() / 5.5, dividing by 2 or 10 is ok. Indeed, seems a binary arithmetic
> problem.
I conjecture that the problem happens if and onl
--- Comment #12 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-19 14:09
---
Subject: Bug 33544
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Fri Oct 19 14:09:27 2007
New Revision: 129489
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=129489
Log:
2007-10-19 Jerry DeLisle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I installed http://quatramaran.ens.fr/~coudert/gfortran/gfortran-windows.exe
I found that the version of gdb included with gfortran-windows.exe does not
work, but the version of gdb included with Cygwin does. When I type:
c:\progra~1\gfortran\bin\gfortran -g test.f90
c:\progra~1\gfortran\bin\gdb
--- Comment #6 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-19 14:46 ---
Just for reference. Neither fprintf() nor sprintf() seem to follow the
behaviour of printf() in glibc 2.5.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15685
When this test is compiled and run using -O2 with gcc 4.2 and with mainline, it
fails (tested on i686-pc-linux-gnu). It succeeds with 4.1.
class s
{
public:
s(long long aa) : a(aa), i1(0) { }
long long id() const { return (this->a << 16) >> 16; }
bool operator< (s sv) { return this->a < sv.
struct R1 {};
struct R2 : R1 {};
struct R3 : R1 {};
struct R4 : R2, R3 {};
struct A { virtual R1& foo(); };
struct B : virtual A { R2& foo(); };
struct C : virtual A { R3& foo(); };
struct D : B, C { R4& foo(); }; // should be rejected
R4 contains two subobjects of type R1. When D::foo is inv
--- Comment #1 from Markus dot Elfring at web dot de 2007-10-19 20:41
---
I hope that the rest of my test result is fine, isn't it?
=== gcc Summary ===
# of expected passes42098
# of expected failures 127
# of unresolved testcases 1
# of unte
--- Comment #23 from hjl at lucon dot org 2007-10-19 22:13 ---
Gcc 4.3 revision 129493 makes 437.leslie3d 25% faster than revision 129372 on
Intel Core 2 Duo 64bit. But it is still 13% slower than gcc 4.1 Red Hat.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32921
--- Comment #3 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-19 22:01
---
Not worth the effort.
--
jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #6 from tbm at cyrius dot com 2007-10-19 21:33 ---
Here's the reduced testcase from delta. I can try to reduce it further
manually
tomorrow.
typedef unsigned long int ulong;
typedef unsigned int uint;
typedef unsigned char uchar;
typedef unsigned long long int ulonglong;
t
--- Comment #9 from tbm at cyrius dot com 2007-10-19 21:10 ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> Whether or not an ICE occurs depends to some extent
> on checking being enabled. With checking enabled, I see this on 4.1
> and the trunk.
>
> The ICE is here:
>
> result = expand_expr
--- Comment #3 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-10-19 20:27 ---
In fact at some point I'd like to open a discussion about what we consider a
*regression*. I mean, *regression* means to me, roughly, "something used to
work and now all of a sudden doesn't work anymore, we must quickly fix
--- Comment #9 from amodra at bigpond dot net dot au 2007-10-19 23:51
---
*** Bug 33806 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
amodra at bigpond dot net dot au changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #3 from amodra at bigpond dot net dot au 2007-10-19 23:51
---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 33812 ***
--
amodra at bigpond dot net dot au changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-19 23:48 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> Another, smaller, issue is that in case of ICEs on invalid should be
> more clear from the PR whether it
> happens only in development builds, or not: the latter are definitely less
> serio
--- Comment #5 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-20 00:18 ---
Try this one:
/* { dg-do run } */
/* { dg-options "-O3 -fipa-cp" } */
int k;
void f1 (int a, int b)
{
if (a)
{
int c;
goto d;
do {
k = 1;
d:
c = b--;
}while (c);
}
e
--- Comment #10 from amodra at bigpond dot net dot au 2007-10-20 00:08
---
Prior to my patch:
.L.main1:
mflr 0
mr 12,1
std 0,16(1)
lis 0,0x
ori 0,0,4656
stdux 1,1,0
mfvrsave 0
stw 0,-4(12)
so we store vrsave at frame_t
--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-20 00:05 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> A regression hunt on powerpc-linux identified this patch:
HEHEHEHEHEHEHE. Seriously this is funny.
Anyways try changing the code to be (which will not invoke my removal of the
"optimizati
--- Comment #4 from bangerth at dealii dot org 2007-10-19 23:54 ---
This is the shortest I can come up with:
--
template
struct __attribute__((visibility("default"))) List {};
int bar(List args);
bool test(const List &);
int i = bar(List());
bool test(const List &
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-19 23:41 ---
Variable tracking is new for 4.0.0 so this is a regression from 3.4.x and it
ICEd in 4.0.2.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
Compile the following code at -O -g -mstrict-align and you get an ICE in
set_variable_part:
void ProjectOverlay(const float localTextureAxis[2], char *lump) {
const void *d = &localTextureAxis;
int size = sizeof(float)*8 ;
__builtin_memcpy( &lump[ 0 ], d, size );
}
- CUT --
--- Comment #4 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-19 23:21
---
I see that this ICE has been fixed along the way. For the test case in comment
#2 we still get three error messages, but this is because we do not disable
resolve.c and more than one code path gets taken. There
--- Comment #8 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2007-10-19
22:16 ---
Subject: Re: [4.2 Regression] ICE in delete_output_reload, at reload1.c:7926
> #1 0x00601eac in delete_output_reload (insn=0x2b78f71e4140, j=1,
> last_reload_reg=21)
> at gcc-4.2/gcc/reload1.c
--- Comment #16 from janis at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-19 22:14 ---
A regression hunt on powerpc-linux using the testcase from comment #3
identified this patch:
http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?view=rev&rev=119502
r119502 | dberlin | 2006-12-04 19:07:05 + (Mon, 04 Dec 2006)
--- Comment #1 from alexandre dot nunes at gmail dot com 2007-10-20 01:49
---
Created an attachment (id=14374)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=14374&action=view)
A complete testcase.
I compiled with gcc -ggdb3 file.c -o file, no optimization flags.
--
http://gc
I have two structs (the unions are there for the sake of testing, it still
behaves the same without them):
#define ATTRIBUTE_PACKED_STRUCT __attribute__((gcc_struct,packed))
#include
#include
typedef union ATTRIBUTE_PACKED_STRUCT
{
struct ATTRIBUTE_PACKED_STRUCT {
uint8_t a:1,
--- Comment #8 from amodra at bigpond dot net dot au 2007-10-19 23:48
---
I'm building a current powerpc64 compiler at the moment to verify, but I think
this is because rs6000_emit_epilogue is now generating mems with address
sp+offset where offset is too large. Prior to my patch we re
--- Comment #4 from patchapp at dberlin dot org 2007-10-20 04:21 ---
Subject: Bug number PR31217
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/2007-10/msg01043.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/sh
--- Comment #3 from janis at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-19 23:32 ---
Created an attachment (id=14373)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=14373&action=view)
smaller testcase, thanks to delta
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33620
--- Comment #1 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-20 04:08 ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 33439 ***
--
jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #7 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-20 04:08 ---
*** Bug 33718 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #5 from tbm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-19 21:31 ---
Confirmed.
--
tbm at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
unexpected failures13
# of unexpected successes 2
# of expected failures 166
# of untested testcases 35
# of unsupported tests 419
/opt/gcc/darwin_buildw/gcc/xgcc version 4.3.0 20071019 (experimental) (GCC)
This can be compared to
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc
--- Comment #4 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-19 21:16 ---
I'm not completely sure which bug is triggered that, but the error occurs for
the expression
character(len(str)) :: UpperCase
"str" is a dummy (of the interface function UpperCase) and despite being a
dummy it
--- Comment #10 from tbm at cyrius dot com 2007-10-19 21:12 ---
I forgot to mention that this is on Linux (Debian).
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29209
--
jason at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |jason at gcc dot gnu dot org
|dot org
--- Comment #2 from janis at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-19 20:07 ---
This isn't a regression. The error is reported with a compiler from 20070210,
the day after support for variadic templates was added.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31993
What is wrong with the following test after the current release was build on my
openSUSE 10.3 system?
Running target unix
Using /usr/share/dejagnu/baseboards/unix.exp as board description file for
target.
Using /usr/share/dejagnu/config/unix.exp as generic interface file for target.
Using
/home/el
--- Comment #3 from janis at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-19 19:52 ---
A regression hunt on powerpc-linux identified this patch:
http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?view=rev&rev=124353
r124353 | pinskia | 2007-05-02 17:47:06 + (Wed, 02 May 2007)
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/sh
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-19 19:27 ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> This isn't a regression, variadic templates were added on 20070209 and this
> fails with a compiler from 20070210.
Well the ICE itself is a regression.
So the regression marker is used for
--- Comment #1 from janis at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-19 19:24 ---
This isn't a regression, variadic templates were added on 20070209 and this
fails with a compiler from 20070210.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32252
--- Comment #34 from patchapp at dberlin dot org 2007-10-20 04:22 ---
Subject: Bug number PR31608
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/2007-10/msg01072.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/s
--- Comment #24 from patchapp at dberlin dot org 2007-10-20 04:21 ---
Subject: Bug number PR32921
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/2007-10/msg01036.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/s
--- Comment #11 from spop at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-19 21:54 ---
Subject: Re: [4.0/4.1/4.2/4.3 Regression] DOM and VRP creating harder to
optimize code
Just looking again to this old bug...
The problem with VRP/DOM is that they just state equalities, and then
they apply the subst
--- Comment #7 from tbm at cyrius dot com 2007-10-19 21:36 ---
Breakpoint 1, fancy_abort (file=0x7c02a8 "gcc-4.2/gcc/reload1.c", line=7932,
function=0x7c01f0 "delete_output_reload") at gcc-4.2/gcc/diagnostic.c:640
640 {
(gdb) where
#0 fancy_abort (file=0x7c02a8 "gcc-4.2/gcc/relo
--- Comment #3 from janis at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-19 23:00 ---
The failure also shows up on powerpc-linux, where a regression hunt identified:
http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?view=rev&rev=124403
r124403 | hubicka | 2007-05-04 00:40:20 + (Fri, 04 May 2007)
--
janis at
--- Comment #2 from Markus dot Elfring at web dot de 2007-10-19 20:54
---
By the way: There is another report on this specific issue with the topic "make
check on -CURRENT in lang/gnat-gcc41" by Petr Holub.
http://groups.google.de/group/mailing.freebsd.ports/msg/0aeb2c869f508d92
--
--- Comment #5 from spop at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-19 19:03 ---
Fixed.
--
spop at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
--- Comment #24 from spop at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-19 19:03 ---
Fixed.
--
spop at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
--- Comment #23 from spop at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-19 19:02 ---
Subject: Bug 24309
Author: spop
Date: Fri Oct 19 19:01:58 2007
New Revision: 129494
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=129494
Log:
2007-10-19 Sebastian Pop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR tree-op
--- Comment #11 from spop at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-19 19:02 ---
Subject: Bug 23820
Author: spop
Date: Fri Oct 19 19:01:58 2007
New Revision: 129494
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=129494
Log:
2007-10-19 Sebastian Pop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR tree-op
--- Comment #4 from spop at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-19 19:02 ---
Subject: Bug 33766
Author: spop
Date: Fri Oct 19 19:01:58 2007
New Revision: 129494
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=129494
Log:
2007-10-19 Sebastian Pop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR tree-opt
> I am on Fedora 7 with autoconf 2.61 with a checkout from
> yesterday off the trunk. So I shouldn't have see it based
> upon that requirement. What else could it be?
Did you re-generate all the configure's from all the configure.ac's?
The ones in CVS are all built with 2.59.
--- Comment #7 from ubizjak at gmail dot com 2007-10-19 17:53 ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> It is little bit sick, but what about implying -mfpmath=sse when
> -ftree-vectorize is used and SSE is available?
Then you will hit Core2 Duo, that shows the opposite in 32bit and 64bit mode:
-
> http://sourceware.org/ml/newlib/2006/msg00472.html
>
> Shouldn't this patch already be in the top level
> gcc/Makefile.in?
The right fix is to use autoconf 2.60 or later.
The patch you link to requires GNU make, and thus was rejected.
--- Comment #7 from paolo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-19 17:36 ---
Subject: Bug 33815
Author: paolo
Date: Fri Oct 19 17:36:03 2007
New Revision: 129493
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=129493
Log:
2007-10-19 Paolo Carlini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR libstd
Hi,
I switched my testing from gcc 4.2.x to the svn
trunk so I could submit things. I ran into the
problem reported and fixed here:
http://sourceware.org/ml/newlib/2006/msg00472.html
Shouldn't this patch already be in the top level
gcc/Makefile.in?
--joel
> What is the recommended procedure to regenerate them?
Not sure there is one.
> Shouldn't they be regenerated and committed in CVS?
No, because that changes the base requirements for all those packages.
--- Comment #6 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2007-10-19 16:39 ---
See comment#2 of PR33806. I did not tested the gcc side.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33812
--- Comment #2 from janis at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-19 16:36 ---
The testcase also fails on powerpc-linux, where a regression hunt identified
the following patch:
http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?view=rev&rev=128701
r128701 | aaw | 2007-09-23 20:05:40 + (Sun, 23 Sep 2007)
--- Comment #2 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2007-10-19 16:36 ---
I have reverted the changes made in revision 129400 and the reported errors
disappeared. Hence added Alan Modra to the cc list.
--
dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #2 from michael dot a dot richmond at nasa dot gov 2007-10-19
15:52 ---
http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/GFortranBinariesWindows instructs me to "report any
bugs to the [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing-list".
If I posted in the wrong place, I apologize.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
--- Comment #21 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-19 15:36
---
Subject: Bug 32921
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri Oct 19 15:36:05 2007
New Revision: 129491
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=129491
Log:
2007-10-19 Richard Guenther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-19 15:32 ---
gdb is a different project and we don't support binary packages anyways. You
should report this bug to the person who makes the binary package.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Rem
--- Comment #2 from cbas25 at strath dot ac dot uk 2007-10-19 15:25 ---
Thank you for the prompt response
I have taken your suggestion about including "-v" in the command line.
I have compiled the source of the program (strauss.f) with both the g77 nd
gfortran compilers. Incidently the
--- Comment #3 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-19 15:15 ---
Slightly further reduced test:
subroutine ExportZMX(lu)
implicit none
integer :: lu
interface
function UpperCase(str)
character(*),intent(in) :: str
character(len(str)) :: UpperCase ! Reject
--- Comment #2 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2007-10-19 15:12 ---
It is not in gcc version 4.3.0 20070713.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33818
--
tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirme
Reduced from http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2007-10/msg00280.html
The following gives the bogus error:
write(lu,'(a)') 'UNIT '//UpperCase(UNAME(1))
1
Error: Variable 'str' is used at (1) before the ENTRY statement in which it is
a parameter
subroutin
--- Comment #13 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-19 14:10
---
Fixed.
--
jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
--- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-19 12:52 ---
The gcc.c-torture/execute/20001024-1.c testcase introduced with r37052 no
longer fails without the hack in layout_type.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33816
--- Comment #19 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-19 12:27
---
Subject: Bug 32921
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri Oct 19 12:27:25 2007
New Revision: 129487
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=129487
Log:
2007-10-19 Richard Guenther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Comment #18 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-19 11:26
---
Subject: Bug 32921
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri Oct 19 11:25:55 2007
New Revision: 129484
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=129484
Log:
2007-10-19 Richard Guenther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Comment #5 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-10-19 10:49 ---
To wit, this kind of change, you can certainly apply it to the 4.2.1 headers
as-is:
Index: random
===
--- random (revision 129456)
+++ random (worki
--- Comment #5 from brakiozor at caramail dot com 2007-10-19 10:06 ---
yes, one of the way is to pass by an intermediate template type...
(I found it on the web)
but the compiler error could(and should) be fixed
#define TPL_TYPEOF_MUL(A,B) typename typeof_mul::type
#define TYPEOF_MUL(A,
--- Comment #1 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-10-19 09:37 ---
Note that our implementation has nothing to do with the Boost one. The problem
happens when the range is big. Anyway, we know our implementation is naive in
this case, we'll look into it.
--
pcarlini at suse dot de chan
--- Comment #4 from singler at ira dot uka dot de 2007-10-19 08:39 ---
There are other places in regular stl_algo.h where
iterator_traits::value_type is assumed, not only for concept checking, but
for actual functionality, e. g.
template
_OutputIterator
__unique_copy(_InputIt
--- Comment #5 from patchapp at dberlin dot org 2007-10-20 04:24 ---
Subject: Bug number PR 33818
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/2007-10/msg01188.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/s
DJ Delorie wrote:
http://sourceware.org/ml/newlib/2006/msg00472.html
Shouldn't this patch already be in the top level
gcc/Makefile.in?
The right fix is to use autoconf 2.60 or later.
I am on Fedora 7 with autoconf 2.61 with a checkout from
yesterday off the trunk. So I shouldn't hav
--- Comment #3 from janis at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-19 17:48 ---
I can reproduce this on powerpc64-linux with a compiler from 20070630 but not
with anything after 30070731; can anyone else still reproduce the failure, or
has it been fixed?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bu
--- Comment #3 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-19 17:09 ---
> http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/GFortranBinariesWindows instructs me to "report any
> bugs to the [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing-list".
>
> If I posted in the wrong place, I apologize.
Regarding GDB: You should either contact
--- Comment #4 from janis at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-19 16:42 ---
A regression hunt on powerpc-linux identified the following patch:
http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?view=rev&rev=126198
r126198 | rguenth | 2007-07-02 11:53:08 + (Mon, 02 Jul 2007)
This results in the ICE repo
--- Comment #4 from janis at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-19 16:34 ---
A regression hunt using the testcase added for comment #2 on powerpc-linux with
"-O2 -fstack-protector" identified the following patch:
http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?view=rev&rev=121780
r121780 | hubicka | 2007-
--- Comment #4 from janis at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-19 16:31 ---
A regression hunt for the first testcase on powerpc-linux identified the
following patch:
http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?view=rev&rev=120649
r120649 | ian | 2007-01-10 21:07:38 + (Wed, 10 Jan 2007)
--
jan
--- Comment #3 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-19 16:27 ---
This is now fixed. Still the world waits for gimplifying after the FE finished
all of its business.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-19 15:36 ---
Subject: Bug 33816
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri Oct 19 15:36:05 2007
New Revision: 129491
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=129491
Log:
2007-10-19 Richard Guenther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR
--- Comment #1 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2007-10-19 15:07 ---
The bug is not present in 4.2.2, and appeared before revision 129038.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33818
The testcase from PR32921 shows that we end up with an alias set of zero for
real8[0:] because in both functions this type is used in casts. When the
first function is gimplified the gimplifier asks if the cast is a useless
type conversion which in turn calls get_alias_set which sets the alias set
--- Comment #4 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-10-19 10:46 ---
I'm going to commit to mainline a stop-gap solution. If you could confirm, as I
believe, that it's at least an improvement, we can have it in 4_2-branch too.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33815
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |pcarlini at suse dot de
|dot org |
--- Comment #6 from patchapp at dberlin dot org 2007-10-20 05:45 ---
Subject: Bug number PR31306
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/2007-10/msg01207.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/sh
--- Comment #12 from spop at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-19 19:02 ---
Fixed.
--
spop at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
DJ Delorie wrote:
I am on Fedora 7 with autoconf 2.61 with a checkout from
yesterday off the trunk. So I shouldn't have see it based
upon that requirement. What else could it be?
Did you re-generate all the configure's from all the configure.ac's?
The ones in CVS are all built with 2.59.
--- Comment #11 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-19 14:06
---
Subject: Bug 33544
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Fri Oct 19 14:06:05 2007
New Revision: 129488
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=129488
Log:
2007-10-19 Jerry DeLisle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Comment #6 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-10-19 11:26 ---
Actually, would be:
Index: random
===
--- random (revision 129456)
+++ random (working copy)
@@ -1607,7 +1607,8 @@
{
typedef type
--- Comment #2 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-10-19 09:40 ---
Actually, the problem happens only for some specific values of the range, like
eng.max() / 5.5, dividing by 2 or 10 is ok. Indeed, seems a binary arithmetic
problem.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33815
--- Comment #20 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-19 12:40
---
Complete mess. Can of worms. Unassigning.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
The configuration option "--enable-languages" is explained in the following
documents.
- "Installing GCC: Configuration"
http://gcc.gnu.org/install/configure.html
- "Installing all the GCC compilers while building LFS" by Randy McMurchy
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/hints/downloads/files/all
--- Comment #22 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-19 16:28
---
Actually, the fix for PR33816 might have fixed this.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32921
--- Comment #2 from janis at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-19 16:39 ---
The error also occurs on powerpc64-linux with -m64, where a regression hunt
identified the following patch:
http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?view=rev&rev=128488
r128488 | jason | 2007-09-14 06:07:25 + (Fri, 14
1 - 100 of 104 matches
Mail list logo
