--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-18 22:02 ---
I don't think this is a bug as &var is not a constant for PIC mode.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34833
At revision 131629 (trunk), the following code
type a_t
sequence
integer i
end type a_t
block data bd
common c
end block data bd
common /a_t/ c
end
gives
1234567.f90:6.13:
block data bd
1
Error: Unexpected BLOCK DATA statement at (1)
1234567.f90:7.10:
common c
1
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Prio
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-18 20:04 ---
Does it happen w/o -ffast-math ?
Also we need a testcase.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #7 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-18 19:51 ---
*** Bug 34855 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
This is bug 19541, but being reported against 4.3.0.
Still a problem in 4.3.using Debian unstable packages
gcc --version gives gcc-4.3 (Debian 4.3-20080116-1) 4.3.0 20080116
(experimental) [trunk revision 131577]
Can we either get the "ignore-source-dir" patch added to the mainline, or else
remov
--- Comment #2 from myan at microstrategy dot com 2008-01-18 15:34 ---
Created an attachment (id=14969)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=14969&action=view)
C++ header
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34853
--- Comment #1 from myan at microstrategy dot com 2008-01-18 15:34 ---
Created an attachment (id=14968)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=14968&action=view)
C++ source
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34853
--- Comment #17 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-18 14:49 ---
(In reply to comment #15)
> With CFLAGS='-O2 -Wstrict-overflow=5' still there is no warnings in
> 'make_check.log':
>
> If I do _not_ have "-Wstrict-overflow", I _do_ have these warnings during
> compilation:
Any of
--- Comment #5 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-18 14:25
---
Found it, Patch is on the way
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34782
--- Comment #58 from zadeck at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-19 00:39 ---
Subject: Bug 26854
Author: zadeck
Date: Sat Jan 19 00:38:34 2008
New Revision: 131649
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=131649
Log:
2008-01-18 Kenneth Zadeck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
St
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-18 23:36 ---
__STDC_ are in the implementation namespace so why are you defining them?.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34859
--- Comment #2 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-19 01:04 ---
Fixed. Thanks for the report!
--
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #10 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-18 22:24
---
Fixed on trunk.
--
jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
S
--- Comment #5 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-18 23:22 ---
Brain dump into this: reasons to move to datum/mt_allocator type approach:
It tries to be the minimal change, keeping all your existing data. (With the
exception of making a tristate variable for the force_parallel/fo
--- Comment #1 from peeterj at ca dot ibm dot com 2008-01-18 23:06 ---
I see the two places in the code that look like they are related:
./libcpp/macro.c:1698: if (! ustrncmp (NODE_NAME (node), DSC ("__STDC_"))
./libcpp/macro.c:1699: && ustrcmp (NODE_NAME (node), (const uchar *)
"
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-18 22:04 ---
static const int i = 1;
i is not a constant integal expression in C. It is in C++. With optimization,
we "inline" the value.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #29 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-18 21:04
---
I'm trying again with enabling the langhook for C++.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34850
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34831
--- Comment #4 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-18 20:05 ---
Patches welcome.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34855
--- Comment #3 from dgregor at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-18 16:48 ---
Fixed for C++0x.
--
dgregor at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-18 19:51 ---
*** Bug 34857 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34855
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|ICE with some constant |[4.3 Regression] ICE with
|vectors
--- Comment #1 from ismail at pardus dot org dot tr 2008-01-18 19:45
---
on i686 linux I get;
test.c:16: internal compiler error: in for_each_index, at
tree-ssa-loop-im.c:222
works with gcc 3.4.6.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34856
Testcase:
#undef __vector
#define __vector __attribute__((vector_size(16) ))
typedef __vector signed char qword;
typedef __vector unsigned int VU32;
extern short g[192 +16];
void f(qword);
void f1 (unsigned ctr)
{
VU32 pin;
pin = (VU32){(unsigned int)&g[16]};
do {
f((qword)pin);
ctr--;
--- Comment #8 from barry dot j dot mcinnes at noaa dot gov 2008-01-18
19:29 ---
Subject: Re: tab format failure to display properly
(regression vs. g77)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Thanks again - I will wait the 36h, then I can try out the released
package ?
On 1
--- Comment #4 from myan at microstrategy dot com 2008-01-18 15:35 ---
Created an attachment (id=14971)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=14971&action=view)
makefile
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34853
--- Comment #28 from aoliva at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-18 19:11 ---
Subject: Bug 33887
Author: aoliva
Date: Fri Jan 18 19:11:15 2008
New Revision: 131632
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=131632
Log:
PR c++/33887
* link.cc (_Jv_Linker::prepare_constant_time_tabl
--- Comment #5 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-18 19:02 ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> I think then -Wall shouldn't enable -Wstrict-overflow at all. Because current
> situation is counter intuitive.
>
This a bug. A quick fix is:
Index: gcc/c-opts.c
===
--- Comment #3 from dkwan at transmeta dot com 2008-01-19 03:33 ---
cc1plus SEG faults because the hash table local_specializations is NULL. There
are calls to retrieve_local_specialization in pt.c. All but one, which caused
this ICE, are protected by a NULL test. I have a sandbox with
--- Comment #16 from sergstesh at yahoo dot com 2008-01-18 14:19 ---
A general though regarding optimization - do _not_ optimize code producing
warnings, and notify end user, so there will be much more incentive to write
clean code.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34
--- Comment #6 from manfred99 at gmx dot ch 2008-01-18 13:26 ---
Yes, PR 34817 pass (both) for me too, with your binaries as well as with
the binaries of FX.
I just checked my testcase (this PR) with the binaries of FX, it breaks
after 2008-01-15, same as with your binaries.
--
htt
--- Comment #10 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-18 17:14 ---
The problem is IMHO in the div3 define_expand in mips.md:
(define_expand "div3"
[(set (match_operand:ANYF 0 "register_operand")
(div:ANYF (match_operand:ANYF 1 "reg_or_1_operand")
(match
--- Comment #3 from kkojima at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-18 12:50 ---
It looks the testcase segfaults because of a bad REG_LIBCALL note.
The problematic part of .166r.split1 rtl dump looks like:
(insn:HI 100 103 179 15 xxx.c:74 (set (subreg:SI (reg:DI 198 [ regno ]) 0)
(reg/v:
--- Comment #3 from aldot at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-18 18:38 ---
fix-proto is never run, it seems:
$ grep "stmp-" out.log
echo timestamp > stmp-fixinc
echo timestamp > stmp-int-hdrs
echo timestamp > stmp-install-fixproto
if [ xstmp-install-fixproto != x ] ; then \
after fix
--- Comment #5 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-18 12:49 ---
What puzzles me is that it works with my local tree; it contains several
changes (102 insertions(+), 41 deletions(-)), but they should (in principle)
not affect this problem. Actually, also the test case of PR 34817 p
--- Comment #3 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-18 18:44 ---
*** Bug 34843 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #5 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-18 18:44 ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 32102 ***
--
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-18 12:58 ---
Fixed.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
--- Comment #4 from ismail at pardus dot org dot tr 2008-01-18 18:46
---
I think then -Wall shouldn't enable -Wstrict-overflow at all. Because current
situation is counter intuitive.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32102
--- Comment #17 from pmarques at grupopie dot com 2008-01-18 17:30 ---
I just found out what's causing this confusion. If you compile your program
like this:
avr-gcc -Os -mmcu=atmega168 -lm main.c -o main.elf
__clz_tab gets included. But if you compile like this:
avr-gcc -Os -mmcu=atm
--- Comment #18 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-18 18:47 ---
(In reply to comment #15)
> With CFLAGS='-O2 -Wstrict-overflow=5' still there is no warnings in
BTW, is your makefile adding -Wstrict-overflow after or before -Wall -Wextra?
--
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
--- Comment #27 from aoliva at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-18 18:47 ---
Found it (or at least the first one):
in link.cc:665, has_interfaces is a jboolean (unsigned 1-bit type), but it's
operated on like this:
has_interfaces += klass0->interface_count;
if interface_count is even (
--- Comment #26 from aoliva at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-18 18:08 ---
I installed the patch in comment #11 and rebuilt all libraries, then I started
investigating the first testsuite failure: libjava.cni/PR9577.java.
So far, I've found out that it is the gnu.classpath.SystemProperties
--- Comment #6 from ismail at pardus dot org dot tr 2008-01-18 19:11
---
Manu,
Your fix looks quite obvious, could you send it to gcc-patches so we can fix
this before the freeze? Thanks for the quick fix btw.
Regards,
ismail
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32102
--- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-18 15:48 ---
Confirmed. (happened on haydn)
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
This is bug 19541, but being reported against 4.3.0.
Still a problem in 4.3.using Debian unstable packages
gcc --version gives gcc-4.3 (Debian 4.3-20080116-1) 4.3.0 20080116
(experimental) [trunk revision 131577]
Can we either get the "ignore-source-dir" patch added to the mainline, or else
remov
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-18 19:51 ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 34855 ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-18 19:51 ---
And that bug is still opened.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 19541 ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #3 from ISPARRY at BROCADE dot COM 2008-01-18 19:59 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> And that bug is still opened.
>
> *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 19541 ***
>
Yes. 3 years after a fix is available, and 3 releases of gcc, the bug is still
open. Can we get i
--- Comment #5 from ISPARRY at BROCADE dot COM 2008-01-18 20:12 ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> Patches welcome.
>
Ceratinly. I can either up-rev the patch posted in
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-03/msg01197.html or I can do a patch to
undo the deprecation of -I-. Which stands
--- Comment #12 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-19 00:00
---
Sorry for the delay, been away. Testing a patch.
As Steven says in comment #10, this is latent mismatch
between the expander and define_insn conditions. It showed
up when a predicate used in the latter was fixe
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34808
--- Comment #4 from peeterj at ca dot ibm dot com 2008-01-19 05:19 ---
My snapshot already has that fix. That one was only for __STDC_FORMAT_MACROS
which is for . There's two more such macros for stdint.h
(__STDC_LIMIT_MACROS and __STDC_CONSTANT_MACROS) to access various bits of that
f
--- Comment #5 from tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-19 06:55 ---
These two macros are mentioned in footnotes in the C standard.
I think we should accept them.
Take a look at DR #593 here, though:
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2006/n2130.html
I don't have a c
101 - 156 of 156 matches
Mail list logo
