--- Comment #5 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-26 21:21 ---
How about the following patch instead (or additionally)?
Index: gcc/fortran/simplify.c
===
--- gcc/fortran/simplify.c (Revision 131876)
+++ gcc/for
Executing on host: /test/gnu/gcc/objdir/gcc/xgcc -B/test/gnu/gcc/objdir/gcc/
-
O0 -w -fno-show-column -c -o pr34966.o
/test/gnu/gcc/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-t
orture/compile/pr34966.c(timeout = 300)
/test/gnu/gcc/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/compile/pr34966.c: In function
'at
an':
/test/g
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-26 22:00 ---
This was fixed by:
http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?view=rev&revision=131867
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.2.4 |4.2.3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33764
--- Comment #58 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2008-01-26
22:23 ---
Subject: Re: wo_prof_two_strs.c:56: internal compiler error: in
find_new_var_of_type, at ipa-struct-reorg.c:605
> can you please check now? I committed patches from comment #11.
On hppa2.0w-hp-hpux11.11,
--- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-26 22:43 ---
So this (was) in fact a regression.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-26 22:45 ---
Subject: Bug 34711
Author: rakdver
Date: Sat Jan 26 22:44:19 2008
New Revision: 131877
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=131877
Log:
PR target/34711
* tree-ssa-loop-ivopts.c (com
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-26 22:45 ---
I think this is a dup of bug 34878.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34987
--- Comment #3 from hp at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-26 22:56 ---
I just checked with the gcc-4.2-20080123.tar.bz2 and the bug doesn't manifest
there with the vf.c testcase, so I'm marking this as a regression.
I also no longer think it's fwprop's error (at least not alone); the
into_cf
--- Comment #12 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-26 22:57
---
How is the situation with 4.2 or 4.3?
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-26 22:58 ---
Jerry confirmed with me his machine does not SSE2 on IRC so this is a dup.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 34878 ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #5 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-26 22:58 ---
*** Bug 34987 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #12 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-26 22:58
---
Can you check 4.2 and 4.3?
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--prefix=/home/jerry/Dev/usr --enable-languages=c,fortran --disable-libmudflap
--enable-libgomp --disable-bootstrap
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.3.0 20080126 (experimental) (GCC)
--
Summary: FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/fast-math-pr33299.f90 execution
test
--- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-26 22:59 ---
Can someone provide numbers for 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3?
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #8 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-26 23:00 ---
How is the situation with 4.2 or 4.3?
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #11 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-26 23:05
---
4.0 is no longer maintained. Please open another PR if this is still an issue
with 4.3.x.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from mkuvyrkov at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-26 23:09
---
Subject: Bug 34688
Author: mkuvyrkov
Date: Sat Jan 26 23:08:54 2008
New Revision: 131878
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=131878
Log:
PR middle-end/34688
* final.c (output_ad
--- Comment #5 from tbm at cyrius dot com 2008-01-26 23:16 ---
This is simply a host without enough RAM, not a gcc problem.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34882
--- Comment #4 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-26 23:02 ---
How is the situation with 4.1, 4.2 or 4.3?
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--
danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32857
--- Comment #1 from danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-26 23:49 ---
Not failing anymore.
--
danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
St
--- Comment #3 from debian-gcc at lists dot debian dot org 2008-01-27
00:13 ---
works for me with kyles patch for the kernel.
Matthias
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32857
--- Comment #4 from debian-gcc at lists dot debian dot org 2008-01-27
00:13 ---
closing as worksforme.
--
debian-gcc at lists dot debian dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #4 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-27 00:14 ---
> If the ONLY's i test.f90 are removed, it builds fine
Actually, also removing a single dummy argument (e.g. "df") and it builds fine.
I think somewhere the tree might be walked wrongly. The question is only where.
L
--- Comment #10 from danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-27 00:19
---
Test case doesn't fail on 4.2.3 or head. Closing as fixed.
--
danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #5 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2008-01-27
00:24 ---
Subject: Re: libjava fails to build on hppa-linux-gnu (ICE in simplify_subreg)
> works for me with kyles patch for the kernel.
It's in 2.6.24.
Dave
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=328
--- Comment #3 from sebpop at gmail dot com 2008-01-27 04:17 ---
Subject: Re: verify_ssa ICE with -ftree-loop-linear
Patch: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2008-01/msg01294.html
it does not fix really the problem, just works around the problem.
See also the comments here:
http://gcc.
--- Comment #10 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-27 05:07 ---
Hi Paolo, three of the tests you added for this enhancement have execute
failures on i686-unknown-linux-gnu and x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu on mainline
when compiled with -fpic/-fPIC. Is there some valid reason they sho
--- Comment #11 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-27 05:19 ---
>From the -fpic/-fPIC logfile:
has_nothrow_assign.exe: [...]/has_nothrow_assign.C:139: int main(): Assertion
`(__has_nothrow_assign(E) && f() && My().f() && My2::trait &&
My3().f())' failed.
FAIL: g++.dg/ext/has_noth
--- Comment #5 from paulthomas2 at wanadoo dot fr 2008-01-27 07:09 ---
Subject: Re: [4.3 Regression] Bogus error with USEing
modules
burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> --- Comment #4 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-27 00:14
> ---
>
>> If the ONLY's i test.f
101 - 131 of 131 matches
Mail list logo
