--- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-06 20:36 ---
Works for me with 4.3-20080202.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 33880 ***
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #3 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-06 20:39 ---
Confirmed.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCON
--- Comment #10 from jrp at dial dot pipex dot com 2008-02-06 20:39 ---
The latest checkins seem to have removed the following failure!
FAIL: g++.dg/conversion/simd3.C (test for errors, line 13)
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35047
--- Comment #4 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-06 20:41 ---
You should not build inside the source directory, do
mkdir obj
cd obj
../configure
make
instead. And quote also the gcc invocation from the internal compiler error.
You may also want to try gcc 4.2.3 which was jus
--
jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35112
--- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-06 20:44 ---
Confirmed.
Do we have a separate bug about the 'tree_list' not supported error? If not
please open one.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-06 20:44 ---
(overriding Jakub, this ICE is not seen w/o checking)
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35112
--- Comment #9 from andreast at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-06 20:46
---
Subject: Bug 30071
Author: andreast
Date: Wed Feb 6 20:45:21 2008
New Revision: 132159
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=132159
Log:
2008-02-06 Andreas Tobler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
P
--- Comment #10 from andreast at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-06 20:46
---
Committed after ok from Tom T. and a verification install from Dave A.
Thanks.
--
andreast at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #17 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-06 20:51
---
P2 - this should not block the release (it's not that profiledbootstrap was
never
broken in released compilers). It's also hard to analyze (no, I'm not on it,
volunteers welcome).
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot
--- Comment #11 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-06 20:52
---
Before we make this anything but P3 I'd like to know whether this is
ice-on-valid
or ice-on-invalid (at least the original testcase never built without errors
for
me).
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
--- Comment #11 from jpr at csc dot fi 2008-02-06 20:54 ---
Subject: Re: I/O leaks handles/memory on Windows XP
I had a look: the problem seems to be with the logic of mutex->counter in
gcc/config/i386/gthr-win32.c. Libgfortran makes the following calls
during an internal write
1)
--- Comment #15 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-06 20:55
---
It looks like for some reason the tree-reassoc pass did different things.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #4 from reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-06 20:56
---
Even shorter testcase:
==
void foo()
{
struct A
{
friend class B;
};
B::B() {}
}
==
This is similar to PR34912.
--
reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
--- Comment #4 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-06 20:58 ---
Confirmed.
If you remove the second #pragma omp single in
if( s == 0 ) {
#pragma omp single
#pragma omp single
{
for( LearnerBase * i = learners[0]; s == 0; ) {
if( os ) i->getIn
--- Comment #16 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-06 21:00
---
It's also very dubious, as on my native i686 machine this works for me as well.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35085
--- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-06 21:09 ---
The testcase works for me with a cross from x86_64, but - you mention g77 but
this is C preprocessed source. Is it the correct testcase?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35100
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35100
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-06 21:14 ---
This works for me on the trunk, I don't get an ICE.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35100
[EMAIL PROTECTED] g++]$
/export/build/gnu/gcc/build-x86_64-linux/gcc/testsuite/g++/../../g++
-B/export/build/gnu/gcc/build-x86_64-linux/gcc/testsuite/g++/../../
/net/gnu-13/export/gnu/src/gcc/gcc/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/ext/vector13.C
-nostdinc++
-I/export/build/gnu/gcc/build-x86_64-linux/x86_64-unkn
Running the testsuite on i386-unknown-freebsd6.2 I noticed the following:
=== libgomp Summary ===
# of expected passes 88
# of unexpected failures 731
# of unsupported tests109
(Cf. http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2008-02/msg00301.html for detail
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot
|
--- Comment #1 from dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-06 21:49 ---
Untested, just happened to read the manual cited below.
Index: lang.opt
===
--- lang.opt(revision 132097)
+++ lang.opt(working copy)
@@ -25,13
--- Comment #12 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-06 21:49
---
Just wondering... is this a regression?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35063
--- Comment #3 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-06 21:51 ---
Subject: Bug 35107
Author: ghazi
Date: Wed Feb 6 21:51:24 2008
New Revision: 132160
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=132160
Log:
2008-02-06 Kaveh R. Ghazi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR other
--- Comment #4 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-06 21:55 ---
Patch installed, fixed.
--
ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Sta
--- Comment #5 from reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-06 22:31
---
Even shorter testcase that doesn't trigger a warning:
===
struct A
{
~A() throw();
void foo();
};
struct B
{
B() { A().foo(); }
};
void bar()
{
#pragma omp parallel
{
#pragma
Rebuilding gcc rev. 132160 from scratch failed with:
...
/opt/gcc/i686-darwin/./prev-gcc/xgcc -B/opt/gcc/i686-darwin/./prev-gcc/
-B/opt/gcc/gcc4.3w/i686-apple-darwin9/bin/ -c -g -O2 -fomit-frame-pointer
-DIN_GCC -W -Wall -Wwrite-strings -Wstrict-prototypes -Wmissing-prototypes
-Wold-style-defi
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dgregor at gcc dot gnu dot
|
--- Comment #1 from reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-06 23:04
---
See also http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2008-02/msg00195.html
--
reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #20 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2008-02-07 00:04
---
FYI, stack alignment branch will look like
if (TREE_STATIC (decl))
return (alignment <= MAX_OFILE_ALIGNMENT);
else if (MAX_VECTORIZE_STACK_ALIGNMENT)
{
gcc_assert (!cfun->stack_realign_proces
--- Comment #17 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-07 00:12 ---
Try dropping "--enable-checking=release" from your configure. Or alternatively,
finding out on which revision it broke by doing a regression hunt. If you need
help with the latter, mail me privately and I will explain
--- Comment #8 from janis at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-07 02:04 ---
Some experimentation shows how GCC is passing and returning non-hardware
vectors for powerpc*-linux:
-m32 (for trunk and 4.0)
pass struct by reference (copy in caller's frame)
return struct in memory using address
--- Comment #18 from ismail at pardus dot org dot tr 2008-02-07 03:12
---
I started a reghunt with 20080104 snapshot, if that fails too I am out of ideas
why this happens. But I am sure this is the second time I see this file failing
but later on its fixed so I thought it was noise.
Th
Gcc 4.3 revision 132153 failed to compile:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] build_base_o2.]$ cat x.cc
#include
template
class Vector
{
};
template
class Foo
{
public:
virtual void foo (const unsigned int);
struct Data
{
std::vector > bar;
};
};
template
void Foo::foo (const unsig
--- Comment #19 from ismail at pardus dot org dot tr 2008-02-07 04:49
---
Even 20080104 snapshot fails, I have no idea why this only one test fails and
all other pass though.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35085
--- Comment #13 from jpr at csc dot fi 2008-02-07 05:07 ---
Subject: Re: I/O leaks handles/memory on Windows XP
>
> --- Comment #12 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-06
21:49 ---
> Just wondering... is this a regression?
At least g77 runs the two examples (in comm
--- Comment #1 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2008-02-07 05:10 ---
Revision 132088:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2008-02/msg00100.html
is the cause.
--
hjl dot tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #14 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-07 06:07
---
Yes this is a regression wrt g77 and I have noted this in the summary. I have
attempted to insert a mutex_unlock in the right place and it has no effect. I
think jpr's assessment is correct, there needs to be a
--- Comment #15 from kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-07 06:26 ---
(In reply to comment #14)
> Yes this is a regression wrt g77 and I have noted this in the summary. I have
> attempted to insert a mutex_unlock in the right place and it has no effect. I
> think jpr's assessment is c
--- Comment #6 from tbm at cyrius dot com 2008-02-07 06:48 ---
I can confirm that this has been fixed. Thanks a lot.
--
tbm at cyrius dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
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 manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-07 07:44 ---
Regressions need a target milestone, otherwise they don't appear in the list of
regressions.
--
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
101 - 143 of 143 matches
Mail list logo
