--
ubizjak at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.4.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33555
--- Comment #1 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-19 10:17 ---
Subject: Bug 35244
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Feb 19 10:16:29 2008
New Revision: 132425
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=132425
Log:
PR c++/34964
PR c++/35244
* semantics.c (
--- Comment #1 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-19 10:17 ---
Subject: Bug 34964
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Feb 19 10:16:29 2008
New Revision: 132425
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=132425
Log:
PR c++/34964
PR c++/35244
* semantics.c (
--- Comment #16 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-19 10:28
---
It's way down
#1 0x004f94ac in dependent_type_p (type=0x2aea625cd180)
at /space/rguenther/src/svn/trunk/gcc/cp/pt.c:15553
#2 0x0043e9fe in make_typename_type (context=0x2aea625cd180,
nam
--- Comment #7 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-19 10:34 ---
Come on HJL, don't be so pessimistic...
--
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #8 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-19 10:35 ---
...this is FIXED in GCC 4.3 and trunk ;-)
(thanks to you!)
--
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #11 from nickc at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-19 10:35 ---
Subject: Bug 31349
Author: nickc
Date: Tue Feb 19 10:33:41 2008
New Revision: 132427
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=132427
Log:
PR other/31349
* opts.c (undocumented_msg): Leav
This testcase produces unoptimal code:
_Complex float af[16], bf[16], cf[16];
_Complex double ad[16], bd[16], cd[16];
void testf(void)
{
int i;
for (i = 0; i < 16; i++)
cf[i] = af[i] * bf[i];
}
void testd(void)
{
int i;
for (i = 0; i < 16; i++)
cd[i] = ad[i] + bd[i];
}
gcc -O2
--- Comment #3 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-19 10:15 ---
Subject: Bug 35078
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Feb 19 10:14:57 2008
New Revision: 132424
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=132424
Log:
PR c++/35078
* parser.c (cp_parser_omp_for_loop):
--- Comment #1 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-19 10:19 ---
Subject: Bug 35028
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Feb 19 10:18:29 2008
New Revision: 132426
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=132426
Log:
PR c++/35028
* cp-gimplify.c (cxx_omp_clause_appl
--- Comment #11 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-19 11:56
---
Fixed on the trunk.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to
--- Comment #12 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-19 11:56
---
Subject: Bug 34989
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Feb 19 11:55:29 2008
New Revision: 132429
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=132429
Log:
2008-02-19 Richard Guenther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Comment #4 from simon dot marshall at misys dot com 2008-02-19 12:04
---
OK, before I start hacking, what is it that you need once I have found a
function?
What I can do is try to identify a function or minimal functions that, when
compiled in a file with optimisation, will cause E
--- Comment #14 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-19 12:12 ---
(In reply to comment #12)
It is essential to fix the memory leaks - that after all is the purpose behind
allocatable components. I´ll see if I can understand what is happening.
Cheers
Paul
--
http://gcc.gnu.o
--- Comment #5 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-19 12:36
---
> Once I've found it, what would be useful to you?
See http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs.html
> Assuming that I am able to debug this function, any pointers as to what Icould
> look for that might explain why it is functi
--- Comment #7 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-19 12:09 ---
I have a regtested patch for this but cannot post it until Saturday, when I am
back from vacation.
Paul
--
pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #12 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-19 11:20 ---
Nick,
Didn't this got approved for GCC 4.3? Notice that you committed the patch
*after* GCC 4.3 branched. Also:
+ description = _("The following options are specific to the just the
language ");
should be:
--
jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
|dot org
--- Comment #5 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-19 13:41 ---
Fixed on the trunk and 4.3.
--
jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-19 13:36 ---
Subject: Bug 35239
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Feb 19 13:35:11 2008
New Revision: 132431
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=132431
Log:
PR target/35239
* config/i386/cpuid.h (__cpuid, _
--- Comment #3 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-19 13:35 ---
Subject: Bug 35239
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Feb 19 13:34:29 2008
New Revision: 132430
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=132430
Log:
PR target/35239
* config/i386/cpuid.h (__cpuid, _
--- Comment #13 from nickc at redhat dot com 2008-02-19 14:12 ---
Subject: Re: [4.3 Regression] gcc -v --help returns no options
for C, C++
Hi Manu,
> Didn't this got approved for GCC 4.3?
No. :-(
> Also:
>
> + description = _("The following options are specific to the j
--- Comment #6 from simon dot marshall at misys dot com 2008-02-19 14:40
---
Created an attachment (id=15184)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=15184&action=view)
intervals2.c and output of -v -save-temps
Maybe it was easier than I thought. I took out the function up
--- Comment #1 from marcus at better dot se 2008-02-19 14:41 ---
$ gij -version
java version "1.5.0"
gij (GNU libgcj) version 4.3.0 20080202 (experimental) [trunk revision 132072]
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35253
--- Comment #14 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-19 14:44 ---
> > Didn't this got approved for GCC 4.3?
>
> No. :-(
>
Too bad. On the other hand, we can close this, can't we?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31349
--- Comment #7 from simon dot marshall at misys dot com 2008-02-19 14:44
---
Sorry, for internals.c and internals.i, read intervals2.c and intervals2.i.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35249
--- Comment #6 from hjl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-19 14:36 ---
Subject: Bug 35186
Author: hjl
Date: Tue Feb 19 14:35:48 2008
New Revision: 132433
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=132433
Log:
2008-02-19 H.J. Lu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR Ada/35186
The following test program throws an IllegalAccessException with gij,
but works with Sun Java.
~$ gij InvokeAnnotationMethod
Exception in thread "main" java.lang.IllegalAccessException
at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(libgcj.so.90)
at test.Helper.invoke(Helper.java:11)
at InvokeAnnotati
--- Comment #15 from nickc at redhat dot com 2008-02-19 15:11 ---
Subject: Re: [4.3 Regression] gcc -v --help returns no options
for C, C++
Hi Manu,
> Too bad. On the other hand, we can close this, can't we?
Yes I agree.
Cheers
Nick
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.c
--- Comment #26 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2008-02-19 15:00 ---
patch at http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2008-02/msg00775.html
--
bonzini at gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--
fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Last recon
--
fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Last recon
--- Comment #14 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-19 17:10
---
Subject: Bug 28779
Author: hubicka
Date: Tue Feb 19 17:09:42 2008
New Revision: 132439
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=132439
Log:
PR middle-end/28779
* tree-inline.c (estim
--
fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot
|dot org
--- Comment #17 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-19 17:50 ---
instantiate_type_decl calls tsubst on
chain >
nonlocal VOID file pr34950.C line 7 col 42
align 1 context
and as TYPE_DECL isn't TEMPLATE_DECL, it doesn't bump processing_template_decl
around the tsu
--- Comment #5 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-19 16:14 ---
New version of the Fortran 2008 draft (candiate draft, before was working
draft):
ftp://ftp.nag.co.uk/sc22wg5/N1701-N1750/N1718.pdf
http://www.nag.co.uk/sc22wg5/
Thus things should be settled enough for this patch.
--- Comment #7 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-19 17:11 ---
Subject: Bug 34408
Author: hubicka
Date: Tue Feb 19 17:11:12 2008
New Revision: 132440
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=132440
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/34408
* see.c (see_def_e
--- Comment #9 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-19 15:59
---
It seems things are now worse:
$ cat s.f90
real x
x = nearest(huge(1.0),1.0)
end
$ ./bin/gfortran s.f90
next.c:91: assertion failed: !mpfr_set_exp ((x), (exp + 1))
f951: internal compiler error: Aborted
Please s
--- Comment #16 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-19 16:15 ---
Fixed in GCC 4.4.
--
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
--- Comment #11 from dean at arctic dot org 2008-02-19 17:42 ---
Subject: Re: [4.0/4.1/4.2/4.3 Regression] jump to
middle of loop on entry with using old version of an variable
On Mon, 19 Feb 2008, xinliangli at gmail dot com wrote:
> Note that assignment of s0 = s in the loop is mos
On Linux/Intel64,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] stack-7]$ cat y.c
extern void abort (void);
void
sse_test (void)
{
if (7.9E6144dl + 3.0E6144dl
!= 9.9E+6144dl)
abort ();
}
[EMAIL PROTECTED] stack-7]$ /usr/gcc-4.3/bin/gcc -O2 -c -std=
--- Comment #5 from Ralf dot Wildenhues at gmx dot de 2008-02-19 18:35
---
*** Bug 35248 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
Ralf dot Wildenhues at gmx dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from Ralf dot Wildenhues at gmx dot de 2008-02-19 18:35
---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 32415 ***
--
Ralf dot Wildenhues at gmx dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #2 from dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-19 18:32 ---
Fixed in trunk. Closing.
--
dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-19 18:26 ---
Subject: Bug 35030
Author: dfranke
Date: Tue Feb 19 18:26:12 2008
New Revision: 132442
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=132442
Log:
2008-02-19 Daniel Franke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR fo
--- Comment #2 from joel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-19 19:13 ---
Still happens today so almost certainly on 4.3 branch as well.
h8300-rtems4.9-gcc (GCC) 4.4.0 20080219 (experimental)
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35072
--- Comment #11 from jb at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-19 19:33 ---
Patch here: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2008-02/msg00788.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29549
--- Comment #3 from jb at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-19 19:33 ---
Patch here: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2008-02/msg00788.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35162
--- Comment #10 from rwild at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-19 19:39 ---
Subject: Bug 35218
Author: rwild
Date: Tue Feb 19 19:38:52 2008
New Revision: 132444
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=132444
Log:
PR bootstrap/35218
* Makefile.in (build_file_translate): New.
(g
--- Comment #11 from rwild at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-19 19:47 ---
Subject: Bug 35218
Author: rwild
Date: Tue Feb 19 19:47:12 2008
New Revision: 132445
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=132445
Log:
PR bootstrap/35218
* Makefile.in (build_file_translate): New.
(g
--- Comment #12 from rwild at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-19 19:49 ---
Fixed.
--
rwild at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
--
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 #13 from rwild at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-19 20:16 ---
Subject: Bug 35218
Author: rwild
Date: Tue Feb 19 20:15:25 2008
New Revision: 132448
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=132448
Log:
PR bootstrap/35218
* Makefile.in (build_file_translate): New.
(g
--- Comment #28 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-19 20:20 ---
unsuspending.
--
jason at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
--- Comment #16 from lennox at cs dot columbia dot edu 2008-02-19 21:01
---
Is there any possibility of getting a fix for this into 4.3.0?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34000
--- Comment #18 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-19 21:21 ---
The problem comes when we deal with templates from non-template code. In this
case, we are substituting some parameters but not all into a function template
declaration, so we end up building up new typename types wi
--- Comment #19 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-19 21:39 ---
(In reply to comment #18)
> it may be better to bump processing_template_decl at a higher level, perhaps
> resolve_overloaded_unification.
This seems to be the approach taken in the partial ordering code, so it seems
The following reduced testcase from PR 34950 gives an incorrect error after the
crashing bug in that PR is fixed:
-
struct default_policy {};
template
struct policy
{
typedef int precision_type;
};
template struct precision {
typedef Real type;
typedef typename Policy::precision_
--- Comment #21 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-19 22:13 ---
On second thought, the testcase seems to be well-formed; we should do partial
ordering and determine that the second template is more specialized than the
first.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34
--- Comment #20 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-19 21:45 ---
Incidentally, the error that 3.3 gave for the testcase in comment #8 seems to
be correct: after we substitute the explicit args into the two function
templates, we are left with one which still has an unbound argument
--- Comment #9 from nightstrike at gmail dot com 2008-02-19 22:23 ---
Was this patch ever submitted?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34571
--- Comment #23 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-19 22:54 ---
Subject: Bug 34950
Author: jason
Date: Tue Feb 19 22:53:25 2008
New Revision: 132456
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=132456
Log:
PR c++/34950
* pt.c (resolve_overloaded_unificat
--- Comment #22 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-19 22:53 ---
Subject: Bug 34950
Author: jason
Date: Tue Feb 19 22:53:07 2008
New Revision: 132455
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=132455
Log:
PR c++/34950
* pt.c (resolve_overloaded_unificat
This web page:
http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/libstdc++/parallel_mode.html
Has this text:
Configuration and Tuning
Some algorithm variants can be enabled/disabled/selected at compile-time. See
and See for details.
Which links to this page:
http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/libstdc++/latest-doxygen/
Building on openSUSE 11.0 Alpha2 (as well as Alpha1) I have been seeing
the following with a plain ./configure --prefix=... (omitting those dozen
fancy options that the distros usually employ).
libtool: compile: /tmp/OBJ-0219-2155/./gcc/xgcc -shared-libgcc
-B/tmp/OBJ-0219-2155/./gcc -nostdinc++
-
--- Comment #1 from gerald at pfeifer dot com 2008-02-20 00:01 ---
Sorry, I wasn't clear enough here -- this also happens with 4.3.0.
--
gerald at pfeifer dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #17 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-20 01:10 ---
(In reply to comment #16)
> Is there any possibility of getting a fix for this into 4.3.0?
No. GCC 4.3 will be released soon and this isn't even marked as a regression
(much less a P1 regression).
--
manu at gcc d
Someone at IBM working on a very large project on s390 showed me some odd code
in which two memcpy calls get merged into something that instead spreads one
character into the final destination. A modification of that code that looks
more normal is:
char string2[9] = "1234";
void
foo (void)
{
ch
--- Comment #1 from janis at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-20 02:02 ---
Created an attachment (id=15185)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=15185&action=view)
test case
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35258
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-20 02:08 ---
Hmm, &temp refers to the pointer to the array.
What happens if you use temp instead of &temp?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35258
--- Comment #24 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-20 04:48 ---
Fixed in all open branches.
--
jason at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #22 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-20 04:48 ---
Subject: Bug 34774
Author: jason
Date: Wed Feb 20 04:47:28 2008
New Revision: 132469
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=132469
Log:
PR c++/34950
* pt.c (resolve_overloaded_unificat
--- Comment #25 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-20 04:48 ---
Subject: Bug 34950
Author: jason
Date: Wed Feb 20 04:47:28 2008
New Revision: 132469
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=132469
Log:
PR c++/34950
* pt.c (resolve_overloaded_unificat
--- Comment #26 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-20 04:48 ---
Subject: Bug 34950
Author: jason
Date: Wed Feb 20 04:47:47 2008
New Revision: 132470
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=132470
Log:
PR c++/34950
* pt.c (resolve_overloaded_unificat
--- Comment #18 from lennox at cs dot columbia dot edu 2008-02-20 05:03
---
This is a regression from 4.2, despite the lack of marking.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34000
--- Comment #5 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2008-02-20 07:55 ---
actually it is not a dup. but I do have a patch that will solve both.
--
bonzini at gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--
bonzini at gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |bonzini at gnu dot org
|dot org |
77 matches
Mail list logo
