--- Comment #2 from dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-28 06:59 ---
Mine. Proposed patch:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2008-05/msg01786.html
--
dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
the testcase uplevi.c is to show that for OpenMP programs, gcc reference
uplevel variable by [%fp - 4] in each thread.
micro# cat uplevi.c
int main()
{
int i;
void sub()
{
printf("0x%x\n", &i);
}
#pragma omp parallel num_threads(4)
sub();
return 0;
}
micro# /import/dr3/s10/gcc-4.2/bin/gcc uplevi.c
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|major |normal
Component|c |middle-end
h
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-28 07:18 ---
This is a dup of bug 35130 which was fixed for 4.3.0.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 35130 ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #7 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-28 07:18 ---
*** Bug 36351 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-28 07:19 ---
Also by the way for this testcase, you are using a GNU extension with OpenMP so
you should take care.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36351
--- Comment #3 from giamby at infinito dot it 2008-05-28 07:27 ---
It now works on my system too.
--
giamby at infinito dot it changed:
What|Removed |Added
St
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot
|
--- Comment #6 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-28 07:31 ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> BTW, the i = i trick
it only works in the initializer and not as a statement after the fact.
That is:
#include
int foo (int x)
{
int y = y;
assert (x == 0 || x == 1);
if (x == 0)
While looking into PR 36297, I found this interesting missed optimization, it
only happens with linked once functions. Testcase:
template int f(void)
{
static int t = a;
return t;
}
int g(void)
{
return f<1>();
}
We should produce return 1 for both functions but currently we reference
f<1
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-28 07:47 ---
This has been fixed in at least 4.3.0, it might have also been fixed in 4.2.0
also.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-28 07:51 ---
Hmm, I don't think this is a bug as the assignment of the string is not going
to be atomic so you could get a partial assignment of a.astr happening.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36288
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-28 07:53 ---
Is there a reason why you think this is well defined code?
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #5 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-28 07:55 ---
>checking for C compiler default output file name... configure: error: C
compiler cannot create executables
See `config.log' for more details.
make[1]: *** [configure-target-libgomp] Error 1
Can you attach the confi
I get these error messages:
aap.cc: In member function 'void Bar::function(T)':
aap.cc:16: error: expected `;' before 'it'
aap.cc:18: error: 'it' was not declared in this scope
When I compile this code:
#include
#include
template
class Foo {
public:
void function(T arg) { std::cout << arg; }
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-28 07:57 ---
It is also happening on powerpc-linux-gnu:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2008-05/msg02422.html
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
Keywords||diagnosti
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-28 08:00 ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 15946 ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-28 08:00 ---
*** Bug 36353 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #2 from wim dot yedema at gmail dot com 2008-05-28 08:00
---
Created an attachment (id=15689)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=15689&action=view)
preprocessed case
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36353
--- Comment #3 from wim dot yedema at gmail dot com 2008-05-28 08:01
---
Created an attachment (id=15690)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=15690&action=view)
test case
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36353
--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-28 08:05 ---
Fixed.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRM
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot
|
--- Comment #7 from vincent at vinc17 dot org 2008-05-28 08:18 ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> (In reply to comment #5)
> > BTW, the i = i trick
>
> it only works in the initializer and not as a statement after the fact.
But in such a case, as i is not initialized yet, this may be undef
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-28 08:21 ---
I think this is more of an issue of changing the variable to be readonly than
an "inlining" the variable issue as the following source works as expected:
template int f(int i)
{
static const int t = a;
static co
--- Comment #7 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-28 08:27 ---
What the issue is that the C compiler was not configured with fortran compiler
so they don't ignore the fortran options but then the fortran compiler was
configured separately. So this is invalid and really an issue
the testcase uplevi.c is to show that for OpenMP programs, gcc reference
uplevel variable by [%fp - 4] in each thread.
micro# cat uplevi.c
int main()
{
int i;
void sub()
{
printf("0x%x\n", &i);
}
#pragma omp parallel num_threads(4)
sub();
return 0;
}
micro# /import/dr3/s10/gcc-4.2/bin/gcc uplevi.c
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-28 08:32 ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 36351 ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-28 08:32 ---
*** Bug 36354 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36351
$> cat matmul.f90
REAL, DIMENSION(2,2) :: a
character(1) :: b
print *, MATMUL(a, b) ! line 4: argument matrix_b is wrong
print *, MATMUL(b, a) ! line 5: argument matrix_a is wrong
end
$> gfortran-svn matmul.f90
matmul.f90:4.18:
print *, MATMUL(a, b)
1
Error:
--- Comment #2 from P dot Schaffnit at access dot rwth-aachen dot de
2008-05-28 11:06 ---
Thanks!
Philippe
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36342
we have ambiguous requirement
see:
template
struct _RandomAccessIteratorConcept
{
void __constraints() {
__function_requires< _BidirectionalIteratorConcept<_Tp> >();
__function_requires< _ComparableConcept<_Tp> >();
__function_requires< _ConvertibleConcept<
typename s
--- Comment #5 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-28 08:38 ---
*** Bug 36310 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-28 08:38 ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 17736 ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #1 from matthijs dot van dot de dot water at gmail dot com
2008-05-28 10:14 ---
My arm-none-linux-gnueabi-gcc with the patch from
bug 35964 does not suffer this ICE.
This is also why Debian/Ubuntu/Fedora do not see this, because they have the
referenced patch applied on t
gcc-4.2.4 fails to bootstrap on Solaris10/x86 as follows:
env CONFIG_SHELL=/usr/bin/bash /home/mikpe/gcc-4.2.4/configure
--prefix=/opt/local/gcc-4.2.4 --with-gnu-as
--with-as=/opt/local/binutils-2.18/bin/as --without-gnu-ld
--with-ld=/usr/ccs/bin/ld --enable-threads=posix --disable-shared
--enable
--- Comment #10 from acarmeli at mathworks dot com 2008-05-28 11:21 ---
Created an attachment (id=15691)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=15691&action=view)
Steps to reach numerically incorrect/impossible result
Compile: gcc bad_numeric.c
Builds up expression until i
--- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-28 08:58 ---
I have a fix (fixing PR36346 fixes this as well).
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfi
--- Comment #4 from hailijuan at gmail dot com 2008-05-28 08:54 ---
Subject: Re: OpenMP-C++: segmentation fault in basic string constructors
no. thanks for your comments. i have correct the testcase. the error
is gone with gcc-4.2. thanks again.
2008/5/28 pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot or
--- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-28 11:29 ---
The reason that the PRE no longer works is that the edge iterator ei is now
call clobbered. It escapes to a pure/const function (which wouldn't make it
call clobbered alone) and it has its address taken which is why
--- Comment #11 from acarmeli at mathworks dot com 2008-05-28 11:30 ---
I believe there is still a violation of the C standard when expression folding
folds this.
The attached file demonstrates this.
In step 7, we perform 4*3 in 32-bit and expect to get a 12 in a 64-bit.
It should be p
--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-28 08:38 ---
These constructors are not trivial as defined by the C++ standard :).
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #12 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-28 11:48
---
We are probably not honoring the implementation defined signed truncation(s).
But my head hurts looking at the testcase vs. the folding code ...
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36300
--- Comment #1 from dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-28 11:53 ---
Proposed patch passed regression test on i686-pc-linux-gnu..
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36355
It would be really useful if gcc/cpp had a -Wrecursive-inclusion option. In
essence, this should print warnings if any file, directly or indirectly,
attempts to include itself. I believe that this in most cases is an error, and
since regular header guards will work around the problem (by skipping a
--- Comment #13 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-28 12:11
---
In step5 we have signed overflow in the multiplication of -2147483646
with itself. Thus starting from that, the following results are unreliable.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36300
--
janus at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||janus at gcc dot gnu dot org
Status|UNCONFIRMED
--- Comment #6 from acarmeli at mathworks dot com 2008-05-28 12:37 ---
Richard,
This is the root cause of the problem: I agree with you that an overflow can
occur and there is no way to guarantee the resulting value.
However, it must be a 32-bit value.
It cannot all of a sudden become
--- Comment #14 from acarmeli at mathworks dot com 2008-05-28 12:25 ---
You are correct. But step 6 did not reveal that, and provided a correct s64
result. This result should have been carried over to step 7 to lead to a
correct result.
Otherwise, it will not be possible to get the resu
--- Comment #2 from a dot iqbal at ieee dot org 2008-05-28 12:50 ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> You need a newer version of binutils (from CVS).
>
Thank you very much. That solved it.
So I close it marking as invalid because it was an issue with binutils.
--
a dot iqbal at ieee do
Ein marktgewinnendes Handelsunternehmen sucht neue Kollegen !!
Sie haben 4 Stunden in der Woche Zeit , besitzen einige Internetkenntnisse und
sind immer erreichebar??
- Sie haben dann die Moeglichkeit bei uns einzusteigen und ab zwei Tausend
monatlich zu erhalten!!
Neugirig? - schreiben Sie
--- Comment #15 from rguenther at suse dot de 2008-05-28 12:57 ---
Subject: Re: Incorrect type used for inlined expression
On Wed, 28 May 2008, acarmeli at mathworks dot com wrote:
> --- Comment #14 from acarmeli at mathworks dot com 2008-05-28 12:25
> ---
> You are correct.
--- Comment #6 from mikpe at it dot uu dot se 2008-05-28 13:20 ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> >checking for C compiler default output file name... configure: error: C
> compiler cannot create executables
> See `config.log' for more details.
> make[1]: *** [configure-target-libgomp] Error
I have found a tipo in this file:
- C:/Dev-Cpp/include/c++/3.4.2/bits/char_traits.h
- --- LINE 80 ---
Wrong:
* may not be specialized for fundamentl types, but classes in
Ok
* may not be specialized for fundamental types, but classes in
"fundamentl" is spelled incorrectly. Thanks!
--- Comment #8 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2008-05-28 13:32 ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> Fixed?
>
The bug report was opened against gcc 4.3. To fix it in 4.3, we need to
backport the fix from trunk.
--
hjl dot tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Incorrect type used for |[4.1/4.2/4.3 Regression]
|inlined expression
--- Comment #8 from matz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-28 13:54 ---
Fixed in [EMAIL PROTECTED] Option now is -Wno-enum-compare .
--
matz at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #9 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-28 13:54 ---
Subject: Bug 36291
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed May 28 13:54:05 2008
New Revision: 136095
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=136095
Log:
2008-05-28 Richard Guenther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR
--- Comment #16 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-28 13:46
---
Fixed for 4.3.1. Unassigning.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #17 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-28 13:46
---
Subject: Bug 36300
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed May 28 13:45:47 2008
New Revision: 136085
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=136085
Log:
2008-05-28 Richard Guenther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Comment #10 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-28 13:57
---
The situation on the trunk should be much better now. A trivial backport to
the
4.3 branch failed during bootstrap though, so that has to wait for some
investigation.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.c
--- Comment #3 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2008-05-28 13:37 ---
Will Darwin users have to wait two months for this patch to be approved and
committed (even if Apple did not contributed)?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36348
--- Comment #8 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-28 14:46 ---
Subject: Bug 36339
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed May 28 14:45:57 2008
New Revision: 136100
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=136100
Log:
2008-05-28 Richard Guenther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR
--- Comment #9 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-28 14:53 ---
Subject: Bug 36339
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed May 28 14:52:07 2008
New Revision: 136101
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=136101
Log:
2008-05-28 Richard Guenther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR
--- Comment #5 from charlet at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-28 15:56 ---
Subject: Bug 34446
Author: charlet
Date: Wed May 28 15:55:41 2008
New Revision: 136111
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=136111
Log:
2008-05-28 Vincent Celier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR a
--- Comment #6 from charlet at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-28 15:58 ---
Documentation has been updated, so closing.
--
charlet at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #3 from gunnar at greyhound-data dot com 2008-05-28 16:14
---
(In reply to comment #1)
> It would have been nice to check at least gcc 4.3 (or better current trunk).
>
I've verified with latest source gcc source "version 4.4.0 20080523
(experimental) (GCC)"
The problem th
--- Comment #2 from gunnar at greyhound-data dot com 2008-05-28 16:18
---
(In reply to comment #1)
> It would have been nice to check at least gcc 4.3 (or better current trunk).
>
I've verified with latest source gcc source "version 4.4.0 20080523
(experimental) (GCC)"
The most curr
--- Comment #2 from gunnar at greyhound-data dot com 2008-05-28 16:23
---
(In reply to comment #1)
> It would have been nice to check at least gcc 4.3 (or better current trunk).
>
I have verified this for you with the most current GCC source.
Verified with gcc version 4.4.0 20080523 (
--- Comment #2 from gunnar at greyhound-data dot com 2008-05-28 16:28
---
(In reply to comment #1)
> It would have been nice to check at least gcc 4.3 (or better current trunk).
>
I have verified this with the most current GCC source trunk.
GCC 4.4 code snapshot 2008-05-23
The proble
--- Comment #9 from joel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-28 16:29 ---
Created an attachment (id=15692)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=15692&action=view)
Latest version
Previous patch did not include s-interr-hwint.adb.
There is no patch to s-osinte-rtems.adb since t
--- Comment #10 from joel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-28 16:33 ---
Updated changelog entry. I missed adding the s-hwint-interr.adb file
when I replaced my svn tree a while back. There are no modifications
to s-osinte-rtems.adb. The .ads just binds to more routines provided
by RTEMS
--- Comment #9 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-28 16:58 ---
Not a regression so closing as fixed.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #18 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-28 17:26
---
For the memory leak that happens from simplify_parameter_variable(), a reduced
testcase is:
integer, parameter :: MSKa1(1) = 1
integer, parameter :: ARR1 = MSKa1(1)
end
The reason for it is that when we c
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.4.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36180
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.4.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36197
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-28 18:51 ---
It should be mentioned this is a stack overflow.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36184
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.4.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36155
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.4.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36196
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.4.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36263
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.4.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36264
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.3.1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36271
--- Comment #4 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-28 21:12
---
Subject: Bug 36319
Author: fxcoudert
Date: Wed May 28 21:11:39 2008
New Revision: 136129
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=136129
Log:
PR fortran/36319
* intrinsic.c (gfc_con
--- Comment #12 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-28 21:28 ---
Subject: Bug 36325
Author: janus
Date: Wed May 28 21:27:56 2008
New Revision: 136130
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=136130
Log:
2008-05-28 Janus Weil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR fortran/
--- Comment #7 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-28 21:28 ---
Subject: Bug 35830
Author: janus
Date: Wed May 28 21:27:56 2008
New Revision: 136130
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=136130
Log:
2008-05-28 Janus Weil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR fortran/3
--- Comment #8 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-28 21:34 ---
rev. 136130 contains the fixes from comment #2 and comment #3, but the test
case from comment #1 is still failing.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35830
The -m[no-]vrsave option is ignored on 4.3.0 (and it seems on the trunk
as of 2008/5/28 it still is). Note the old form -mvrsave=no does work.
Other -m[no-] options also fail to work with 4.3.0 but (at least some)
of them have apparently been fixed on the trunk (as of today) but
-m[no-]vrsave has
--- Comment #1 from strauman at slac dot stanford dot edu 2008-05-28 21:35
---
Created an attachment (id=15693)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=15693&action=view)
suggested fix
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36358
--- Comment #13 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-28 21:37 ---
Fixed with r136130. Closing.
--
janus at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-28 21:58 ---
The problem in comment #2 was indeed introduced by my rev. 134867, and can be
fixed by the following patch:
Index: gcc/fortran/resolve.c
===
--- gcc/fort
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35100
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36262
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||accepts-invalid
Priority|P3 |P4
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36276
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c++ |middle-end
Priority|P3 |P2
http:
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Summary|[4.1/4.2/4.3 Regression]|[4.1/4.2 Regressio
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36343
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfi
Hi
I've tested gcc-4.4 with the current developer kernel 2.6.26-rc4 and got the
following compile error:
...
Setup is 12236 bytes (padded to 12288 bytes).
System is 2521 kB
CRC 735d1682
Kernel: arch/x86/boot/bzImage is ready (#62)
Building modules, stage 2.
MODPOST 222 modules
ERROR: "ilo
1 - 100 of 129 matches
Mail list logo
