--- Comment #7 from ubizjak at gmail dot com 2008-11-18 08:09 ---
Created an attachment (id=16716)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=16716&action=view)
Patch with a testcase
This patch solves all issues with mthc1 and mfhc1.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug
--- Comment #3 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-18 08:24
---
> I'm not completely sure this is a bug in Sun as. If you consider the
> assembler code for my testcase produced by gcc:
>
> .global tsd
> .section".tbss",#alloc,#write,#tls
> .al
--- Comment #2 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-18 08:31
---
OK, if you tell me how to log in on the SPARC/Linux box as well as where I can
find the already built compiler, I'll look into the problem.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38131
--- Comment #3 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-18 09:03 ---
libunwind also scales all of DW_CFA_advance_loc{,1,2,4} by code alignment
factor and IMHO it matches the standard wording too:
DW_CFA_advance_loc
The DW_CFA_advance instruction takes a single operand (encoded with th
--- Comment #4 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-18 09:19 ---
On the GCC configury side (and in gas testsuite too) it is just a matter of:
cat > conftest.s
--- Comment #1 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2008-11-18 09:26 ---
This is probably a duplicate of pr37012. Still here at revision 141951.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37105
--- Comment #4 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-18 09:39 ---
If you don't want to call it a bug, call it at least a misfeature.
Given that Solaris as supports .tls_common directive, having .common directive
behave differently depending on whether current section is .tbss (appare
--- Comment #5 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-18 10:01 ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> this bug seems fixed in 4.4.0, should it be closed?
>
Joost,
I forgot the PR and missed your prompt - I'll apply it to 4.3 and close it.
Thanks
Paul
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/s
--- Comment #27 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2008-11-18 10:16
---
Isn't this a regression?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36902
--- Comment #4 from holger dot hopp at sap dot com 2008-11-18 11:01 ---
Indeed, the newest trunk rev. fixed that issue. Great!
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38169
--- Comment #5 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-18 12:11
---
Subject: Bug 38127
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Tue Nov 18 12:10:18 2008
New Revision: 141964
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=141964
Log:
PR ada/38127
* gcc-interface/decl.c (mak
--- Comment #6 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-18 12:31 ---
Created an attachment (id=16717)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=16717&action=view)
gcc44-pr29987.patch
Anyway, the following patch fixes this in a cross from x86_64-linux to
sparc*-sun-solaris10.
--- Comment #6 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-18 12:34 ---
Subject: Bug 38130
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Nov 18 12:33:38 2008
New Revision: 141965
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=141965
Log:
PR target/38130
* config/i386/i386.md (allocate_s
--- Comment #7 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-18 12:37 ---
Fixed.
--
jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #1 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-18 12:51 ---
Is it reproduceable? I've never seen it, and between 141923 and 141928
revisions there is certainly nothing that might affect it (on trunk only mips
and fortran changes).
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.c
--
dodji at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |dodji at gcc dot gnu dot org
|dot org
--- Comment #7 from dodji at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-18 12:57 ---
Okay, patch updated and sent to
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2008-11/msg00873.html.
Fingers crossed.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35405
--- Comment #30 from steve dot chapel at a2pg dot com 2008-11-18 12:59
---
Although bug 38122 causes NONMEM to not run as is, all it takes is a simple
one-line change to get it to run normally on Linux.
This bug, on the other hand, makes it effectively impossible to run NONMEM
normally
--- Comment #7 from ro at techfak dot uni-bielefeld dot de 2008-11-18
13:16 ---
Subject: Re: libgomp.c++/ctor-9.C failure
jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org writes:
> Anyway, the following patch fixes this in a cross from x86_64-linux to
> sparc*-sun-solaris10. Can somebody please bootstr
--- Comment #17 from mikael at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-18 13:23 ---
(In reply to comment #16)
> Btw it also makes comment #12 compile, while the resulting executable produces
> a segfault. But I guess this is due to the weird things which this program
> does(?).
Not really.
The prob
--- Comment #8 from ro at techfak dot uni-bielefeld dot de 2008-11-18
13:32 ---
Subject: Re: libgomp.c++/ctor-9.C failure
ro at techfak dot uni-bielefeld dot de writes:
> > Does i?86-sun-solaris* as have the same bug or not?
>
> I'll have to check this. Currently, one cannot use Su
--- Comment #11 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2008-11-18 13:38 ---
The test fails on powerpc-apple-darwin9 (revision 141945, 32 and 64 bit modes):
FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/pr38051.c execution, -O0
FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/pr38051.c execution, -O1
FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execu
--- Comment #2 from howarth at nitro dot med dot uc dot edu 2008-11-18
14:05 ---
Dominique,
Yes this is a duplicate of PR37012. We had numerous stack-align failures
originally but are now done to just these c++ failures. Note that these
failures
only occur with -O3 -g but not -O3.
--- Comment #5 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2008-11-18
14:06 ---
Subject: Re: [4.4 Regression] FAIL: g++.dg/eh/pr29166.C execution test
> Can you submit the trivial fix (replace 3 times (delta) with (scaled) in
> dw2gencfi.c to binutils? On the GCC side we'll need to w
--- Comment #2 from kamaraju at gmail dot com 2008-11-18 14:28 ---
I filed this bug against binutils as
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=7032 . The conclusion there is
that it is a compiler bug
(since the abort is an unhandled case in a switch).
Could some one take a seco
--- Comment #28 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2008-11-18 14:42
---
(In reply to comment #27)
> Isn't this a regression?
>
The warning is new. But the same code won't compile with -Wall while
gcc 4.1 has no problems.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36902
--- Comment #6 from danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-18 14:56 ---
The binutils patch is here:
http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2008-11/msg00200.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37610
--- Comment #2 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2008-11-18 14:39 ---
It is gone now. It may be a timing issue.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38162
--- Comment #4 from howarth at nitro dot med dot uc dot edu 2008-11-18
15:01 ---
This test case is failing on i686-apple-darwin9 at -m64 (but not -m32).
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16923
--- Comment #29 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-18 15:21 ---
There is a patch here: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2008-10/msg01117.html
--
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #30 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2008-11-18 15:25
---
Thanks Manuel. I'm not sure that this is technically a regression, but in any
case I consider it a serious problem and really hope we can have a fix for
4.4.0.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?
--- Comment #6 from anhvofrcaus at gmail dot com 2008-11-18 15:32 ---
Subject: Re: Assembler error during compilation
The problem does not exist any longer starting with
gcc-4.4.0-20081031. Thus, it is considered fixed.
On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 11:40 AM, sam at gcc dot gnu dot org
<[E
--- Comment #31 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-18 15:43 ---
(In reply to comment #30)
> Thanks Manuel. I'm not sure that this is technically a regression, but in any
> case I consider it a serious problem and really hope we can have a fix for
> 4.4.0.
I submitted the patch lon
--- Comment #32 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2008-11-18 15:47
---
(In reply to comment #31)
> I submitted the patch long ago. We are in regressions-only mode. This is not a
> regression. Not sure what else you want me to do.
I'm not sure either ;) Maybe you could just work
--- Comment #3 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-18 15:59 ---
If you manage to reproduce it again, please reopen.
--
jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #33 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-18 16:05 ---
(In reply to comment #32)
> (In reply to comment #31)
> > I submitted the patch long ago. We are in regressions-only mode. This is
> > not a
> > regression. Not sure what else you want me to do.
>
> I'm not sure eith
--- Comment #3 from jan at jans-seite dot de 2008-11-18 16:24 ---
By compile doxygen, came this error:
g++ -c -pipe -fno-exceptions -fno-rtti -Wall -W -fno-exceptions -O2 -I../qtools
-I../libpng -I../libmd5 -o ../objects/doxygen.o doxygen.cpp
{standard input}: Assembler messages:
{stand
--- Comment #4 from dodji at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-18 16:49 ---
Here is a reduced testcase:
1 template class W>
struct A {};
2
3 template struct B {};
4
5 int
6 main ()
7 {
8A a;
9return 0;
10 }
11
--
dod
--- Comment #5 from dodji at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-18 16:52 ---
With the reduced test case, the error message on svn trunk is now:
8: internal compiler error: in dependent_type_p, at cp/pt.c:15922
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37142
--- Comment #4 from sje at cup dot hp dot com 2008-11-18 17:11 ---
A dg-options to set -fpic would fix the test on hppa64 but I think we might
want to xfail it instead and fix it after 4.4. Technically, I don't think this
is a 4.4 Regression since the test is new and the behaviour of th
--- Comment #12 from sje at cup dot hp dot com 2008-11-18 17:31 ---
The new test is also failing on IA64 HP-UX and PA HP-UX (32 and 64 bits). It
is not failing on IA64 Linux. Could the test have a big-endian/little-endian
issue?
--
sje at cup dot hp dot com changed:
Wha
--- Comment #6 from cfairles at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-18 17:53
---
Even more reduced:
template class W>
struct A{};
template
struct B{};
int main() { A a; }
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37142
--- Comment #8 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-18 18:12 ---
Subject: Bug 37962
Author: jason
Date: Tue Nov 18 18:11:32 2008
New Revision: 141970
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=141970
Log:
PR c++/37962
cp/
* parser.c (cp_parser_type_id):
--- Comment #13 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-18 18:19 ---
See http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2008-11/msg00905.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38051
--- Comment #9 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-18 18:14 ---
Fixed.
--
jason at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
The following code worked for version 4.3 and 4.4 as of 9-28:
MODULE HDF5
USE H5GLOBAL
END MODULE HDF5
MODULE H5GLOBAL
IMPLICIT NONE
INTEGER :: H5P_flags
INTEGER :: H5P_DEFAULT_F
EQUIVALENCE(H5P_flags, H5P_DEFAULT_F)
END MODULE H5GLOBAL
PROGRAM fortranlibtest
USE HDF5
IMPLICIT NONE
--- Comment #17 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-18 18:26 ---
Created an attachment (id=16718)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=16718&action=view)
gcc44-pr37742.patch
Testcase #c7 can be fixed by this patch. Without it, alias sets in presence of
restricted p
--
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 #7 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-18 18:48
---
*** Bug 38131 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #6 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-18 18:50 ---
Fixed.
--
jason at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
--- Comment #8 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-18 18:51
---
Likewise on SPARC.
--
ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #8 from g0dsowncountry at yahoo dot com 2008-11-18 18:52
---
With Uros's patch in Comment #7, GCC Builds Fine..!
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37362
--- Comment #3 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-18 18:48
---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 37610 ***
--
ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #5 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2008-11-18
19:27 ---
Subject: Re: [4.4 Regression] gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ssa-store-ccp-3.c
scan-tree-dump-times optimized "conststaticvariable" 1
> --- Comment #4 from sje at cup dot hp dot com 2008-11-18 17:11 ---
> A dg-o
--- Comment #3 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-18 19:35 ---
Yes indeed - confirmed.
Paul
--
pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-18 19:41 ---
This is a regression that appears to be caused by
r140879 | pault | 2008-10-04 22:50:00 -0700 (Sat, 04 Oct 2008) | 12 lines
2008-10-04 Paul Th
--- Comment #4 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2008-11-18 19:54 ---
With the patches in comment #2 and #3, compiling the test in comment #0 on
i686-apple-darwin9 in 32 bit mode gives:
/var/tmp//ccMx60VC.s:13:non-relocatable subtraction expression, "_procptr"
minus "L001$pb"
/
--- Comment #1 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-18 19:57 ---
Joost,
Do you know of any compilers that catch this? As you say, it is not so easy to
fix.
BTW you say that this another case where an unneeded temp is created. I can
see your PRs after this. Which ones come befor
--- Comment #2 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-18 20:00 ---
Nice catch!
Thanks
Paul
--
pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
S
--- Comment #1 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-18 20:09 ---
This produces the code:
s (struct array1_integer(kind=4) & b, integer(kind=4) & i, integer(kind=4) & j)
{
integer(kind=8) ubound.0;
integer(kind=8) stride.1;
integer(kind=8) offset.2;
integer(kind=8) size.3;
--- Comment #2 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-18 20:11 ---
Another tough one, I think.
Thanks
Paul
--
pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #18 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-18 20:13 ---
Created an attachment (id=16719)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=16719&action=view)
incremental patch
This fixed matmul_i2.c, DR_BASE_ADDRESS wasn't in this case TYPE_RESTRICT, nor
SSA_NAME, but P
--- Comment #5 from mrs at apple dot com 2008-11-18 20:26 ---
The C standard mandates that all enumeration constants have the same type, gcc
violates this requirement.
--
mrs at apple dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #2 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-18 20:26 ---
Ah, yes. The module name check only pertains to the module being read.
Instead, it should check that the equivalence members are from the same module
- this might itself be use associated into the module being read.
--- Comment #29 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-18 20:39
---
Jakub, what's the status of this PR?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36998
--- Comment #13 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-18 21:31 ---
Are things moving forward on the fwprop issue?
--
steven at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #7 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-18 21:34 ---
P1 bug with a pending patch... maybe a reviewer could take a look at this
(seemingly trivial) patch at
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2008-11/msg00180.html
?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3784
--- Comment #14 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-18 21:34
---
(In reply to comment #13)
> Are things moving forward on the fwprop issue?
I stoped working on it for now but I should be able to pick it up next week
when I am on vaction :).
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/s
--- Comment #9 from uros at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-18 22:01 ---
Subject: Bug 37362
Author: uros
Date: Tue Nov 18 22:00:12 2008
New Revision: 141978
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=141978
Log:
PR target/37362
* config/mips/mips.md (move_doublew
--- Comment #10 from ubizjak at gmail dot com 2008-11-18 22:06 ---
Fixed.
--
ubizjak at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL|
--- Comment #7 from bje at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-18 22:09 ---
Subject: Bug 37640
Author: bje
Date: Tue Nov 18 22:07:58 2008
New Revision: 141980
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=141980
Log:
Backport from mainline:
PR target/37640
2008
Take:
struct MyClass
{
};
typedef struct MyClass MyClass;
int Bar1( void ) __attribute__((warn_unused_result)) __attribute__((noinline));
MyClass Bar2( void ) __attribute__((warn_unused_result))
__attribute__((noinline));
int Bar1( void )
{
return 0;
}
MyClass Bar2( void )
{
}
void Foo( vo
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-18 22:14 ---
PR 38172 has the better example.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 38172 ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-18 22:14 ---
*** Bug 31063 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 2008-11-18 22:15 ---
*** Bug 31742 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 2008-11-18 22:15 ---
PR 38172 has a simple example.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 38172 ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from neil at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-18 22:18 ---
The standard talks about the groups controlled by conditionals being skipped.
There is no conditional controlling the #elif - it is at the top level - so I
see nothing permitting its non-evaluation.
--
http://gcc.
--- Comment #20 from sje at cup dot hp dot com 2008-11-18 22:39 ---
I see there were some patches submitted for this issue
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2008-02/msg01098.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2008-03/msg00267.html
I get timeouts on my slow hppa system and would be
--- Comment #6 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-18 23:17 ---
IMHO if a target generates position independent code by default, but not
flag_shlib by default, then it should define __pie__ and/or __PIE__ macro, but
not __pic__ and/or __PIC__, as the latter implies both flag_pic an
--- Comment #22 from sje at cup dot hp dot com 2008-11-18 23:21 ---
Your plan sounds good to me. I am thinking that using the timeout-factor
on g++.dg/torture/pr31863.C, gcc.c-torture/compile/20001226-1.c, and
gcc.dg/20020425-1.c to deal with the compiler timeouts on these long compile
--- Comment #10 from sje at cup dot hp dot com 2008-11-18 23:25 ---
If you only get slow compilation at -O2 and above then your problem is probably
due to PR 37790. The original problem affected -O1 compiles as well as -O2.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31850
--- Comment #14 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-18 23:03 ---
Subject: Bug 38051
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Nov 18 23:01:35 2008
New Revision: 141983
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=141983
Log:
PR tree-optimization/38051
* gcc.c-torture/execu
--- Comment #21 from janis at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-18 22:48 ---
Interesting that you should ask, I modified the patch yesterday and intend to
submit it as soon as I've done some more testing.
The current version adds dg-timeout, which sets the timeout for running the
compiler in
--- Comment #13 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-18 22:44
---
Subject: Bug 38135
Author: tkoenig
Date: Tue Nov 18 22:43:05 2008
New Revision: 141982
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=141982
Log:
2008-11-18 Thomas Koenig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR
--- Comment #9 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-18 23:47 ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/compile/pr36038.c
Isn't this really a run testcase and not just a compile one?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36038
--
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 #28 from dodji at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-19 00:17 ---
Subject: Bug 27574
Author: dodji
Date: Wed Nov 19 00:15:52 2008
New Revision: 141984
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=141984
Log:
gcc/ChangeLog:
2008-11-14 Dodji Seketeli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Comment #29 from dodji at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-19 00:21 ---
Fixed in trunk, 4.3 and 4.2 branch.
--
dodji at gcc dot gnu dot org 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
--
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
Hello
I've found that there is mistake in translation of this error message:
LANG=C make
...
error: functional cast expression list treated as compound expression
...
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/Spectra_Project/libspectra$ echo "Current LANG: "$LANG
&& make
Current LANG: ru_RU.UTF-8
...
îøèáêà: functiona
--- Comment #5 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-19 03:26 ---
Subject: Bug 38119
Author: pault
Date: Wed Nov 19 03:25:00 2008
New Revision: 141990
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=141990
Log:
2008-11-19 Paul Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR fortran/
--- Comment #6 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-19 03:37 ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> Subject: Bug 38119
>
> Author: pault
> Date: Wed Nov 19 03:25:00 2008
> New Revision: 141990
>
> URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=141990
> Log:
> 2008-11-19 Paul Thoma
--- Comment #3 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-19 03:43 ---
Subject: Bug 38171
Author: pault
Date: Wed Nov 19 03:41:57 2008
New Revision: 141991
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=141991
Log:
2008-11-19 Paul Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR fortran/
--- Comment #4 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-19 03:47 ---
Subject: Bug 38171
Author: pault
Date: Wed Nov 19 03:46:12 2008
New Revision: 141992
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=141992
Log:
2008-11-19 Paul Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR fortran/
--- Comment #5 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-19 03:49 ---
Fixed on trunk and 4.3.
Thanks for the report.
Paul
--
pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
GCC fails to compile the following example, because it isn't generating all of
the necessary built-in candidates for operator== and operator-:
struct VolatileIntPtr {
operator int volatile *();
};
struct ConstIntPtr {
operator int const *();
};
void test_with_ptrs(VolatileIntPtr vip, ConstIn
--- Comment #4 from d dot g dot gorbachev at gmail dot com 2008-11-19
04:37 ---
Created an attachment (id=16720)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=16720&action=view)
Example
Disregard the previous comment.
Segmentation fault in GCC.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
98 matches
Mail list logo
