Hi,
I am facing an error in pthread.h while compiling my application using gcc
4.1.2. But I don't have any error if I compile same applicaiton using gcc
3.2.3. Can anyone help me?
GCC Build:
Using built-in specs.
Target: i386-redhat-linux
Configured with: ../configure --prefix=/usr --mandir=/usr
--- Comment #1 from gzp at gmx dot net 2008-12-01 08:03 ---
Created an attachment (id=16796)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=16796&action=view)
config.log environment log.configure log.make
Inside the files.tar you can find the following files:
config.log
environm
Compiler gives wrong warning for "comparison of promoted ~unsigned with
unsigned" when compiling with ARM-ELF.
Submit script for building arm-elf toolchain and testcode.
Compilation using;
arm-elf-gcc -c cast.c -W
cast.c: In function 'test_cast':
cast.c:13: warning: comparison of promoted ~unsig
The program source is trivial (yes, I've attached the .ii file as well):
#include
prog_uchar foo [10][10] = { 0 };
When compiled with g++ 4.3.0, this does not actually put the data in program
space.
BillW-MacOSX<1063> /Downloads/arduino-0012/hardware/tools/avr/bin/avr-g++
pgmspace.c -mmcu=at
--- Comment #1 from westfw at yahoo dot com 2008-12-01 09:16 ---
Created an attachment (id=16797)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=16797&action=view)
output from g++ -v
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38342
--- Comment #2 from westfw at yahoo dot com 2008-12-01 09:18 ---
Created an attachment (id=16798)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=16798&action=view)
pgmspace.ii for the failing g++ compilation
Actual compile command:
/Downloads/arduino-0012/hardware/tools/avr/bin/av
--- Comment #3 from westfw at yahoo dot com 2008-12-01 09:20 ---
Bug has been reproduced on at least two hosts.
See also avrfreaks discussion:
http://www.avrfreaks.net/index.php?name=PNphpBB2&file=viewtopic&p=515859#515859
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38342
--- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-12-01 09:45 ---
works for me
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Wro
--- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-12-01 09:47 ---
This is a recent regression, r141893 works.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-12-01 09:49 ---
There's a pointer-adjustment in the original code (we just cprop a zero). If
there was a suitable member forwprop should have re-constructed an access.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38334
I just tried to compile the Suse Linux package
MyODBC-unixODBC-3.51.26r1127-1.62
with the GNU C compiler version 4.4 snapshot 20081128.
The compiler said
gcc -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -DNONTHREADSAFE -I/usr/include -O3 -DDBUG_OFF
-I/usr/include/mysql -fmessage-length=0 -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fstack-prote
--- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-12-01 10:01 ---
/* Warn if two unsigned values are being compared in a size larger
than their original size, and one (and only one) is the result of
a `~' operator. This comparison will always fail.
Also warn if o
--- Comment #1 from dcb314 at hotmail dot com 2008-12-01 10:01 ---
Created an attachment (id=16799)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=16799&action=view)
C source code
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38343
--- Comment #2 from zuogang at huawei dot com 2008-12-01 10:13 ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> Works for me with the trunk on i386-darwin8.11:
> [236:~] apinski% ~/local-gcc/bin/gcc t.c -fstack-protector-all
> [236:~] apinski% ./a.out
> ?,a:-1,b2
> *** stack smashing detected ***: term
--- Comment #1 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2008-12-01 10:34
---
Certainly nothing to do with the C++ runtime library.
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from j at uriah dot heep dot sax dot de 2008-12-01 10:37
---
Note that this is a GCC 4.3.x regression; GCC 4.2.x compiled the code the
way expected.
--
j at uriah dot heep dot sax dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-12-01 10:42 ---
Reducing.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38343
--- Comment #3 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-12-01 10:50 ---
typedef struct myodbc3_err_str {
char sqlstate[6];
} MYODBC3_ERR_STR;
static MYODBC3_ERR_STR myodbc3_errors[] = { { "01000" } };
void myodbc_sqlstate2_init(void)
{
__builtin_stpcpy(myodbc3_errors[0].sqlstate,
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Known to fail||4.3
--- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-12-01 11:06 ---
Can you figure out which patch is the cause?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38344
--- Comment #3 from doko at ubuntu dot com 2008-12-01 11:08 ---
doing this, but it will be slow ...
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38344
--- Comment #2 from doko at ubuntu dot com 2008-12-01 11:16 ---
afaics no ia64 specific changes besides the proposed patch for pr27880 to
configure --with-system-libunwind.
trunk fails as well, build log at
https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/gcc-snapshot/20081130-0ubuntu1/+build/80075
--- Comment #1 from doko at ubuntu dot com 2008-12-01 10:59 ---
Created an attachment (id=16800)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=16800&action=view)
preprocessed source
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38344
seen with 4.3.3 20081029, seen the last successful bootstrap with 20081022, not
seen on the trunk.
/home/doko/gcc/4.3/java/gcj-4.3-4.3.2/build/gcc/cc1plus -quiet -nostdinc++ -v
-g -O2 -Wswitch-enum -Wextra -Wall -version -fno-rtti -fnon-call-exceptions
-fdollars-in-identifiers -fPIC link.ii
Progr
The example in 6.4p3 is not diagnosed by GCC:
if (int x = f()) {
int x; // ill-formed, redeclaration of x
}
else {
int x; // ill-formed, redeclaration of x
}
This compiles without warnings on every version of GCC I tried from 3.3 to 4.3
--
Summary: redeclaration of name introduc
--- Comment #13 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-12-01 12:24 ---
After fixing the issue mentioned in comment#2 and comment #8, gcse.c hoisting
hoists things too far up, e.g.:
{ pred ENTRY }
BB1
if (...) goto BB2 else goto BB3
{ succ BB2, BB3 }
{ pred BB1 }
BB2
...
goto BB4
{ suc
--- Comment #4 from uros at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-12-01 12:29 ---
Subject: Bug 38254
Author: uros
Date: Mon Dec 1 12:28:05 2008
New Revision: 142310
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=142310
Log:
Backport from mainline:
2008-11-25 Uros Bizjak <[
--- Comment #2 from fredrik dot hederstierna at securitas-direct dot com
2008-12-01 12:40 ---
Then why dont we get warning on the first if-statement?
Shouldnt these lines be equal?
if (c1 == (unsigned char)(~c2)) {
}
if (u1 == (u8_t)(~u2)) { // THIS WILL GIVE WARNING
}
The fi
--- Comment #3 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-12-01 12:49 ---
As I said, for the first case we optimize away the promotions before the
warning
code comes along.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38341
--- Comment #4 from fredrik dot hederstierna at securitas-direct dot com
2008-12-01 12:55 ---
Heres another example, then I do not think the warnings are due to
optimization.
I have same warnings with both -O0 and -O3.
#include
typedef unsigned char u8_t;
void test_cast(unsigned ch
Dears,
I'm currently develop a multi-threaded application using GCC pthread (NTPL).
My application start a thread who start another sub-thread.
During the creation of the subthread, i invoke the pthread_cancel on the first
thread. This result sometime a Sigfault (see the diagram bellow).
Main t
--- Comment #5 from fredrik dot hederstierna at securitas-direct dot com
2008-12-01 13:35 ---
On Intel i386-GCC (4.2.3) we just get warning only for the line
if (c1 == ~c2)
The other lines does not give warnings, so maybe its just the ARM-backend that
catch this warning.
I guess yo
On powerpc-apple-darwin9 at revision 142300, compiling
gfortran.dg/alloc_comp_constructor_1.f90 with -O2 -fdefault-integer-8 gives and
ICE:
[karma] dominiq/test% gfc -O2 -fdefault-integer-8
/opt/gcc/gcc-4.4-work/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/alloc_comp_constructor_1.f90
/opt/gcc/gcc-4.4-work/gcc/tes
--- Comment #16 from uros at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-12-01 13:50 ---
Subject: Bug 37908
Author: uros
Date: Mon Dec 1 13:48:52 2008
New Revision: 142313
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=142313
Log:
PR middle-end/37908
* config/alpha/alpha.c (alpha_
--- Comment #1 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2008-12-01 13:54 ---
AFAICT this pr is the cause of half of the failures of
gfortran.dg/alloc_comp_constructor_1.f90 on i686-apple-darwin9 with
-fdefault-integer-8:
FAIL: gfortran.dg/alloc_comp_constructor_1.f90 -O0 execution test
FAIL
int a[10];
template
void foo ()
{
#pragma omp for
for (int *p = a; p < a + 10; p++)
;
}
ICEs with -fopenmp, fold_convert is called with NULL second argument fro
c_finish_omp_for.
--
Summary: ICE from c_finish_omp_for
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
--
jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Last reco
--
jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|ICE from c_finish_omp_for |[4.4 Regression] ICE from
|
--- Comment #2 from howarth at nitro dot med dot uc dot edu 2008-12-01
14:23 ---
I don't see any c++ comments in the included system headers. Is there a way in
gcc to dump the preprocessed source in a manner that won't parse out the
comments? When I dropped the '-fno-show-column -tradi
--- Comment #6 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-12-01 14:36 ---
Subject: Bug 38245
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Dec 1 14:34:51 2008
New Revision: 142317
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=142317
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/38245
* tree-vrp.c (abs_exten
--- Comment #1 from joel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-12-01 14:39 ---
Still broken:
+===GNAT BUG DETECTED==+
| 4.4.0 20081126 (experimental) [trunk revision 142228] (arm-unknown-rtems4.10)
GCC error:|
| in find_valid_class, at reload.c:
--- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-12-01 14:44 ---
This is not related to GCC.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
4.4.0 20081126 (experimental) [trunk revision 142228]
/n/12/joel/test-gcc/b-gcc2-h8300/./gcc/xgcc
-B/n/12/joel/test-gcc/b-gcc2-h8300/./gcc/ -nostdinc
-B/n/12/joel/test-gcc/b-gcc2-h8300/h8300-rtems4.10/newlib/ -isystem
/n/12/joel/test-gcc/b-gcc2-h8300/h8300-rtems4.10/newlib/targ-include -isystem
/
--- Comment #1 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-12-01 15:11 ---
Subject: Bug 38348
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Dec 1 15:10:25 2008
New Revision: 142318
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=142318
Log:
PR c++/38348
* c-omp.c (c_finish_omp_for): Only t
--- Comment #2 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-12-01 15:14 ---
Fixed.
--
jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #1 from joel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-12-01 15:15 ---
Ada not boehm-gc. Selected wrong box.
--
joel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
For the attached code, there's no reason why the generated code at -O2 would
need an unused stack-slot (a second with -march=v10, a first with -march=v32)
when operand 5 (the last) of the asm is "g" than if it's "X". Using "X" seems
a little awkward life-time-wise because the input is supposed to
--- Comment #1 from hp at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-12-01 15:20 ---
Created an attachment (id=16801)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=16801&action=view)
testcase
Change the last constraint from g to X and compile with 4.3-branch r142284 with
-O2 -march=v32 and -O2 -mar
--
hp at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfi
--- Comment #32 from uros at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-12-01 15:21 ---
Subject: Bug 33642
Author: uros
Date: Mon Dec 1 15:19:40 2008
New Revision: 142319
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=142319
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/33642
* gcc.c-torture/compile/
--- Comment #1 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-12-01 15:28 ---
Subject: Bug 38257
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Dec 1 15:27:12 2008
New Revision: 142320
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=142320
Log:
PR c++/38257
* parser.c (cp_parser_omp_for_loop):
--- Comment #2 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-12-01 15:30 ---
Fixed.
--
jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #2 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2008-12-01 15:35 ---
It is caused by either revision 142115 or 142116. Revision 142116:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2008-11/msg00617.html
is my first guess.
--
hjl dot tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #3 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2008-12-01 15:37 ---
-fno-ira also failed:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] rrs]$ ./142116/usr/bin/gcc -fPIC -m32 -S y.c -fno-ira
y.c: In function âapply_charâ:
y.c:11: error: unable to find a register to spill in class âQ_REGSâ
y.c:11: error: this is
--- Comment #4 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-12-01 15:45 ---
Yes, the problem is that eax, edx and ecx are live there (might be arguments)
and ebx is reserved for PIC pointer, so at that spot is no QImode register
available. I guess either my builtins.c change could be conditio
--- Comment #8 from swagiaal at redhat dot com 2008-12-01 16:12 ---
> DW_AT_MIPS_linkage_name should be removed from GCC only after the DW_AT_name
> scoping/qualification will get fully fixed. GDB currently already contains
> the
> DW_AT_MIPS_linkage_name reader and there is probably n
MODULE M1
TYPE T1
INTEGER :: I
END TYPE T1
INTERFACE OPERATOR(+)
MODULE PROCEDURE add
END INTERFACE
CONTAINS
TYPE(T1) FUNCTION add(a,b)
TYPE(T1), INTENT(IN) :: a,b
END FUNCTION
END MODULE M1
USE M1
TYPE(T1), DIMENSION(2,2) :: a,b
a=a+b
END
> gfortran test.f90
test.f90:15.2:
a=a+b
--- Comment #16 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-12-01 16:29 ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> Which I guess is invalid because the definition of Cdeque is not complete
> at the time we bind iterator::pointer to Cdeque::pointer.
This is not an issue because Cdeque::pointer is a membe
The attached test case produces the erroneous value of -20763584.029346 for
cos(2 * Pi / 4) when the rounding mode is set to FE_UPWARD, instead of the
correct value (close to) 0. Other rounding modes do not show this error,
compiling with optimization enabled (-O1, -O2 or -O3) or as a 32 bit binary
--- Comment #4 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-12-01 16:32
---
> So the read statement by itself is invalid.
???
I was testing with and without the open statement in the test case and saw that
we were not catching that error either. Regardless, the problem is that I was
usi
--- Comment #1 from kruppaal at loria dot fr 2008-12-01 16:33 ---
Created an attachment (id=16802)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=16802&action=view)
Test case for incorrect value of cos()
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38352
--- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-12-01 16:36 ---
Not a GCC issue. And invalid anyway, C99 math always rounds to even.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #5 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-12-01 16:40 ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> > > So the read statement by itself is invalid.
> > ???
>
> I was testing with and without the open statement in the test case and saw
> that we were not catching that error either.
Ah, yo
--- Comment #1 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-12-01 16:48 ---
The best message other compilers had are:
a) NAG f95:
Error: fgjf.f90, line 15: No specific match for reference to operator +
Error: fgjf.f90, line 15: Incompatible data types for the + operator
--- Comment #9 from hjl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-12-01 17:04 ---
Subject: Bug 37514
Author: hjl
Date: Mon Dec 1 17:03:13 2008
New Revision: 142324
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=142324
Log:
2008-12-01 Vladimir Makarov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR rtl-opt
Define statments in an include file are not preprocessed before a main file is
compile. E.g.
include "header.h"
a=1.0
if (debug) print *,a
#define debug .TRUE.
--
Summary: Define statments in an include file are not
preprocessed.
--- Comment #4 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-12-01 17:35 ---
The bug is in expand_builtin_stpcpy, where it doesn't handle COMPOUND_EXPRs
resulting from build_call_expr as other routines do.
--
jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #2 from yakov at emc dot com 2008-12-01 18:16 ---
Subject: Re: Wrong "is used uninitialized in this function"
warning
Richard,
it work for me too if T_SRS_ID would be modified
typedef struct S_SPS_ID
{
unsigned char dir;
unsigned char loop;
unsigned char dae_idx;
--- Comment #30 from ubizjak at gmail dot com 2008-12-01 18:26 ---
(In reply to comment #29)
> Other compilers do this kind of transformation via reverse copy propagation.
> GCC could perhaps add something like that too, when it transforms a 3-address
> insn to a 2-address insn.
Will
--- Comment #8 from cgd at google dot com 2008-12-01 18:30 ---
(re: my last comment on 11/24: I see you added the test case in the original
commit! Sorry, didn't notice that! Thanks much for resolving the issue.)
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38244
--- Comment #5 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-12-01 18:56 ---
/me wishes __builtin_apply would just go away.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-12-01 19:02 ---
I think this is a dup of bug 18770.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38345
--- Comment #6 from mikael at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-12-01 19:32 ---
Subject: Bug 38252
Author: mikael
Date: Mon Dec 1 19:30:55 2008
New Revision: 142327
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=142327
Log:
2008-12-01 Mikael Morin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR fortr
--- Comment #10 from vmakarov at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-12-01 19:33
---
Subject: Bug 37514
Author: vmakarov
Date: Mon Dec 1 19:31:41 2008
New Revision: 142328
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=142328
Log:
2008-12-01 Vladimir Makarov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Comment #1 from dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-12-01 19:42 ---
http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gfortran/Preprocessing-and-conditional-compilation.html
"If a preprocessed file includes another file with the Fortran INCLUDE
statement, the included file is not preprocessed. To prepr
--- Comment #7 from mikael at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-12-01 19:52 ---
I hope one day I'll be able to commit properly.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38252
--- Comment #8 from mikael at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-12-01 19:53 ---
Subject: Bug 38252
Author: mikael
Date: Mon Dec 1 19:52:15 2008
New Revision: 142331
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=142331
Log:
2008-12-01 Mikael Morin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR fortr
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-12-01 20:23 ---
This works on PPC64-linux with revision 141772.
GNU Fortran (GCC) version 4.4.0 2008 (experimental) [trunk revision 141772]
(powerpc64-unknown-linux-gnu)
I don't have anything newer right now though, I will try
--
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
The following code is from gcc docs and works as expected:
#include
int
main (int argc, char **argv)
{
static const int array[] = { &&foo-&&foo, &&bar-&&foo, &&hack-&&foo };
int i = argc - 1;
goto *(array[i]+&&foo);
foo:
printf ("foo\n");
return 0;
bar:
printf ("bar\n");
return
--- Comment #24 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-12-01 22:00 ---
Created an attachment (id=16803)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=16803&action=view)
patch to implement code hoisting in tree-ssa-pre.c
This passes bootstrap+testing on ia64-linux and amd64-linux.
--- Comment #4 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-12-01 22:12 ---
davidxl, my latest patch to bug 23286 (tree-hoist_v3.diff) makes PRE in
tree-ssa-pre.c code-size aware. I have tested this with CSiBE on
mips-unknown-elf.
Without the patch, code size at -Os with PRE enabled is ~17%
[forwarded from http://bugs.debian.org/PR498708]
seen with 4.3 branch and trunk 20081130, building without -fipa-struct-reorg
works.
$ g++ -O3 -fwhole-program -fipa-struct-reorg xx.cc
xx.cc:289: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault
Please submit a full bug report,
with preprocessed source
--- Comment #1 from debian-gcc at lists dot debian dot org 2008-12-01
22:50 ---
Created an attachment (id=16804)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=16804&action=view)
preprocessed source
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38355
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-12-01 22:54 ---
-fipa-pta does nothing ...
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38355
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-12-01 22:55 ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 32305 ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #9 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-12-01 22:55 ---
*** Bug 38355 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #10 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-12-01 23:04 ---
With so many dups, IMHO this ought to be fixed for the releases...
--
steven at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #4 from cgd at google dot com 2008-12-01 23:28 ---
Decided to try to verify again with current head of trunk compiler (since
several other bugs I reported have been fixed, and one was related to value
initialization).
gcc version 4.4.0 20081201 (experimental) (GCC
--- Comment #1 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-12-01 23:33 ---
What's the rationale for using a pointer type for something that is integral
(difference of 2 pointers)?
I don't see why we should support that as a valid constant initializer.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_
--- Comment #2 from gnu at behdad dot org 2008-12-01 23:38 ---
It's not a useful use case, agreed, but I don't see how that affects the
computability of a value at "load time", whatever that means. It did trick me:
I was converting a vtable to use label values, and before converting the
[forwarded from http://bugs.debian.org/487776]
seen with 4.3 branch 20081129, fixed on the trunk, omitting
-ftree-parallelize-loops=2 lets the compile succeed.
Matthias
g++ -g -O3 -ffast-math -fomit-frame-pointer -ftree-parallelize-loops=2 -c -o
dcraw.o dcraw.ii g++: Internal error: Segmentati
--- Comment #1 from debian-gcc at lists dot debian dot org 2008-12-01
23:42 ---
Created an attachment (id=16805)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=16805&action=view)
preprocessed source
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38356
4.1 branch gives an error, message, 4.2 and up segfault.
Matthias
$ g++-4.1 -save-temps bug.cc
bug.cc:17: error: could not convert template argument 'BUG::name' to 'bool'
$ g++ -save-temps bug.cc
bug.cc:17: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault
Please submit a full bug report,
with prepr
--- Comment #4 from janis at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-12-02 00:00 ---
This test also fails on powerpc64-unknown-linux-gnu for both -m32 and -m64. It
passed on 2008-08-24 (r138089) and failed on 2008-08-25 (r138121). Let me know
if you'd like me to run a regression hunt and/or provide d
I am trying to compile a typical c file with include option turned on. The
include option includes .h file as part of the array element declaration for
the c file.
When I did compile:-
gcc c.c -include myfile.h -D STS
In file included from /usr/include/sys/cdefs.h:0,
from /usr/in
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-12-02 00:03 ---
Did you see:
See http://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla> for instructions.
??
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #3 from janis at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-12-02 00:05 ---
This test also fails on powerpc64-unknown-linux-gnu for both -m32 and -m64.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38219
[forwarded from http://bugs.debian.org/PR492505]
works with 4.2 branch, fails with 4.3 branch and trunk, succeeds with -O0
$ gcc-4.3 000.c -c -O1
000.c: In function '_ov_64_seek_lap':
000.c:33: internal compiler error: in set_lattice_value, at tree-ssa-ccp.c:487
Please submit a full bug report,
w
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-12-02 00:11 ---
Here is a shorter testcase:
void _ov_64_seek_lap (void)
{
_Bool x1, x2, x3;
unsigned ltmp_3978_7;
unsigned ltmp_3978_7__PHI_TEMPORARY;
unsigned ltmp_4011_7__PHI_TEMPORARY;
unsigned ltmp_4012_7;
signed ltm
1 - 100 of 126 matches
Mail list logo
