--- Comment #6 from t dot artem at mailcity dot com 2009-04-18 08:18
---
Many Linux distros compile binaries for a common lowest denominator so that you
could run a distro on very old computers and CPUs - their developers in most
cases choose -march=i686 or -march=i586.
I compile binar
--- Comment #34 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-04-18 09:25 ---
Subject: Bug 36902
Author: manu
Date: Sat Apr 18 09:24:45 2009
New Revision: 146305
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=146305
Log:
2009-04-18 Manuel López-Ibáñez
PR middle-end/36902
--- Comment #7 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-04-18 09:28 ---
REOPENED. This testcase is not fixed by the patch in PR 36902.
--
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-04-18 09:34 ---
This is probably not fixed by the patch to PR 36902. They are totally different
problems.
--
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
i386-linux-gcc -O1 -S probe_roms_32.i
/home/segher/src/kernel/arch/x86/kernel/probe_roms_32.c: In function
'romchecksum':
/home/segher/src/kernel/arch/x86/kernel/probe_roms_32.c:165: internal compiler
error: in propagate_necessity, at tree-ssa-dce.c:754
--
Summary: internal compil
--- Comment #7 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-04-18 10:01 ---
For better speed with -march=pentium2 you should add -mtune=generic which
will use only pentium2 features but tunes the code to not pessimize newer
processors.
That said, without a testcase and maybe some analysis (
--- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-04-18 10:02 ---
Mine.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned
--- Comment #3 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-04-18 10:05 ---
Hmm, I get
./cc1 -quiet -O probe_roms_32.i
/home/segher/src/kernel/arch/x86/kernel/probe_roms_32.c: In function
'romchecksum':
/home/segher/src/kernel/arch/x86/kernel/probe_roms_32.c:165: error: found a
real defini
--- Comment #5 from jb at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-04-18 10:05 ---
Subject: Bug 39782
Author: jb
Date: Sat Apr 18 10:05:34 2009
New Revision: 146308
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=146308
Log:
2009-04-18 Janne Blomqvist
PR libfortran/39782
* io
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Summary|internal compiler error: in |[4.
--- Comment #4 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-04-18 10:22 ---
typedef unsigned char u8;
struct __large_struct { unsigned long buf[100]; };
static inline __attribute__((always_inline)) unsigned long
__copy_from_user_inatomic(void *to, const void *from, unsigned long n)
{
unsig
--- Comment #35 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-04-18 09:29 ---
FIXED in GCC 4.5
--
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
OtherBugsDependingO|3792
--- Comment #1 from segher at kernel dot crashing dot org 2009-04-18 09:53
---
Created an attachment (id=17653)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=17653&action=view)
testcase, not minimised
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39804
From
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.fortran/browse_thread/thread/ed70666b0c90b655#
the following code:
module m
implicit none
private
type :: t1
integer :: i
end type
type :: t2
type(t1) :: j
end type
contains
subroutine sub()
implicit none
The way the new_local_vars hash table is hashed in ipa-struct-reorg.c causes
spurious code differences across runs of GCC. I saw this, for example, in
gcc.dg/struct/wo_prof_two_strs.c:
--- base-mn10300-gcc-build/gcc/cc1 -mam33
+++ mn10300-gcc-build/gcc/cc1 -mam33
@@ -117,12 +117,12 @@
.co
--
bonzini at gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|000
--- Comment #1 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-04-18 11:29 ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 39800 ***
--
burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-04-18 11:29 ---
*** Bug 39805 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #1 from rob1weld at aol dot com 2009-04-18 12:49 ---
Thanks for adjusting the "Severity" for me Andrew. There have
been _small_ improvements in the Testsuite Results recently.
The "C" compiler has gone from 828 errors a couple of months ago to a
new low of only 742, but th
--- Comment #5 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-04-18 13:02 ---
Fixed.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #6 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-04-18 13:02 ---
Subject: Bug 39804
Author: rguenth
Date: Sat Apr 18 13:02:00 2009
New Revision: 146314
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=146314
Log:
2009-04-18 Richard Guenther
PR middle-end/39804
--
jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
OtherBugsDependingO||16620, 16989
nThis||
--- Comment #7 from hjl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-04-18 14:54 ---
Subject: Bug 39804
Author: hjl
Date: Sat Apr 18 14:54:32 2009
New Revision: 146315
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=146315
Log:
2009-04-18 H.J. Lu
Backport from mainline:
2009-0
When running dg-extract-results on powerpc-darwin (I have not tried on other
targets), I get the following error message from awk:
awk: /tmp/dg-combine-results-13477-nUnyyO/list27 makes too many open files
input record number 11671, file
source line number 40
So only the summary of the how many
--
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=39807
--- Comment #1 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-04-18 15:17
---
Same on Solaris.
--
ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from mattst88 at gmail dot com 2009-04-18 15:22 ---
For reference, here's what the Compaq C compiler generates for each of these.
(In reply to comment #0)
> The sign-extending Alpha instructions like addl are sometimes not used. I
> don't know whether the SEE pass is supp
--- Comment #2 from mattst88 at gmail dot com 2009-04-18 15:25 ---
(In reply to comment #0)
> unsigned parity(unsigned x) {
> x ^= x >> 16;
> x ^= x >> 8;
> x ^= x >> 4;
> x &= 0xf;
> return (0x6996 >> x) & 1;
> }
>
> gcc 4.2.0 20060506 produces:
> extwl a0
--- Comment #1 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-04-18 15:28 ---
Subject: Bug 39647
Author: jsm28
Date: Sat Apr 18 15:28:40 2009
New Revision: 146316
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=146316
Log:
libcpp:
PR preprocessor/39647
* directives.c (che
--- Comment #2 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-04-18 15:30 ---
Fixed for 4.5.
--
jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
--- Comment #2 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-04-18 16:59 ---
(In reply to comment #0)
> Thus there are two bugs:
> - Local TYPE declarations in procedures are wrongly rejected
by local, I suppose that you mean host associated? As you say,
> - Public types with private compon
--- Comment #6 from jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk 2009-04-18 17:11 ---
since this is a regression, what about back porting this fix to other branches
(in particular 4.4). This is the only issue that triggers running the >1600
testcases in CP2K testsuite.
--
jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk ch
The program to be attached produces the warning
[...@dhcp-100-2-40 ~]$ gcc gb.c
gb.c: In function main:
gb.c:11: warning: ignoring return value of foo, declared with attribute
warn_unused_result
which is expected. However, it should also produce a warning for line 12, which
is exactly the sam
--- Comment #1 from sandmann at daimi dot au dot dk 2009-04-18 17:32
---
Created an attachment (id=17654)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=17654&action=view)
program
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39808
--- Comment #1 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-04-18 17:36 ---
Subject: Bug 39646
Author: jsm28
Date: Sat Apr 18 17:36:28 2009
New Revision: 146319
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=146319
Log:
libcpp:
PR preprocessor/39646
* include/line-map.
--- Comment #2 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-04-18 17:37 ---
Fixed for 4.5.
--
jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
--- Comment #1 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-04-18 19:24 ---
Spurious differences fall in the "wrong code" category.
--
steven at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #2 from paolo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-04-18 19:28 ---
Subject: Bug 39802
Author: paolo
Date: Sat Apr 18 19:28:40 2009
New Revision: 146323
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=146323
Log:
2009-04-18 Paolo Carlini
PR libstdc++/39802
*
--- Comment #3 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2009-04-18 19:31
---
Fixed in mainline, will be fixed in 4.4.1 too.
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #2 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-04-18 20:01 ---
Similar as what is said in commen #0, the detailed vrp1 dump of trunk today
has:
Removing basic block 3
;; basic block 3, loop depth 0, count 0
;; prev block 7, next block 4
;; pred:
;; succ: 8 [100.0%] (fallt
--- Comment #3 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-04-18 20:03 ---
Subject: Bug 35210
Author: jsm28
Date: Sat Apr 18 20:02:47 2009
New Revision: 146324
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=146324
Log:
PR c/35210
* c-typeck.c (build_function_call): Ch
--- Comment #4 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-04-18 20:04 ---
Fixed for 4.5.
--
jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
--- Comment #3 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-04-18 20:35 ---
> > Thus there are two bugs:
> > - Local TYPE declarations in procedures are wrongly rejected
> by local, I suppose that you mean host associated?
No, I mean:
subroutine sub()
TYPE :: new_local_type
type(
While mass-building cross-compilers, I got this warning:
$ ./configure --target v850e-linux --prefix
/home/jbglaw/devel/build-temp-v850e-linux/usr --enable-languages=c,c++
--disable-libc --disable-libmudflap --disable-libssp --disable-multilib
--disable-shared --enable-static --with-system-zlib --
There are excess warnings and a build breaking error in revision 146327
on i386-pc-solaris2.11 (and perhaps other Platforms too).
Host compiler:
# gcc -v
Using built-in specs.
Target: i386-pc-solaris2.11
Configured with: ../gcc_trunk/configure --prefix=/usr/local/gcc4
--enable-languages=ada,c,c++
--- Comment #8 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-04-18 22:07
---
Unassigning myself, time constraints
--
jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
Found in
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.fortran/browse_thread/thread/58d772090de9d1f4
Test case by Dick Hendrickson, gfortran tested by Ron Shepard.
The executable is OK, but gfortran prints a bogus warning:
Warning: '&' not allowed by itself in line 2
(The run-time result is:
Print
--- Comment #8 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-04-18 22:22
---
Unassigning, too low priority. This would be a good one for any beginners to
start learning the I/O formatting stuff. If you are interested in working
this, let me help. Glad to mentor.
--
jvdelisle at gcc
--- Comment #1 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-04-18 22:32 ---
Patch (not regtested):
Index: scanner.c
===
--- scanner.c (revision 146331)
+++ scanner.c (working copy)
@@ -1404,7 +1404,10 @@
if (c == '&')
--- Comment #2 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-04-18 22:34 ---
Subject: Bug 22367
Author: jsm28
Date: Sat Apr 18 22:34:10 2009
New Revision: 146332
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=146332
Log:
PR c/22367
* c-typeck.c (build_unary_op): Check f
--- Comment #3 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-04-18 22:36 ---
Fixed for 4.5.
--
jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
--- Comment #1 from hp at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-04-18 23:05 ---
Long description just barely missing that you can fix it by changing that
dg-line into:
/* { dg-require-effective-target tls_runtime } */
though strictly speaking it's not perfect; you'd want a predicate that checks
using
--- Comment #2 from hp at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-04-18 23:08 ---
(In reply to comment #1)
Bah, I missed the follow-up, as it wasn't in the audit trail. Feel free to
ignore comment #1 and comment #2 (this ;)
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39790
--- Comment #2 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-04-18 23:21 ---
Subject: Bug 27676
Author: jsm28
Date: Sat Apr 18 23:21:34 2009
New Revision: 146336
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=146336
Log:
PR c/27676
* c-typeck.c (readonly_warning): new.
--- Comment #3 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-04-18 23:24 ---
Fixed for 4.5.
--
jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
--- Comment #2 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-04-18 23:25 ---
All known target-independent C90 conformance bugs are fixed for 4.5.
--
jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
56 matches
Mail list logo
