http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47619
Summary: ICE in printf() with -fsplit-stack enabled.
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
AssignedTo: unass
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47619
--- Comment #1 from Pawel Sikora 2011-02-06 10:17:05
UTC ---
Created attachment 23254
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=23254
testcase.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47619
Pawel Sikora changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-gnu-linux
Host|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47616
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44529
--- Comment #3 from Thomas Koenig 2011-02-06
11:37:33 UTC ---
I don't think the example is valid F2003.
C628 (R628) An allocate-shape-spec-list shall appear if and only if the
allocate-object is an array.
This is relaxed in F 2008, though.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34734
Michał Walenciak changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||Kicer86 at gmail dot com
--- Comment #
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42893
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45516
--- Comment #4 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-02-06 12:28:42 UTC ---
We also need to adjust gfc_get_derived_type, to avoid running into an infinite
loop. Updated patch:
Index: gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/class_2.f03
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45516
--- Comment #5 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-02-06 12:36:40 UTC ---
With the patch in comment #4, we currently get an ICE on the following test
case:
type entry1
real :: value
type(entry1), allocatable :: next
end type entry1
type(entry
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47620
Summary: [4.6 Regression] Profiledbootstrap failure on
powerpc-linux
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47620
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-02-06
13:02:56 UTC ---
Created attachment 23256
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=23256
ice.gcda
The corresponding *.gcda file.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47620
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.6.0
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47592
--- Comment #3 from Paul Thomas 2011-02-06 14:22:51
UTC ---
Author: pault
Date: Sun Feb 6 14:22:48 2011
New Revision: 169862
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=169862
Log:
2011-02-06 Paul Thomas
PR fortran/47592
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47592
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47225
--- Comment #20 from Kai Tietz 2011-02-06 15:06:58
UTC ---
Author: ktietz
Date: Sun Feb 6 15:06:56 2011
New Revision: 169863
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=169863
Log:
2011-02-06 Kai Tietz
PR lto/47225
* Makef
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47621
Summary: Missed dependencies in address-taken optimization
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: wrong-code
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compon
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47622
Summary: [4.6 Regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/pr42631.c
scan-rtl-dump-not web "Web oldreg"
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47622
--- Comment #1 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia.nrc.ca 2011-02-06 16:05:29 UTC ---
Attached dumps.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47617
--- Comment #2 from cck0011 at yahoo dot com 2011-02-06 16:25:55 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> I think you need to use -frounding-math. GCC assumes by default the rounding
> mode is round-to-nearest. See
> http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42333
--- Comment #54 from Kaveh Ghazi 2011-02-06 16:43:38
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #53)
> I think we should fix this by patching in a new linkage name for the routine
> in
> question with darwin_patch_builtins and creating a forwarding stub from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47225
Thomas Schwinge changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47497
--- Comment #8 from H.J. Lu 2011-02-06 16:57:48
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> > Honza? Why is -fwhole-program not ignored, or why should it not be?
> > Why does it make a difference at all here?
> Well, it is effectively ignored - i.e. on s
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45290
--- Comment #11 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-02-06 17:42:35 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #10)
> (In reply to comment #9)
> > procedure(), pointer :: ptr3 => p2
>
> I now believe that this is invalid (all quotes are F2008):
>
> R505 initia
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47623
Summary: false *negative* uninitialized warning
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
AssignedTo: unassig...@gcc.
AssignedTo: unassig...@gcc.gnu.org
ReportedBy: sch...@linux-m68k.org
Target: powerpc*-*-*
Breakpoint 1, fn3 ()
at /daten/gcc/gcc-20110206/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/guality/pr43077-1.c:44
44 }
(gdb) i addr c
Symbol "c" is a complex DWARF expression:
1: DW_OP_bre
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47623
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
Priority: P3
Component: lto
AssignedTo: unassig...@gcc.gnu.org
ReportedBy: sch...@linux-m68k.org
Target: powerpc*-*-*
Breakpoint 1, fn3 ()
at /daten/gcc/gcc-20110206/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/guality/pr43077-1.c:44
44 }
(gdb) whatis a
type = const number
(gdb
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47420
Yu Simin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|ICE: in calc_dfs_tree, at |[4.6 regression] ICE: in
|do
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47626
Summary: internal compiler error: in print_reg (only for i686,
and i486, not x86_64)
Product: gcc
Version: 4.4.6
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43745
Michał Walenciak changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||Kicer86 at gmail dot com
--- Comment #
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47619
Ian Lance Taylor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47560
--- Comment #5 from John David Anglin 2011-02-06
19:46:12 UTC ---
I haven't got back to hppa2.0w-hp-hpux11.11 yet, but the change results
in the following on hppa64-hp-hpux11.11:
FAIL: abi/header_cxxabi.c (test for excess errors)
Excess errors:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47627
Summary: Internal error at specialization of template class
with enum type.
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47626
--- Comment #1 from Simon Gustafsson
2011-02-06 20:21:09 UTC ---
Removed my ppl and cloog libraries, and recompiled the 4.4.6 gcc snapshot. I
still get the same internal compiler error, so not dependant on those...
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47619
Pawel Sikora changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47623
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18501
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zackw at panix dot com
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47420
--- Comment #8 from Yu Simin 2011-02-06 20:40:34
UTC ---
I used git-bisect and found it is caused by r166555.
Author: hubicka
Date: Wed Nov 10 20:23:09 2010
New Revision: 166555
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=166555
Log:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18501
--- Comment #51 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2011-02-06
20:48:38 UTC ---
BTW, anyone interested in fixing this may want to take a look at the newest
proposal for improving Wuninitialized in Clang:
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/cfe-dev/2011-Febr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47623
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
Component|t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46898
Sebastien Bourdeauducq changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |critical
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47293
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47567
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47621
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47621
--- Comment #2 from Richard Guenther 2011-02-06
23:08:39 UTC ---
Note to self: Before the patch the code in the else branch never triggered.
The original idea was to preserve MEM[&a] re-writing into SSA form, which
didn't happen before the patch
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47267
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37073
Gerald Pfeifer changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36939
--- Comment #14 from Joel Sherrill 2011-02-07
00:18:37 UTC ---
Created attachment 23261
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=23261
Patch to use stub file
With Laurent's stub version of s-scaval.adb added as s-scaval-sh.adb and a
m
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47267
--- Comment #5 from Daniel Franke 2011-02-07
00:34:00 UTC ---
Jerry, good luck with that one - I'm pretty sure that this is at least
implicitly related to PR42189. Can of Pandoras's Worms ahead :)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47628
Summary: non-compliant C++0x erase methods on STL containers
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
Assign
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47628
--- Comment #1 from Bryce Lelbach (wash)
2011-02-07 01:00:28 UTC ---
Created attachment 23262
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=23262
Fix for STL erase() methods on associative containers
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36939
--- Comment #15 from Joel Sherrill 2011-02-07
01:13:51 UTC ---
ACATS results are not perfect but not bad for a first run.
PASSED: 1984 FAILED 335
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47493
John David Anglin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47619
--- Comment #5 from Ian Lance Taylor 2011-02-07 01:48:58
UTC ---
Good point, I added a note to the wiki page.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47376
Joseph S. Myers changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.6.0
--- Comment #1 from Joseph S. Mye
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47376
Joseph S. Myers changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=4784
Joseph S. Myers changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jengelh at medozas dot de
--- Comment #9
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47622
Jie Zhang changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42189
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47517
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36939
--- Comment #16 from Laurent GUERBY 2011-02-07
06:10:13 UTC ---
Joel, could you send me the compressed acats.log or at least post the failing
tests? 335 failures likely mean one Ada feature is broken.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47046
Sebastian Pop changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47567
--- Comment #12 from Thomas Henlich
2011-02-07 07:01:14 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #11)
> Fixed on trunk. I don't think this is significant enough to justify a
> back-port. I am not sure why anyone would use f1.X for anything, so this
> exerci
63 matches
Mail list logo
