--- Comment #3 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-29 04:45 ---
I think the first step is to report it to sun so they track it and hopefully
one day fix their toolchain. Does anyone have a support contract who can file
a report?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id
--- Comment #6 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-06 16:05 ---
sparc-sun-solaris2.10 issue appears to be fixed.
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-01/msg00470.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30311
nedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org
GCC target triplet: sparc-sun-solaris2.10
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30399
--- Comment #1 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-07 01:22 ---
The failure for actual_array_constructor_2.f90 looks like this:
gfortran.dg/actual_array_constructor_2.f90: In function 'MAIN__':
gfortran.dg/actual_array_constructor_2.f90:10: internal compiler
--- Comment #2 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-07 01:24 ---
Sorry, flags to reproduce the actual_array_constructor_2.f90 failure on
sparc-sun-solaris2.10 are:
f951 actual_array_constructor_2.f90 -quiet -dumpbase
actual_array_constructor_2.f90 -mcpu=v7 -auxbase
--- Comment #3 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-07 01:39 ---
Here's the actual_array_substr_2.f90 error:
gfortran.dg/actual_array_substr_2.f90: In function 'foo':
gfortran.dg/actual_array_substr_2.f90:23: internal compiler error: in
gfc_conv_constant, at fortra
--- Comment #6 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-09 03:19 ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> Kaveh,
> As the culprit for both patches, I'll take a look. I had no idea that there
> was and 4.1 regressions associated with them. I'll come back to you.
> Paul
--- Comment #8 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-09 15:13 ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> Kaveh,
> I haven't the slightest idea what is happening. These cases test fine on
> IA64/FC5 with gcc-4.1.2-20061101.
> The worst of it is, to judge by your gdb output,
--- Comment #9 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-09 15:23 ---
Assigned so that Paul gets replies.
See http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30399#c8
--
ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #13 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-10 21:45 ---
Paul - The bug is not "FIXED" in 4.0, please don't mark it as such yet.
"WONTFIX" may be a more accurate description if that is the group decision.
You can remove yourself from the assigned
--- Comment #19 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-11 17:04 ---
(In reply to comment #18)
> Well then please accept my humble apology. No intent to disparage. I was
> attempting to concur with Kaveh's suggestion in Comment #13 that ""WONTFIX"
--- Comment #20 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-11 17:16 ---
(In reply to comment #14)
> Subject: Re: testsuite failures in actual_array_constructor_2.f90
> and actual_array_substr_2.f90
> Kaveh
> > --- Comment #13 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2
--- Comment #22 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-11 22:54 ---
> However, I note that the commit to which you pointed, was made by me to
> trunk:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2006-07/msg00074.html
> The commit to 4.0 that introduced the testcases was made by aoli
--- Comment #25 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-12 15:36 ---
Subject: Bug 30399
Author: ghazi
Date: Fri Jan 12 15:36:16 2007
New Revision: 120727
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=120727
Log:
PR fortran/30399
* actual_array_const
--- Comment #26 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-12 15:54 ---
Testcases deleted, problem solved.
--
ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
mplex math functions at compile-time
Product: gcc
Version: 4.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
AssignedTo: ghazi at gcc dot gnu do
--
ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Last
--- Comment #5 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-13 01:01 ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> so the test fails, but the generated code is correct and optimal. I suggest
> adding -fno-pic to the test, does that look OK?
I no longer have access to the x86 boxes I was usi
--- Comment #7 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-13 05:01 ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> Stuff in --tool_opts from RUNTESTFLAGS goes before the dg-options on the
> command line, I just tried it. Is there some other way to do it?
Yes, the GCC docs suggest using --target
--- Comment #3 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-13 05:17 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> (In reply to comment #1)
> > We can implement the complex variants in term of the real ones in mpfr, no?
> > I
> > don't like the idea of another build-depende
--- Comment #2 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-13 19:43 ---
Patch posted here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-01/msg01146.html
Confirm that it cures the testcase on a vax would be nice...
--
ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #3 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-16 03:10 ---
Subject: Bug 12325
Author: ghazi
Date: Tue Jan 16 03:10:37 2007
New Revision: 120818
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=120818
Log:
PR testsuite/12325
* gcc.dg/torture/buil
--- Comment #4 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-16 04:01 ---
Subject: Bug 12325
Author: ghazi
Date: Tue Jan 16 04:01:32 2007
New Revision: 120819
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=120819
Log:
PR testsuite/12325
* gcc.dg/torture/buil
--- Comment #5 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-16 04:13 ---
Subject: Bug 12325
Author: ghazi
Date: Tue Jan 16 04:13:43 2007
New Revision: 120820
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=120820
Log:
PR testsuite/12325
* gcc.dg/torture/buil
--- Comment #6 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-16 04:22 ---
Subject: Bug 12325
Author: ghazi
Date: Tue Jan 16 04:22:44 2007
New Revision: 120821
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=120821
Log:
PR testsuite/12325
* gcc.dg/torture/buil
--- Comment #7 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-16 04:44 ---
Patch installed on all active branches.
--
ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #12 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-16 04:52 ---
Same results one year later on sparc/sparc64 solaris2.10 with 4.0.x branch
using --enable-checking=yes,rtl,fold:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2007-01/msg00592.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2007
--- Comment #13 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-18 14:42 ---
4.1.x branch still has the fold checking errors with labels:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2007-01/msg00699.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2007-01/msg00700.html
--
ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #5 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-19 14:45 ---
Patch for __complex__ builtins infrastructure and csin posted here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-01/msg01610.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30447
--- Comment #38 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-20 00:33 ---
Subject: Bug 29335
Author: ghazi
Date: Sat Jan 20 00:33:00 2007
New Revision: 120993
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=120993
Log:
PR middle-end/29335
* bu
Severity: critical
Priority: P3
Component: libgcj
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org
GCC target triplet: sparc-sun-solaris2.10
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30513
--- Comment #4 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-21 04:35 ---
Tom, I tried your patch and now I get the following error. On line 14 in
AnnotationInvocationHandler.h, there is "namespace sun" and "sun" is defined to
1 on solaris. When I recompile with -an
--- Comment #6 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-25 04:15 ---
Subject: Bug 30447
Author: ghazi
Date: Thu Jan 25 04:15:26 2007
New Revision: 121163
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=121163
Log:
PR middle-end/30447
* bu
601 - 633 of 633 matches
Mail list logo
