--- Comment #8 from sam at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-04-14 20:04 ---
Well, as far as I can tell, the bug doesn't have anything to do with shared
memory. It's just that GNAT does not emit any information for imported
entities, as demonstrated in the following example:
pa
--- Comment #6 from sam at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-04-15 11:03 ---
Subject: Bug 16086
Author: sam
Date: Tue Apr 15 11:02:58 2008
New Revision: 134312
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=134312
Log:
2008-04-15 Ed Schonberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Comment #7 from sam at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-04-15 11:04 ---
Fixed in SVN.
--
sam at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #10 from sam at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-04-15 12:00 ---
Subject: Bug 28733
Author: sam
Date: Tue Apr 15 11:59:39 2008
New Revision: 134313
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=134313
Log:
2008-04-15 Samuel Tardieu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Comment #11 from sam at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-04-15 12:22 ---
This has been fixed in SVN.
--
sam at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #7 from sam at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-04-15 18:46 ---
Bug fixed in AdaCore tree, will eventually be committed to FSF tree.
--
sam at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #8 from sam at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-04-15 19:06 ---
Subject: Bug 22387
Author: sam
Date: Tue Apr 15 19:05:29 2008
New Revision: 134326
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=134326
Log:
2008-04-15 Ed Schonberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Comment #9 from sam at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-04-15 19:06 ---
This has been fixed in GCC SVN trunk.
--
sam at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
incorrectly handling null
arrays
Product: gcc
Version: 4.4.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: ada
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: sam at gcc dot gnu dot
--
sam at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |sam at gcc dot gnu dot org
|dot org
--
sam at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |sam at gcc dot gnu dot org
|dot org
--- Comment #9 from sam at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-04-16 12:38 ---
Subject: Bug 29015
Author: sam
Date: Wed Apr 16 12:37:38 2008
New Revision: 134345
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=134345
Log:
gcc/ada/
PR ada/29015
* sem_
--- Comment #10 from sam at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-04-16 12:44 ---
This is fixed in the current GCC SVN.
--
sam at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
sam at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |sam at gcc dot gnu dot org
|dot org
--- Comment #2 from sam at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-04-23 23:21 ---
Anh Vo: I think that you are wrong and that Ludovic is right. Note that Eq (T2,
T2) is not a renaming of T2 "=" operator, it is, through inheritance, a
renaming of T1 "=" operator with signature
--- Comment #5 from sam at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-04-24 08:36 ---
Ahn Vo: Pak2.Eq is *the same* as Pak1.Eq, that's the whole point. Thus both
consider only T1 aspects of the objects.
What you say would be true if the code had been:
package Pak1 is
type T1 is tagged
--- Comment #2 from sam at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-04-29 21:44 ---
Subject: Bug 35792
Author: sam
Date: Tue Apr 29 21:43:39 2008
New Revision: 134810
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=134810
Log:
2008-04-29 Ed Schonberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Comment #3 from sam at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-04-29 21:46 ---
This bug is now fixed in GCC 4.4.0.
--
sam at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #5 from sam at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-04 23:03 ---
Yes, I've seen this, but I expect an answer to another one very soon, which
would make the test case pass (I think the test case has the error message at
the right place), that's why I haven't fixed it ye
--
sam at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |sam at gcc dot gnu dot org
|dot org
--- Comment #2 from sam at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-07 14:07 ---
This appears to be fixed in GCC 4.3.2 and in SVN trunk.
--
sam at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
NCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: ada
AssignedTo: charlet at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: sam at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36171
--- Comment #2 from sam at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-07 15:10 ---
Oh, right, I've never used it before and missed it in the RM :)
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36171
--- Comment #3 from sam at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-09 09:46 ---
This is not a GCC bug in this case, the Ptr formal parameter masks the Ptr
type.
--
sam at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from sam at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-09 09:48 ---
This appears to be fixed in SVN trunk:
25.pak3.x2.p1(5); -- line 25
|
>>> actual for "x1" must be a variable
27.pak3.x3.al
--- Comment #2 from sam at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-09 09:51 ---
This appears to be already fixed on SVN trunk:
Do_Stuff( Thing : in D ) => 0
Finalize( Thing : in out D ) => 0
Finalize( Thing : in out D ) => -1
--
sam at gcc dot gnu dot or
--
sam at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |sam at gcc dot gnu dot org
|dot org
--- Comment #1 from sam at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-12 12:11 ---
Could you post the disassembly of the previous stage "get_target_char_size"
from targtyps.o? (objdump --source targtyps.o)
On i686-pc-linux-gnu, I get:
Pos
get_target_char_size (void)
{
--- Comment #2 from sam at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-12 12:18 ---
The beginning of "objdump --disassemble-all -r ttypes.o" should be interesting
as well:
:
0: 55 push %ebp
1: 89 e5 mov%esp,%ebp
3:
--- Comment #3 from sam at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-12 14:12 ---
What compilation option did you use? I cannot reproduce this with Debian's 4.3
compiler or with current SVN trunk.
--
sam at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |
--- Comment #2 from sam at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-12 21:06 ---
This has been fixed in SVN trunk (135230).
--
sam at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from sam at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-12 21:21 ---
The fix is probably safe, but someone should apply Ralf's patch as well on this
branch and check that it builds fine with and without an Ada compiler around
(I'm not volunteering).
--
http://gcc.gnu.or
--- Comment #5 from sam at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-12 21:24 ---
Indeed, I missed the "not" in your message :)
This is great news. Closing.
--
sam at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #2 from sam at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-12 22:43 ---
I expect the error message to point at the full declaration itself, not the
partial view, as the partial view had been analyzed correctly and had no error
so far. When it says "full declaration of type T declared a
--- Comment #4 from sam at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-12 23:01 ---
Given that this happens when currently analyzing "Id" (and not "Prev"), posting
the error message on "Prev" instead of "Id" may be an historical typo
(inversion between both param
--- Comment #2 from sam at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-12 23:41 ---
> it won't build it for e.g. non vxworks, so things are fine here.
Are you sure of that? Because it has been built in my April 29 build of a
cross-compiler targetting sh4-unknown-linux-gnu (from i686-pc-l
--- Comment #7 from sam at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-13 11:55 ---
Reopening to close it properly and setting target milestone.
--
sam at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #8 from sam at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-13 11:56 ---
Fixed in SVN trunk by Arno's patch.
--
sam at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |
--- Comment #2 from sam at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-14 09:20 ---
The code is not legal, adding keyword
--
sam at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #6 from sam at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-20 20:25 ---
Subject: Bug 30740
Author: sam
Date: Tue May 20 20:24:33 2008
New Revision: 135675
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=135675
Log:
gcc/testsuite/
PR ada/30740
*
--- Comment #2 from sam at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-20 20:46 ---
Subject: Bug 35791
Author: sam
Date: Tue May 20 20:45:49 2008
New Revision: 135677
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=135677
Log:
gcc/testsuite/
PR ada/35791
*
--- Comment #3 from sam at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-20 20:55 ---
This has been fixed by SVN commit 135638:
2008-05-20 Javier Miranda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Ed Schonberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Hristian Kirtchev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Comment #2 from sam at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-06-26 10:17 ---
Fixed in SVN trunk, thanks Chris for the patch.
--
sam at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
gular call instead of tail call
Product: gcc
Version: 4.4.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: sam at gc
--- Comment #2 from sam at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-08-03 12:04 ---
It appears to be fixed already in GCC 4.3.1.
--
sam at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from sam at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-08-03 12:07 ---
Confirmed on 4.4.0 20080803 (i686-pc-linux-gnu).
--
sam at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from sam at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-08-03 12:08 ---
Confirmed on SVN trunk:
+===GNAT BUG DETECTED==+
| 4.4.0 20080803 (experimental) (i686-pc-linux-gnu) Assert_Failure
einfo.adb:2446|
| Error detected at b.ads:1:6
--
sam at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |sam at gcc dot gnu dot org
|dot org
301 - 348 of 348 matches
Mail list logo
