[Bug libstdc++/43929] [4.6 Regression] FAIL: 30_threads/condition_variable_any/members/2.cc execution test

[paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com]

--- Comment #3 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com  2010-04-29 06:44 
---
Can't be reproduced. See also:

  http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2010-04/msg02712.html
  http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2010-04/msg02727.html


-- 

paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
 Resolution||WORKSFORME


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43929

[Bug c/43930] gcc handle short overflow failed

[jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org]

--- Comment #2 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org  2010-04-29 06:29 ---
Yeah, 65536 is correct (unless int is 16-bit, when it would be undefined
behavior).


-- 

jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
 Resolution||INVALID


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43930

[Bug rtl-optimization/40838] gcc shouldn't assume that the stack is aligned

[ubizjak at gmail dot com]

--- Comment #70 from ubizjak at gmail dot com  2010-04-29 06:29 ---
(In reply to comment #69)
> (In reply to comment #64)
> > Subject: Bug 40838
> > 
> 
> This patch is not sufficient, some applications still crash after I've applied
> it to GCC 4.4 branch (to be more precise gcc-4.4-20100427.tar.bz2).

You did use -mstackrealign?

> I still wonder how GCC 4.4.x and 4.5.0 were ever released, to me it's a zero
> priority bug.

So, export CFLAGS="-mstackrealign"


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40838

[Bug lto/41376] collect2 does not handle static libraries

[davek at gcc dot gnu dot org]

--- Comment #4 from davek at gcc dot gnu dot org  2010-04-29 05:28 ---
Created an attachment (id=20512)
 --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=20512&action=view)
Extends GNU LD to parse archives for LTO.

(In reply to comment #3)
>   Ow.  I think we need to get LD to help us out here.

So this is a rough first draft of the-kind-of-thing-i-was-thinking-of.  We get
collect2 to run a dummy link early, and extract the output from the
--lto-assist flag to get a list of archive members that we need lto to
recompile for us.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41376

[Bug target/43876] [avr] Improper updating of struct members when written out of order from struct definition

[justin at mattair dot net]

--- Comment #2 from justin at mattair dot net  2010-04-29 02:38 ---
Created an attachment (id=20511)
 --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=20511&action=view)
patch for patch-xmega

It looks like possibly a copy-paste error was made in the patch-xmega file. The
following starting on line 573 of patch-xmega (from the
build-avr-gcc-4.3.4-binutils-2.20-libc-1.6.8-insight6.8-dude-5.10-insight-patch
script available on AVRFreaks.net):

+return *l = 4, (AS2 (sbiw,%r0,1)CR_TAB 
+AS2 (st,%p0+,%A1)   CR_TAB
+AS2 (st,%p0,%B1)CR_TAB
+AS2 (sbiw,%r0,2));

I think should be:

+return *l = 4, (AS2 (sbiw,%r0,2)CR_TAB 
+AS2 (st,%p0+,%A1)   CR_TAB
+AS2 (st,%p0,%B1)CR_TAB
+AS2 (sbiw,%r0,1));

This may have been caused by copying code from one of the post-increment
sections utilizing adiw, then converting it to pre-decrement utilizing sbiw,
then forgetting to swap the 2 and 1.

I assume that the second sbiw instruction is needed to put the pointer back at
the location it was at after the first sbiw.
Someone more knowledgeable about GCC's innards should check this.
Attached is a patch for the patch-xmega, um, patch.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43876

[Bug target/43920] Choosing conditional execution over conditional branches for code size in some cases.

[carrot at google dot com]

--- Comment #4 from carrot at google dot com  2010-04-29 02:23 ---
It is not only good to code size, but also benefit performance. For any path to
any successor block, the same number of taken branch executed, but less alu
instructions executed.

It may be difficult to calculate the tradeoff for an arbitrary condition
expression. But for a condition composed of a series of || or && operation,
such as
if (A || B || C || ...)
or 
if (A && B && C && ...)
This simplification is always beneficial.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43920

[Bug c/43930] gcc handle short overflow failed

[pinskia at gmail dot com]

--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gmail dot com  2010-04-29 02:23 ---
Subject: Re:   New: gcc handle short overflow failed



Sent from my iPhone

On Apr 28, 2010, at 6:58 PM, "cnstar9988 at gmail dot com"
 wrote:

> #include 
> #include 
>
> int main(int argc, char **argv)
> {
>  short i = 1;
>  int n = (int)(i << 16);
>
>  fprintf(stderr, "%d\n", n);
>
>  return 0;
> }
>
> always 65536
> it must to 0



No because short is promoted to int.
>
>
> -- 
>   Summary: gcc handle short overflow failed
>   Product: gcc
>   Version: unknown
>Status: UNCONFIRMED
>  Severity: major
>  Priority: P3
> Component: c
>AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
>ReportedBy: cnstar9988 at gmail dot com
>
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43930
>


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43930

Re: [Bug c/43930] New: gcc handle short overflow failed

[Andrew Pinski]

Sent from my iPhone

On Apr 28, 2010, at 6:58 PM, "cnstar9988 at gmail dot com" > wrote:



#include 
#include 

int main(int argc, char **argv)
{
 short i = 1;
 int n = (int)(i << 16);

 fprintf(stderr, "%d\n", n);

 return 0;
}

always 65536
it must to 0




No because short is promoted to int.



--
  Summary: gcc handle short overflow failed
  Product: gcc
  Version: unknown
   Status: UNCONFIRMED
 Severity: major
 Priority: P3
Component: c
   AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
   ReportedBy: cnstar9988 at gmail dot com


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43930

[Bug target/43884] [4.4/4.5/4.6 Regression] Performance degradation for simple fibonacci numbers calculation

[hjl dot tools at gmail dot com]

--- Comment #16 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com  2010-04-29 02:20 
---
This patch:

diff --git a/gcc/predict.c b/gcc/predict.c
index eb5ddef..a05e796 100644
--- a/gcc/predict.c
+++ b/gcc/predict.c
@@ -120,7 +120,8 @@ maybe_hot_frequency_p (int freq)
   if (cfun->function_frequency == FUNCTION_FREQUENCY_HOT)
 return true;
 }
-  if (profile_status == PROFILE_ABSENT)
+  if (profile_status == PROFILE_ABSENT
+  || profile_status == PROFILE_GUESSED)
 return true;
   if (freq < BB_FREQ_MAX / PARAM_VALUE (HOT_BB_FREQUENCY_FRACTION))
 return false;

seems to work for me. Since profile_status is PROFILE_GUESSED,
it may be hot as shown here.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43884

[Bug rtl-optimization/40838] gcc shouldn't assume that the stack is aligned

[t dot artem at mailcity dot com]

--- Comment #69 from t dot artem at mailcity dot com  2010-04-29 02:12 
---
(In reply to comment #64)
> Subject: Bug 40838
> 

This patch is not sufficient, some applications still crash after I've applied
it to GCC 4.4 branch (to be more precise gcc-4.4-20100427.tar.bz2).

I still wonder how GCC 4.4.x and 4.5.0 were ever released, to me it's a zero
priority bug.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40838

[Bug c/43930] New: gcc handle short overflow failed

[cnstar9988 at gmail dot com]

#include 
#include 

int main(int argc, char **argv)
{
  short i = 1;
  int n = (int)(i << 16);

  fprintf(stderr, "%d\n", n);

  return 0;
}

always 65536
it must to 0


-- 
   Summary: gcc handle short overflow failed
   Product: gcc
   Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
  Severity: major
  Priority: P3
 Component: c
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: cnstar9988 at gmail dot com


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43930

[Bug target/43884] [4.4/4.5/4.6 Regression] Performance degradation for simple fibonacci numbers calculation

[hjl dot tools at gmail dot com]

--- Comment #15 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com  2010-04-29 01:20 
---
Revision 139756:

http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2008-08/msg01321.html

also contributed to this regression.

[...@gnu-26 rrs]$ ./131573/usr/bin/gcc -O3 pr43884.c
[...@gnu-26 rrs]$ time ./a.out 45
fib(45)=1134903170

real0m3.237s
user0m3.236s
sys 0m0.000s
[...@gnu-26 rrs]$ ./131573/usr/bin/gcc -O3 pr43884.c -m32
[...@gnu-26 rrs]$ time ./a.out 45
fib(45)=1134903170

real0m3.667s
user0m3.665s
sys 0m0.001s
[...@gnu-26 rrs]$ ./131576/usr/bin/gcc -O3 pr43884.c 
[...@gnu-26 rrs]$ time ./a.out 45
fib(45)=1134903170

real0m3.687s
user0m3.685s
sys 0m0.000s
[...@gnu-26 rrs]$ ./131576/usr/bin/gcc -O3 pr43884.c -m32
[...@gnu-26 rrs]$ time ./a.out 45
fib(45)=1134903170

real0m3.685s
user0m3.683s
sys 0m0.001s
[...@gnu-26 rrs]$ 

[...@gnu-26 rrs]$ ./139755/usr/bin/gcc -O3 pr43884.c 
[...@gnu-26 rrs]$ time ./a.out 45
fib(45)=1134903170

real0m3.261s
user0m3.260s
sys 0m0.002s
[...@gnu-26 rrs]$ ./139755/usr/bin/gcc -O3 pr43884.c -m32
[...@gnu-26 rrs]$ time ./a.out 45
fib(45)=1134903170

real0m3.043s
user0m3.041s
sys 0m0.001s
[...@gnu-26 rrs]$ ./139756/usr/bin/gcc -O3 pr43884.c 
[...@gnu-26 rrs]$ time ./a.out 45
fib(45)=1134903170

real0m3.909s
user0m3.906s
sys 0m0.001s
[...@gnu-26 rrs]$ ./139756/usr/bin/gcc -O3 pr43884.c -m32
[...@gnu-26 rrs]$ time ./a.out 45
fib(45)=1134903170

real0m3.883s
user0m3.881s
sys 0m0.000s
[...@gnu-26 rrs]$ 


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43884

[Bug libstdc++/43929] [4.6 Regression] FAIL: 30_threads/condition_variable_any/members/2.cc execution test

[paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com]

--- Comment #2 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com  2010-04-29 00:23 
---
And in any case I can't reproduce it. I also tried running the testcase (both
-m32/-m64) outside the testsuite tens of times.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43929

[Bug lto/41376] collect2 does not handle static libraries

[davek at gcc dot gnu dot org]

--- Comment #3 from davek at gcc dot gnu dot org  2010-04-28 23:49 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> Quoting RG from the gcc list:
> 
> "[ ... ] Or you fix collect2 to do processing of archives and hand
> lto1 the required information (it expects archive components
> with LTO bytecode like archiv...@offset with offset being the
> offset of the .o file with LTO bytecode inside the archive).  See
> lto/lto-elf.c:lto_obj_file_open for "details"."


  Of course, without unresolved symbol info to guide us, as the linker has, we
won't know which archive members would be required in a link.  So if we do try
this in collect2, it would need to effectively recompile the entire library at
link time.

  Ow.  I think we need to get LD to help us out here.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41376

[Bug target/43869] ms_abi -> sysv_abi passing float arguments incorrectly

[steven at gcc dot gnu dot org]

-- 

steven at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
 Ever Confirmed|0   |1
   Last reconfirmed|-00-00 00:00:00 |2010-04-28 23:14:02
   date||


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43869

[Bug tree-optimization/43924] [4.6 Regression] FAIL: gfortran.dg/array_constructor_11.f90 -O3 -g (internal compiler error)

[kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org]

--- Comment #5 from kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org  2010-04-28 23:07 ---
Comment propagated from the duplicate PR.


It appears to be an in-lining issue.  This reduced case

program main
  implicit none
  call build (77)
contains
  subroutine build (order)
integer :: order, i, j

call test (1, order, 3,  (/ (i, i = 1, order, 3) /))
call test (order, 1, -3, (/ (i, i = order, 1, -3) /))

do j = 0, 1
  call test (order + j, order, 5,  (/ (i, i = order + j, order, 5) /))
end do

  end subroutine build

  subroutine test (from, to, step, values)
integer, dimension (:) :: values
integer :: from, to, step, last, i

last = 0
do i = from, to, step
  last = last + 1
  if (values (last) .ne. i) call abort
end do
if (size (values, dim = 1) .ne. last) call abort
  end subroutine test

end program main

gives
laptop:kargl[230] gfc4x -c -g -O3 array_constructor_11.f90
array_constructor_11.f90:6:0: internal compiler error: in output_die, at
dwarf2out.c:10649
Please submit a full bug report,
with preprocessed source if appropriate.
See  for instructions.
laptop:kargl[231] gfc4x -c -g -O3 -fno-inline array_constructor_11.f90

where the last command succeeds.

Note, if I remove any one of the calls to test() or remove either
if-statement within test(), the ICE goes away.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43924

[Bug fortran/43928] [4.6 Regression] FAIL: gfortran.dg/array_constructor_11.f90

[kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org]

--- Comment #4 from kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org  2010-04-28 23:06 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> Subject: Re:  [4.6 Regression] FAIL:
> gfortran.dg/array_constructor_11.f90
> 
> Looks like latent problem that we fail when optimiznig for size.  
> 

It appears to be an in-lining issue.  This reduced case

program main
  implicit none
  call build (77)
contains
  subroutine build (order)
integer :: order, i, j

call test (1, order, 3,  (/ (i, i = 1, order, 3) /))
call test (order, 1, -3, (/ (i, i = order, 1, -3) /))

do j = 0, 1
  call test (order + j, order, 5,  (/ (i, i = order + j, order, 5) /))
end do

  end subroutine build

  subroutine test (from, to, step, values)
integer, dimension (:) :: values
integer :: from, to, step, last, i

last = 0
do i = from, to, step
  last = last + 1
  if (values (last) .ne. i) call abort
end do
if (size (values, dim = 1) .ne. last) call abort
  end subroutine test

end program main

gives
laptop:kargl[230] gfc4x -c -g -O3 array_constructor_11.f90
array_constructor_11.f90:6:0: internal compiler error: in output_die, at
dwarf2out.c:10649
Please submit a full bug report,
with preprocessed source if appropriate.
See  for instructions.
laptop:kargl[231] gfc4x -c -g -O3 -fno-inline array_constructor_11.f90

where the last command succeeds.

Note, if I remove any one of the calls to test() or remove either
if-statement within test(), the ICE goes away.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43928

[Bug target/41081] redundant ZERO_EXTENDs

[bergner at gcc dot gnu dot org]

--- Comment #14 from bergner at gcc dot gnu dot org  2010-04-28 22:53 
---
Subject: Bug 41081

Author: bergner
Date: Wed Apr 28 22:52:57 2010
New Revision: 158846

URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=158846
Log:
Backport from mainline:
2009-08-23  Alan Modra  

PR target/41081
* config/rs6000/rs6000.md (rotlsi3_64, ashlsi3_64, lshrsi3_64,
ashrsi3_64): New.

Modified:
branches/ibm/gcc-4_4-branch/gcc/ChangeLog.ibm
branches/ibm/gcc-4_4-branch/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.md


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41081

[Bug libstdc++/43929] [4.6 Regression] FAIL: 30_threads/condition_variable_any/members/2.cc execution test

[paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com]

--- Comment #1 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com  2010-04-28 22:47 
---
Then this is a miscompilation isn't it? I don't think we should categorize it
as libstdc++...


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43929

[Bug middle-end/39883] segmentation fault in quicksort

[ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org]

--- Comment #9 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org  2010-04-28 22:42 
---
The never ending story of qsort on Solaris 8:

Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault.
0x000100bb7204 in allocno_priority_compare_func (v1p=0x102f3d268,
v2p=0x102f3d278) at /nile.build/botcazou/gcc-4.4/src/gcc/ira-color.c:1738
1738  pri1 = allocno_priorities[ALLOCNO_NUM (a1)];
(gdb) bt
#0  0x000100bb7204 in allocno_priority_compare_func (v1p=0x102f3d268,
v2p=0x102f3d278) at /nile.build/botcazou/gcc-4.4/src/gcc/ira-color.c:1738
#1  0x7f253a9c in qsort () from /usr/lib/64/libc.so.1
#2  0x000100bbeb10 in fast_allocation ()
at /nile.build/botcazou/gcc-4.4/src/gcc/ira-color.c:3274
#3  0x000100bbf0b0 in ira_color ()
at /nile.build/botcazou/gcc-4.4/src/gcc/ira-color.c:3339
#4  0x000100b3a7ac in ira (f=0x0)
at /nile.build/botcazou/gcc-4.4/src/gcc/ira.c:3152
#5  0x000100b3b104 in rest_of_handle_ira ()
at /nile.build/botcazou/gcc-4.4/src/gcc/ira.c:3309

IRA has been seriously shaken after 4.4.0 so the issue (absence of total order
on the sorted array) may have been de facto fixed.  Let's just pretend that.


-- 

ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |RESOLVED
  Known to work||4.4.3 4.5.0
 Resolution||FIXED
Summary|preprocessor fails with |segmentation fault in
   |myassertion |quicksort
   Target Milestone|--- |4.4.3


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39883

[Bug libstdc++/43929] New: [4.6 Regression] FAIL: 30_threads/condition_variable_any/members/2.cc execution test

[hjl dot tools at gmail dot com]

On Linux/x86-64, revision 158830:

FAIL: 30_threads/condition_variable_any/members/2.cc execution test

Revision 158810 is OK.


-- 
   Summary: [4.6 Regression] FAIL:
30_threads/condition_variable_any/members/2.cc execution
test
   Product: gcc
   Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
  Severity: normal
  Priority: P3
 Component: libstdc++
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: hjl dot tools at gmail dot com


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43929

[Bug middle-end/39883] preprocessor fails with myassertion

[ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org]

--- Comment #8 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org  2010-04-28 22:31 
---
Thanks, Steven.

So, one year later, ...


-- 

ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
 Ever Confirmed|0   |1
  Known to fail||4.4.0
   Last reconfirmed|-00-00 00:00:00 |2010-04-28 22:31:37
   date||


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39883

[Bug fortran/43928] [4.6 Regression] FAIL: gfortran.dg/array_constructor_11.f90

[hubicka at ucw dot cz]

--- Comment #3 from hubicka at ucw dot cz  2010-04-28 22:20 ---
Subject: Re:  [4.6 Regression] FAIL:
gfortran.dg/array_constructor_11.f90

Looks like latent problem that we fail when optimiznig for size.  


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43928

[Bug bootstrap/39150] Configure scripts have no 64-Bit Solaris defined (only i386-solaris*).

[ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE]

--- Comment #11 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE  2010-04-28 
22:17 ---
Subject: Re:  Configure scripts have no 64-Bit Solaris defined (only
i386-solaris*).

> --- Comment #10 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org  2010-04-28 22:09 
> ---

> While the advantages of sparc64-sun-solaris2.* are limited, I don't think we
> should remove it now since it can handle more memory and 64-bit computing is
> becoming the norm.

I have no actual intention of doing so, although it increases the
complexity of the target headers.

> Similarly, I think adding a 64-bit compiler on x86 would be desirable.  And it
> would be faster than the 32-bit one because of the 64-bit ABI.  As a matter of
> fact, we already have the few required patches at AdaCore.

Patches have been floating around, and I'm sure I could get them into
shape.  My problem (apart from the same complexity problem as on SPARC)
isn't primarily cpu power of my testfarm, but rather the time it takes
to analyze and fix problems.  This is practically doubled if you have
two different configurations to test, and I simply cannot afford that,
given that this is a spare-time activity.  That's why I'm even opposed
to take patches, since than I'm forced to deal with issues as well.

Since the Sun Studio compilers are still exclusively 32-bit as wall, I
see no strong reason for GCC to be different.

Rainer


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39150

[Bug bootstrap/39150] Configure scripts have no 64-Bit Solaris defined (only i386-solaris*).

[ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org]

--- Comment #10 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org  2010-04-28 22:09 
---
> Adding an additional 64-bit default configuration
> (like amd64-pc-solaris2* or whatever) doubles the testing burden on me for no
> real benefit.  In fact, I believe that the sparcv9-sun-solaris2 configurations
> were a mistake and should be removed, rather than adding this for Solaris
> 2/x86, too.

While the advantages of sparc64-sun-solaris2.* are limited, I don't think we
should remove it now since it can handle more memory and 64-bit computing is
becoming the norm.

Similarly, I think adding a 64-bit compiler on x86 would be desirable.  And it
would be faster than the 32-bit one because of the 64-bit ABI.  As a matter of
fact, we already have the few required patches at AdaCore.


-- 

ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot
   ||org


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39150

[Bug tree-optimization/43924] [4.6 Regression] FAIL: gfortran.dg/array_constructor_11.f90 -O3 -g (internal compiler error)

[hjl dot tools at gmail dot com]

--- Comment #4 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com  2010-04-28 22:01 ---
It is caused by revision 158788:

http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2010-04/msg00895.html


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43924

[Bug target/43118] vld4 and vst4 intrinsics are not handled correctly

[justin dot lebar+bug at gmail dot com]

--- Comment #5 from justin dot lebar+bug at gmail dot com  2010-04-28 21:56 
---
Is there a workaround for this, short of writing inline assembly?


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43118

[Bug tree-optimization/43924] [4.6 Regression] FAIL: gfortran.dg/array_constructor_11.f90 -O3 -g (internal compiler error)

[kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org]

--- Comment #3 from kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org  2010-04-28 21:35 ---
*** Bug 43928 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***


-- 

kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||hjl dot tools at gmail dot
   ||com


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43924

[Bug fortran/43928] [4.6 Regression] FAIL: gfortran.dg/array_constructor_11.f90

[kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org]

--- Comment #2 from kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org  2010-04-28 21:35 ---


*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 43924 ***


-- 

kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
 Resolution||DUPLICATE


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43928

[Bug c++/43790] [C++0x] In lambda express, calling member function of non-captured class gives internal compiler error

[darlingm at gmail dot com]

--- Comment #6 from darlingm at gmail dot com  2010-04-28 21:27 ---
Looks good, thanks!

No more internal compiler error, and now nicely says "error: '' is not
captured", where  is of course the name of the uncaptured variable.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43790

[Bug fortran/43928] [4.6 Regression] FAIL: gfortran.dg/array_constructor_11.f90

[hjl dot tools at gmail dot com]

--- Comment #1 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com  2010-04-28 21:18 ---
It may be caused by revision 158788:

http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2010-04/msg00895.html


-- 

hjl dot tools at gmail dot com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot
   ||org
Summary|[4.6 Regression] FAIL:  |[4.6 Regression] FAIL:
   |gfortran.dg/array_constructo|gfortran.dg/array_constructo
   |r_11.f90|r_11.f90


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43928

[Bug fortran/43928] New: [4.6 Regression] FAIL: gfortran.dg/array_constructor_11.f90

[hjl dot tools at gmail dot com]

On Linux/x86, revision 158788 gave

FAIL: gfortran.dg/array_constructor_11.f90  -O3 -g  (internal compiler error)
FAIL: gfortran.dg/array_constructor_11.f90  -O3 -g  (test for excess errors)

Revision 158783 is OK.


-- 
   Summary: [4.6 Regression] FAIL:
gfortran.dg/array_constructor_11.f90
   Product: gcc
   Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
  Severity: normal
  Priority: P3
 Component: fortran
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: hjl dot tools at gmail dot com


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43928

[Bug libffi/20730] Assembler illegal subtraction in libffi on Solaris 8 Intel

[ro at gcc dot gnu dot org]

--- Comment #13 from ro at gcc dot gnu dot org  2010-04-28 21:03 ---
Dup of PR libffi/26048.

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 26048 ***


-- 

ro at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
 Resolution||DUPLICATE


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20730

[Bug libffi/26048] [4.2/4.3/4.4 Regression] libffi doesn't build on Solaris 10/x86 with native assembler

[ro at gcc dot gnu dot org]

--- Comment #11 from ro at gcc dot gnu dot org  2010-04-28 21:03 ---
*** Bug 20730 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***


-- 

ro at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||pfelecan at acm dot org


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26048

[Bug libffi/20730] Assembler illegal subtraction in libffi on Solaris 8 Intel

[ro at gcc dot gnu dot org]

--- Comment #12 from ro at gcc dot gnu dot org  2010-04-28 21:02 ---
Mine.


-- 

ro at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu   |ro at gcc dot gnu dot org
   |dot org |
 Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
 Ever Confirmed|0   |1
   Last reconfirmed|-00-00 00:00:00 |2010-04-28 21:02:31
   date||


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20730

[Bug target/30726] bootstrap support for x86_64-*-solaris2.10

[ro at gcc dot gnu dot org]

--- Comment #6 from ro at gcc dot gnu dot org  2010-04-28 20:54 ---


*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 39150 ***


-- 

ro at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
 Resolution||DUPLICATE


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30726

[Bug bootstrap/39150] Configure scripts have no 64-Bit Solaris defined (only i386-solaris*).

[ro at gcc dot gnu dot org]

--- Comment #9 from ro at gcc dot gnu dot org  2010-04-28 20:54 ---
*** Bug 30726 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***


-- 

ro at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||pdb_ml at yahoo dot com dot
   ||au


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39150

[Bug target/30726] bootstrap support for x86_64-*-solaris2.10

[ro at gcc dot gnu dot org]

--- Comment #5 from ro at gcc dot gnu dot org  2010-04-28 20:54 ---
Mine.


-- 

ro at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu   |ro at gcc dot gnu dot org
   |dot org |
 Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
 Ever Confirmed|0   |1
   Last reconfirmed|-00-00 00:00:00 |2010-04-28 20:54:01
   date||


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30726

[Bug target/43927] New: genautomata: undeclared unit or reservation `cortex_a9_}ult'

[danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org]

gcc  -g -fkeep-inline-functions -DIN_GCC   -W -Wall -Wwrite-strings -Wcast-qual
-Wstrict-prototypes -Wmissing-prototypes -Wmissing-format-attribute -pedantic
-Wno-long-long -Wno-variadic-macros -Wno-overlength-strings
-Wold-style-definition -Wc++-compat   -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -DGENERATOR_FILE  -o
build/genautomata \
build/genautomata.o build/rtl.o build/read-rtl.o build/ggc-none.o
build/vec.o build/min-insn-modes.o build/gensupport.o build/print-rtl.o
build/errors.o ../build-armv5tejl-unknown-linux-gnueabi/libiberty/libiberty.a
-lm
build/genautomata ../../gcc/gcc/config/arm/arm.md \
  insn-conditions.md > tmp-automata.c
genautomata: undeclared unit or reservation `cortex_a9_}ult'
genautomata: reservation `cortex_a9_mult' is not used
make[3]: *** [s-automata] Error 1


-- 
   Summary: genautomata: undeclared unit or reservation
`cortex_a9_}ult'
   Product: gcc
   Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
  Severity: normal
  Priority: P3
 Component: target
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org
 GCC build triplet: armv5tejl-unknown-linux-gnueabi
  GCC host triplet: armv5tejl-unknown-linux-gnueabi
GCC target triplet: armv5tejl-unknown-linux-gnueabi


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43927

[Bug target/37454] gcc: unrecognized option '-rdynamic'

[pluto at agmk dot net]

--- Comment #7 from pluto at agmk dot net  2010-04-28 20:51 ---
*** Bug 28845 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***


-- 

pluto at agmk dot net changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||pluto at agmk dot net


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37454

[Bug target/28845] configured --with-gnu-* reports unrecognized option '-rdynamic'

[pluto at agmk dot net]

--- Comment #5 from pluto at agmk dot net  2010-04-28 20:51 ---
fixed/dup.

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 37454 ***


-- 

pluto at agmk dot net changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
 Resolution||DUPLICATE


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28845

[Bug target/28845] configured --with-gnu-* reports unrecognized option '-rdynamic'

[pluto at agmk dot net]

--- Comment #4 from pluto at agmk dot net  2010-04-28 20:51 ---
to mark 'as fixed'...


-- 

pluto at agmk dot net changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
 Resolution|INVALID |


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28845

[Bug c++/43911] [4.4/4.5 Regression] g++ can't compile any even trivial c++ source: undefined reference to `_Unwind_GetIPInfo'

[dougmencken at gmail dot com]

--- Comment #15 from dougmencken at gmail dot com  2010-04-28 20:46 ---
(In reply to comment #14)

$ ../gcc-4.5.0.srcpkg/configure --prefix=/usr --sysconfdir=/etc
--mandir=/usr/share/man \
> --with-system-zlib --enable-languages=c,c++,fortran \
> --disable-nls --disable-werror --disable-multilib --disable-libssp \
> --enable-checking=assert --enable-shared --enable-threads=posix \
> --disable-__cxa_atexit
configure: error: cannot run /bin/sh ../gcc-4.5.0.srcpkg/config.sub

$ ls -l ../gcc-4.5.0.srcpkg/config.sub
-rwxr-xr-x1 500  501  34850 Mar 23 14:26
../gcc-4.5.0.srcpkg/config.sub

$ ${HOME}/build-farm/gcc-4.5.0.srcpkg/configure --prefix=/usr --sysconfdir=/etc
--mandir=/usr/share/man \
> --with-system-zlib --enable-languages=c,c++,fortran \
> --disable-nls --disable-werror --disable-multilib --disable-libssp \
> --enable-checking=assert --enable-shared --enable-threads=posix \
> --disable-__cxa_atexit
configure: error: cannot run /bin/sh
/root/build-farm/gcc-4.5.0.srcpkg/config.sub

Can't configure this way. What's wrong?


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43911

[Bug fortran/43919] Coarrays: ICE in simplify_cobound

[burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org]

--- Comment #3 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org  2010-04-28 20:43 ---
FIXED on the trunk.


-- 

burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
 Resolution||FIXED


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43919

[Bug fortran/43919] Coarrays: ICE in simplify_cobound

[burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org]

--- Comment #2 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org  2010-04-28 20:43 ---
Subject: Bug 43919

Author: burnus
Date: Wed Apr 28 20:43:18 2010
New Revision: 158843

URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=158843
Log:
2010-04-28  Tobias Burnus  

PR fortran/18918
PR fortran/43919
* simplify.c (simplify_cobound): Handle scalar coarrays.

2010-04-28  Tobias Burnus  

PR fortran/18918
PR fortran/43919
* gfortran.dg/coarray_11.f90: Add scalar-coarrays test case.


Modified:
trunk/gcc/fortran/ChangeLog
trunk/gcc/fortran/simplify.c
trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
trunk/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/coarray_11.f90


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43919

[Bug fortran/18918] Eventually support Fortran 2008's coarrays [co-arrays]

[burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org]

--- Comment #24 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org  2010-04-28 20:43 ---
Subject: Bug 18918

Author: burnus
Date: Wed Apr 28 20:43:18 2010
New Revision: 158843

URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=158843
Log:
2010-04-28  Tobias Burnus  

PR fortran/18918
PR fortran/43919
* simplify.c (simplify_cobound): Handle scalar coarrays.

2010-04-28  Tobias Burnus  

PR fortran/18918
PR fortran/43919
* gfortran.dg/coarray_11.f90: Add scalar-coarrays test case.


Modified:
trunk/gcc/fortran/ChangeLog
trunk/gcc/fortran/simplify.c
trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
trunk/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/coarray_11.f90


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18918

[Bug boehm-gc/37017] Using --enable-threads=solaris breaks near end of build in boehm-gc configury

[ro at gcc dot gnu dot org]

--- Comment #5 from ro at gcc dot gnu dot org  2010-04-28 20:40 ---
Unless there are very important reasons (and I don't see any since the
underlying
libthread and libpthread implementation on Solaris 2 is identical, just the
interfaces differ), please stick with the default, posix.  This is now
documented
in install.texi to deter people who think they should use solaris on Solaris 2.


-- 

ro at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||ro at gcc dot gnu dot org
 Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37017

[Bug tree-optimization/43924] [4.6 Regression] FAIL: gfortran.dg/array_constructor_11.f90 -O3 -g (internal compiler error)

[burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org]

-- 

burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu dot
   ||org
   Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
   Target Milestone|--- |4.6.0


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43924

[Bug target/37454] gcc: unrecognized option '-rdynamic'

[ro at gcc dot gnu dot org]

--- Comment #6 from ro at gcc dot gnu dot org  2010-04-28 20:34 ---
Fixed for 4.5.1, 4.6.0.


-- 

ro at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

   What|Removed |Added

URL||http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-
   ||patches/2010-
   ||03/msg01458.html
 Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
   Keywords||patch
  Known to work||4.5.1 4.6.0
 Resolution||FIXED
   Target Milestone|--- |4.5.1


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37454

[Bug target/37454] gcc: unrecognized option '-rdynamic'

[ro at gcc dot gnu dot org]

--- Comment #5 from ro at gcc dot gnu dot org  2010-04-28 20:32 ---
Mine.


-- 

ro at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu   |ro at gcc dot gnu dot org
   |dot org |
 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
   Last reconfirmed|2008-09-13 13:03:45 |2010-04-28 20:32:15
   date||


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37454

[Bug other/43445] Toplevel Makefile needs to export ABI variants of LD_LIBRARY_PATH

[ro at gcc dot gnu dot org]

--- Comment #1 from ro at gcc dot gnu dot org  2010-04-28 20:27 ---
*** Bug 38685 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***


-- 

ro at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||rob1weld at aol dot com


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43445

[Bug libgcj/38685] classmap.db is zero bytes long in 64 bit directory

[ro at gcc dot gnu dot org]

--- Comment #9 from ro at gcc dot gnu dot org  2010-04-28 20:27 ---
Dup of PR other/43445.

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 43445 ***


-- 

ro at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||ro at gcc dot gnu dot org
 Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
 Resolution||DUPLICATE


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38685

[Bug target/28731] Local variables not aligned to 4 byte boundary causes bus error due to unaligned access

[ro at gcc dot gnu dot org]

--- Comment #4 from ro at gcc dot gnu dot org  2010-04-28 20:16 ---
... to close as INVALID.


-- 

ro at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
 Resolution||INVALID


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28731

[Bug target/28731] Local variables not aligned to 4 byte boundary causes bus error due to unaligned access

[ro at gcc dot gnu dot org]

--- Comment #3 from ro at gcc dot gnu dot org  2010-04-28 20:16 ---
Reopened ...


-- 

ro at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|VERIFIED|UNCONFIRMED
 Resolution|INVALID |


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28731

[Bug target/28247] [4.1/4.2 regression] libstdc++ cannot be build with Solaris threads

[ro at gcc dot gnu dot org]

--- Comment #13 from ro at gcc dot gnu dot org  2010-04-28 20:15 ---
... to close as FIXED.


-- 

ro at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
 Resolution||FIXED


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28247

[Bug target/28247] [4.1/4.2 regression] libstdc++ cannot be build with Solaris threads

[ro at gcc dot gnu dot org]

--- Comment #12 from ro at gcc dot gnu dot org  2010-04-28 20:15 ---
Reopened ...


-- 

ro at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|VERIFIED|REOPENED
 Resolution|FIXED   |


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28247

[Bug target/20446] [4.0/4.1 Regression] invalid assembly with -gstabs+

[ro at gcc dot gnu dot org]

--- Comment #21 from ro at gcc dot gnu dot org  2010-04-28 20:14 ---
... to close as FIXED.


-- 

ro at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
 Resolution||FIXED


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20446

[Bug target/20446] [4.0/4.1 Regression] invalid assembly with -gstabs+

[ro at gcc dot gnu dot org]

--- Comment #20 from ro at gcc dot gnu dot org  2010-04-28 20:13 ---
Reopened ...


-- 

ro at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|VERIFIED|REOPENED
 Resolution|FIXED   |


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20446

[Bug libmudflap/15518] 'MF_MAP_ANON' undeclared in libmudflap/mf-hooks3.c

[ro at gcc dot gnu dot org]

--- Comment #6 from ro at gcc dot gnu dot org  2010-04-28 20:13 ---
... to close as FIXED.


-- 

ro at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
 Resolution||FIXED


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15518

[Bug libmudflap/15518] 'MF_MAP_ANON' undeclared in libmudflap/mf-hooks3.c

[ro at gcc dot gnu dot org]

--- Comment #5 from ro at gcc dot gnu dot org  2010-04-28 20:12 ---
Reopened ...


-- 

ro at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|VERIFIED|REOPENED
 Resolution|FIXED   |


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15518

[Bug boehm-gc/29068] [4.2 Regression] Bootstrap fails building libjava on SPARC/Solaris

[ro at gcc dot gnu dot org]

--- Comment #10 from ro at gcc dot gnu dot org  2010-04-28 20:12 ---
... to close as FIXED.


-- 

ro at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
 Resolution||FIXED


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29068

[Bug boehm-gc/29068] [4.2 Regression] Bootstrap fails building libjava on SPARC/Solaris

[ro at gcc dot gnu dot org]

--- Comment #9 from ro at gcc dot gnu dot org  2010-04-28 20:11 ---
Reopened ...


-- 

ro at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|VERIFIED|REOPENED
 Resolution|FIXED   |


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29068

[Bug testsuite/38910] gcc 4.4.0 - Testsuite charset.exp not checking my locale

[ro at gcc dot gnu dot org]

--- Comment #2 from ro at gcc dot gnu dot org  2010-04-28 20:10 ---
Confirmed.  At least Solaris 2 target is affected.


-- 

ro at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
 Ever Confirmed|0   |1
  GCC build triplet|i386-pc-solaris2.11 |
   GCC host triplet|i386-pc-solaris2.11 |
 GCC target triplet|i386-pc-solaris2.11 |*-*-solaris2*
  Known to fail||4.4.4 4.5.1 4.6.0
   Last reconfirmed|-00-00 00:00:00 |2010-04-28 20:10:56
   date||


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38910

[Bug c++/43911] [4.4/4.5 Regression] g++ can't compile any even trivial c++ source: undefined reference to `_Unwind_GetIPInfo'

[redi at gcc dot gnu dot org]

--- Comment #14 from redi at gcc dot gnu dot org  2010-04-28 20:08 ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> $ g++ -v test.c\+\+
> 
> Using built-in specs.
> COLLECT_GCC=g++
> COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/usr/libexec/gcc/powerpc-gnu-linux-uclibc/4.5.0/lto-wrapper
> Target: powerpc-gnu-linux-uclibc
> Configured with: ./configure --prefix=/usr --sysconfdir=/etc

does it make any difference if you don't build in the srcdir as recommended at
http://gcc.gnu.org/install/configure.html
?


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43911

[Bug target/38924] gcc 4.4.0 20090117 - init_priority incorrect for GNU ld in "gcc/config/sol2.h"

[ro at gcc dot gnu dot org]

--- Comment #4 from ro at gcc dot gnu dot org  2010-04-28 20:06 ---
Fixed for 4.5.0.


-- 

ro at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

   What|Removed |Added

URL||http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-
   ||patches/2010-
   ||03/msg01454.html
 Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
   Keywords||patch
  Known to work||4.5.0
 Resolution||FIXED
   Target Milestone|--- |4.5.0


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38924

[Bug target/38924] gcc 4.4.0 20090117 - init_priority incorrect for GNU ld in "gcc/config/sol2.h"

[ro at gcc dot gnu dot org]

--- Comment #3 from ro at gcc dot gnu dot org  2010-04-28 20:04 ---
Mine.


-- 

ro at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu   |ro at gcc dot gnu dot org
   |dot org |
 Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
 Ever Confirmed|0   |1
   Last reconfirmed|-00-00 00:00:00 |2010-04-28 20:04:42
   date||


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38924

[Bug bootstrap/39111] gcc 4.4.0 20090204 - Configury from GNU linker to Operating System's Linker broke (reverse works OK)

[ro at gcc dot gnu dot org]

--- Comment #7 from ro at gcc dot gnu dot org  2010-04-28 20:00 ---
As I've said before: please file *clear individual bug reports* for each single
issue you find.  Dealing with reports like this, with dozens of issues and non-
issues mixed, is close to impossible.


-- 

ro at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||ro at gcc dot gnu dot org
 Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39111

[Bug c++/43911] [4.4/4.5 Regression] g++ can't compile any even trivial c++ source: undefined reference to `_Unwind_GetIPInfo'

[dougmencken at gmail dot com]

--- Comment #13 from dougmencken at gmail dot com  2010-04-28 19:57 ---
Created an attachment (id=20510)
 --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=20510&action=view)
./powerpc-gnu-linux-uclibc/libstdc++-v3/config.log


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43911

[Bug bootstrap/39150] Configure scripts have no 64-Bit Solaris defined (only i386-solaris*).

[ro at gcc dot gnu dot org]

--- Comment #8 from ro at gcc dot gnu dot org  2010-04-28 19:56 ---
As stated: closing as WONTFIX.


-- 

ro at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
 Resolution||WONTFIX


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39150

[Bug bootstrap/39150] Configure scripts have no 64-Bit Solaris defined (only i386-solaris*).

[ro at gcc dot gnu dot org]

--- Comment #7 from ro at gcc dot gnu dot org  2010-04-28 19:55 ---
As long as there are any Solaris 2/x86 versions supported with 32-bit kernels,
we'll need to keep the i386-pc-solaris2* configurations, which handles creating
64-bit binaries just fine.  Adding an additional 64-bit default configuration
(like amd64-pc-solaris2* or whatever) doubles the testing burden on me for no
real benefit.  In fact, I believe that the sparcv9-sun-solaris2 configurations
were a mistake and should be removed, rather than adding this for Solaris
2/x86,
too.

I'll probably refuse patches to add them since they complicate the port for
little
apparent benefit.

With respect to multilib testing, this isn't enabled by default on any
platform;
you either need a dejagnu config file for that, or run

% make -k RUNTESTFLAGS='--target_board "unix{,-m64}"'

You're right that this should be properly documented in the testing
instructions.
Please file a new PR for that issue.


-- 

ro at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu   |ro at gcc dot gnu dot org
   |dot org |
 Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
 Ever Confirmed|0   |1
   Last reconfirmed|-00-00 00:00:00 |2010-04-28 19:55:33
   date||


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39150

[Bug middle-end/39883] preprocessor fails with myassertion

[steven at gcc dot gnu dot org]

--- Comment #7 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org  2010-04-28 19:54 ---
Created an attachment (id=20509)
 --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=20509&action=view)
preprocessed test case, copied from comment #0


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39883

[Bug target/43729] Mach-O LTO support needed for darwin

[steven at gcc dot gnu dot org]

--- Comment #15 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org  2010-04-28 19:50 ---
Re. comment #14, this is obviously related to LTO but we (gcc) don't do
anything with relocations. I'll try to reproduce this problem, but I suspect it
is an assembler or linker bug.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43729

[Bug libgcj/39161] gcc 4.4.0 20090210 - The 'copy-vmresources.sh' script can't find the 'mkinstalldirs' script.

[ro at gcc dot gnu dot org]

--- Comment #6 from ro at gcc dot gnu dot org  2010-04-28 19:47 ---
Please try this with an absolute path to configure.  Perhaps we should simply
document that relative paths aren't supported here.


-- 

ro at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||ro at gcc dot gnu dot org
 Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39161

[Bug middle-end/39883] preprocessor fails with myassertion

[ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org]

--- Comment #6 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org  2010-04-28 19:41 
---
> Preprocessed source is embedded in the original submission.

Yes, that's precisely why I asked to attach it instead.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39883

[Bug testsuite/39215] Running Testsuite with Multilib Flags exposes many errors in Testsuite (and gcc)

[ro at gcc dot gnu dot org]

--- Comment #2 from ro at gcc dot gnu dot org  2010-04-28 19:40 ---
It's pretty much impossible to deal with PRs that bundle dozens of different
issues together (or with postings to gcc-testresults that have almost as much
boilerplate, comments and explantions as actual results).

Many of the bugs you've seen should be fixed on mainline and the 4.5 branch,
if anything important is missing, please file *separate* bug reports for each
issue so they can be investigated and fixed one by one.


-- 

ro at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||ro at gcc dot gnu dot org


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39215

[Bug c++/43911] [4.4/4.5 Regression] g++ can't compile any even trivial c++ source: undefined reference to `_Unwind_GetIPInfo'

[dougmencken at gmail dot com]

--- Comment #12 from dougmencken at gmail dot com  2010-04-28 19:36 ---
$ objdump -T /usr/lib/libgcc_s.so.1 | grep GetIPI
# i.e. nothing
$ objdump -T /usr/lib/libgcc_s.so.1 | grep Unwind
00010a80 gDF .text  0244  GCC_3.0 _Unwind_Find_FDE
bd78 gDF .text  0008  GCC_3.0 _Unwind_GetIP
e84c gDF .text  01f0  GCC_3.3 _Unwind_Resume_or_Rethrow
bda4 gDF .text  0008  GCC_3.0 _Unwind_GetRegionStart
ea74 gDF .text  01c8  GCC_3.3 _Unwind_Backtrace
bccc gDF .text  0008  GCC_3.3 _Unwind_GetCFA
e654 gDF .text  01f8  GCC_3.0 _Unwind_Resume
ea3c gDF .text  0038  GCC_3.0 _Unwind_DeleteException
e1e0 gDF .text  0288  GCC_3.0 _Unwind_RaiseException
bd94 gDF .text  0008  GCC_3.0 _Unwind_SetIP
bdec gDF .text  0008  GCC_3.0 _Unwind_GetTextRelBase
bdac gDF .text  0038  GCC_3.3 _Unwind_FindEnclosingFunction
bd9c gDF .text  0008  GCC_3.0 _Unwind_GetLanguageSpecificData
e468 gDF .text  01ec  GCC_3.0 _Unwind_ForcedUnwind
bcd8 gDF .text  00a0  GCC_3.0 _Unwind_SetGR
bc44 gDF .text  0088  GCC_3.0 _Unwind_GetGR
bde4 gDF .text  0008  GCC_3.0 _Unwind_GetDataRelBase

Hmm... 3.x, but I bootstrapped it with 4.4.2.

$ objdump -v | head -2
GNU objdump (GNU Binutils) 2.20.51.20100213
Copyright 2010 Free Software Foundation, Inc.

$ objdump -T /home/build-farm/binpkg/working-gcc-4.4.2/usr/lib/libgcc_s.so.1 |
grep Unwind
00010ea8 gDF .text  0260  GCC_3.0 _Unwind_Find_FDE
bcb4 gDF .text  0014  GCC_4.2.0   _Unwind_GetIPInfo
bcac gDF .text  0008  GCC_3.0 _Unwind_GetIP
f144 gDF .text  01dc  GCC_3.3 _Unwind_Resume_or_Rethrow
bcd8 gDF .text  0008  GCC_3.0 _Unwind_GetRegionStart
e63c gDF .text  01c8  GCC_3.3 _Unwind_Backtrace
bc30 gDF .text  0008  GCC_3.3 _Unwind_GetCFA
ebd0 gDF .text  01e0  GCC_3.0 _Unwind_Resume
bcf0 gDF .text  0038  GCC_3.0 _Unwind_DeleteException
eed0 gDF .text  0274  GCC_3.0 _Unwind_RaiseException
bcc8 gDF .text  0008  GCC_3.0 _Unwind_SetIP
bce8 gDF .text  0008  GCC_3.0 _Unwind_GetTextRelBase
bf7c gDF .text  0038  GCC_3.3 _Unwind_FindEnclosingFunction
bcd0 gDF .text  0008  GCC_3.0 _Unwind_GetLanguageSpecificData
e918 gDF .text  01e4  GCC_3.0 _Unwind_ForcedUnwind
bc38 gDF .text  0074  GCC_3.0 _Unwind_SetGR
bbd4 gDF .text  005c  GCC_3.0 _Unwind_GetGR
bce0 gDF .text  0008  GCC_3.0 _Unwind_GetDataRelBase

Hmm...


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43911

[Bug bootstrap/43858] [4.6 Regression] Bootstrap failure for powerpc-apple-darwin9: cannot compute suffix of object files

[bernds at codesourcery dot com]

--- Comment #26 from bernds at codesourcery dot com  2010-04-28 19:33 
---
Ah! I think that makes sense. For some reason I only looked at the other use of
df_simulate_find_noclobber_defs.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43858

[Bug middle-end/39883] preprocessor fails with myassertion

[ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE]

--- Comment #5 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE  2010-04-28 
19:30 ---
Subject: Re:  preprocessor fails with myassertion

>> Maybe Eric has a sparcv9 compiler around and can easily check this?
>
> I only have 4.3.5, 4.5.1 and 4.6.0 compilers for sparc64-sun-solaris2.x at the
> moment, I'll test if someone can attach the preprocessed source.  The 
> submitter
> said that the problem has disappeared so the PR can be closed though.

Preprocessed source is embedded in the original submission.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39883

[Bug target/40183] g++.dg/tls/static-1.C, execution abort

[ro at gcc dot gnu dot org]

--- Comment #2 from ro at gcc dot gnu dot org  2010-04-28 19:28 ---
On SPARC, I only see this when configuring with gas and gld, which isn't
apparent
in your g++ -v output.

On x86, I see the error with Sun as and gas with Sun ld and gas with GNU ld.


-- 

ro at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||ro at gcc dot gnu dot org
 Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
 Ever Confirmed|0   |1
  Known to fail||4.6.0
   Last reconfirmed|-00-00 00:00:00 |2010-04-28 19:28:08
   date||


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40183

[Bug bootstrap/43858] [4.6 Regression] Bootstrap failure for powerpc-apple-darwin9: cannot compute suffix of object files

[dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr]

--- Comment #25 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr  2010-04-28 19:27 ---
The following change applied on top of revision 158827 is enough to reach stage
3 (and probably to bootstrap -answer tomorrow):

--- ../_gcc_clean/gcc/ifcvt.c   2010-04-22 13:23:31.0 +0200
+++ ../gcc-4.6-work/gcc/ifcvt.c 2010-04-28 16:55:01.0 +0200
@@ -4083,7 +4083,7 @@ dead_or_predicable (basic_block test_bb,
{
  if (INSN_P (insn))
{
- df_simulate_find_noclobber_defs (insn, test_set);
+ df_simulate_find_defs (insn, test_set);
  df_simulate_one_insn_backwards (test_bb, insn, test_live);
}
  prev = PREV_INSN (insn);


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43858

[Bug tree-optimization/43924] [4.6 Regression] FAIL: gfortran.dg/array_constructor_11.f90 -O3 -g (internal compiler error)

[dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr]

--- Comment #2 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr  2010-04-28 19:21 ---
I did not filled the triplets since I see the ICE on *-darwin-* and *-linux-*
as well.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43924

[Bug driver/40227] Solaris standard link libraries missing /lib

[ro at gcc dot gnu dot org]

--- Comment #1 from ro at gcc dot gnu dot org  2010-04-28 19:21 ---
Ok, although we should only do this on Solaris 10 and up.  At the moment, only
very few specialized libraries are affected since compatibility links exist in
/usr/lib.


-- 

ro at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu   |ro at gcc dot gnu dot org
   |dot org |
 Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
 Ever Confirmed|0   |1
   Last reconfirmed|-00-00 00:00:00 |2010-04-28 19:21:44
   date||


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40227

[Bug c++/30797] Failure to build Cinelerra 2.1

[redi at gcc dot gnu dot org]

--- Comment #4 from redi at gcc dot gnu dot org  2010-04-28 19:20 ---
*** Bug 31902 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***


-- 

redi at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||kriptomik at gmail dot com


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30797

[Bug c++/31902] "Internal compiler error while tryint to compile cinelerra/mjpegtools-1.6.3-rc1/y4mdenoise/MotionSearcher.hh:2444" can i do something simple to fix that ?

[redi at gcc dot gnu dot org]

--- Comment #4 from redi at gcc dot gnu dot org  2010-04-28 19:20 ---


*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 30797 ***


-- 

redi at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
 Resolution||DUPLICATE


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31902

[Bug target/40483] gcc 4.x needs to utilize better COMDAT mechanism under Solaris

[ro at gcc dot gnu dot org]

--- Comment #1 from ro at gcc dot gnu dot org  2010-04-28 19:15 ---
One part of this PR (supporting COMDAT group on Solaris 2 with GNU as) is
implemented by this patch:

  [build, doc] Support COMDAT group with recent Sun ld
  http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-03/msg01482.html

which went into 4.5.0.  It requires snv_130, though, a recent OpenSolaris
build.
Unless paying customers require a backport from Oracle, this won't get into
earlier releases,though.

On the other hand, supporting COMDAT group with Sun as is still in the works.
I've made some progress with help from the Sun assembler and linker
maintainers,,
but still hit some issues in both as and ld.  I expect to have this ready for
4.6.0, but am undecided about a backport to the 4.5 branch yet.


-- 

ro at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu   |ro at gcc dot gnu dot org
   |dot org |
 Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
 Ever Confirmed|0   |1
 GCC target triplet|i386-solaris|*-*-solaris2*
   Last reconfirmed|-00-00 00:00:00 |2010-04-28 19:15:45
   date||


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40483

[Bug c++/43890] [4.6 Regression] invalid uninitialized reference in class

[fabien dot chene at gmail dot com]

--- Comment #3 from fabien dot chene at gmail dot com  2010-04-28 19:14 
---
patch here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-04/msg01759.html


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43890

[Bug debug/42278] [4.4, 4.5, 4.6 regression] incorrect dwarf data gcc-4.4.2

[ro at gcc dot gnu dot org]

--- Comment #1 from ro at gcc dot gnu dot org  2010-04-28 19:08 ---
Right: this is both a regression from 3.4 and in violation of the DWARF-3 spec,
p. 63, 5.1, where DW_AT_name is a required field for DW_TAG_base_type.


-- 

ro at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||ro at gcc dot gnu dot org
 Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
 Ever Confirmed|0   |1
  Known to fail||4.4.3 4.6.0
   Last reconfirmed|-00-00 00:00:00 |2010-04-28 19:08:22
   date||
Summary|incorrect dwarf data gcc-   |[4.4, 4.5, 4.6 regression]
   |4.4.2   |incorrect dwarf data gcc-
   ||4.4.2


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42278

[Bug tree-optimization/43924] [4.6 Regression] FAIL: gfortran.dg/array_constructor_11.f90 -O3 -g (internal compiler error)

[kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org]

--- Comment #1 from kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org  2010-04-28 19:08 ---
The regression is also seen on i686-*-freebsd.  The
regression dissappears if r158788 is reverted.


-- 

kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||jh at suse dot cz
 Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
 Ever Confirmed|0   |1
   Last reconfirmed|-00-00 00:00:00 |2010-04-28 19:08:00
   date||


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43924

[Bug libstdc++/43259] ext/profile/all.cc fails on Solaris

[rus at google dot com]

--- Comment #13 from rus at google dot com  2010-04-28 19:06 ---
Subject: Re:  ext/profile/all.cc fails on Solaris

On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 11:36 AM, ro at gcc dot gnu dot org
 wrote:
>
>
> --- Comment #12 from ro at gcc dot gnu dot org  2010-04-28 18:36 ---
> Any progress on this?  The bug is open for almost 2 months now.
>

I looked at it already, but it wasn't the quick fix I expected.  I did
not anticipate having to support systems without static mutex
initialization.  Will fix it one way or another soon.

Silvius


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43259

[Bug bootstrap/43926] missing crti.o file during build

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org]

--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org  2010-04-28 18:55 ---
>32

I think you don't have the 32bit userland fully installed.  Either use
--disable-multilib or install the 32bit userland.


-- 

pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Severity|blocker |normal
 Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43926

[Bug bootstrap/43926] New: missing crti.o file during build

[jjlucido at gmail dot com]

I am trying to install gcc version 4.5.0. I have untarred and placed the latest
versions of gmp (5.0.1). mpc (0.8.1) and mpfr (2.4.2) into my source directory,
and I am building in a separate directory.

My system is SuSE Linux version 2.6.5-7.244-smp and I currently have gcc v3.3.3
installed currently.

I ran the configuration file with no options or target. Then I went to make it,
and I received the following error:


/usr/lib64/gcc-lib/x86_64-suse-linux/3.3.3/../../../../x86_64-suse-linux/bin/ld:
crti.o: No such file: No such file or directory
Collect2: ld returned 1 exit status
make[5]: *** [libgcc_s.so] Error 1
make[5]: Leaving directory
‘/home2/jlucido/gcc/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/32/libgcc’
followed by several other “leaving directory” lines.

As per the faq section, I cleaned the distribution and configured with
--prefix=usr/local/gcc2. Same error

All files mentioned above had been downloaded from their sources today.


-- 
   Summary: missing crti.o file during build
   Product: gcc
   Version: 4.5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
  Severity: blocker
  Priority: P3
 Component: bootstrap
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: jjlucido at gmail dot com


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43926

[Bug c++/9335] [4.3/4.4/4.5/4.6 regression] repeated diagnostic when maximum template depth is exceeded

[jason at gcc dot gnu dot org]

--- Comment #28 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org  2010-04-28 18:49 ---
Agreed.


-- 

jason at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
  Known to work|2.95.4  |2.95.4 4.6.0
 Resolution||FIXED


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9335

[Bug c++/31584] ICE on probably invalid code

[redi at gcc dot gnu dot org]

--- Comment #5 from redi at gcc dot gnu dot org  2010-04-28 18:47 ---
compiles without error using 4.4.3 or 4.6.0


-- 

redi at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
 Resolution||FIXED


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31584

[Bug middle-end/39883] preprocessor fails with myassertion

[ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org]

--- Comment #4 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org  2010-04-28 18:46 
---
> I'll try to go through the Solaris bugs in the near future, but have
> concentrated on getting the 4.5 release in shape until now.

I totally missed it as well...

> Maybe Eric has a sparcv9 compiler around and can easily check this?

I only have 4.3.5, 4.5.1 and 4.6.0 compilers for sparc64-sun-solaris2.x at the
moment, I'll test if someone can attach the preprocessed source.  The submitter
said that the problem has disappeared so the PR can be closed though.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39883

[Bug target/42753] _Complex_I is reported as undeclared. Code builds with Sun compiler.

[ro at gcc dot gnu dot org]

--- Comment #14 from ro at gcc dot gnu dot org  2010-04-28 18:45 ---
The bug was fixed for 4.5 by this patch:

  PATCH: Fix IRIX 6.5/Solaris 2  for GCC (PR libfortran/41169)
  http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-09/msg00114.html

with a subsequent fix by Ralf Wildenhues.

The 4.4 branch is currently frozen for the 4.4.4 release, and I have no idea
if there are any releases planned after that.  Given that 4.5.0 is already out,
I'd like you to try this one before investing any effort into a backport.

Parallel to this, we should try to get this Solaris CR fixed:

  6549313  /usr/sfw/bin/gcc needs a patched complex.h
  http://bugs.opensolaris.org/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=6549313

I'd like to get changes made by fixincludes backported to Solaris proper,
but there are only so many hours in a day.


-- 

ro at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||ro at gcc dot gnu dot org


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42753

[Bug libstdc++/43917] [C++0x] std::swap not working

[redi at gcc dot gnu dot org]

--- Comment #4 from redi at gcc dot gnu dot org  2010-04-28 18:40 ---
No, that's not what pair::swap looks like in 4.5.0, your installation is
broken. This is what I have in 4.5.0

  void
  swap(pair& __p)
  {
using std::swap;
swap(first, __p.first);
swap(second, __p.second);
  }

Somehow you have a header from 4.4 in your 4.5 tree, or you have been manually
messing with headers


-- 

redi at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
 Resolution||WORKSFORME


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43917

[Bug bootstrap/43733] bootstrap fails on Solaris 10 x86 with GNU as 2.15 and --with-arch=core2

[redi at gcc dot gnu dot org]

--- Comment #23 from redi at gcc dot gnu dot org  2010-04-28 18:38 ---
core2 works fine for bi-arch linux builds, but I'll try your suggestion on
Solaris asap

I assume it will work, but 64bit code will not use the core2 instructions,
which might be suboptimal (I want to use the cpu to the full potential!)

I imagine it's also possible for the same problem to occur using -march=native,
if the processor flags indicate core2 instructions will work.

That said, 2.15 is an ancient gas (even though it's very common on Solaris 10)
so I'm not too worried about this bug being fixed and I agree it's not worth
changing the config docs.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43733

[Bug libstdc++/43259] ext/profile/all.cc fails on Solaris

[ro at gcc dot gnu dot org]

--- Comment #12 from ro at gcc dot gnu dot org  2010-04-28 18:36 ---
Any progress on this?  The bug is open for almost 2 months now.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43259

[Bug target/43324] core dump on throw

[ro at gcc dot gnu dot org]

--- Comment #3 from ro at gcc dot gnu dot org  2010-04-28 18:35 ---
I couldn't reproduce this so far, neither on the 4.4 branch nor on mainline.
OTOH, I don't have snv_111b available here, but know that there are EH issues
on Solaris 11/x86.  I've posted a patch which works for snv_130/134, but didn't
on snv_127 and breaks Solaris 10, so I've got more investigation to do:

PATCH: Fix Solaris 11/x86 MD_FALLBACK_FRAME_STATE_FOR
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-02/msg00994.html


-- 

ro at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||ro at gcc dot gnu dot org


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43324

[Bug target/43921] Bootstrap comparison fails when using -march=atom

[hjl dot tools at gmail dot com]

--- Comment #1 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com  2010-04-28 18:24 ---
A patch is posed at

http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-04/msg01755.html


-- 

hjl dot tools at gmail dot com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

URL||http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-
   ||patches/2010-
   ||04/msg01755.html


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43921