--- Comment #4 from schwab at suse dot de 2009-01-05 21:31 ---
From the ABI document (2.2.1 C++ Exception Objects):
By convention, a __cxa_exception pointer points at the C++ object representing
the exception being thrown, immediately following the header. The header
structure
--- Comment #5 from schwab at suse dot de 2009-01-05 22:16 ---
There is padding between adjustedPtr and unwindHeader because the latter is
forced to be maximally aligned. Due to the additional member the padding was
reduced. Also, the alignment of _Unwind_Exception depends on -mavx
: schwab at suse dot de
GCC target triplet: i?86-*-*
OtherBugsDependingO 38732
nThis:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38737
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email
--
schwab at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
BugsThisDependsOn||38737
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38732
--- You
--- Comment #4 from schwab at suse dot de 2008-10-27 18:33 ---
It's the initialization function of the csets package (csets___elabb) that gets
miscompiled.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37782
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC
--
schwab at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot
--- Comment #6 from schwab at suse dot de 2008-10-27 19:30 ---
This is the only difference, occuring in all dumps after this:
--- gcc-test-r141380/Build/gcc/csets.adb.147r.loop2_doloop 2008-10-27
20:21:09.0 +0100
+++ gcc-test-r141380.bad/Build/gcc/csets.adb
--- Comment #8 from schwab at suse dot de 2008-10-27 22:06 ---
Bootstrap was successful.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37782
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who
--- Comment #6 from schwab at suse dot de 2008-04-01 13:34 ---
WONTFIX for the pch issue.
--
schwab at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
--- Comment #3 from schwab at suse dot de 2008-04-01 13:24 ---
This is no longer reproducible, closing as fixed.
--
schwab at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #8 from schwab at suse dot de 2008-04-01 18:57 ---
Ok, lets fix it for real.
--
schwab at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status
--- Comment #3 from schwab at suse dot de 2008-03-16 17:17 ---
Not a bug.
--
schwab at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
--
schwab at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|schwab at suse dot de |unassigned at gcc dot gnu
||dot
--
schwab at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||schwab at suse dot de
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32589
--
schwab at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[4.2 regression] undefined |[4.2/4.3 regression]
|reference
--- Comment #15 from schwab at suse dot de 2007-03-31 10:18 ---
This still does not work. When configuring the stage2 compiler the symbol will
be found in libgcc_s (from unwind-compat.o).
--
schwab at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #16 from schwab at suse dot de 2007-03-31 10:28 ---
Also why does configure set HAVE_GETIPINFO unconditionally when the system
libunwind is used?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27880
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC
--
schwab at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
OtherBugsDependingO||26792
nThis||
http://gcc.gnu.org
--- Comment #1 from schwab at suse dot de 2006-11-06 13:55 ---
The warning works as intended.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 6614 ***
--
schwab at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #10 from schwab at suse dot de 2006-11-06 13:55 ---
*** Bug 29739 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
schwab at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
schwab at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
BugsThisDependsOn||27616
Component|middle-end |rtl-optimization
http
--
schwab at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|tree-optimization |middle-end
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28622
--- You
--- Comment #4 from schwab at suse dot de 2006-08-07 23:12 ---
The removed comment says:
- /* If will do cse, generate all results into pseudo registers
- since 1) that allows cse to find more things
- and 2) otherwise cse could produce an insn the machine
- cannot support
--- Comment #7 from schwab at suse dot de 2006-07-29 09:34 ---
Broken by r90624. Reproduced with -O -floop-optimize2 -fmove-loop-invariants.
2004-11-14 Zdenek Dvorak [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR tree-optimization/18431
* tree-flow.h (stmt_references_memory_p): Declare
--
schwab at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||schwab at suse dot de
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28495
--- Comment #9 from schwab at suse dot de 2006-07-29 11:05 ---
At least we know that the bug is also present in 4.0.
--
schwab at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from schwab at suse dot de 2006-07-26 21:47 ---
Broken since r111459:
2006-02-26 Steven Bosscher [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* common.opt (-floop-optimize, -frerun-loop-opt): Remove.
* tree-pass.h (pass_loop_optimize): Remove.
* passes.c
--- Comment #6 from schwab at suse dot de 2006-07-01 07:01 ---
The bug is much older, I was able to get it fail using the sources at the 3.4
branch point. That 3.4.6 does not fail is probably just coincidence.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28181
--- You
--
schwab at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #11763|0 |1
is obsolete||
http://gcc.gnu.org
--- Comment #8 from schwab at suse dot de 2006-06-20 22:43 ---
The problem with the attached testcases is that gcc is using fbCC instead of
fjCC. The former set of insns is interpreted by GAS as fixed length branches
with 16 bit offset, whereas the latter is handled as variable sized
--- Comment #17 from schwab at suse dot de 2005-10-17 12:06 ---
Bootstrap was successful and most Ada tests pass now
(http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2005-10/msg00730.html).
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17356
--- You are receiving this mail because
--
What|Removed |Added
CC||schwab at suse dot de
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23435
--- You are receiving this mail
--- Additional Comments From schwab at suse dot de 2005-07-25 21:37 ---
I have not been able to reproduce it with a cross compiler (neither on a ppc
nor ia64 host). I also tried with --param ggc-min-expand=0 --param
ggc-min-heapsize=0.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi
--- Additional Comments From schwab at suse dot de 2005-07-25 22:29 ---
I'm starting a new bootstrap with this change:
occr = (struct unoccr *) obstack_alloc (unoccr_obstack,
- sizeof (struct occr
--
What|Removed |Added
Component|target |rtl-optimization
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23043
--- You are receiving this mail
--- Additional Comments From schwab at suse dot de 2005-07-25 23:22 ---
Fixed.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
--
What|Removed |Added
CC||schwab at suse dot de
Known to fail|3.3.6 3.4.4 |4.0.1
Known to work|4.0.1
--- Additional Comments From schwab at suse dot de 2005-05-23 17:21 ---
Seems to be fixed in 4.1.
--
What|Removed |Added
Known to work|3.3.6 3.4.4
--
What|Removed |Added
CC||schwab at suse dot de
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21506
--- You are receiving this mail
--- Additional Comments From schwab at suse dot de 2005-02-27 15:09 ---
Only happens with --enable-checking.
--
What|Removed |Added
Keywords
--- Additional Comments From schwab at suse dot de 2004-12-13 10:38 ---
I.e. though this PR and PR18542 might be the same for the m68k, I doubt this
bug
to be identical to the ICE on the avr.
You can easily check that by testing if reverting the patch from comment #2
helps
--- Additional Comments From schwab at suse dot de 2004-12-09 14:19 ---
The patch does no good on ia64, it causes the stage2 compiler to be
miscompiled.
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From schwab at suse dot de 2004-12-01 20:54 ---
I've only worked around it by using -O0. The bug is still present and
responsible for most of the testsuite failures.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17356
--- You are receiving this mail
--- Additional Comments From schwab at suse dot de 2004-11-24 20:57 ---
It looks like a linker bug.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
--
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |jh at suse dot cz
|dot org |
Status|UNCONFIRMED
--- Additional Comments From schwab at suse dot de 2004-11-21 22:59 ---
This is the change that triggers the bug:
Sun Jul 21 00:54:54 CEST 2002 Jan Hubicka [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* gcse.c: Include cselib.h
(constptop_register): Break out from ...
(cprop_insn
--
What|Removed |Added
CC||schwab at suse dot de
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18189
--- You are receiving this mail
--- Additional Comments From schwab at suse dot de 2004-02-22 16:57 ---
FWIW, I'm using this patch in the daily regression test and haven't seen a
comparison failure since then.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13918
--- You are receiving this mail because
--- Additional Comments From schwab at suse dot de 2004-02-22 17:59 ---
Checked in.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
--- Additional Comments From schwab at suse dot de 2004-02-07 16:15 ---
Regtested on 3.4 branch (mainline is currently broken on ia64). No difference
in test results except that g++.dg/ext/stmtexpr1.C now passes. Also fixes a
build failure in ada/acats/tests/ce/ce3705d.
--
http
--- Additional Comments From schwab at suse dot de 2004-02-06 00:50 ---
From today http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2004-02/msg00230.html:
$ /tmp/cvs/gcc-20040205/Build/gcc/testsuite/../g++
-B/tmp/cvs/gcc-20040205/Build/gcc/testsuite/../
/tmp/cvs/gcc-20040205/gcc/testsuite/g
--- Additional Comments From schwab at suse dot de 2004-02-03 00:06 ---
It's ia64 specific. See
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2004-02/msg00077.html and
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2004-02/msg00080.html.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11295
--- Additional Comments From schwab at suse dot de 2004-02-01 22:29 ---
This is the change that re-triggered the bug:
2004-01-09 Mark Mitchell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* expr.h (expand_expr): Make it a macro, not a function.
(expand_expr_real): New function
--
What|Removed |Added
CC||schwab at suse dot de
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13918
--- You are receiving this mail
--- Additional Comments From schwab at suse dot de 2004-01-24 14:10 ---
Subject: Re: PR 13722 candidate fix
Zack Weinberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Just to be sure this isn't an unrelated bug, could you revert ia64.c
to version 1.264 and ia64.md to version 1.118, and see if it works
--- Additional Comments From schwab at suse dot de 2004-01-23 21:32 ---
Subject: Re: PR 13722 candidate fix
Zack Weinberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Re-revised patch.
Seems to miscompile the stage2 compiler.
$ stage2/xgcc -Bstage2/ -B/usr/local/ia64-suse-linux/bin/ -c -g -O2
--- Additional Comments From schwab at suse dot de 2004-01-23 22:05 ---
Subject: Re: PR 13722 candidate fix
Zack Weinberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Andreas Schwab [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Zack Weinberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Re-revised patch.
Seems to miscompile the stage2
--- Additional Comments From schwab at suse dot de 2004-01-24 00:04 ---
Subject: Re: PR 13722 candidate fix
Zack Weinberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
So, if you wouldn't mind trying the appended revision (changes only
ia64.c)?
Does that mean that the changes in ia64.md from pr13722
--- Additional Comments From schwab at suse dot de 2004-01-24 01:56 ---
Subject: Re: PR 13722 candidate fix
Zack Weinberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
So, if you wouldn't mind trying the appended revision (changes only
ia64.c)?
Unfortunately that didn't help, still the same problem
--- Additional Comments From schwab at suse dot de 2004-01-22 17:41 ---
It still fails in both 3.4 and 3.5 as of today.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11295
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching
--- Additional Comments From schwab at suse dot de 2004-01-22 17:54 ---
Subject: Re: [3.4/3.5 regression] ICE in cp_expr_size, at
cp/cp-lang.c:314 when using a non-trivial object in a compound statement
expression
It still fails with both 3.4 and 3.5 as of today.
--
http
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Component|bootstrap |target
Ever Confirmed||1
--- Additional Comments From schwab at suse dot de 2004-01-21 23:16 ---
The bug reappeared on 3.4/3.5 at 2004-01-10, see
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2004-01/msg00418.html.
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From schwab at suse dot de 2004-01-21 23:47 ---
It ICE's at cp/cp-lang.c:347, which appears to be the same place as in the
original report.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11295
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You
--- Additional Comments From schwab at suse dot de 2004-01-20 14:12 ---
Created an attachment (id=5535)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=5535action=view)
Debugging dumps
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13722
--- You are receiving this mail
--- Additional Comments From schwab at suse dot de 2004-01-15 10:32 ---
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2004-01/msg00883.html
--
What|Removed |Added
Status
--
Bug 12371 depends on bug 13562, which changed state.
Bug 13562 Summary: [3.4 regression] bootstrap failure on m68k-linux
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13562
What|Old Value |New Value
--- Additional Comments From schwab at suse dot de 2004-01-11 21:52 ---
The miscompilation happens here:
yearday %= (4*365 +1);
With -fregmove, this is generated:
move.l %d3,%d1 | yearday, tmp264
muls.l #376287347,%d0:%d1 |, tmp262, tmp264
--
What|Removed |Added
CC||schwab at suse dot de
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13562
--- You are receiving this mail
--- Additional Comments From schwab at suse dot de 2004-01-11 21:59 ---
Could this actually be the same bug as PR13562?
--
What|Removed |Added
CC
PLEASE REPLY TO [EMAIL PROTECTED] ONLY, *NOT* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10110
--- Additional Comments From schwab at suse dot de 2003-10-21 15:58 ---
The other error _is_ ada specific, which is trying to use BIGGEST_ALIGNMENT
outside the compiler
PLEASE REPLY TO [EMAIL PROTECTED] ONLY, *NOT* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10110
--- Additional Comments From schwab at suse dot de 2003-10-21 16:02 ---
Created an attachment (id=4973)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=4973action=view
PLEASE REPLY TO [EMAIL PROTECTED] ONLY, *NOT* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12278
schwab at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
PLEASE REPLY TO [EMAIL PROTECTED] ONLY, *NOT* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12223
schwab at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
PLEASE REPLY TO [EMAIL PROTECTED] ONLY, *NOT* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11927
schwab at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
75 matches
Mail list logo
