--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-04
15:29 ---
Subject: Bug 20446
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-04-04 15:29:12
Modified files:
gcc: ChangeLog
gcc/config/sparc:
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-04
15:32 ---
Subject: Bug 20446
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Branch: gcc-4_0-branch
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-04-04 15:32:03
Modified files:
gcc:
--- Additional Comments From ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-04
15:42 ---
See http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-04/msg00359.html
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-04
15:46 ---
Subject: Bug 19956
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Branch: gcc-4_0-branch
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-04-04 15:46:23
Modified files:
gcc/ada:
--- Additional Comments From ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-04
15:48 ---
Patch backported.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Additional Comments From roger at eyesopen dot com 2005-04-04 16:02
---
Subject: Re: [Committed] PR c++/19199: Preserve COND_EXPR lvalueness in fold
Hi Alex,
My apologies yet again for not being more explicit about all of the
things that were wrong (and or I was unhappy with)
--- Additional Comments From mark at codesourcery dot com 2005-04-04 16:39
---
Subject: Re: [3.3/3.4/4.0/4.1 Regression] Wrong warning about
returning a reference to a temporary
Roger --
Thank you for fixing this PR! Very much appreciated.
If I'm reading correctly, the patch is
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-04
17:19 ---
Subject: Bug 4198
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-04-04 17:18:54
Modified files:
gcc: ChangeLog config.gcc
Removed files:
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-04
17:19 ---
Subject: Bug 12027
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-04-04 17:18:54
Modified files:
gcc: ChangeLog config.gcc
Removed files:
--- Additional Comments From ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-04
17:21 ---
Target removed.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|SUSPENDED
--- Additional Comments From ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-04
17:21 ---
Target removed.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|SUSPENDED
--- Additional Comments From nathan at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-04
17:24 ---
2005-04-04 Nathan Sidwell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR c++/20746
* method.c (use_thunk): Protect covariant pointer return
adjustments from NULL pointers.
--
What|Removed
--- Additional Comments From yanliu at ca dot ibm dot com 2005-04-04 17:37
---
Could you tell me which gcc level has the fix? thanks.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20746
--
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.1.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20746
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-04
17:45 ---
Subject: Bug 20746
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-04-04 17:45:17
Modified files:
gcc/cp : ChangeLog method.c
Using a fresh build of gfortran from the cvs archive (old versions of gfortran
hit the now fixed - Internal Error: Recursive library error) I get an error
trying to open a direct access file (g77 and Absoft f77 are happy with it and
gfortran works ok if status='SCRATCH' is used instead of the
--
What|Removed |Added
Component|fortran |libfortran
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20749
--- Additional Comments From joseph at codesourcery dot com 2005-04-04
18:20 ---
Subject: Re: [4.0/4.1 Regression] internal compiler
error: in subreg_regno_offset, at rtlanal.c:3042
On Sun, 3 Apr 2005, danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
On hppa64-hp-hpux*, I think we still have
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-04
19:00 ---
Confirmed.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-04
19:02 ---
Subject: Bug 20725
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-04-04 19:02:18
Modified files:
gcc: ChangeLog tree-ssa-pre.c
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-04
19:02 ---
Subject: Bug 20703
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-04-04 19:02:18
Modified files:
gcc: ChangeLog tree-ssa-pre.c
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-04
19:09 ---
Subject: Bug 20679
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Branch: gcc-4_0-branch
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-04-04 19:09:10
Modified files:
gcc/cp :
--- Additional Comments From dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-04
19:09 ---
Fixed
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
--- Additional Comments From dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-04
19:09 ---
Fixed
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
--
What|Removed |Added
Component|java|libgcj
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20750
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-04
19:11 ---
Subject: Bug 20679
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-04-04 19:11:08
Modified files:
gcc/cp : ChangeLog parser.c
--- Additional Comments From laurent at guerby dot net 2005-04-04 19:13
---
Same failure on 4.1.0 20050404 (experimental) (hppa-unknown-linux-gnu)
seen by J. David Anglin
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20548
--
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.1.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20703
--- Additional Comments From mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-04
19:14 ---
Fixed in 4.0, 4.1.
--
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[3.4/4.0/4.1 Regression]
--
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.1.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20725
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-04
19:15 ---
Confirmed.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
4.1.0 20050404 (experimental)
,.,. C940013 ACATS 2.5 05-04-04 04:31:48
C940013 Check that queues on protected entries are handled FIFO and
that 'count is correct.
free(): invalid pointer 0x6ea80!
free(): invalid pointer 0x71e00!
free(): invalid pointer 0x77100!
free
4.1.0 20050404 (experimental) (hppa-unknown-linux-gnu)
,.,. CB41002 ACATS 2.5 05-04-04 04:42:54
CB41002 Check that the message string input parameter in a call to
the Raise_Exception procedure is associated with the
raised exception occurrence
4.1.0 20050404 (experimental) (hppa-unknown-linux-gnu)
,.,. CE3810B ACATS 2.5 05-04-04 04:57:28
CE3810B CHECK THAT FIXED_IO PUT CAN OPERATE ON STRINGS. ALSO CHECK
THAT LAYOUT_ERROR IS RAISED WHEN THE STRING IS
INSUFFICIENTLY LONG.
Segmentation fault
4.1.0 20050404 (experimental) (hppa-unknown-linux-gnu)
,.,. CXG1005 ACATS 2.5 05-04-04 05:06:11
CXG1005 Check that the subprograms defined in the package
Generic_Complex_Elementary_Functions provide correct
results.
* CXG1005 Incorrect result from Function
--
What|Removed |Added
Summary|ACATS c940013 fails at |ACATS c940013 segfault at
|runtime on hppa-linux |runtime on hppa-linux
This is strange. With gfortran -2.500E-03 get printed two different ways
depending upon what is in the print list before it. g77 looks ok.
[dranta:~/tests/gfortran] dir% g77 -o print03 print03.f
[dranta:~/tests/gfortran] dir% print03
-1.000E-02 -2.000E-02 1.000E-02 2.000E-02 -1.000E-03
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-04
19:45 ---
Subject: Bug 19537
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Branch: gcc-4_0-branch
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-04-04 19:45:14
Modified files:
gcc:
--- Additional Comments From rsandifo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-04
19:53 ---
Patch applied to mainline and 4.0. I forgot to add the PR number
to the initial mainline commit (now corrected) which is why it
didn't show up in the PR.
--
What|Removed
--- Additional Comments From mckinlay at redhat dot com 2005-04-04 20:03
---
Whats the advantage to setting these at configure time? Couldn't java-gcj-compat
just set them when it invokes gij?
It seems a little awkward to hardcode paths like java-1.4.2-gcj-1.4.2.0 into
libgcj when this
--- Additional Comments From aoliva at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-04
20:18 ---
Subject: Re: [Committed] PR c++/19199: Preserve COND_EXPR lvalueness in fold
On Apr 4, 2005, Roger Sayle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My apologies yet again for not being more explicit about all of the
consider these insns from compile/951116-1.c:
(note:HI 2 0 6 NOTE_INSN_DELETED)
(note:HI 6 2 9 NOTE_INSN_FUNCTION_BEG)
(note:HI 9 6 41 0 [bb 0] NOTE_INSN_BASIC_BLOCK)
(insn/f 41 9 42 0 (set (mem:SI (pre_dec:SI (reg/f:SI 15 r15)) [0 S4 A32])
(reg/f:SI 14 r14)) -1 (nil)
--- Additional Comments From fitzsim at redhat dot com 2005-04-04 20:44
---
The advantage is that we can then eliminate the java wrapper script completely
and symlink the java command directly to gij.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20750
--- Additional Comments From amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-04
20:48 ---
Created an attachment (id=8530)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=8530action=view)
proposed patch
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20756
--- Additional Comments From fitzsim at redhat dot com 2005-04-04 20:48
---
I should also mention; currently java-gcj-compat is separate from libgcj because
it depends on ecj. Once gcjx lands we can use it as our bytecode compiler, and
distributions will likely want to merge
--- Additional Comments From amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-04
20:51 ---
Without a fix for PR rtl-optimization/20756, there are new regressions.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20695
The following methods are missing java.aawr:
java.awt.FontMetrics.getMaxCharBounds(java.awt.Graphics)
java.awt.FontMetrics.getStringBounds(java.lang.String, int, int,
java.awt.Graphics)
java.awt.FontMetrics.getStringBounds(java.lang.String, java.awt.Graphics)
--- Additional Comments From mckinlay at redhat dot com 2005-04-04 21:27
---
Yeah, in the case where java-gcj-compat is merged into libgcj (ie libgcj is set
up to look like a JVM) then this option makes sense.
libgcj would install its .jars and whatever other JVMish files applications
Here are three ways to express complexdouble(-4.,0.):
// complexdouble operator-double(const double, const complexdouble)
complexdouble a1 = 1.
- complexdouble(5.0, 0.0);
cout a1 endl; // (-4,-0)
// complexdouble operator-double(const complexdouble, const
--- Additional Comments From wilson at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-04
21:38 ---
See also a thread on the gcc list
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-03/msg00234.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19180
--- Additional Comments From fitzsim at redhat dot com 2005-04-04 21:39
---
Yes, eventually we'll install the same compatibiliy symlink forest we currently
install in java-gcj-compat. For now though I only expect distributions
packaging java-gcj-compat to use this option. For example,
--- Additional Comments From kreckel at ginac dot de 2005-04-04 21:39
---
Created an attachment (id=8531)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=8531action=view)
Avoid using operator-, version 1.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20758
--- Additional Comments From kreckel at ginac dot de 2005-04-04 21:40
---
Created an attachment (id=8532)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=8532action=view)
Avoid using operator-, version 2.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20758
Here are three ways to express complexdouble(-4.,0.):
// complexdouble operator-double(const double, const complexdouble)
complexdouble a1 = 1.
- complexdouble(5.0, 0.0);
cout a1 endl; // (-4,-0)
// complexdouble operator-double(const complexdouble, const
--- Additional Comments From kreckel at ginac dot de 2005-04-04 21:42
---
Sorry, silly repost of form data.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 20758 ***
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From kreckel at ginac dot de 2005-04-04 21:42
---
*** Bug 20759 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20758
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-04
21:45 ---
Neither of the patches are correct.
The correct way is:
complexT(lhs) -= rhs;
Note this has to be done for operator - (const complexT lhs, const T rhs)
also.
Should be done for all three operator - as
--- Additional Comments From kreckel at ginac dot de 2005-04-04 21:52
---
Subject: Re: operator-(const T, const complexT) vs
operator-(const complexT, const complexT)
I don't see how you can trigger wrong behaviour with
operator-(const complexT lhs, const T rhs):
templatetypename
gcc -v:
Configured with: ../gcc-3.4.3/configure --prefix=/u/ki/eabaltz/usr/i386
Thread model: posix
gcc version 3.4.3
command line:
gcc -Wall --save-temps bug.c
this works:
./a.out 1
matrix[0][]:1.0 -2.0 -3.0
matrix[1][]:2.0 4.0 -6.0
matrix[2][]:3.0 6.0 9.0
matrix[0][]:1.0
--- Additional Comments From eabaltz at sophont dot net 2005-04-04 22:00
---
Created an attachment (id=8533)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=8533action=view)
preprocessed source
Preprocessed source file illustrating the bug.
--
Compiler fails to build native compiler when using a cross compiler. Build tries
to use the java jar instead of $(target_noncanonical)-fastjar.
Here is the patch.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] libjava]$ cvs status configure.ac
===
File:
--
What|Removed |Added
Summary|fastjar not correctly |fastjar not correctly
|defined for cross compilers.|defined when compiling with
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Component|java|libgcj
Ever Confirmed||1
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-04
22:19 ---
Subject: Bug 20761
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-04-04 22:19:03
Modified files:
libjava: ChangeLog configure.ac configure
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-04
22:21 ---
Subject: Bug 20761
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Branch: gcc-4_0-branch
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-04-04 22:21:45
Modified files:
libjava:
--- Additional Comments From mckinlay at redhat dot com 2005-04-04 22:31
---
Thanks, I've checked in your patch for this. Note that in theory, fastjar should
be target-neutral, so I don't think it makes much sense to call it
$(target)-fastjar... oh well.
--
What|Removed
Consider:
int
foo (int a, int b)
{
int c = a;
int d;
if (a == c)
d = a;
else
d = b;
return d;
}
Note that a == c always holds, so the whole function should collapse
down to return a;. However, copy-prop on TCB outputs
foo (a, b)
{
int d;
int c;
int D.1137;
bb 0:
c_3
--- Additional Comments From mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-04
22:47 ---
(Bugs should not be marked as FIXED, nor the target milestone moved, so long as
they are still open against 3.4 or later, unless it has been decided that they
will not be fixed there, so I've reopened this
--- Additional Comments From mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-04
22:55 ---
HP, your waiting period is up. May we please have this patch for 4.0?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20527
--- Additional Comments From mark at codesourcery dot com 2005-04-04 23:01
---
Subject: Re: [Committed] PR c++/19199: Preserve COND_EXPR lvalueness in fold
Alexandre Oliva wrote:
If you find that reviewing patch proposals is wasting your time, I'm
sorry.
Of course, untested
--- Additional Comments From mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-04
23:14 ---
This has been approved by RTH here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-04/msg00428.html
Please apply to 4.0 and mainline. Thanks!
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20625
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-04
23:18 ---
(In reply to comment #5)
Isn't the unary operator- a necessary ingredient for the bug because it
silently changes the sign of zero?
I was just quoting what the standard says.
The exact quote is:
Returns
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-04
23:25 ---
L17:;
D.1897 = N - 1;
D.1898 = (unsigned int) D.1897;
N.23 = N;
N.24 = (long unsigned int) N.23;
D.1901 = D.1898 * N.24;
D.1902 = D.1901 * 8;
D.1903 = (double[0:(long unsigned int) (SAVE_EXPR
--- Additional Comments From pcarlini at suse dot de 2005-04-04 23:37
---
Hi. I suspect some of these issues are well known and general, not specific to
our implementation (e.g., the Std vs signed zeros, see N1612, available from:
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-04
23:44 ---
Subject: Bug 20679
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Branch: gcc-3_4-branch
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-04-04 23:43:54
Modified files:
gcc/cp :
--- Additional Comments From mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-04
23:44 ---
Fixed in 3.4.4.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Additional Comments From kraai at ftbfs dot org 2005-04-05 01:02
---
Subject: Re: Ada Bootstrap problem because of -Werror
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 04:47:44AM -, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-04
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-05
01:33 ---
This is also a rejects valid with -Werror.
--
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed||1
Last reconfirmed|-00-00 00:00:00
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-05
01:42 ---
(In reply to comment #6)
Is there a more recent patch version than that referred to in comment #4,
taking account of Mark's comments on that patch version?
I was talking with Roger off the list and he
--
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20584
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-05
01:44 ---
I wonder if this is causing PR 20584.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17577
--
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.1.0 |---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14552
--
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.1.0 |---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17982
--
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.1.0 |---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18382
--
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.1.0 |---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=4720
--
What|Removed |Added
CC||danglin at gcc dot gnu dot
||org
--
What|Removed |Added
CC||danglin at gcc dot gnu dot
||org
--
What|Removed |Added
CC||danglin at gcc dot gnu dot
||org
--
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.1.0 |---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18992
--
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.1.0 |---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17687
--
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.1.0 |---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20070
--
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.1.0 |---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17667
--
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.1.0 |---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20580
--- Additional Comments From ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-05 02:43
---
Patch here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-04/msg00453.html
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From wilson at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-05
04:04 ---
The patch seems to have been incompletely checked in. The ChangeLog entry
claims to be removing code from final.c, but the code is still there.
I laboriously tracked down the problem to the fact that
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-05
04:09 ---
Subject: Bug 9963
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-04-05 04:08:57
Modified files:
gcc: ChangeLog
gcc/config/i386:
--- Additional Comments From roger at eyesopen dot com 2005-04-05 04:22
---
The stricter version is mostly OK, except for one correction and one suggestion.
The correction is that in the case where the replacement wasn't a register, you
shouldn't be calling
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-05
05:15 ---
Subject: Bug 19199
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Branch: gcc-4_0-branch
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-04-05 05:15:23
Modified files:
gcc:
101 - 199 of 199 matches
Mail list logo
