Arnaud Charlet wrote:
As for building GNAT, you do need the same environment to
run make check-ada, meaning an existing Ada compiler in your PATH
to support the infrastructure of make check (this compiler is not tested
by make check-ada, only used by the infrastructure).
Thanks.
May I suggest
Sandeep Kumar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I didnt get your point. I am allocating space only for 400 inregers
then as soon as in the loop if it crosses the value of 400 , it should
have given a segementation voilation ?
No. For that to happen, you need some memory checker. GCC has -fmudflap, try
Hi,
I've triaged open bugs with GCC-3.4.5 as target. At the moment,
we're left with 2 bugs I consider critical. We should try to fix them
before the release:
middle-end/18956 [3.4 only] [hppa] 'bus error' at runtime while
passing a special struct to a C++ member
Gabriel Dos Reis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm planning a release for the end of the month.
I've fired the release script to build a pre-release tarball,
which should be ready any moment now.
Thanks. Are there official plans for the 3.4 branch after this release?
--
Giovanni Bajo
Daniel Berlin wrote:
The bottom line is that personally, I'm not in love with tree-ssa or my
code enough that I think ego should stand in the way of GCC making the
right decision. I would hope others who have written the shiny new
tree optimizers feel the same way.
Seconded. I will
Giovanni Bajo [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| Gabriel Dos Reis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
|
| I'm planning a release for the end of the month.
| I've fired the release script to build a pre-release tarball,
| which should be ready any moment now.
|
| Thanks. Are there official plans for the 3.4
Richard,
in the context of internal discussions regarding target/24757 I have
been made aware of a change to the sync operations on ia64, and I have
problems understanding
This differs from the generic code in that we know about the
zero-extending
properties of cmpxchg, and the
Thomas Quinot wrote:
* Joel Sherrill [EMAIL PROTECTED], 2005-11-17 :
I hope the explanation above helps make it clearer.
Yes, thanks for the clarification. In light of this explanation the
proposed fix seems appropriate; maybe a comment could be added along
with the extern declaration to
* Joel Sherrill [EMAIL PROTECTED], 2005-11-21 :
How about this? Can I commit it?
Looks good, please go ahead.
Thanks!
Thomas.
--
Thomas Quinot, Ph.D. ** [EMAIL PROTECTED] ** Senior Software Engineer
AdaCore -- Paris, France -- New York, USA
Mark Mitchell wrote:
I've reviewed the GCC 4.2 projects on the Wiki.
It certainly looks like some exciting stuff is in the pipeline.
I hope it is not too late to merge the Code Factoring Optimizations branch
in GCC 4.2. The branch is stable and brings about 2% code size save.
I am going to
How about this? Can I commit it?
Please always remember to provide a changelog when submitting a patch,
thanks ;-)
Patch is OK, assuming reasonable changelog entry.
Arno
Index: gcc/ada/socket.c
===
--- gcc/ada/socket.c
Hi,
I'm currently trying to build an Ada cross compiler for ARM using the arm-rtems
target. I tried with GCC 4.0.2 and subversion-version but I failed.
What should I know to do this knowing that I already built the C and C++
cross-compilers ?
Thanks
Fred
Hi all, hi Danny,
recently I noticed a very stupid but annoying (new!) issue: comments end
up wrongly formatted. I think there is a mismatch between the wideness
of the Additional Comments free form and the wideness after which
chars are wrapped upon the Commit. Thus, I write 'til close to the
Paolo Carlini wrote:
Hi all, hi Danny,
recently I noticed a very stupid but annoying (new!) issue: comments end
up wrongly formatted. I think there is a mismatch between the wideness
of the Additional Comments free form and the wideness after which
chars are wrapped upon the Commit. Thus, I
On Mon, Nov 21, 2005 at 04:21:15PM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
What am I missing?
I don't know. If folk think I'm wrong about these semantics,
feel free to submit a patch.
r~
Looking at the changes to unwind-dw2-fde-glibc.c, I see that the parts
of
the code I've shown here were structured differently in the 4.0 branch
(which works just fine for me with static builds). Maybe that's a clue.
Um, I don't see that at all. I see some minor changes wrt abort,...
On Mon, 2005-11-21 at 18:52 +0100, Sebastian Pop wrote:
Paolo Carlini wrote:
Hi all, hi Danny,
recently I noticed a very stupid but annoying (new!) issue: comments end
up wrongly formatted. I think there is a mismatch between the wideness
of the Additional Comments free form and the
On Mon, 2005-11-21 at 17:14 +0100, Frédéric PRACA wrote:
Hi,
I'm currently trying to build an Ada cross compiler for ARM using the
arm-rtems
target. I tried with GCC 4.0.2 and subversion-version but I failed.
What should I know to do this knowing that I already built the C and C++
Daniel Berlin wrote:
On Mon, 2005-11-21 at 18:52 +0100, Sebastian Pop wrote:
Paolo Carlini wrote:
Hi all, hi Danny,
recently I noticed a very stupid but annoying (new!) issue: comments end
up wrongly formatted. I think there is a mismatch between the wideness
of the Additional Comments
Is it obvious that my issue is not the same as Sebastian'? I'm talking
about text written by hand in the Additional Comments free form. The
free form presents itself with a given wideness, which I trust when
writing my comment to choose carefully the length of the lines and add
appropriate
Daniel Berlin wrote:
Is it obvious that my issue is not the same as Sebastian'? I'm talking
about text written by hand in the Additional Comments free form. The
free form presents itself with a given wideness, which I trust when
writing my comment to choose carefully the length of the lines and
Daniel Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| Is it obvious that my issue is not the same as Sebastian'? I'm talking
| about text written by hand in the Additional Comments free form. The
| free form presents itself with a given wideness, which I trust when
| writing my comment to choose
Daniel Berlin wrote:
If you attach a patch and your mail client is sane, it will be marked as
a patch attachment to the bug
Okay, thanks.
On Mon, Nov 21, 2005 at 12:09:08PM -0500, Scott Gilbertson wrote:
The problem doesn't appear with branch-4.0 (same glibc). Do you suppose the
gcc has recently started using some busted glibc feature (busted in my
old-ish glibc, that is) that wasn't being used before...
Well, a new feature,
On Mon, 21 Nov 2005, Giovanni Bajo wrote:
I didnt get your point. I am allocating space only for 400 inregers
then as soon as in the loop if it crosses the value of 400 , it should
have given a segementation voilation ?
No. For that to happen, you need some memory checker. GCC has -fmudflap,
On Mon, 2005-11-21 at 18:49 +0100, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
Daniel Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| Is it obvious that my issue is not the same as Sebastian'? I'm talking
| about text written by hand in the Additional Comments free form. The
| free form presents itself with a given
Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On Mon, 2005-11-21 at 17:14 +0100, Frédéric PRACA wrote:
Hi,
I'm currently trying to build an Ada cross compiler for ARM using the arm-rtems
target. I tried with GCC 4.0.2 and subversion-version but I failed.
What should I know to do this knowing that I already built the
Morning gcc-hackers!
I was wondering why combine could piece together two insns like these:
snip!
(insn 11 5 12 0 0x1002f330 (set (reg:QI 74)
(mem:QI (reg/v/f:SI 70) [0 S1 A8])) 25 {movqi} (insn_list 3 (nil))
Selon Joel Sherrill [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On Mon, 2005-11-21 at 17:14 +0100, Frédéric PRACA wrote:
Hi,
I'm currently trying to build an Ada cross compiler for ARM using the
arm-rtems
target. I tried with GCC 4.0.2 and subversion-version but I
Daniel Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| I can also add a checkbox to make it not autowrap a comment by marking
| them as already wrapped
Yes!!!
Thanks,
-- Gaby
Hi
Do anyone know if there exist any project to get GCC support checking of MISRA
C rules? Otherwise, do anyone think this is a good idea?
BR,
Fredrik
On Mon, 2005-11-21 at 12:15 -0600, Joel Sherrill wrote:
arm-rtems4.7 does build C, C++, and Ada on the gcc SVN head. I have
done no testing beyond that.
Is there a simulator for arm? Frederic do you have a testing
environment in mind? What --enable-rtemsbsp=X should I use?
I'm building up
The tarballs for GCC-3.4.5 pre-release are available at
ftp://gcc.gnu.org:/pub/gcc/prerelease-3.4.5-20051121/
Please download and test them.
Please, fill bugzilla PRs if you cencounter problems and make sure I'm
in the CC: list.
Thanks,
-- Gaby
On Mon, Nov 21, 2005 at 08:14:14PM +0100, Fredrik Hederstierna wrote:
Hi
Do anyone know if there exist any project to get GCC support checking
of MISRA C rules? Otherwise, do anyone think this is a good idea?
Not that I know of, and personally I think it's a terrible idea,
although I'm sure
Laurent GUERBY wrote:
On Mon, 2005-11-21 at 12:15 -0600, Joel Sherrill wrote:
arm-rtems4.7 does build C, C++, and Ada on the gcc SVN head. I have
done no testing beyond that.
Is there a simulator for arm? Frederic do you have a testing
environment in mind? What --enable-rtemsbsp=X should
Frédéric PRACA wrote:
Selon Laurent GUERBY [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Mon, 2005-11-21 at 12:15 -0600, Joel Sherrill wrote:
arm-rtems4.7 does build C, C++, and Ada on the gcc SVN head. I have
done no testing beyond that.
Is there a simulator for arm? Frederic do you have a testing
environment
Daniel Jacobowitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| On Mon, Nov 21, 2005 at 08:14:14PM +0100, Fredrik Hederstierna wrote:
| Hi
|
| Do anyone know if there exist any project to get GCC support checking
| of MISRA C rules? Otherwise, do anyone think this is a good idea?
|
| Not that I know of, and
Not that I know of, and personally I think it's a terrible idea,
Ok, you might be right, but I'm curious why you think it's so terrible though.
Is it becasue GCC hardly can be considered a safe compiler by the
standardisation organisations due to the nature of the development process,
which
I installed the two patches below, in lign with your status report
and plans for 3.4.5 and 3.4.6.
Gerald
Index: index.html
===
RCS file: /cvs/gcc/wwwdocs/htdocs/index.html,v
retrieving revision 1.527
diff -u -3 -p -r1.527
Thanks to everyone for the information below. I have change the
CC to cc only. So, now the script is:
CC=cc
export CC
../gcc-4.0.2/configure
gmake bootstrap
and I get the errors:
checking for sparc-sun-solaris2.9-gcc... no
checking for gcc... no
checking for sparc-sun-solaris2.9-cc... no
Hi,
When one does a
typedef uint8_t array[10];
what does really happen ?
For example, i was looking at some code in the public domain, which had
it like this ..
u8 is again typedef'd from a unsigned char
#define TS_PACKET_SIZE 188
#define TS_IN_UDP 7
typedef u8
Fredrik Hederstierna wrote:
Not that I know of, and personally I think it's a terrible idea,
Ok, you might be right, but I'm curious why you think it's so terrible though.
Some people chafe at the idea of arbitrary restrictions being put on
them in the name of protecting them from
On Sun, 2005-11-20 at 12:01, Rafael Ávila de Espíndola wrote:
What do you thing about adding an assert? Something similar to the attached
patch.
I think there is no chance of a user seeing this problem. It can only
occur when working on a front end, in which case the problem would be
obvious
CC to cc only. So, now the script is:
CC=cc
export CC
../gcc-4.0.2/configure
gmake bootstrap
Do not export CC and do not use a relative path:
CC=cc $absolute_path/configure ...
Also, the ask why I was using the flags I was. The only reference I found
to sparc where the
Fredrik Hederstierna [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| Not that I know of, and personally I think it's a terrible idea,
|
| Ok, you might be right, but I'm curious why you think it's so terrible though.
I believe it defines a miserable subset of C with miserable coding
rules -- albeit used in some
Robert Dewar [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| I cannot speak for others, but my quick look as what MISRA C is,
| left me not really wanting to be subjected to it.
|
| Fine, you probably will not find SC environments to be your cup of tea :-)
We've gotten to deal with SC people and they do also
Joe Buck wrote:
I think that this discussion is premature; no one is proposing to
contribute a patch or signing up to start working on one, right? Until
then, arguing about the goodness of MISRA C isn't really relevant to
GCC development.
I agree, and by the way, though not sharing quite so
Robert Dewar [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| You would do much better with a qualified tool to enforce the subset
| (GCC itself cannot conceivably be qualified).
I believe we're in agreement :-)
-- Gaby
Rainer Emrich wrote:
ERROR: could not compile testsuite_shared.cc
This is the important bit. The libstdc++ testsuite tried to compile a
support file and failed, so it generated an error. The rest is just a
tcl backtrace which we don't need.
The real question here is why it failed. There
Thank you very much Mr. Naishlos.
-Balaji V. Iyer.
-Original Message-
From: Dorit Naishlos [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, November 21, 2005 3:47 PM
To: Balaji V. Iyer
Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: Vectorizer in GCC 4.0
Hello Everyone,
I am interested in knowing
Hello Everyone,
I am interested in knowing more about the vectorizer in GCC. Does
anyone have or know of any statistics about the percentage of loops
that can be vectorized in some benchmarks like MediaBench, SPEC2K and
so forth?
I have some old Spec2000 statistics, from around
Manu Abraham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
When one does a
typedef uint8_t array[10];
what does really happen ?
This question does not concern the development of the GCC compiler in any way,
so it does not belong here. Please post it to support forums for th eC
language.
Giovanni Bajo
On Tue, 22 Nov 2005, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
On Sat, 19 Nov 2005, Chris Lattner wrote:
This is a direct result of the representation that you are proposing to use
for IPA. LLVM is *always* capable of merging two translation units correctly,
So compilation options which change the semantics
On Sat, 2005-11-19 at 10:14 -0500, Kaveh R. Ghazi wrote:
Hi Dan,
(BTW, sorry for the reposted messages.)
While I was waiting for some svn commands to finish (cleanup,
update) on my solaris2.7 box, which has a slow filesystem, I
happened to run truss -p svn-pid out of
On Mon, Nov 21, 2005 at 10:20:26PM -0500, Kaveh R. Ghazi wrote:
Some OSes (like linux I believe) cache the lookups of the parent
directories so the speedups are not as pronounced. However GCC is
developed, and SVN is probably used, on many more places than just
linux filesystems. I
Hi,
my latest typo (a typename in the return statement of a template
function) caused an internal compiler error with gcc 4.0.2 and
gcc 3.4.3. (No ICE with gcc 3.3.4).
#include utility
templatetypename It typename std::pairIt,double
test(It it)
{
return typename std::pairIt,double(it, 0.0);
--- Comment #2 from bonzini at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-21 08:24 ---
easy_altivec_constant should only be called with AltiVec integer vector modes,
all of which can be represented with a const_vector of const_ints. Anyway,
looking into it.
Paolo
--
bonzini at gcc dot gnu dot
--- Comment #9 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-21 09:02
---
It should now work again on all supported platforms.
Confirmed on all versions of Solaris. Thanks!
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24909
--- Comment #2 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-21 09:11
---
(In reply to comment #0)
conjga = conj(*pa);
or
conjga = conjl(*pa);
or
conjga = conjf(*pa);
I'm ready to do that, but since complex numbers in C are always a pain, I want
to know: are we sure that
--- Comment #3 from bonzini at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-21 09:12 ---
Got a patch, but I am curious about Andrew's comment. I couldn't find a reason
why r106588 *introduced* the bug rather than unveiling a latent one.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24951
--- Comment #11 from krebbel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-21 09:29
---
Ok, knowing that this may only happen if the return value
of a function has a complex type a trivial fix could look
like this:
Index: gcc/flow.c
===
--- Comment #12 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-21 09:41 ---
Subject: Bug 17965
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Nov 21 09:41:42 2005
New Revision: 107289
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=107289
Log:
PR middle-end/17965
* calls.c (expand_call,
--- Comment #13 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-21 09:43 ---
Subject: Bug 20303
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Nov 21 09:43:10 2005
New Revision: 107290
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=107290
Log:
2005-05-18 H.J. Lu [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR
--- Comment #1 from charlet at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-21 09:43 ---
I got a bugzilla internal error when trying to attach a proposed
patch, so here it is inline (be careful with tabs and spaces,
I'd suggest applying the patch manually):
--- libada/Makefile.in.orig 2005-11-21
--- Comment #10 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-21 09:52 ---
Subject: Bug 17828
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Nov 21 09:52:20 2005
New Revision: 107297
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=107297
Log:
PR target/17828
*
--- Comment #12 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-21 09:55 ---
Subject: Bug 20268
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Nov 21 09:55:14 2005
New Revision: 107300
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=107300
Log:
PR debug/20268
* dwarf2out.c
--- Comment #31 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2005-11-21 10:40 ---
(In reply to comment #30)
Created an attachment (id=10303)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10303action=view) [edit]
Defines __cplusplus to 199711L and overrides it in c++config.h for solaris 8
As-is,
--- Comment #39 from gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-21 10:41 ---
Fixed in 4.0.0 and higher.
Won't fix for 3.4.x
--
gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #16 from pluto at agmk dot net 2005-11-21 11:29 ---
without Uros' mmx-patch the gcc-4.1.0-20051113 generates amazing code:
(gcc -O3 -march=pentium3 -S -fomit-frame-pointer pr14552.c)
test: subl$20, %esp
movlw, %eax
movlw+4, %edx
movl
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|uros at kss-loka dot si |unassigned at gcc dot gnu
|
--- Comment #17 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2005-11-21 11:34 ---
Sorry.
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot
--- Comment #15 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-21 11:45
---
FreeBSD has the same problem with missing long double math
functions. I tried to add an appropriate XFAIL clause for
FreeBSD, but dejagnu would still process the file.
Huh... the following patch fixes the
--- Comment #16 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-21 12:04
---
(In reply to comment #15)
Huh... the following patch fixes the problem for me. Can I install it?
Fine with me. Consider approved after testing on some C99-aware platform (like
solaris2.10). Please commit on
The following source will report
C:\Dev-Cpp\Projects\test-stlport\main_17.cpp In function `void test_17()':
12 C:\Dev-Cpp\Projects\test-stlport\main_17.cpp [Warning] will never be
executed
12 C:\Dev-Cpp\Projects\test-stlport\main_17.cpp [Warning] will never be
executed
when using
FAIL: tmpdir-gcc.dg-struct-layout-1/t026 c_compat_x_tst.o-c_compat_y_tst.o
execute
(more specifically, test2495 fails)
--
Summary: [4.1/4.2 Regression] tmpdir-gcc.dg-struct-layout-1/t026
fails execution
Product: gcc
Version: 4.1.0
--- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-21 12:22 ---
Created an attachment (id=10306)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10306action=view)
testcase
Compile and link the three files in the tar with -O0.
--
--- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-21 12:26 ---
works on i686 with 4.1.0 and 4.0.2
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #32 from pedro dot lamarao at mndfck dot org 2005-11-21 12:26
---
Yes, I'll take a shot at this.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1773
--- Comment #3 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-21 12:29 ---
4.0.2 seems to fail also, maybe a testsuite bug? Still somebody needs to
investigate closer.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #7 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-21 13:14 ---
Subject: Bug 24653
Author: hubicka
Date: Mon Nov 21 13:14:02 2005
New Revision: 107304
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=107304
Log:
PR tree-optimization/24653
* tree-ssa-ccp.c
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-21 13:17 ---
Fixed for 4.0.0.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #33 from pedro dot lamarao at mndfck dot org 2005-11-21 13:26
---
Created an attachment (id=10307)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10307action=view)
Defines __cplusplus to 199711L and overrides it for solaris 8 *only*
Please see comment #33 before
--- Comment #34 from pedro dot lamarao at mndfck dot org 2005-11-21 13:29
---
I attached a patch containing Paolo's suggestions.
It was produced with svn diff -x -up after an svn copy like this:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] gcc] svn copy libstdc++-v3/config/os/solaris/solaris2.{7,8}
svn diff
--- Comment #8 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-21 13:30 ---
Fixed at least on the mainline for 4.2.0.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #35 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2005-11-21 13:35 ---
(In reply to comment #34)
I attached a patch containing Paolo's suggestions.
Thanks. Looks fine to me. If Eric could test it on his Solaris machines it
would be great (remember the svn copy! ;) ...
Before finally
--- Comment #4 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-21 13:40 ---
Old value = 0
New value = 1
check2495 (arg0={a = 27121, b = {c = {d = true, e = 359101392}}},
arg1=0x5019ec, arg2={a = 30216, b = {c = {d = true, e = 1}}})
at t026_y.min.i:71
71 if (arg2.b.c.e !=
--- Comment #10 from ray at ultramarine dot com 2005-11-21 13:52 ---
(In reply to comment #9)
(In reply to comment #8)
Tried yesterday's snapshot of 4.1 and it still does not work.
OK, I'm on it. Looks like someone forgot about CRLF systems :)
I'll try to submit a first patch
--- Comment #36 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-21 13:59
---
Thanks. Looks fine to me. If Eric could test it on his Solaris machines it
would be great (remember the svn copy! ;) ...
Sure.
Before finally committing it, probably we want to add a short comment before
When trying to compile the attached source file with
$ ~/gcc/bin/g++ --version
g++ (GCC) 4.2.0 20051121 (experimental)
with the options
/Users/eschnett/gcc/bin/g++ -DCARPET_INT -DCARPET_REAL -DCARPET_COMPLEX
-mlongcall -ftrapv -fwrapv -fbounds-check -g3 -Wall -Wshadow -Wpointer-arith
-Wcast
--- Comment #1 from schnetter at aei dot mpg dot de 2005-11-21 14:01
---
Created an attachment (id=10309)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10309action=view)
Failing source code
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24970
--- Comment #11 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-21 14:02
---
(In reply to comment #10)
The following changes in transfer.c appear to fix the problem in Linux:
Confirming this patch, I have something similar in my own tree. But there are
some other problems with CRLF and
--- Comment #2 from schnetter at aei dot mpg dot de 2005-11-21 14:03
---
Created an attachment (id=10310)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10310action=view)
Failing preprocessed sourc code (gzipped)
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24970
--- Comment #17 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-21 14:06
---
Fine with me. Consider approved after testing on some C99-aware platform (like
solaris2.10)
Thanks. My main machine is actually x86-64/Linux so I've verified there that
the large real tests are still
--- Comment #5 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-21 14:06 ---
Disassembly with the first two checks removed (only the third aborts):
foo:
.LFB2:
subq$24, %rsp #,
.LCFI0:
movlx+8(%rip), %eax #, tmp62
movl16(%rsp), %edx #, tmp60
--- Comment #12 from jvdelisle at verizon dot net 2005-11-21 14:21 ---
Subject: Re: GFORTRAN input and carriage returns
fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
--- Comment #11 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-21 14:02
---
(In reply to comment #10)
The
--- Comment #6 from matz at suse dot de 2005-11-21 14:25 ---
Something is fishy. Iff registers are used for passing then it would have to
be %rdi and %rsi (not %rax)! So the high part of this struct (where the
bitfield lies) is not passed at all here. Per ABI this whole struct
should
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|middle-end |target
Keywords||ABI
Target
--- Comment #7 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-21 14:35 ---
More reduced/simplified:
void abort(void);
struct S2495 {
int a;
struct{
int d;
int e:31;
} c;
};
struct S2495 x;
void foo(struct S2495 a) __attribute__((noinline));
void foo(struct S2495
--- Comment #2 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2005-11-21
14:36 ---
Subject: Re: [4.1/4.2 Regression] make[7]: rc: Command not found
Apparently the libada Makefile is not passing some variables to ada/Makefile
properly, so this patch might address the problem you are
--- Comment #9 from hubicka at ucw dot cz 2005-11-21 14:44 ---
Subject: Re: [4.1 regression] EON regressed seriously on x86-64
--- Comment #8 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-21 13:30
---
Fixed at least on the mainline for 4.2.0.
I am going to fix it on
1 - 100 of 239 matches
Mail list logo
