It's now been a month since we created the 4.1 branch.
We've still got 90 open PRs against 4.1, including about 20 P1s. So, we
have our work cut out for us, if we're going to get to a release near
the nominal scheduled date of January 19th. Let's knock 'em down.
My intention is to create the
Today bootstrap fails for me with:
gcc -c -g -I- -I. -Iada -I/cvs/gcc-svn/trunk/gcc/ada
/cvs/gcc-svn/trunk/gcc/ada/ada.ads -o ada/ada.o
ada.ads:16:01: language defined units may not be recompiled
make[3]: *** [ada/ada.o] Error 1
This worked 24 hours ago - with the same bootstrap
gcc -c -g -I- -I. -Iada -I/cvs/gcc-svn/trunk/gcc/ada
/cvs/gcc-svn/trunk/gcc/ada/ada.ads -o ada/ada.o
ada.ads:16:01: language defined units may not be recompiled
make[3]: *** [ada/ada.o] Error 1
This worked 24 hours ago - with the same bootstrap compiler.
I'm trying to hunt down
Hi,
I guess it's about the gcc version. Gcc 3.4.4 does put the zero'd
variables into bss section. But I'd like to know if the older one does
it too. Say 2.95.2 19991024 (release)?
Thanks again.
Eric.
Hi Andreas, this should be related to the fixes to AIX toplevel
bootstrap. My apologies if it is the cause.
Can you try adding these lines to the toplevel Makefile.tpl?
ADAFLAGS = -W -Wall -gnatpg -gnata
ADAFLAGS_FOR_TARGET = -W -Wall -gnatpg -gnata
and changing = to += in config/mt-ppc-aix?
ADAFLAGS = -W -Wall -gnatpg -gnata
ADAFLAGS_FOR_TARGET = -W -Wall -gnatpg -gnata
and changing = to += in config/mt-ppc-aix?
Arnaud, it seems strange that required flags like -gnatpg are on
ADAFLAGS rather than the makefile rules. -c is not in CFLAGS, for
example. Is it possible that
Okay, I see. Yes, there really ought to be an easy way to provide
enough information to reproduce the tree, and $Revision$ isn't it.
I'd like for combine to perform the following simplification:
(insn 14 13 16 0 /home/hp/combined/combined/gcc/config/cris/arit.c:228
(parallel [
(set (reg/v:SI 27 [ b.67 ])
(abs:SI (reg/v:SI 47 [ b ])))
(clobber (reg:CC 19 dccr))
]) 158 {abssi2}
Bonzini [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi Andreas, this should be related to the fixes to AIX toplevel
bootstrap. My apologies if it is the cause.
Can you try adding these lines to the toplevel Makefile.tpl?
ADAFLAGS = -W -Wall -gnatpg -gnata
ADAFLAGS_FOR_TARGET = -W -Wall -gnatpg -gnata
and
On Dec 20, 2005 10:50 AM, Hans-Peter Nilsson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The actual code should be simple; I just want to check that
there's consensus on the actual change before doing it.
Thoughts?
You really have to wonder if cleaning up this jump is a job combine
should be doing. I would
Hi,
Compiling the following code with g++ will report error:`static void
A::operator delete(void*)' is protected. It's correct If B is derived from
A without virtual. Why does the new B expression need to check the
delete operator's accessibility when B is virutally derived from A?
class A
{
Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 11:13:06 +0100 (CET)
From: Steven Bosscher [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You really have to wonder if cleaning up this jump is a job combine
should be doing.
I want it done there *only* because that's what it does for the
similar but even more complex cc0 code and because combine
Yes, -gnatp is certainly not required in all cases (e.g. for debugging).
Sorry if I don't understand. How is a debugging option related to the
error Andreas reported, which is:
gcc -c -g -I- -I. -Iada -I/cvs/gcc-svn/trunk/gcc/ada
/cvs/gcc-svn/trunk/gcc/ada/ada.ads -o ada/ada.o
Sorry if I don't understand. How is a debugging option related to the
error Andreas reported, which is:
No relation, but that was not the question you were asking ;-)
gcc -c -g -I- -I. -Iada -I/cvs/gcc-svn/trunk/gcc/ada
/cvs/gcc-svn/trunk/gcc/ada/ada.ads -o ada/ada.o
ada.ads:16:01:
gcc -c -g -I- -I. -Iada -I/cvs/gcc-svn/trunk/gcc/ada
/cvs/gcc-svn/trunk/gcc/ada/ada.ads -o ada/ada.o
ada.ads:16:01: language defined units may not be recompiled
Here you are missing -gnatpg gnata in your line, although that could be
-gnatg or -gnatpgn
So you need a
So you need a -gnatsomething option, or compilation fails?
You need at the very least -gnatg, although -gnatpg is highly recommended,
and -gnata is highly desirable for development.
Arno
Arnaud Charlet wrote:
So you need a -gnatsomething option, or compilation fails?
You need at the very least -gnatg, although -gnatpg is highly recommended,
and -gnata is highly desirable for development
Ok. For now I'd stick with the patch I proposed to Andreas, but please
tell me if
Ok. For now I'd stick with the patch I proposed to Andreas, but please
tell me if these assertions are right or wrong:
Note that this patch is really kludgy, since it duplicates the default
value of ADAFLAGS in several (at least 3) places, which means that if/when
we decide to change this
ln: creating symbolic link `x86_64-suse-linux-gnu/stage1-x86_64-suse-linux-gnu'
to `stage1-x86_64-suse-linux-gnu': File exists
make[3]: *** [stage1-start] Error 1
make[3]: Leaving directory `/builds/gcc/misc'
make[2]: *** Waiting for unfinished jobs
make[2]: ***
Hi all,
This is my first post. :-)
# I could not find a mailing list dedicated to c++ at
gcc.gnu.org.
# So I post this mailing list.
Recently, I found an odd behavior about dynamic_cast
across shared libraries.
This is my box:
linux kernel-2.4.21
gcc-3.4.3
(Check out my
EXTRA_GCC_FLAGS = \
[...]
`echo 'LANGUAGES=$(LANGUAGES)' | sed -e s'/[^=][^=]*=$$/XFOO=/'` \
Unfortunately, there is no really easy and elegant solution. This one,
for example, would really oblige targets that want to specify Ada-only
flags to also include -Wall -W -gnatpg
Arnaud Charlet wrote:
EXTRA_GCC_FLAGS = \
[...]
`echo 'LANGUAGES=$(LANGUAGES)' | sed -e s'/[^=][^=]*=$$/XFOO=/'` \
Unfortunately, there is no really easy and elegant solution. This one,
for example, would really oblige targets that want to specify Ada-only
flags to also include -Wall
Because the line above, as you know, does not pass LANGUAGES if it is
not set. But if it is set, the value is reset completely, rather than
combined with the value in the subdirectory.
Right, as intended.
So, the AIX makefile fragments config/mh-ppc-aix and config/mt-ppc-aix
could not
gcc -c -g -I- -I. -Iada -I/cvs/gcc-svn/trunk/gcc/ada
/cvs/gcc-svn/trunk/gcc/ada/ada.ads -o ada/ada.o
ada.ads:16:01: language defined units may not be recompiled
So you need a -gnatsomething option, or compilation fails?
Yes, because, as it says, the Ada standard does not
So, the AIX makefile fragments config/mh-ppc-aix and
config/mt-ppc-aix could not just do
ADAFLAGS += -mminimal-toc
ADAFLAGS_FOR_TARGET += -mminimal-toc
The Ada Makefile already takes into account $(X_ADAFLAGS) and
$(T_ADAFLAGS)
Yes, but it provides no way to set them globally. That
Yes, but it provides no way to set them globally. That means, if
something is written in Ada, it has to be in gcc/ada, and if you want to
change some parameter you more or less have to invoke `make' from the
gcc/ada directory.
Well, I'm afraid you've lost me...
What is T_ADAFLAGS used for
Jiutao Nie wrote:
Hi,
Compiling the following code with g++ will report error:`static void
A::operator delete(void*)' is protected. It's correct If B is derived from
A without virtual. Why does the new B expression need to check the
delete operator's accessibility when B is virutally
Arnaud Charlet writes:
Arnaud Although I would need to see the entire issue we're trying to solve
under
Arnaud AIX, since it's not clear at all to me that forcing -mminimal-toc
Arnaud systematically is a good idea to start with. Could you point to a
detailed
Arnaud discussion on the AIX issue
When the data section patch is merged into GCC, this may not be
necessary, so maybe we should just declare GNU Ada unusable on AIX until
that patch is committed.
Didn't you mention it is already broken for other reasons?
Paolo
You can set it for gcc/ada only, not for the benefit of the entire
tree. It makes it hard, for example, to make libada really its own
toplevel directory, because T_ADAFLAGS is set within the gcc target
fragments.
Well, so you're saying there will be, in the future, a potential
problem
Since I don't understand really if what I'm saying makes sense, I think
the best solution is to revert because it is also affecting people that
use --disable-bootstrap (whom I cannot blame at all).
That would certainly be better than the current situation, although if
you look at
[thanks for the general info on what minimal-toc is about, I should
have mentioned I am familiar with the general issue and with this option]
When Ada builds on AIX, libada contains a very large number of TOC
entries. Even the smallest, simplest executable overflows because the
entire
I'm not saying I don't like the idea, but I'm not prepared to do it and
I surely don't want to slip it under the door as obvious.
Well if that's your criteria then sure, your previous change was also not
in the obvious category ;-)
Arno
Well if that's your criteria then sure, your previous change was also not
in the obvious category ;-)
Well, the `obvious' part of it was
flags_to_pass = { flag = ADAFLAGS };
flags_to_pass = { flag = BOOT_ADAFLAGS };
flags_to_pass = { flag = BOOT_LDFLAGS };
which I admit should not have
Personally, I think that the way ADAFLAGS is specified is too
error-prone. I understood that Kenner said, -gnatg is necessary on
the language components, but is actually removing a legitimate warning
for other files such as the compiler.
No, because -gnatg also imposes strict
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[ Why doesn't dynamic_cast work when I dlopen a shared library? ]
I think the right place for this question might have been
gcc-help (http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-help/).
Nevertheless, I think http://gcc.gnu.org/faq.html#dso
should answer your question.
- Dan
--
Wine for
On Tue, Dec 20, 2005 at 03:52:23PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
So, the AIX makefile fragments config/mh-ppc-aix and config/mt-ppc-aix
could not just do
ADAFLAGS += -mminimal-toc
ADAFLAGS_FOR_TARGET += -mminimal-toc
We can't use += in the top level, can we?
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
On 12/20/05, Nathan Sidwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Compiling the following code with g++ will report error:`static void
A::operator delete(void*)' is protected. It's correct If B is derived from
A without virtual. Why does the new B expression need to check the
delete operator's
The 5.3.4 para 16 is also important.
16 If the newexpression creates an object or an array of objects of class
type,
access and ambiguity control are done for the allocation function, the
deallocation function (12.5), and the constructor (12.1). If the new
expression
creates an
When I used to work for Cygnus Solutions (and then Red Hat after they
bought Cygnus in 1999), the general port to an embedded target was
typically done in parallel by 3 people (or 3 groups for large ports).
Before starting out, somebody would design the ABI (either customer
paying for the port,
Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 12:34:30 +0100
From: Hans-Peter Nilsson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I want it done there *only* because that's what it does for the
similar but even more complex cc0 code and because combine does
multi-insn simplifications in general.
Never mind, I think I have a reasonably
GCC 4.1 is getting ICE in ' refers_to_regno_for_reload_p' while
compiling CPU2000/177.mesa on ia32 Linux.
Is that a known issue?
This is what I got:
triangle.c: In function 'simple_z_textured_triangle':
triangle.c:461: internal compiler error: in
refers_to_regno_for_reload_p, at reload.c:
Salut !
Royal Contact a maintenant décidé d'orienter sa clientèle dans la tranche d'âge
entre 18 et 40 ans.
Une publicité sera faite dans les CEGEPS et Universités pour recrutter du
nouveau monde.
Si vous êtes dans cette tranche d'âge, Faites-vous une fiche sur le site et une
fois entré,
On Tue, Dec 20, 2005 at 11:04:11PM +0300, Grigory Zagorodnev wrote:
GCC 4.1 is getting ICE in ' refers_to_regno_for_reload_p' while
compiling CPU2000/177.mesa on ia32 Linux.
Is that a known issue?
This is what I got:
triangle.c: In function 'simple_z_textured_triangle':
triangle.c:461:
Sorry if this has already been answered, but I couldn't find
any status on the site and mailing-list and it's been almost 3
months since the 4.0.2 release. Will there be a 4.0.3 or the
next will be 4.1 ?
--
How to contact me - http://www.pervalidus.net/contact.html
Hi Michael,
first, thanks for your detailed instructions
snip
If your target is a regular target like a RISC platform, the CGEN system
can be used to simplify building the instruction tables:
http://sourceware.org/cgen/
snip
I have already stumbled over cgen on the net and skimmed the
I have already stumbled over cgen on the net and skimmed the
manual. I have noticed that it uses RTL CPU descriptions, I hope
this code can be reused for gcc machine description file.
Nope. The only thing cgen's RTL and gcc's RTL share is the acronym.
The original intention was that CGEN would eventually be able to generate the
MD file for GCC. When I last used CGEN 2 years ago, it was not able to do that
at the time, and I suspect the problem is very complex for real machines,
because often times you have to have various tweaks that don't
Snapshot gcc-3.4-20051220 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/3.4-20051220/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 3.4 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches
This is the beta release of binutils 2.16.91.0.5 for Linux, which is
based on binutils 2005 1219 in CVS on sources.redhat.com plus various
changes. It is purely for Linux.
The new x86_64 assembler no longer accepts
monitor %eax,%ecx,%edx
You should use
monitor %rax,%ecx,%edx
Frédéric L. W. Meunier wrote:
Sorry if this has already been answered, but I couldn't find any status
on the site and mailing-list and it's been almost 3 months since the
4.0.2 release. Will there be a 4.0.3 or the next will be 4.1 ?
There will be a GCC 4.0.3.
I plan to begin work on that
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The original intention was that CGEN would eventually be able to
generate the MD file for GCC. When I last used CGEN 2 years ago, it
was not able to do that at the time, and I suspect the problem is
very complex for real machines [...]
There exists a CGEN/SID/GCC
--- Comment #4 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-20 08:24
---
Subject: Bug 21228
Author: mmitchel
Date: Tue Dec 20 08:24:10 2005
New Revision: 108849
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=108849
Log:
PR c++/21228
* decl.c (use_eh_spec_block):
--- Comment #5 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-20 08:26
---
Subject: Bug 21228
Author: mmitchel
Date: Tue Dec 20 08:26:04 2005
New Revision: 108850
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=108850
Log:
PR c++/21228
* decl.c (use_eh_spec_block):
--- Comment #2 from anlauf at gmx dot de 2005-12-20 08:29 ---
(In reply to comment #0)
I have written a portable version of the module F90_UNIX,
which runs under several platforms but need to be configured
manually. It is available from:
--- Comment #6 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-20 08:30
---
Fixed in 4.0.3.
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #6 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-20 08:47
---
The problem is that directives.c:do_pragma says:
/* Squirrel away the pragma text. Pragmas are
newline-terminated. */
However, as this example shows, simply saving
--- Comment #7 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-20 08:48
---
Subject: Bug 21228
Author: mmitchel
Date: Tue Dec 20 08:48:13 2005
New Revision: 108851
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=108851
Log:
PR c++/21228
* decl.c (use_eh_spec_block):
--- Comment #4 from belyshev at depni dot sinp dot msu dot ru 2005-12-20
09:17 ---
// short testcase, compile with -m32 -march=i386 -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer
extern void abort (void);
static int j;
static void __attribute__((noinline))
f1 (int a, int b, int c, int d, int e)
{
j =
--- Comment #3 from nicos at maunakeatech dot com 2005-12-20 09:20 ---
I was under the belief that out of class definitions of const static integral
members was optional for gcc and that static const N = k; was equivalent to
enum { N = k};, was I wrong ?
--
--- Comment #5 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-20 10:17 ---
Re. comment #4: but this new PR has a much simpler test case :-)
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25196
--
steven at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |steven at gcc dot gnu dot
|dot org
--- Comment #12 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-20 10:48 ---
Almost certainly a dup of PR25196
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23453
--- Comment #13 from belyshev at depni dot sinp dot msu dot ru 2005-12-20
10:59 ---
Marking as dup of bug 25196 because that bug contains simpler test case.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 25196 ***
--
belyshev at depni dot sinp dot msu dot ru changed:
--- Comment #6 from belyshev at depni dot sinp dot msu dot ru 2005-12-20
10:59 ---
*** Bug 23453 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
belyshev at depni dot sinp dot msu dot ru changed:
What|Removed |Added
On i686-pc-mingw32, configuring with the following:
../gcc/configure --prefix=/mingw --enable-languages=c,fortran
--with-gmp=$HOME/local --with-mpfr=$HOME/local --disable-libssp
--disable-libmudflap --disable-nls --with-ld=/mingw/bin/ld
--with-as=/mingw/bin/as
and running make gives:
cc1.exe:
--- Comment #1 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-20 11:35
---
Same problem for gcc/cfg.c, gcc/loop-unroll.c, gcc/loop-iv.c and others. Seems
like a definition problem with HOST_WIDEST_INT_PRINT_DEC.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25502
--- Comment #14 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-20 11:55 ---
This has been fixed on the trunk earlier with Joern's patch and now on
gcc-4_1-branch as well.
--
jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
Summary: g++ accepts invalid typedef in template code
Product: gcc
Version: 4.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #1 from d dot bonekaemper at rtsgroup dot net 2005-12-20 12:28
---
(Sorry, pressed return to early...)
g++ accepts the following code, which contains a typedef that's supposed to act
as a static assert.
--- Comment #9 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2005-12-20 14:15 ---
Created an attachment (id=10535)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10535action=view)
fix the #ifndef - use #ifdef instead
--
bonzini at gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #21 from hjl at lucon dot org 2005-12-20 14:44 ---
Steven, see comment #1. I was talking about the testcase.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25305
--- Comment #6 from kazu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-20 14:47 ---
Subject: Bug 25501
Author: kazu
Date: Tue Dec 20 14:47:07 2005
New Revision: 108853
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=108853
Log:
gcc/
PR tree-optimization/25501
* tree-cfgcleanup.c
--- Comment #7 from kazu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-20 14:48 ---
Just checked in a patch.
--
kazu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #6 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-20 14:58 ---
Slightly less reduced testcase that doesn't have uninitialized variables:
// { dg-options -O2 -funroll-loops }
// { dg-do compile }
inline void *operator new (__SIZE_TYPE__, void *__p) throw() { return __p; }
--- Comment #7 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-20 14:59 ---
Does not fail with trunk or the head of the gcc 4.1 branch. But it does fail
with gcc 4.0.2. I'm going to try it with the head of the gcc 4.0 branch now.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25196
--- Comment #7 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-20 15:40 ---
The problem is regrename pass.
replace_oldest_value_reg called indirectly from copyprop_hardreg_forward
doesn't validate the change, so if both old and new registers are in the same
class, but only the old one is
--- Comment #8 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-20 15:58 ---
Gross. According to a comment in postreload.c:move2add_note_store(), we can
have pushes without REG_INC notes:
/* Some targets do argument pushes without adding REG_INC notes. */
So we need to go look for those
--- Comment #2 from bangerth at dealii dot org 2005-12-20 16:03 ---
Confirmed. The typedef is only rejected if it is actually used to define
a variable.
W.
--
bangerth at dealii dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #26 from papadako at csd dot uoc dot gr 2005-12-20 16:07
---
I still can't profiledbootstrap gcc 4.1 branch. Stops with the following
message:
tage1/xgcc -Bstage1/ -B/usr/gcc_4_1/i486-slackware-linux/bin/ -c -O2 -g
-fomit-frame-pointer -fprofile-use
--- Comment #14 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-20 16:11 ---
The patch proposed in bug 25196 comment #8 indeed makes the test case from
comment #6 in this PR work (at least, it stops it from segfaulting).
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23453
--- Comment #4 from bangerth at dealii dot org 2005-12-20 16:14 ---
Yes, you were wrong. This certainly can't be equivalent to the enum snippet
you posted since once can take the address of this static member, but can't
take the address of an enum member.
W.
--
--- Comment #7 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-20 16:20 ---
Subject: Bug 24306
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Dec 20 16:20:27 2005
New Revision: 108854
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=108854
Log:
2005-12-20 Richard Guenther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR
--- Comment #5 from fang at csl dot cornell dot edu 2005-12-20 16:27
---
Subject: Re: [4.0/4.1/4.2 Regression] Forward explicit
intantiation declaration doesn't mix well with static integral member
--- Comment #3 from nicos at maunakeatech dot com 2005-12-20 09:20
---
I
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-20 16:37 ---
Would be caused by:
2005-08-23 Mark Mitchell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* hwint.h (HOST_WIDE_INT_PRINT): Use HOST_LONG_LONG_FORMAT.
2004-11-23 Mark Mitchell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* hwint.h
--- Comment #3 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-20 16:44
---
This was discussed after I posted the patch. The GCC format-checking stuff
does not know about the Windows extensions. So, on MinGW, you should
--disable-werror. This bug should be reclassified as a diagnostic
--- Comment #22 from kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-20 17:01 ---
The testcase isn't needed and should not be committed.
As explained elsewhere, the problem was caused by merging
one line from a 4.1 patch into 4.0 that should not have
been committed. Jerry has fixed that problem.
--- Comment #10 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2005-12-20 17:06 ---
Subject: Bug 25115
Author: bonzini
Date: Tue Dec 20 17:06:14 2005
New Revision: 108855
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=108855
Log:
2005-12-20 Roger Sayle [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Paolo Bonzini
--- Comment #11 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2005-12-20 17:22 ---
patch committed
--
bonzini at gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #6 from gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2005-12-20 17:23
---
Subject: Re: [4.0/4.1/4.2 Regression] Forward explicit intantiation
declaration doesn't mix well with static integral member
fang at csl dot cornell dot edu [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| Subject: Re:
--- Comment #8 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-20 17:23 ---
Subject: Bug 24306
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Dec 20 17:23:12 2005
New Revision: 108857
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=108857
Log:
2005-12-20 Richard Guenther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR
--- Comment #9 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-20 17:24 ---
Fixed on head and 4.1.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known
--- Comment #10 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-20 17:29
---
Created an attachment (id=10535)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10535action=view) [edit]
fix the #ifndef - use #ifdef instead
Much better! However:
stage1/xgcc -Bstage1/
--- Comment #2 from rth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-20 17:40 ---
Subject: Bug 25240
Author: rth
Date: Tue Dec 20 17:40:17 2005
New Revision: 108859
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=108859
Log:
PR preprocessor/25240
* directives.c (run_directive):
--- Comment #2 from pbrook at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-20 17:48 ---
Patch here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-12/msg01534.html
--
pbrook at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from rth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-20 18:00 ---
Fixed.
--
rth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #5 from kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-20 18:15 ---
Subject: Bug 25458
Author: kargl
Date: Tue Dec 20 18:15:19 2005
New Revision: 108861
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=108861
Log:
2005-12-20 Steven G. Kargl [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Tobias
--- Comment #1 from pbrook at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-20 18:15 ---
Looks like a dup of PR23482
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 23482 ***
--
pbrook at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from pbrook at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-20 18:15 ---
*** Bug 25136 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
pbrook at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
I generally expect 'gcc -ansi -Wall' to catch non-portable code, but it does
not throw a warning about variable-size arrays.
'gcc -ansi -pedantic' does throw an appropriate warning. However, it appears
that MSVC still doesn't support this feature, and so I think it would be more
appropriate to
1 - 100 of 149 matches
Mail list logo
