--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-06 22:56 ---
Fixed in 4.0.0 with the gfortran rewrite. 3.4.6 is about to be released and
there is almost no way to get a non regression fixed.
So closing as fixed for 4.0.0.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
--- Comment #4 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-06 22:56 ---
Subject: Bug 26107
Author: pault
Date: Mon Mar 6 22:56:39 2006
New Revision: 111793
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=111793
Log:
2006-03-06 Paul Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR
--- Comment #7 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-06 22:56 ---
Subject: Bug 19546
Author: pault
Date: Mon Mar 6 22:56:39 2006
New Revision: 111793
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=111793
Log:
2006-03-06 Paul Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR
--- Comment #5 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-06 23:03 ---
Fixed on mainline and will be fixed tomorrow on 4.1.
Paul
--
pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #8 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-06 23:21 ---
This will only be fixed on 4.2. The 4.1 and 4.2 trees have diverged so much in
gfc_get_fake_result_decl that it will be a lot of work to bring it up to the
point where it will take the patch for this PR.
Paul
--
--- Comment #10 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-06 23:25 ---
HJ
Will you port this to 4.1 or should it be closed? My preference would be the
former
Paul
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26041
--- Comment #7 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-07 00:06 ---
Subject: Bug 24519
Author: pault
Date: Tue Mar 7 00:06:37 2006
New Revision: 111796
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=111796
Log:
2006-03-07 Paul Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR
--- Comment #5 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-07 00:06 ---
Subject: Bug 25395
Author: pault
Date: Tue Mar 7 00:06:37 2006
New Revision: 111796
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=111796
Log:
2006-03-07 Paul Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR
--- Comment #7 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-07 00:06 ---
Subject: Bug 26393
Author: pault
Date: Tue Mar 7 00:06:37 2006
New Revision: 111796
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=111796
Log:
2006-03-07 Paul Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR
--- Comment #6 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-07 00:06 ---
Subject: Bug 26107
Author: pault
Date: Tue Mar 7 00:06:37 2006
New Revision: 111796
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=111796
Log:
2006-03-07 Paul Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR
--- Comment #6 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-07 00:06 ---
Subject: Bug 24557
Author: pault
Date: Tue Mar 7 00:06:37 2006
New Revision: 111796
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=111796
Log:
2006-03-07 Paul Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR
--- Comment #8 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-07 00:06 ---
Subject: Bug 20938
Author: pault
Date: Tue Mar 7 00:06:37 2006
New Revision: 111796
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=111796
Log:
2006-03-07 Paul Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR
--- Comment #3 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-07 00:06 ---
Subject: Bug 25089
Author: pault
Date: Tue Mar 7 00:06:37 2006
New Revision: 111796
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=111796
Log:
2006-03-07 Paul Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR
--- Comment #5 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-07 00:06 ---
Subject: Bug 25054
Author: pault
Date: Tue Mar 7 00:06:37 2006
New Revision: 111796
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=111796
Log:
2006-03-07 Paul Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR
--- Comment #12 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-07 01:07
---
In the interim, use the iostat= and test for the error you are looking for. I
am still digging around on this one to make sure I am not in a standard
compliance conflict if I implement this feature.
--
I _think_ I understand C strict aliasing - it's based on the type of
expressions. In the testcase below, the type of expressions is the same, which
is why I think it's a compiler bug.
The bug is reproducible with gcc 4.1.0 on multiple platforms. I've tried i386
(i686) and alpha myself and am
--- Comment #1 from solar at openwall dot com 2006-03-07 01:50 ---
Created an attachment (id=10979)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10979action=view)
testcase
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26587
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-07 02:03 ---
Hmm -O2 -fno-ivopts allows for it to work.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26587
On cygwin, gfortran -fopenmp gives the warning
gfortran: unrecognized option '-pthread'
which gives a heap of failures in the testsuite.
This is set in gcc.c:
/* Adding -fopenmp should imply pthreads. This is particularly important
for targets that use different start files and suchlike.
--
billingd at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Last
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-07 02:08 ---
This is interesting because the mainline works with or without
-fno-strict-aliasing.
Confirmed a regression, hopefully someone will reduce the testcase further.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
--- Comment #1 from billingd at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-07 02:22
---
I am testing this.
2006-03-07 David Billinghurst ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
PR target/26588
* config/i386/cygwin.h (GOMP_SELF_SPECS): Define.
--- cygwin.h~ 2006-02-01 14:17:44.0 +1100
+++
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.1.1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25054
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.1.1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25089
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.1.1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20938
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.1.1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24557
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.1.1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26107
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.1.1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26393
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.2.0 |4.1.1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25395
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.2.0 |4.1.1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24519
--- Comment #12 from diskman at kc dot rr dot com 2006-03-07 04:12 ---
Did I scare everyone off? I have a feeling that the GCC-4.x Fortran code may
have never worked on the Alpha... I could be wrong...
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26564
--- Comment #13 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2006-03-07 04:17 ---
Subject: Re: ../.././libgfortran/mk-kinds-h.sh: Unknown type
On Tue, Mar 07, 2006 at 04:12:10AM -, diskman at kc dot rr dot com wrote:
Did I scare everyone off? I have a feeling that the
I compiled this trivial function on the OS X 10.3.9 g++ compiler, which is
still only version 3.3. With the optimizer enabled -O2, the compiler hangs.
Without optimization, the compile succeeds.
Code:
int f(int x) {
return 1 / (x ? 1 : 0) ;
}
GCC VERSION:
gcc version 3.3 20030304
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-07 04:43 ---
This works in 3.3.2 with the FSF GCC. Please report this bug to Apple first
since it is their modified version of gcc.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #14 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-07 07:16
---
(In reply to comment #12)
Did I scare everyone off?
I have a feeling that the GCC-4.x Fortran code may
have never worked on the Alpha... I could be wrong...
We have had reports of successful building on
--- Comment #13 from paul dot richard dot thomas at cea dot fr 2006-03-07
07:28 ---
Subject: RE: EQUIVALENCE broken in 32-bit code with optimization -O2
Andrew,
Oh, I did miss something, then!
The symptom of this testcase passing might work but the bug
is still there and
most
101 - 136 of 136 matches
Mail list logo
