On May 16, 2006, at 7:39 PM, fsshl plinlin wrote:
Dear gcc and/or apple OS X 7.9 users:
Union-Souths-Computer:~/gcc-5250 UnionSouth$ cat config.log
This file contains any messages produced by compilers while
running configure, to aid debugging if configure makes a mistake.
configure:595:
Hi,
Following RMS request of removing source copies of other projects I
asked him if he considers it ok to have copies of the generic math
transcendentals routines of glibc in libgcc-math and to distribute
them under GPL + libgcc exception clause license. He denied that
request and so, after
Diego Novillo wrote on 05/01/06 12:07:
The x86 box that runs SPEC2000 daily has hardware problems.
It's now working again.
http://people.redhat.com/dnovillo/spec2000.i686/gcc/
Richard Guenther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| Hi,
|
| Following RMS request of removing source copies of other projects I
| asked him if he considers it ok to have copies of the generic math
| transcendentals routines of glibc in libgcc-math and to distribute
| them under GPL + libgcc exception
On Wed, 17 May 2006, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
Richard Guenther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| Hi,
|
| Following RMS request of removing source copies of other projects I
| asked him if he considers it ok to have copies of the generic math
| transcendentals routines of glibc in libgcc-math
Richard Guenther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[...]
| As far as I understand we (GCC) have to develop our own codes
| independently of glibc unless RMS agrees to have copies/forks of
| glibc code in GCC (this includes license changes to GPL + libgcc exception
| like in this case). What is fine as
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, May 16, 2006 at 01:11:54PM +0200, Mohamed Boukaa wrote:
---Also when I compile a simple program by myself I got :
~ $ ./testaz
bash: ./testaz: Permission denied
However the portage is working fine , it can compile C and
On May 17, 2006, at 1:06 AM, Eric Fisher wrote:
Does gcc support Simple Chinese language for now? Is there anyone
working on this?
I think you'll want to talk with the GNU translation project, they do
all of this stuff, we just add whatever they do to gcc.
Richard Guenther wrote:
Hi,
Following RMS request of removing source copies of other projects I
asked him if he considers it ok to have copies of the generic math
transcendentals routines of glibc in libgcc-math and to distribute
them under GPL + libgcc exception clause license. He denied
On 15 May 2006 15:47, Andreas Krebbel wrote:
[rA + rB] = [rA + rB] 3;
1. SRC rB - rD
2. SRC rA - RC
3. DEST rB - rD
4. DEST rA - RC
last 3 changes. If the subsequent call to apply_change_group fails we
end up with:
[rA + rB] = [rA + rD] 3;
Which now could still be invalid as it is
On Mon, May 15, 2006 at 12:09:00AM +0800, Rémy Saissy wrote:
To manage the manipulation of the register class, I added entries in
the i386.md file.
;; get a value from a segment register.
(define_insn store_seg
[(set (match_operand:SI 0 nonimmediate_operand )
(match_operand:SI 1
Hi Dave,
thanks for your comments.
Doesn't this mean that your insn patterns should be using numerical (aka
matching) constraints?
Oh we are using matching constraints. But of course nobody except reload does
care
about them. If the only constraints for an operand are matching constraints
I am (finally...) starting the 4.1.1 RC1 build.
Please do not check in any changes on the 4.1 branch, even if previous
approved.
Thanks,
--
Mark Mitchell
CodeSourcery
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(650) 331-3385 x713
I noticed that http://gcc.gnu.org/buildstat.html only lists the build
status of GCC up to 4.0.x. Do you need a volunteer to create a page
for 4.1.x?
--
Martin Michlmayr
http://www.cyrius.com/
good question, actually I did not know where is the error too.
to solve by easy, can you just email me a cc binary of (MAC OS X 7.9,
apple G5)yours by email?
Union-Souths-Computer:~/Developer/usr/local/bin UnionSouth$ ./gcc
../../../try.cgcc: error trying to exec 'cc1': execvp: No such file or
directory
On Thu, May 18, 2006 at 12:17:33AM +0200, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
I noticed that http://gcc.gnu.org/buildstat.html only lists the build
status of GCC up to 4.0.x. Do you need a volunteer to create a page
for 4.1.x?
I maintain the GCC build status lists and have gotten way, way behind.
On May 17, 2006, at 4:32 PM, fsshl plinlin wrote:
Union-Souths-Computer:~/Developer/usr/local/bin UnionSouth$ ./gcc
../../../try.cgcc: error trying to exec 'cc1': execvp: No such file or
directory
This list is for developers of gcc. You should be using gcc-help.
FWIW you need more than
Richard Guenther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| As far as I understand we (GCC) have to develop our own codes
| independently of glibc unless RMS agrees to have copies/forks of
| glibc code in GCC (this includes license changes to GPL + libgcc exception
| like in this case). What is fine as
qwangpolestar wrote:
Hi, David
Thanks a lot.
I am using gcc-3.2.2 and glibc-2.3.2. Maybe it's too old.
How about yours?
I never used anything earlier than 3.3.0 on mips. Basic ffi call support
for mips existed in that version. We added ffi closures in 4.0 IIRC
(although I have back ported
--- Comment #3 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-17 06:31
---
I cannot reproduce on the SPARC/Solaris 9 machine I use. Please provide as
many details as you can on the OS, the linker, the assembler, GCC, GDB and so
on.
--
ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
This testcase generates some kind of initalization of uninitialized part of the
structure:
--cut here--
struct ret_struct
{
int long_buf[10];
};
struct ret_struct
strc_test (int i)
{
struct ret_struct ret;
ret.long_buf[0] = i;
ret.long_buf[1] = 0x2;
ret.long_buf[2] = 0x3;
--- Comment #9 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-17 08:24 ---
Subject: Bug 27549
Author: jakub
Date: Wed May 17 08:23:55 2006
New Revision: 113843
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=113843
Log:
PR tree-optimization/27549
Backported from
--- Comment #11 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-17 08:24 ---
Subject: Bug 27283
Author: jakub
Date: Wed May 17 08:23:55 2006
New Revision: 113843
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=113843
Log:
PR tree-optimization/27549
Backported from
--- Comment #7 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-17 08:28 ---
Subject: Bug 27548
Author: jakub
Date: Wed May 17 08:27:57 2006
New Revision: 113844
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=113844
Log:
2006-05-17 Zdenek Dvorak [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR
--- Comment #10 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-17 08:32 ---
Subject: Bug 27549
Author: jakub
Date: Wed May 17 08:31:51 2006
New Revision: 113845
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=113845
Log:
PR tree-optimization/27549
*
--- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-17 08:35 ---
SRA decomposes structure assignment retval = ret
strc_test (i)
{
struct ret_struct ret;
bb 2:
ret.long_buf[0] = i_1;
ret.long_buf[1] = 2;
ret.long_buf[2] = 3;
ret.long_buf[3] = 4;
ret.long_buf[4] = 5;
--- Comment #1 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-17 08:35 ---
Subject: Bug 27415
Author: jakub
Date: Wed May 17 08:35:01 2006
New Revision: 113846
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=113846
Log:
PR middle-end/27415
* tree.h
--- Comment #4 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-17 08:43 ---
Subject: Bug 27491
Author: jakub
Date: Wed May 17 08:42:47 2006
New Revision: 113847
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=113847
Log:
PR c++/27491
* semantics.c
--- Comment #5 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-17 08:44 ---
Subject: Bug 27491
Author: jakub
Date: Wed May 17 08:44:36 2006
New Revision: 113848
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=113848
Log:
PR c++/27491
* semantics.c
--- Comment #6 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-17 08:45 ---
Fixed in SVN.
--
jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #11 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-17 08:46 ---
Fixed in SVN.
--
jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
--- Comment #19 from jserv at kaffe dot org 2006-05-17 08:48 ---
I encountered the same problem with gcc-3.4.6 for ARM targets. Even I applied
18081.patch, the situation of infinite memory allocation still exists. Since
gcc-3.4 is closed, I wonder if there is a fix against gcc-3.4.6.
--- Comment #2 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-17 08:53 ---
Fixed in SVN.
--
jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #5 from soete dot joel at tiscali dot be 2006-05-17 08:56
---
Created an attachment (id=11481)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=11481action=view)
just another similar test case regarding double equivalent pb
compile with -O2 the Nan3.s is:
.LEVEL 1.1
--- Comment #3 from bernds at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-17 09:42 ---
Subject: Bug 27620
Author: bernds
Date: Wed May 17 09:42:23 2006
New Revision: 113850
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=113850
Log:
PR middle-end/27620
* expr.c (safe_from_p):
--- Comment #15 from dave dot korn at artimi dot com 2006-05-17 10:03
---
I'm new maintainer for Cygwin gcc. I'll be rolling a release with the patch
Paolo proposed rather than using the configure option, although if binary
compatibility problems do crop up I'll look at the second
--- Comment #16 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2006-05-17 10:09 ---
Ok. Hopefully, before the end of this week I can tell you something trustworthy
about binary compatibility.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24196
--- Comment #8 from rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-17 11:33 ---
Subject: Bug 27548
Author: rakdver
Date: Wed May 17 11:33:00 2006
New Revision: 113853
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=113853
Log:
PR tree-optimization/27548
*
// { dg-do run }
// { dg-options -O2 }
char heap[5];
int
main ()
{
for (unsigned ix = sizeof (heap); ix--;)
heap[ix] = ix;
return 0;
}
(distilled from http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=113851
PR middle-end/27620 testcase) is miscompiled on {x86_64,i?86}-linux at -O2.
--- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-17 11:58 ---
Confirmed.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
--- Comment #5 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-17 12:04
---
Subject: Bug 27553
Author: fxcoudert
Date: Wed May 17 12:04:17 2006
New Revision: 113854
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=113854
Log:
PR fortran/27553
* parse.c (next_free):
--- Comment #2 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-17 12:06
---
Subject: Bug 27320
Author: fxcoudert
Date: Wed May 17 12:06:42 2006
New Revision: 113855
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=113855
Log:
PR fortran/27320
* dump-parse-tree.c
--- Comment #6 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-17 12:07
---
Fixed on 4.1 and mainline.
--
fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #9 from dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-17 12:07 ---
Fixed
--
dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
--- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-17 12:17 ---
scev_probably_wraps_p returns false because we recorded a max of 49 iteration
from
(gdb) call debug_generic_expr ( loop-bounds-next-at_stmt)
D.1993_10 = (charD.3) ixD.1987_7
using infer_loop_bounds_from_undefined
--- Comment #3 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-17 12:24 ---
Not infering loop bounds from type conversions fixes it.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
I get the following segfault with gcc 4.2.0 20060419. 4.0/4.1 work.
14640:[EMAIL PROTECTED]: ~] /usr/lib/gcc-snapshot/bin/g++ -c mini.c
mini.c: In constructor 'refcountedT, scalar::refcounted(const A1) [with A1 =
refnfsserv, T = nfsserv_ac]':
mini.c:88: instantiated from 'void
--- Comment #1 from tbm at cyrius dot com 2006-05-17 12:32 ---
Created an attachment (id=11483)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=11483action=view)
test case
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27640
--- Comment #8 from tbm at cyrius dot com 2006-05-17 12:47 ---
(In reply to comment #7)
A regression hunt identified this patch:
http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?view=revrev=112869
r112869 | mmitchel | 2006-04-11 22:59:57 + (Tue, 11 Apr 2006)
Mark, can you comment?
--
--- Comment #4 from spop at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-17 12:47 ---
Subject: Bug 27332
Author: spop
Date: Wed May 17 12:47:43 2006
New Revision: 113856
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=113856
Log:
PR middle-end/27332
* tree-loop-linear.c
--- Comment #5 from tbm at cyrius dot com 2006-05-17 12:49 ---
(In reply to comment #4)
Actually the orginal testcase here was not fixed by the patch which is going
to
fix PR 26626 either.
So reopening.
Daniel, since you fixed 26626, do you think you could take a look at this one
--- Comment #4 from rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-17 13:02 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
scev_probably_wraps_p returns false because we recorded a max of 49 iteration
from
(gdb) call debug_generic_expr ( loop-bounds-next-at_stmt)
D.1993_10 = (charD.3) ixD.1987_7
using
--- Comment #5 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-17 13:05 ---
It's
(set_scalar_evolution
(scalar = D.1993_10)
(scalar_evolution = {79, +, -1}_1))
)
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27639
--- Comment #6 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-17 13:05 ---
And we infer
Found new range for D.1993_10: [-INF, 79]
from it.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27639
--- Comment #7 from aoliva at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-17 13:08 ---
I suspect http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=113298 fixes it,
testing now...
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27639
--- Comment #8 from rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-17 13:11 ---
It's
(set_scalar_evolution
(scalar = D.1993_10)
(scalar_evolution = {79, +, -1}_1))
)
Then it is a bug in chrec_convert (might also be related to PR 27619).
--
The following code segfaults if compiled statically using libpthread.a from
Fedora Core 4 (2.6.16-1.2107_FC4) with gcc-4.0.2, but will run ok if
dynamically linked to libpthread.so.0. Here the code:
#include list
#include pthread.h
void* tf (void* tp)
{
pthread_exit (0);
}
int main ()
{
--- Comment #9 from rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-17 13:12 ---
(In reply to comment #8)
It's
(set_scalar_evolution
(scalar = D.1993_10)
(scalar_evolution = {79, +, -1}_1))
)
Then it is a bug in chrec_convert (might also be related to PR 27619).
sorry, I
--- Comment #10 from aoliva at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-17 13:18 ---
Yep, confirmed, that fixes it. Richard, will you propose your patch for 4.1 as
well, or should I?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27639
--- Comment #11 from rguenther at suse dot de 2006-05-17 13:22 ---
Subject: Re: [4.1/4.2 regression] VRP miscompilation
of simple loop
On Wed, 17 May 2006, aoliva at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
--- Comment #10 from aoliva at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-17 13:18
---
--- Comment #12 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-17 13:24
---
Ok, the patch fixes this PR, but not PR26719.
Index: tree-chrec.c
===
--- tree-chrec.c(revision 113852)
+++ tree-chrec.c(working
--- Comment #13 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-17 13:33
---
I cannot reproduce this bug on the 4.1 branch at all.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27639
--- Comment #14 from rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-17 13:40
---
(In reply to comment #12)
Ok, the patch fixes this PR, but not PR26719.
Index: tree-chrec.c
===
--- tree-chrec.c(revision 113852)
+++
--- Comment #15 from aoliva at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-17 13:41 ---
That's odd. I can't reproduce the bug in mainline, but I could in the 4.1
branch, until I applied your patch.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27639
--- Comment #16 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-17 13:47
---
(bugzilla doesn't like my mail-replies it seems)
Currently we have a type-mismatch type vs. ct, where ct is the canonical type
for step/base. I guess this was a typo.
--
--- Comment #17 from rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-17 13:54
---
(In reply to comment #16)
(bugzilla doesn't like my mail-replies it seems)
Currently we have a type-mismatch type vs. ct, where ct is the canonical type
for step/base. I guess this was a typo.
Umm.. right,
--- Comment #3 from bernds at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-17 13:54 ---
Subject: Bug 22541
Author: bernds
Date: Wed May 17 13:54:38 2006
New Revision: 113859
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=113859
Log:
PR bootstrap/22541
From Dan Kegel [EMAIL
--- Comment #18 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-17 14:03
---
Hmm, I see. But scev_probably_wraps_p is messed up for non-matching types, and
fixing it the other way around doesn't work. At least I think we should also
bail out if the original chrec wraps. Think of
(int)
--- Comment #5 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-17 14:11
---
Subject: Bug 26551
Author: fxcoudert
Date: Wed May 17 14:11:40 2006
New Revision: 113860
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=113860
Log:
PR fortran/26551
* resolve.c
--- Comment #6 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-17 14:15
---
Subject: Bug 26551
Author: fxcoudert
Date: Wed May 17 14:14:56 2006
New Revision: 113861
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=113861
Log:
Testcase forgotten in the previous commit.
--- Comment #19 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-17 14:21
---
if we are checking in scev_probably_wraps_p if the chrec does wrap in the
target
type we should _not_ use signed-types-don't-wrap as we do now:
/* After having set INIT_IS_MAX, we can return false: when not
--- Comment #20 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-17 14:24
---
Still, this all looks like a mess at the moment. Sebastian, can you please
have a look?
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #6 from spop at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-17 14:26 ---
Subject: Bug 26435
Author: spop
Date: Wed May 17 14:25:59 2006
New Revision: 113862
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=113862
Log:
PR middle-end/20256
PR middle-end/26435
*
--- Comment #11 from spop at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-17 14:26 ---
Subject: Bug 20256
Author: spop
Date: Wed May 17 14:25:59 2006
New Revision: 113862
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=113862
Log:
PR middle-end/20256
PR middle-end/26435
*
--- Comment #21 from rguenther at suse dot de 2006-05-17 15:06 ---
Subject: Re: [4.1/4.2 regression] VRP miscompilation
of simple loop
On Wed, 17 May 2006, rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
--- Comment #14 from rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-17 13:40
---
--- Comment #22 from rguenther at suse dot de 2006-05-17 15:06 ---
Subject: Re: [4.1/4.2 regression] VRP miscompilation
of simple loop
On Wed, 17 May 2006, rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
--- Comment #8 from rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-17 13:11
---
--- Comment #23 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-17 15:07
---
The patch in comment #12 bootstrapped and regtested ok on
x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, which just hints at very poor testsuite coverage of
all this stuff.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27639
--- Comment #7 from bryce at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-17 15:10 ---
Subject: Bug 27352
Author: bryce
Date: Wed May 17 15:09:57 2006
New Revision: 113863
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=113863
Log:
PR libgcj/27352
* java/lang/Class.java
--- Comment #4 from sebor at roguewave dot com 2006-05-17 15:12 ---
Here's the verbose output from the compiler driver:
$ gcc -v t.c
Using built-in specs.
Target: sparc-sun-solaris2.9
Configured with: /build/sebor/gcc-4.1.0/configure --enable-languages=c,c++
--- Comment #8 from mckinlay at redhat dot com 2006-05-17 15:18 ---
Fixed
--
mckinlay at redhat dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #9 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-17 15:29 ---
Subject: Bug 27548
Author: jakub
Date: Wed May 17 15:29:18 2006
New Revision: 113864
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=113864
Log:
PR tree-optimization/27548
*
I updated the source tree this morning and the gfortran build now fails -
rm -rf libbackend.a
ar rc libbackend.a double-int.o tree-chrec.o tree-scalar-evolution.o
tree-data-ref.o tree-cfg.o tree-dfa.o tree-eh.o tree-ssa.o tree-optimize.o
tree-gimple.o gimplify.o tree-pretty-print.o
--- Comment #18 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-17 15:36
---
It appears that HJ's patches are now checked in. Can we close this PR?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26885
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |mark at codesourcery dot com
|dot org
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-17 16:01 ---
Can someone also test 4.1.1?
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from bernds at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-17 16:03 ---
Subject: Bug 27620
Author: bernds
Date: Wed May 17 16:03:25 2006
New Revision: 113866
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=113866
Log:
PR middle-end/27620
* expr.c (safe_from_p):
--- Comment #10 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-17 16:11
---
Fixed.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
The following test case crashes:
$ gcj -C PipeImpl.java
$ gcj -c *.class -o t.o
PipeImpl.java:0: internal compiler error: in java_mark_cni_decl_local, at
java/decl.c:2182
class PipeImpl
{
public PipeImpl ()
{
VMPipe.init (this);
}
}
final class VMPipe
{
static native void
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-17 16:20 ---
This is not a bug, if this shows up in real code, it should be changed.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-17 16:28 ---
Back trace:
#0 0x001a2758 in expand_virtual_init (binfo=0xd8c0c0, decl=0xd92840) at
../../gcc/cp/init.c:781
#1 0x0019fb7c in dfs_initialize_vtbl_ptrs (binfo=0xd8c0c0, data=0xdb63c0) at
../../gcc/cp/init.c:112
#2
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot
|
--- Comment #6 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-17 16:45 ---
Both of the testcases here were fixed by the patch for PR 27373.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 27373 ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #10 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-17 16:45
---
*** Bug 27085 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
version 4.1.1 20060517 (prerelease)
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27642
--- Comment #3 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-17 17:24
---
Subject: Bug 26068
Author: mmitchel
Date: Wed May 17 17:24:00 2006
New Revision: 113869
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=113869
Log:
PR c++/26068
* parser.c
--- Comment #4 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-17 17:27
---
Fixed in 4.2.
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
This patch:
2006-05-16 H.J. Lu [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* Makefile.in (GCC_OBJS): Replace options.o with gcc-options.o.
(gcc-options.o): New rule.
* optc-gen.awk: Protect variables for gcc-options.o with
#ifdef GCC_DRIVER/#endif.
is causing bootstrap failures:
gcc
--- Comment #1 from mark at codesourcery dot com 2006-05-17 17:38 ---
Subject: Re: New: [4.1 regression] Bootstrap failure
on native ARM targets
rearnsha at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
This patch:
2006-05-16 H.J. Lu [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* Makefile.in (GCC_OBJS): Replace
--- Comment #5 from sebor at roguewave dot com 2006-05-17 17:43 ---
I'm told that the fault is due to a known problem in the Sun libc:
6372620 printstack() segfaults when called from static function
It this doesn't provide sufficient detail to work around the bug in gcc
(assuming you
1 - 100 of 168 matches
Mail list logo
