Andrew,
Thanks for the hint. I make the patch as being only...
===
--- intl/localcharset.c (revision 116795)
+++ intl/localcharset.c (working copy)
@@ -23,6 +23,13 @@
# include config.h
#endif
+#if !HAVE_ICONV
+
+/* Provide
Andrew,
Doesn't the proposed patch to intl/localcharset.c pretty
much fall under the obvious rule?
Jack
On 9/9/06, Mark Mitchell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Kenny Simpson wrote:
What is the status of the 4.1 branch? Any word on 4.1.2?
My current plan is to do a 4.1.2 along with 4.2.0. My concern has been
that with 4.2.0 moving slowly, trying to organize another release might
just distract the
My original attempt to build gcc trunk yesterday used the
cctools from Xcode 2.3 and produced the failure...
/bin/sh ./libtool --mode=compile /sw/src/fink.build/gcc4-4.1.999-20060908/darwin
_objdir/./gcc/xgcc -B/sw/src/fink.build/gcc4-4.1.999-20060908/darwin_objdir/./gc
c/
hi,
I am looking into implementing a new instrumentation pass in gcc
called a globalizer and I would be really grateful for feedback
on whether or not such a pass could be considered for inclusion
(from a purely technical perspective).
1) Rationale
I work on network simulation
On 09 September 2006 16:34, mathieu lacage wrote:
The idea is to change the way the address of a global
variable is calculated: rather than merely access a memory
area directly or through the GOT, we need to add another
level of indirection.
The simplest way to add another level of
On Sat, 2006-09-09 at 16:52 +0100, Dave Korn wrote:
I think this would be a great feature to have, even if it did only work with
simple globals and couldn't handle TLS.
Disclaimer: I haven't thought it through thoroughly yet :) Nor am I sure
whether the better solution might not be to
On Sat, 2006-09-09 at 17:34 +0200, mathieu lacage wrote:
Another solution would be to do something like this:
extern void *magic_function (void *variable_uid);
static int a;
void foo (void)
{
void *ptr = magic_function (a);
int *pa = (int *)ptr;
*pa = 1;
}
I think
Snapshot gcc-4.2-20060909 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.2-20060909/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.2 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/trunk
(Google does not requires me to write this report, yet I would like to
bring some attention to the project, hoping that patches are reviewed
and open issues are discussed.)
The following is the final report on my Google's Summer of Code
project. It summarises what we have achieved so far, which
Using the cctools from Xcode 2.4, the failure changes and moves to the linkage
of libgfortran itself...
ld: .libs/maxloc0_4_r16.o unknown flags (type) of section 2
(__TEXT,__literal16) in load command 0
ld: .libs/maxloc0_8_r16.o unknown flags (type) of section 2
(__TEXT,__literal16) in load
On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 01:27:45PM -0700, Steve Ellcey wrote:
I am not sure what the 'right' way to do this is. I wound up editing
/usr/share/dejagnu/remote.exp to change 'set timeout 300' to 'set
timeout 2000' and I edited /usr/share/dejagnu/config/unix.exp to change
'set status
Eric,
One last question. Is it correct to assume that when
the newer cctools with the literal16 support becomes
available, things like 'integer(16)' will become available
in gfortran for darwin?
Jack
Jack Howarth wrote:
Eric,
One last question. Is it correct to assume that when
the newer cctools with the literal16 support becomes
available, things like 'integer(16)' will become available
in gfortran for darwin?
Seems reasonable to expect that it could be made to happen.
-eric
Has anyone else noticed that the testcase
long-long-cst1.c has started to fail on both
powerpc-apple-darwin8.5.0 and on other ppc
targets like powerpc64-unknown-linux-gnu? It
appears to be still passing as of r116775 and
to be failing as of r116778.
Jack
On Sat, 2006-09-09 at 22:16 -0400, Jack Howarth wrote:
It appears to be still passing as of r116775 and
to be failing as of r116778.
The testcase was just added at r116777 so it cannot be a regression.
-- Pinski
Andrew,
Odd. When I do 'svn log', the entry for r116777 doesn't show
a testcase being added. Oh, well.
Jack
That's not correct. The linker support only exists in ld64 for Xcode
2.4. It fails like this for ld(32). 32-bit Darwin targets shouldn't be
using this assembly feature...
Shantonu
On Sep 9, 2006, at 12:16 PM, Eric Christopher wrote:
Using the cctools from Xcode 2.4, the failure changes
Shantonu Sen wrote:
That's not correct. The linker support only exists in ld64 for Xcode
2.4. It fails like this for ld(32). 32-bit Darwin targets shouldn't be
using this assembly feature...
Right, I knew that. Looks like I have a typo though. Bah.
I'll fix it shortly. Though nothing wrong
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-09 06:40 ---
lookup_destructor has become dead code which did the checking at least on the
mainline.
finish_pseudo_destructor_expr is where the new code is now.
Adding:
if (scope !check_dtor_name (scope, destructor))
--- Comment #13 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-09 06:44 ---
I think if we are going to leave the vector initializer as a CONSTANT, we might
as well just leave it alone entirely if it has TREE_CONSTANT set.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28915
--- Comment #19 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-09 07:16 ---
Yep, after merging the 101673 change back in, the compiler works up until
101467, at which point Jakub's ppc sfp change seems to break the testcase (at
-O1).
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28493
--- Comment #2 from echristo at apple dot com 2006-09-09 08:12 ---
Yup. A new cctools is needed now.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28995
--
echristo at apple dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |echristo at apple dot com
|dot org
--- Comment #3 from echristo at apple dot com 2006-09-09 08:53 ---
FWIW I just hacked up a quick autoconf test for the feature as well if we'd
prefer to have that as well...
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28995
--- Comment #4 from echristo at apple dot com 2006-09-09 08:54 ---
Created an attachment (id=12212)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=12212action=view)
autoconf test
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28995
The fix is incomplete. The following testcase still fails:
==
struct A
{
static void foo();
};
void bar()
{
A().foo;
}
==
bug.cc: In function 'void bar()':
bug.cc:8: warning: statement is a reference, not call, to function 'A().A::foo'
--- Comment #1 from reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-09 10:44
---
The fix is incomplete.
This should read: The fix for PR 26696 is incomplete.
--
reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #12 from reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-09 10:47
---
The problem from comment #10 is now tracked in PR 28996.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26696
--- Comment #24 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-09 10:54 ---
Closing because mainline is faster than 4.0
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15678
--- Comment #25 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-09 10:54 ---
.
--
steven at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
--- Comment #5 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-09 10:56
---
Subject: Bug 28634
Author: rsandifo
Date: Sat Sep 9 10:56:31 2006
New Revision: 116796
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=116796
Log:
gcc/
PR rtl-optimization/28634
* reorg.c
--- Comment #6 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-09 11:01
---
Applied to 4.1 after testing on mipsisa64-elf and mips64-linux-gnu.
Although the bug has been around for a long time, it isn't known to
be a regression from 4.0 to some earlier release, so it doesn't
qualify for a
--- Comment #2 from patchapp at dberlin dot org 2006-09-09 12:35 ---
Subject: Bug number PR28923
A patch for this bug has been added to the patch tracker.
The mailing list url for the patch is
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-09/msg00341.html
--
--- Comment #10 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2006-09-09 12:43 ---
Subject: Bug 26778
Author: bonzini
Date: Sat Sep 9 12:43:32 2006
New Revision: 116798
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=116798
Log:
gcc:
2006-09-09 Paolo Bonzini [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dale
--- Comment #11 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2006-09-09 12:56 ---
The patches for the blocking bugs should also be applied if anyone wants to
backport, together with http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-04/msg00432.html
I won't do a backport though.
--
bonzini at gnu dot org
--- Comment #5 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2006-09-09 13:02 ---
fwprop fixes the bug on i386-pc-linux-gnu
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28940
--- Comment #6 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2006-09-09 13:03 ---
I plan to fix it via the fwprop merge in 4.3, but not in 4.2. Should I still
assign this to me?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28940
--- Comment #2 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2006-09-09 13:05 ---
Janis, could you do a binary search? On 4.1 branch the bug was not in r115546,
and was there in r115639.
Thanks.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28604
--- Comment #3 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2006-09-09 13:06 ---
Janis, could you do a binary search? On 4.1 branch the bug was not in r115546,
and was there in r115639.
Thanks.
--
bonzini at gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #5 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-09 13:19 ---
Even without building fortran, this gives a lot of regressions:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2006-09/msg00462.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28995
--
lmillward at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |lmillward at gcc dot gnu dot
|dot org
--- Comment #2 from patchapp at dberlin dot org 2006-09-09 13:20 ---
Subject: Bug number PR c++/28301
A patch for this bug has been added to the patch tracker.
The mailing list url for the patch is
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-09/msg00344.html
--
--- Comment #3 from patchapp at dberlin dot org 2006-09-09 13:25 ---
Subject: Bug number PR c++/28303
A patch for this bug has been added to the patch tracker.
The mailing list url for the patch is
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-09/msg00346.html
--
--
lmillward at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |lmillward at gcc dot gnu dot
|dot org
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-09 13:27 ---
Confirmed.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
lmillward at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |lmillward at gcc dot gnu dot
|dot org
--- Comment #3 from patchapp at dberlin dot org 2006-09-09 13:38 ---
Subject: Bug number PR c++/28861
A patch for this bug has been added to the patch tracker.
The mailing list url for the patch is
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-09/msg00348.html
--
Configure statement was: ../gcc-4.1.0/configure --prefix=/usr/local
--enable-languages=c,c++,fortran,java --with-gmp=/usr/local/lib
--with-mpfr=/usr/local/lib
Results of make:
checking for nawk... no
checking for awk... awk
checking whether make sets $(MAKE)... yes
checking for
--- Comment #1 from danp57 at optonline dot net 2006-09-09 13:44 ---
Build directory was gcc-4.1.1.obj/
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28997
--- Comment #2 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-09 14:17 ---
I have just posted a patch to the list.
Paul
--
pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-09 14:18 ---
I have just posted the patch to the list.
Paul
--
pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #12 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-09 15:32 ---
Paolo already said he won't backport his patch. And it seems like a bad idea
to backport reload patches to release branches. So closing this bug as FIXED
for mainline.
--
steven at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
--- Comment #18 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-09 16:11 ---
Subject: Bug 26957
Author: jason
Date: Sat Sep 9 16:11:34 2006
New Revision: 116799
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=116799
Log:
PR c++/26957
* method.c (use_thunk): Fix patch
--
jason at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |jason at gcc dot gnu dot org
|dot org
-Wstrict-prototypes
-Wmissing-prototypes -Wold-style-definition -Wmissing-format-attribute
-fno-common -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I. -I../../gcc-4.2-20060909/gcc
-I../../gcc-4.2-20060909/gcc/. -I../../gcc-4.2-20060909/gcc/../include
-I./../intl -I../../gcc-4.2-20060909/gcc/../libcpp/include -I/sw/include
-I
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-09 17:48 ---
I am going to assume you are building GCC on a G4 which means you have to use
--disable-multilib.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #30 from dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-09 17:55
---
Subject: Re: [4.0/4.1/4.2 Regression] alias bug with cast and call clobbered
Patch coming in a sec
On 9 Sep 2006 15:02:37 -, reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--
--
--- Comment #9 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-09 18:23 ---
I have a fix for this which I am testing right now.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #5 from danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-09 18:25 ---
I would like to request that this bug to be reopened.
First, the test never failed on hppa*-*-linux*, so we now have two
XPASS's on this target. Second, between 15 and 17 August, the second
xfail for hppa*-*-*
--- Comment #6 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-09 18:34 ---
I don't know what should be the difference between hpux and linux PA, though
this is an issue of IVOPTs and rtl costs.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #7 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2006-09-09
18:45 ---
Subject: Re: g++.dg/tree-ssa/ivopts-1.C fails
I don't know what should be the difference between hpux and linux PA, though
this is an issue of IVOPTs and rtl costs.
I've the dump files for
--- Comment #7 from echristo at apple dot com 2006-09-09 18:57 ---
You run autoheader and autoconf.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28995
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-09 19:10 ---
I think the problem is that i++ is being replaced with i = 1 and (i = 1) = 2;
turns out to be legal C++.
If we add to boolean_increment to build a NON_LVALUE_EXPR, we will get an error
at least I hope.
--
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-09 19:29 ---
Yep that worked, testing the fix.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #8 from howarth at nitro dot med dot uc dot edu 2006-09-09
19:44 ---
Eric,
I've been running autoheader and autoconf in the gcc source subdirectory.
It does cause configure to run the test which results in...
configure:13732: checking assembler for .literal16
--- Comment #9 from echristo at apple dot com 2006-09-09 19:51 ---
Yeah, might be better off just bracketing the literal16 code in darwin.c with
#ifdef HAVE_GAS_LITERAL16. Want to do that?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28995
--- Comment #10 from howarth at nitro dot med dot uc dot edu 2006-09-09
19:53 ---
Sure. I'll test it shortly and post.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28995
--- Comment #20 from mkoeppe at gmx dot de 2006-09-09 19:53 ---
Hi all,
as being pointed from PR 28968 to this one, I now tested make bootstrap with
several gcc versions on native Interix/SFU 3.5 on W2K-SP4. The bootstrap
compiler is interix gcc 3.3.
In particular I tested
- gcc-3.3.6
--- Comment #11 from echristo at apple dot com 2006-09-09 20:09 ---
Thanks.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28995
--- Comment #10 from rguenther at suse dot de 2006-09-09 20:37 ---
Subject: Re: g++.dg/tree-ssa/ivopts-1.C fails
On Sat, 9 Sep 2006, dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca wrote:
--- Comment #7 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2006-09-09
18:45 ---
Subject: Re:
--- Comment #12 from howarth at nitro dot med dot uc dot edu 2006-09-09
21:21 ---
Created an attachment (id=12215)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=12215action=view)
revised autoconf test
Use preprocessor statements instead for darwin.c patch.
--
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-09 21:22 ---
Mine.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #13 from echristo at apple dot com 2006-09-09 21:27 ---
Close, but I'd prefer to actually have the test for true as well in there. I'll
go ahead and submit the patch similar. thanks for testing.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28995
--- Comment #15 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-09 21:37
---
(In reply to comment #14)
I have reverted this patch.
I think PR 28985 is related to this bug in that it is about the accepting the
invalid code which was mentioned on the mailing list.
--
--- Comment #6 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-09 22:09
---
it looks like ifcvt messes up in pass 3 and puts the post-inc in the
cond-exec block.
It's actually the combiner that wrongly ditches the post-inc, at least with
the last set of options you posted. Amazingly
--- Comment #3 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-09 22:27 ---
Subject: Bug 28996
Author: jason
Date: Sat Sep 9 22:26:53 2006
New Revision: 116800
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=116800
Log:
PR c++/28996
* cvt.c (convert_to_void): Strip
--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-09 23:33 ---
Grrr my patch causes a rejects valid to happen.
void
f()
{
bool i = 0;
++i = 6;
}
Is valid code as preincrement is an lvalue.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28989
--- Comment #2 from howarth at nitro dot med dot uc dot edu 2006-09-09
23:50 ---
Created an attachment (id=12216)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=12216action=view)
Remaining unapplied parts of the TImode patch for Darwin PPC
--
--- Comment #11 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2006-09-10
00:02 ---
Subject: Re: g++.dg/tree-ssa/ivopts-1.C fails
It confirms that it is the same problem as on i?86, but it doesn't tell
why. I don't see an obvious difference in config/pa/
Yes, it does seem to be the
--- Comment #5 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-10 00:20 ---
I have a better fix which does not regress on that valid code.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28989
--
jason at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |jason at gcc dot gnu dot org
|dot org
--- Comment #12 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-10 02:12
---
Reduced testcase:
void do_lookup_x (int ref)
{
int check_match (void)
{
return ref;
}
}
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28516
--- Comment #13 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-10 02:15
---
(In reply to comment #2)
The reduced testcase passes the -O because gcc un-nests the function. Is this
true of the original testcase, or does glibc require trampolines?
Actually it might pass at -O1 for my
--- Comment #14 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-10 02:26
---
The set which we are ICEing on:
(set (reg:SI 12 ip)
(plus:SI (reg/f:SI 13 sp)
(const_int 4 [0x4])))
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28516
--- Comment #11 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-10 04:18
---
Apatch for this bug has been submitted to the fortran list for approval.
--
jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #12 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-10 04:53
---
Subject: Bug 28914
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Sun Sep 10 04:53:18 2006
New Revision: 116808
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=116808
Log:
2006-09-09 Paul Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR
--- Comment #13 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-10 04:58
---
Subject: Bug 28914
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Sun Sep 10 04:58:29 2006
New Revision: 116809
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=116809
Log:
2006-09-09 Jerry DeLisle [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR
--- Comment #3 from danp57 at optonline dot net 2006-09-10 05:04 ---
--disable-multilib solved the problem.
It would be a good idea to add this in a note under
http://gcc.gnu.org/install/specific.html
Thank you very much for your response!! Amazing!
Dan
--
--- Comment #5 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-10 05:05
---
This bug is related to slow compile found in test case for PR28914 with large
array size. Constructor related.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20923
--- Comment #14 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-10 05:07
---
Fixed on 4.2 only, Follow PR20923 for long compile time issues.
--
jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
91 matches
Mail list logo
