Re: problem building gcc4-4.3.0-20070209

2007-02-10 Thread Dominique Dhumieres
Daniel, Thanks for the answer. You need to show us your configure arguments to be sure. I bet you're specifying just --host. You are right, the configure I am using since some time is: ConfigureParams: --prefix=%p/lib/gcc4 --disable-multilib --enable-languages=c,c++,fortran,objc,java

Re: problem building gcc4-4.3.0-20070209

2007-02-10 Thread Dominique Dhumieres
I have written: Would something like --build=%m-apple-darwin`uname -r|cut -f1 -d.` work? Apparently it works. Thanks Dominique

Re: which opt. flags go where? - references

2007-02-10 Thread Ronny Peine
Hi, Am Donnerstag, 8. Februar 2007 13:18 schrieben Sie: Thank you very much. After reading the abstract, I'm highly interested in this work, because they also use GCC and SPEC CPU2000, as I'm planning to do... Which benchmarks did you test on? I testet it on freebench-1.03, nbench-byte-2.2.2

Re: US Daylight Savings Time Changes

2007-02-10 Thread Andrew Haley
Joe Buck writes: On Sat, Feb 10, 2007 at 12:49:56AM -0500, David Edelsohn wrote: Tom Tromey writes: Tom David probably knows this, but for others, Jakub and Andrew put in a Tom patch for this today. I think it is only on trunk, not any other Tom branches. Should this

Re: GCC 4.1.2 RC2

2007-02-10 Thread Laurent GUERBY
On Fri, 2007-02-09 at 13:36 -0800, Mark Mitchell wrote: GCC 4.1.2 RC2 is now available from: ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/prerelease-4.1.2-20070208 and its mirrors. On a recent ubuntu x86_64 system, with c,ada,c++,fortran,java,objc: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2007-02/msg00377.html

Re: Division by zero

2007-02-10 Thread Robert Dewar
Ian Lance Taylor wrote: Jie Zhang [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: But now gcc seems to optimize it away. For the following function: $ cat t.c #include limits.h void foo (int rc) { int x = rc / INT_MAX; x = 4 / x; } I believe we still keep division by zero in general. In your example it gets

Re: Division by zero

2007-02-10 Thread Jie Zhang
On 2/10/07, Robert Dewar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ian Lance Taylor wrote: Jie Zhang [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: But now gcc seems to optimize it away. For the following function: $ cat t.c #include limits.h void foo (int rc) { int x = rc / INT_MAX; x = 4 / x; } I believe we still

Re: Division by zero

2007-02-10 Thread Steven Bosscher
On 2/10/07, Jie Zhang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The code I posted in my first email is from libgloss/libnosys/_exit.c. It's used to cause an exception deliberately. From your replies, it seems it should find another way to do that. Maybe you can use __builtin_trap() ? Gr. Steven

Re: Division by zero

2007-02-10 Thread Robert Dewar
Jie Zhang wrote: The code I posted in my first email is from libgloss/libnosys/_exit.c. It's used to cause an exception deliberately. From your replies, it seems it should find another way to do that. Any code that tries to raise an exception deliberately is certainly depending on undefined

Re: Division by zero

2007-02-10 Thread Jie Zhang
On 2/10/07, Robert Dewar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jie Zhang wrote: The code I posted in my first email is from libgloss/libnosys/_exit.c. It's used to cause an exception deliberately. From your replies, it seems it should find another way to do that. Any code that tries to raise an

Re: Division by zero

2007-02-10 Thread Jie Zhang
On 2/10/07, Steven Bosscher [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 2/10/07, Jie Zhang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The code I posted in my first email is from libgloss/libnosys/_exit.c. It's used to cause an exception deliberately. From your replies, it seems it should find another way to do that. Maybe

Re: Inserting profiling function calls

2007-02-10 Thread Frank Ch. Eigler
Michael Gong [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I don't know about inserting call at the basic block level, but I am quite sure inserting calls at the function level could be done by aspect-oriented-programming (AOP). [...] Another possibility, coming soon[1], is to use systemtap[2] probes: % stap

Re: problem building gcc4-4.3.0-20070209

2007-02-10 Thread Paolo Bonzini
if test ${build} != ${host}; then some defaults else AC_PROG_CC fi AC_TRY_COMPILE ac_objext is set at the expansion of AC_PROG_CC and if you take the if branch, it never gets set. Does anyone reading this know what the right thing to do is? Is there anything in the autoconf

Re: Division by zero

2007-02-10 Thread Paolo Bonzini
I'm going to use an asm (). Yeah, an asm volatile ( : : r (x) : ) should please GCC and still be portable to different platforms. Paolo

Re: problem building gcc4-4.3.0-20070209

2007-02-10 Thread Daniel Jacobowitz
On Sat, Feb 10, 2007 at 05:08:10PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote: if test ${build} != ${host}; then some defaults else AC_PROG_CC fi AC_TRY_COMPILE ac_objext is set at the expansion of AC_PROG_CC and if you take the if branch, it never gets set. Does anyone reading this know what

Re: Seeking advice on front ends

2007-02-10 Thread Rafael Espíndola
Did I miss anything? What are the relative advantages of each solutions? Do you think that I overlooked other options? Would using an exiting virtual machine be a good option? Except for Nice, this option doesn't seem to be popular; there must be a catch. You might want to have a look at

Re: problem building gcc4-4.3.0-20070209

2007-02-10 Thread Paolo Bonzini
This seems horribly wrong somehow. Aren't we intested in the ${build} - ${host} compiler at this point anyway? So shouldn't we be testing it? I think the whole block can go. Hmm, it says indeed this is going to change when we autoconfiscate. Something like this? Index: configure.ac

Re: Inserting profiling function calls

2007-02-10 Thread Michael Gong
- Original Message - From: Frank Ch. Eigler [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Michael Gong [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: GERIN Patrice [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Jan Hubicka [EMAIL PROTECTED]; gcc@gcc.gnu.org Sent: Saturday, February 10, 2007 10:21 AM Subject: Re: Inserting profiling function calls Michael

Re: problem building gcc4-4.3.0-20070209

2007-02-10 Thread Daniel Jacobowitz
On Sat, Feb 10, 2007 at 06:59:35PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote: This seems horribly wrong somehow. Aren't we intested in the ${build} - ${host} compiler at this point anyway? So shouldn't we be testing it? I think the whole block can go. Hmm, it says indeed this is going to change when

Re: problem building gcc4-4.3.0-20070209

2007-02-10 Thread Dominique Dhumieres
The discussion is becoming to technical for me. Let me just say that adding --build=%m-apple-darwin`uname -r|cut -f1 -d.` to config allowed me to build gcc without further glitch. I guess it will do no harm to keep this addition even if it becomes no longer necessary. Thanks for the help

Re: meaning of --enable-checking flags

2007-02-10 Thread Larry Evans
On 02/09/2007 12:18 PM, Larry Evans wrote: [snip] compiler. When just using --enable-checking=yes, I was able to use gdb to find that the value of __FILE__ was corrupted: (gdb) up #1 0x0809e6eb in tsubst (t=0x4034f8a0, args=0x40351ca8, complain=3, in_decl=0x4032eea0) at

Re: Division by zero

2007-02-10 Thread Jie Zhang
On 2/11/07, Paolo Bonzini [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm going to use an asm (). Yeah, an asm volatile ( : : r (x) : ) should please GCC and still be portable to different platforms. I thought using an asm () for each port to cause an exception specific for that port. Such that divide-by-zero

[Bug c++/28182] Bad diagnostic with missing typename keyword

2007-02-10 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-10 09:16 --- *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 15179 *** -- pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added

[Bug c++/15179] Error message can be improved

2007-02-10 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #11 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-10 09:16 --- *** Bug 28182 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added

[Bug c++/30754] mystefying error type A is not derived from type B

2007-02-10 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-10 09:17 --- *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 15179 *** -- pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added

[Bug c++/15179] Error message can be improved

2007-02-10 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #12 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-10 09:17 --- *** Bug 30754 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added

[Bug regression/30755] [4.3 regression]: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/loop-25.c

2007-02-10 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-10 09:27 --- When I see PASS: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/loop-25.c (test for excess errors) I wonder what is the extra message because I think that warning/error is most likely the issue with this testcase. --

[Bug other/30756] New: Daily bump in branches/gcc-4_0-branch/libstdc++-v3/include/bits/c++config

2007-02-10 Thread andreas dot meier_ at gmx dot de
There is a daily bump in branches/gcc-4_0-branch/libstdc++-v3/include/bits/c++config This not neccessary, because the 4_0-branch is closed -- Summary: Daily bump in branches/gcc-4_0-branch/libstdc++- v3/include/bits/c++config Product: gcc

[Bug rtl-optimization/30697] Local arrays not eliminated by optimization

2007-02-10 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-10 09:40 --- *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 18754 *** -- pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added

[Bug tree-optimization/18754] unrolling happens too late/SRA does not happen late enough

2007-02-10 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #17 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-10 09:40 --- *** Bug 30697 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added

[Bug regression/30755] [4.3 regression]: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/loop-25.c

2007-02-10 Thread hp at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #2 from hp at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-10 10:46 --- I don't understand comment #1. There *are* no excess errors or extra messages. That's why that part says PASS. That's also out of scope for this PR: the reason for it, is the two FAILs. See the test. It still fails

[Bug libgcj/30742] ResourceBundle regression

2007-02-10 Thread aph at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #6 from aph at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-10 11:01 --- Definitely a 32-bit only issue: zorro:/tmp/Fail $ ~/gcc/trunk/obj-x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/libjava/gij -cp main.jar F class Z [EMAIL PROTECTED] zorro:/tmp/Fail $

[Bug libgcj/30742] ResourceBundle regression

2007-02-10 Thread aph at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #7 from aph at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-10 11:50 --- Created an attachment (id=13029) -- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=13029action=view) It's a patch! This is the correct patch. The key here is that it is never correct for one VMStackWalker method to

[Bug c++/30745] Undefined static const

2007-02-10 Thread hans dot buchmann at fhso dot ch
--- Comment #2 from hans dot buchmann at fhso dot ch 2007-02-10 12:17 --- Inserting the line const unsigned Class::MAX_LEN=16; results in the message const-test.cc:13: error: duplicate initialization of 'Class::MAX_LEN' When I place the declaration outside the class the Symbol

[Bug testsuite/30755] [4.3 regression]: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/loop-25.c

2007-02-10 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #3 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-10 12:28 --- Fixed by Zdenek. -- rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added

[Bug c/30757] New: ICE with -march=athlon-xp -mfpmath=sse

2007-02-10 Thread wouter dot vermaelen at pi dot be
Recent gcc snapshots fail with the following testcase: cat bug.c double log(double x); void f() { unsigned char a = log(0); } gcc -march=athlon-xp -mfpmath=sse bug.c bug.c: In function 'f': bug.c:2: error: unrecognizable insn: (insn 11 10 12 3 (set (reg:SI 61) (fix:SI (reg:DF 58 [

[Bug rtl-optimization/25588] arm-linux: crash in verify_wide_reg with -funroll-loops

2007-02-10 Thread debian-gcc at lists dot debian dot org
--- Comment #2 from debian-gcc at lists dot debian dot org 2007-02-10 13:21 --- the testcase is from the debian package csound, which builds fine with current 4.1. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25588

[Bug libgcj/30742] ResourceBundle regression

2007-02-10 Thread aph at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #8 from aph at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-10 14:23 --- Subject: Bug 30742 Author: aph Date: Sat Feb 10 14:22:54 2007 New Revision: 121798 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=121798 Log: 2007-02-10 Andrew Haley [EMAIL PROTECTED] PR java/30742

[Bug libgcj/30742] ResourceBundle regression

2007-02-10 Thread aph at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #9 from aph at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-10 14:36 --- Subject: Bug 30742 Author: aph Date: Sat Feb 10 14:36:28 2007 New Revision: 121799 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=121799 Log: 2007-02-10 Andrew Haley [EMAIL PROTECTED] PR java/30742

[Bug rtl-optimization/25588] arm-linux: crash in verify_wide_reg with -funroll-loops

2007-02-10 Thread ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #3 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-10 15:07 --- the testcase is from the debian package csound, which builds fine with current 4.1. The 4.0 branch is now closed. Reopen if you can reproduce with 4.x x=1. -- ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

[Bug rtl-optimization/25514] [4.0 regression] internal consistency failure

2007-02-10 Thread ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #24 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-10 15:10 --- Fixed in upcoming 4.1.2, the 4.0 branch is now closed. -- ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added

[Bug rtl-optimization/27883] [4.0/4.1 regression] in schedule_insns, at sched-rgn.c:3038 on mips

2007-02-10 Thread ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #20 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-10 15:17 --- Not user-visible in 4.1.x. -- ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added

[Bug target/30757] [4.3 Regression] ICE with -march=athlon-xp -mfpmath=sse

2007-02-10 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-10 15:49 --- Confirmed. -- rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added CC|

[Bug fortran/30478] FAIL: gfortran.dg/enum_2.f90 -O (internal compiler error)

2007-02-10 Thread fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #22 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-10 16:20 --- (In reply to comment #21) Here's a much cleaner patch, which makes us give slightly worse error messages than before. Thanks for taking care of this, Tobias. I'm not sure I think the second patch is cleaner,

[Bug fortran/30381] [4.1 and 4.2] ISHFTC() constant folding is broken.

2007-02-10 Thread fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #4 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-10 16:22 --- Would you have time to backport it? I don't know if it was approved for 4.2 also, but if it applies cleanly and regtest OK, I don't see a reason to hold it. -- fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

[Bug fortran/30404] [4.1 only] Wrong FORALL result

2007-02-10 Thread fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #7 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-10 16:23 --- Fixed, don't you think? -- fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added

[Bug fortran/24783] [4.1 and 4.2 only] Implicit none in module overwrite explicit in procedure

2007-02-10 Thread fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #6 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-10 16:38 --- (In reply to comment #5) Please feel free to backport this and (eventually) all other i left unfixed for non-trunk versions that you may want to fix. Thank you very much for your time! PS: Also, feel

[Bug target/30406] ICE in LOGICAL(8) functions

2007-02-10 Thread fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #29 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-10 17:24 --- Hi Dominique, Patch posted (http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-02/msg00927.html), so you look how it's done. Patches in PR tend to not get reviewed, so we need people to post them to the list. Yes, it takes

[Bug target/30757] [4.3 Regression] ICE with -march=athlon-xp -mfpmath=sse

2007-02-10 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
-- pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |major Target Milestone|--- |4.3.0

[Bug bootstrap/30620] missing dependencies of gcov-io.h breaks --enable-intermodule build

2007-02-10 Thread aldot at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #3 from aldot at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-10 19:01 --- Created an attachment (id=13030) -- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=13030action=view) add gcov-iov.h to the prerequisited of libbackend.o Patch against the gcc-4_2-branch --

[Bug fortran/24783] [4.1 and 4.2 only] Implicit none in module overwrite explicit in procedure

2007-02-10 Thread jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #7 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-10 19:08 --- I have the backport ready and i am testing. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24783

[Bug testsuite/30758] New: ICE in torture test (make check) for mayalias-2.c

2007-02-10 Thread Jean-pierre dot vial at wanadoo dot fr
gcc 4.3 svn version 10/02/2007 when running make check I get 2 ICE Same result when compiling manually: /opt/gcc43/bin/gcc -O3 -g -o maya mayalias-2.c mayalias-2.c:2: erreur interne du compilateur: dans splice_child_die, à dwarf2out.c:5584 no problem without the -g option same thing with

[Bug testsuite/30758] ICE in torture test (make check) for mayalias-2.c

2007-02-10 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-10 19:23 --- *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 28834 *** -- pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added

[Bug debug/28834] [4.0/4.1/4.2/4.3 Regression] -O3 -g crashes sometimes when using may_alias and structs

2007-02-10 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #21 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-10 19:23 --- *** Bug 30758 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added

[Bug target/30634] FAIL: gfortran.fortran-torture/execute/intrinsic_set_exponent.f90

2007-02-10 Thread danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #13 from danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-10 19:51 --- Subject: Bug 30634 Author: danglin Date: Sat Feb 10 19:51:40 2007 New Revision: 121802 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=121802 Log: PR target/30634 * pa.md (movdf): For 64-bit

[Bug target/30634] FAIL: gfortran.fortran-torture/execute/intrinsic_set_exponent.f90

2007-02-10 Thread danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #14 from danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-10 19:54 --- Subject: Bug 30634 Author: danglin Date: Sat Feb 10 19:54:33 2007 New Revision: 121803 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=121803 Log: PR target/30634 * pa.md (movdf): For 64-bit

[Bug c++/30759] New: initializer-list accepted for object of non-POD type

2007-02-10 Thread gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org
Current GCC accepts the following struct A { A(int) { } }; int main() { A a = { 6 }; } which is invalid. This is a regression from GCC-3.3.x -- Summary: initializer-list accepted for object of non-POD type Product: gcc Version: 4.3.0 Status:

[Bug libfortran/30533] minval, maxval missing for kind=1 and kind=2

2007-02-10 Thread tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #6 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-10 19:57 --- sum is also missing: $ cat sum.f90 program main integer(kind=1), dimension(2,2) :: a a = 1 print *,sum(a,dim=2) end program main $ gfortran sum.f90 /tmp/ccQgrJa3.o: In function `MAIN__':

[Bug middle-end/26900] Number of iterations not know for simple loop

2007-02-10 Thread rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #15 from rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-10 20:07 --- Patch: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-02/msg00931.html -- rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added

[Bug target/30760] New: parisc-specific asm constraints not documented

2007-02-10 Thread vapier at gentoo dot org
the parisc constraints cannot be found in the Machine Constraints page: http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-4.1.1/gcc/Machine-Constraints.html from gcc/config/pa/: #define REG_CLASS_FROM_LETTER(C) \ ((C) == 'f' ? FP_REGS : \ (C) == 'y' ? FPUPPER_REGS : \

[Bug target/30634] FAIL: gfortran.fortran-torture/execute/intrinsic_set_exponent.f90

2007-02-10 Thread danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #15 from danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-10 20:24 --- Fixed by patch on 4.2 and trunk. -- danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added

[Bug fortran/30478] FAIL: gfortran.dg/enum_2.f90 -O (internal compiler error)

2007-02-10 Thread patchapp at dberlin dot org
--- Comment #23 from patchapp at dberlin dot org 2007-02-10 20:25 --- Subject: Bug number PR30478 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/2007-02/msg00933.html --

[Bug c++/30759] [4.1/4.2/4.3 Regression] initializer-list accepted for object of non-POD type

2007-02-10 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-10 21:08 --- Confirmed. -- pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added

[Bug c++/30745] Undefined static const

2007-02-10 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-10 21:12 --- The definition have to be not inialized if it was already initialized in the declaration The declaration is the one which is inside the class, the definition which is the one which defines the memory space is the

[Bug fortran/30319] internal error in gfc_resolve_expr() for character parameter

2007-02-10 Thread patchapp at dberlin dot org
--- Comment #4 from patchapp at dberlin dot org 2007-02-10 21:15 --- Subject: Bug number PR30319 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/2007-02/msg00939.html --

[Bug fortran/30625] Array pointers to components of derived type arrays do not work

2007-02-10 Thread fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #6 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-10 21:18 --- Paul, I take it you are aware of PR21881 (Array descriptors limit derived type sizes)... I don't fully grasp the way array descriptor work for derived types, but I wanted to mention that PR to you... just in

[Bug target/30406] ICE in LOGICAL(8) functions

2007-02-10 Thread dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr
--- Comment #30 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2007-02-10 22:12 --- Subject: Re: ICE in LOGICAL(8) functions Francois-Xavier, Thanks for the work. In order to improve future contributions, I have a few questions: (1) do you need a regtesting of the patch on 4.2 and OSX 10.4?

[Bug target/30406] ICE in LOGICAL(8) functions

2007-02-10 Thread fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #31 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-10 22:21 --- (In reply to comment #30) (1) do you need a regtesting of the patch on 4.2 and OSX 10.4? Will 4.2.0 20070124 good enough or should I upgrade to a more recent version? It's OK. The change is simple and that

[Bug target/30406] ICE in LOGICAL(8) functions

2007-02-10 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #32 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-10 22:42 --- This was on my list of patches to submit today really, I finally actually got time to able to submit patches today. I was able to submit two other patches today and I have another one in testing right now. --

[Bug middle-end/30433] [4.1/4.2/4.3 Regression] no longer folding __complex__(0.0, 1.0) == __complex__(1.0, 0.0)

2007-02-10 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-10 22:43 --- Testing the fix right now. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30433

[Bug target/30406] ICE in LOGICAL(8) functions

2007-02-10 Thread dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr
--- Comment #33 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2007-02-10 22:44 --- Subject: Re: ICE in LOGICAL(8) functions Thanks for the advice, I'll try to follow it next time. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30406

[Bug fortran/24783] [4.1 and 4.2 only] Implicit none in module overwrite explicit in procedure

2007-02-10 Thread jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #8 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-10 23:26 --- Subject: Bug 24783 Author: jvdelisle Date: Sat Feb 10 23:25:55 2007 New Revision: 121804 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=121804 Log: 2007-02-10 Bernhard Fischer [EMAIL PROTECTED]

[Bug fortran/24783] [4.1 and 4.2 only] Implicit none in module overwrite explicit in procedure

2007-02-10 Thread jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #9 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-10 23:30 --- Subject: Bug 24783 Author: jvdelisle Date: Sat Feb 10 23:30:38 2007 New Revision: 121806 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=121806 Log: 2007-02-10 Bernhard Fischer [EMAIL PROTECTED]

[Bug fortran/24783] [4.1 and 4.2 only] Implicit none in module overwrite explicit in procedure

2007-02-10 Thread jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #10 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-11 00:25 --- Subject: Bug 24783 Author: jvdelisle Date: Sun Feb 11 00:25:44 2007 New Revision: 121812 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=121812 Log: 2007-02-10 Bernhard Fischer [EMAIL PROTECTED]

[Bug fortran/24783] [4.1 and 4.2 only] Implicit none in module overwrite explicit in procedure

2007-02-10 Thread jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #11 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-11 00:27 --- Subject: Bug 24783 Author: jvdelisle Date: Sun Feb 11 00:26:56 2007 New Revision: 121813 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=121813 Log: 2007-02-10 Bernhard Fischer [EMAIL PROTECTED]

[Bug fortran/24783] [4.1 and 4.2 only] Implicit none in module overwrite explicit in procedure

2007-02-10 Thread jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #12 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-11 00:28 --- Fixed on 4.1 and 4.2 now. Backported -- jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added

[Bug c/30741] Error when trying to compile under DOS on a Vista machine

2007-02-10 Thread ggiordano at verizon dot net
--- Comment #4 from ggiordano at verizon dot net 2007-02-11 01:44 --- Subject: Re: Error when trying to compile under DOS on a Vista machine I had already installed DJGPP at work and it worked fine (Windows 2K). I installed it at home on my XP system and it didn't work. I installed

[Bug c++/30534] [4.3 regression] ICE with invalid template argument

2007-02-10 Thread bangerth at dealii dot org
--- Comment #1 from bangerth at dealii dot org 2007-02-11 03:51 --- Confirmed. -- bangerth at dealii dot org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug c++/30431] failure to check for visible declaration of friend function to template class

2007-02-10 Thread bangerth at dealii dot org
--- Comment #3 from bangerth at dealii dot org 2007-02-11 03:55 --- As one data point: if it indeed finds the local function foo, then one could think that declaring the friend as friend T ::foo(const CTest test); might work (note the explicit global scope on the function name). Alas:

[Bug c++/30535] [4.2/4.3 regression] ICE with invalid template operator

2007-02-10 Thread bangerth at dealii dot org
--- Comment #1 from bangerth at dealii dot org 2007-02-11 03:56 --- Confirmed. -- bangerth at dealii dot org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug c++/30566] -Wshadow warns about clashes between nested function parameters in C++

2007-02-10 Thread bangerth at dealii dot org
--- Comment #1 from bangerth at dealii dot org 2007-02-11 03:57 --- Confirmed. -- bangerth at dealii dot org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug c++/30567] -fPIC -O3 optimizer bug (32-bit target only)

2007-02-10 Thread bangerth at dealii dot org
--- Comment #5 from bangerth at dealii dot org 2007-02-11 04:07 --- I also can't reproduce this with bangerth/x /tmp/bangerth/bin/bin/c++ -v Using built-in specs. Target: i686-pc-linux-gnu Configured with: ../svn/configure --enable-checking --enable-languages=c,c++

[Bug c++/30583] [ODR] Non-static inline functions cause bugs when defined more than once in different files

2007-02-10 Thread bangerth at dealii dot org
--- Comment #2 from bangerth at dealii dot org 2007-02-11 04:11 --- As Andrew said: this is a violation of the C++ standard. You can have only one definition of a name and if you have more then your program is in error. The fact that you mark your functions inline doesn't change this:

[Bug c++/30623] Ignores using

2007-02-10 Thread bangerth at dealii dot org
--- Comment #1 from bangerth at dealii dot org 2007-02-11 04:12 --- Confirmed. -- bangerth at dealii dot org changed: What|Removed |Added CC|

[Bug c++/30624] ignores explicit qualification

2007-02-10 Thread bangerth at dealii dot org
--- Comment #3 from bangerth at dealii dot org 2007-02-11 04:16 --- (In reply to comment #2) I thought (according to the ARM) that all functions of a template class were implicitly function templates. No, you confuse class member templates with class template members :-)

[Bug c++/30567] -fPIC -O3 optimizer bug (32-bit target only)

2007-02-10 Thread rwgk at yahoo dot com
--- Comment #6 from rwgk at yahoo dot com 2007-02-11 05:30 --- I immediately believe that Andrew's and Wolfgang's findings are accurate, but I never claimed that the mainline has a problem. I never even tried it. My interest it to make sure that our code works with any new gcc release,

[Bug c++/30624] ignores explicit qualification

2007-02-10 Thread igodard at pacbell dot net
--- Comment #4 from igodard at pacbell dot net 2007-02-11 06:04 --- Thank you. Is that obscure or what :-) -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30624

[Bug libgcj/30647] build of gcc midi-dssi fails

2007-02-10 Thread grgoffe at yahoo dot com
--- Comment #14 from grgoffe at yahoo dot com 2007-02-11 06:13 --- Subject: Re: build of gcc midi-dssi fails Tom, Thanks for your help and the info. Any time you need to test something just let me know, I'll help if I can. Regards, George... --- tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org

[Bug c++/30624] ignores explicit qualification

2007-02-10 Thread bangerth at math dot tamu dot edu
--- Comment #5 from bangerth at math dot tamu dot edu 2007-02-11 06:22 --- Subject: Re: ignores explicit qualification --- Comment #4 from igodard at pacbell dot net 2007-02-11 06:04 --- Thank you. Is that obscure or what :-) No, I think that was pretty straightforward!