--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.1.2 |4.1.3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26241
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.1.2 |4.1.3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26529
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.1.2 |4.1.3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26866
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.1.2 |4.1.3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26635
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.1.2 |4.1.3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26966
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.1.2 |4.1.3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27377
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.1.2 |4.1.3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27891
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.1.2 |4.1.3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28049
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.1.2 |4.1.3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28077
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.1.2 |4.1.3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28181
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.1.2 |4.1.3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28189
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.1.2 |4.1.3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28216
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.1.2 |4.1.3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28307
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.1.2 |4.1.3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28376
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.1.2 |4.1.3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28411
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.1.2 |4.1.3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28622
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.1.2 |4.1.3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28623
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.1.2 |4.1.3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28770
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.1.2 |4.1.3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29472
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.1.2 |4.1.3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29197
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.1.2 |4.1.3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29474
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.1.2 |4.1.3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29599
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.1.2 |4.1.3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30618
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.1.2 |4.1.3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29786
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.1.2 |4.1.3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18346
The following mini program gives an error in other compilers, but not in
gfortran, we should check whether we need to give an error as well.
Cf.
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.fortran/browse_thread/thread/1cb58e9fed576fbe
---
CHARACTER string*1025
INTEGER i
DATA
--- Comment #9 from rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-14 09:49 ---
This seems to be fixed both in 4.0 and in 4.1.
--
rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from grigory_zagorodnev at linux dot intel dot com
2007-02-14 13:40 ---
Created an attachment (id=13048)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=13048action=view)
Source code for minimal reproducer
There is a minimal reproducer for the problem. Test-case is
--- Comment #4 from jellby at yahoo dot com 2007-02-14 13:45 ---
It's solved for me with gcc version 4.3.0 20070209 (it failed before).
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30667
--- Comment #1 from grigory_zagorodnev at linux dot intel dot com
2007-02-14 13:38 ---
From the entire REG_EQ* notes cleanups patch, only local-alloc.c changes do
matter for this regression. Backed out local-alloc changes fixes the
regression.
--
--- Comment #10 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-14 13:56
---
Subject: Bug 30313
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Feb 14 13:56:07 2007
New Revision: 121949
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=121949
Log:
2007-02-14 Richard Guenther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- Comment #11 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-14 13:56
---
Fixed.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #6 from dorit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-14 14:11 ---
Subject: Bug 30771
Author: dorit
Date: Wed Feb 14 14:10:57 2007
New Revision: 121950
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=121950
Log:
PR tree-optimization/30771
* tree-vect-analyze.c
--- Comment #8 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-14 15:25 ---
(In reply to comment #6)
I would also like to be assigned to this bug.
Thanks,
Revital
Done.
--
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #9 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-14 15:27 ---
(In reply to comment #7)
Subject: Bug number PR 28684
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/2006-10/msg00110.html
I
--- Comment #4 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-14 15:37 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
(In reply to comment #2)
The timezone part of this patch looks odd.
I would expect that we would need another case in there
for __timezone -- both a configure check and another
#if.
--- Comment #1 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-14 15:43 ---
Will this be appropriate for all front-ends? Then, this is a duplicate of (or
very related to) bug 18063.
--
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-14 15:47 ---
(In reply to comment #1)
(In reply to comment #0)
In the following program there is clearly a problem with the r = d
assignment. In most real programs such drastic case does not happen.
However,
simple
--- Comment #8 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-14 16:18 ---
The patch I have also fixes this one.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #6 from eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com 2007-02-14 16:48
---
Same results with GCC 4.1.1:
testfunc:
0: af 92 pushr10
2: bf 92 pushr11
4: cf 92 pushr12
6: df 92 pushr13
8: ef 92
--- Comment #2 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-14 17:22 ---
Hi FX,
I had already noticed the breakage, you can look at
the fix I have in PR 30533.
I'll be in a position to submit a formal patch on Friday
(probably).
Regards
Thomas
--
tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org
The attached code generates a segfault with no apparent reason.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] NEMO]$ gfortran -v
Using built-in specs.
Target: i686-pc-linux-gnu
Configured with: ../gcc-4.2-20070207/configure --prefix=/usr/local/gcc42
--with-mpfr=/home/travel/GCC/BUILDS/mpfr
--- Comment #1 from sfilippone at uniroma2 dot it 2007-02-14 18:09 ---
Created an attachment (id=13049)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=13049action=view)
Test case
Test case
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30793
--- Comment #2 from sfilippone at uniroma2 dot it 2007-02-14 18:10 ---
Created an attachment (id=13050)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=13050action=view)
test case
This has been reduced by Tobias Burnus; I am not sure it is the same because of
the PRIVATE attributes
Compile this simple file with -Wreturn-type -O2:
void *foo () { while (1) ; }
There is no warning. Then compiler it with -Wreturn-type -O3. I get
foo.c:1: warning: no return statement in function returning non-void
This happens because the test for -Wreturn-type in finish_function checks for
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-14 18:35 ---
I think the warning from the front-end can be removed as the middle-end can
warn with execute_warn_function_return.
Plus I think this is really a dup of bug 12603.
--
I just tried to compile Suse Linux package MozillaThunderbird-1.5.0.8-7
with the GNU C++ compiler version 4.3 snapshot 20070209.
The compiler said
blocksort.c: In function 'mainSort':
blocksort.c:805: internal compiler error: in vect_get_vec_def_for_stmt_copy, at
tree-vect-transform.c:901
Please
--- Comment #1 from dcb314 at hotmail dot com 2007-02-14 18:48 ---
Created an attachment (id=13051)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=13051action=view)
C source code
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30795
--- Comment #9 from aldyh at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-14 18:50 ---
I believe this is addressed by Roger's patch which was approved yesterday
(http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-02/msg00353.html), though I don't think
the final revision has been committed.
--
Hello,
I'm getting bad results on linux-ppc platform. Building glibc 2.5 or glibc HEAD
using recent gcc snapshot (20070207) on linux ppc 32bit causes rpcgen binary
(built and later used in rest of glibc build process) to segfault. On x86_64,
x86 there is no problem.
In my case:
--- Comment #3 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2007-02-14 19:00 ---
For both test cases, xlf gives:
** class_mesh === End of Compilation 1 ===
** class_field === End of Compilation 2 ===
pr30793.f90, line 127.5: 1515-039 (S) The target in the pointer assignment
must have the
--- Comment #1 from pluto at agmk dot net 2007-02-14 19:26 ---
it alse miscompiles glibc at:
-O1 -fno-strict-aliasing -fsigned-char -fwrapv -g2 -gdwarf-2 -mnew-mnemonics
-mlong-double-128 -fomit-frame-pointer
looks like a heavy damage :/
--
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-14 19:31 ---
Try adding -fno-section-anchors if that works, then this is a dup of bug 29943.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30796
--- Comment #4 from tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-14 19:50 ---
The patch I wrote does work. But now I think deferring error
messages is not the best approach, since it imposes a cost on
all error message output. Instead we could arrange for
#error (and #warning) to build up a
--- Comment #8 from hp at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-14 20:15 ---
Subject: Bug 30768
Author: hp
Date: Wed Feb 14 20:15:29 2007
New Revision: 121959
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=121959
Log:
PR middle-end/30768
*
--- Comment #9 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-14 20:21
---
We should fix {MIN,MAX}{VAL,LOC} for NaNs, as well as infinities. See
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.fortran/browse_frm/thread/e3745c39a11522c5
for details
--
--- Comment #3 from arekm at pld-linux dot org 2007-02-14 20:25 ---
pluto confirms that's a duplicate of 29943
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 29943 ***
--
arekm at pld-linux dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #10 from arekm at pld-linux dot org 2007-02-14 20:25 ---
*** Bug 30796 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
arekm at pld-linux dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #5 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-14 20:31
---
The patch is straight forward. Need to check for end of file after
advance_line in scanner.c in a couple of places. I just need to finish testing
and package the submit. Maybe tonight.
--
--- Comment #7 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-14 20:34 ---
Subject: Bug 30473
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Feb 14 20:33:56 2007
New Revision: 121961
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=121961
Log:
PR middle-end/30473
* builtins.c
--- Comment #3 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-14 20:35 ---
Subject: Bug 30536
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Feb 14 20:35:19 2007
New Revision: 121962
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=121962
Log:
PR c++/30536
* decl.c (grokdeclarator): If
--- Comment #4 from sfilippone at uniroma2 dot it 2007-02-14 20:35 ---
I fail to see how xlf's output can be correct on the first error; fld%msh is a
POINTER component. ANd get_scalar_field_msh is set. So there must be something
else going on. Intel fortran 9.1 digests it without a
--- Comment #7 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-14 20:51
---
Subject: Bug 28772
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Wed Feb 14 20:51:12 2007
New Revision: 121964
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=121964
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/28772
* Makefile.in
--- Comment #8 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-14 20:53
---
Fixed on 4.1 branch and up.
--
ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #6 from paulthomas2 at wanadoo dot fr 2007-02-14 20:54 ---
Subject: Re: incomplete file triggers ICE
jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
--- Comment #5 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-14 20:31
---
The patch is straight forward. Need to check
--- Comment #5 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2007-02-14 21:00 ---
On AMD64, gfortran x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, 4.3.0 20061231, gives:
pr30793_1.f90:44.24:
use class_scalar_field
1
Error: Name 'msh_' at (1) is an ambiguous reference to 'msh_' from module
--- Comment #6 from sfilippone at uniroma2 dot it 2007-02-14 21:18 ---
(In reply to comment #5)
...
My understanding of f90 and above is not sufficient to say if the test cases
are valid or not.
From what I ahve read in different list ifort seems very tolerant, at least
--- Comment #7 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2007-02-14 21:54 ---
The following changes
--- pr30793.f90 Wed Feb 14 19:50:03 2007
+++ pr30793_red.f90 Wed Feb 14 22:50:04 2007
@@ -33,7 +33,7 @@
end type field
interface msh_
-module procedure msh_
+module procedure
GCC is producing wrong code for the following C code on my port:
int f(short *p){
int sum, i;
sum = 0;
for(i = 0; i 256; i++){
sum += *p++ 0xFF;
}
return sum;
}
The problem boils down to this RTL
(zero_extend:SI (subreg:QI (mem:HI (post_inc:SI (reg/v/f:SI 61 [ p ])) [2 S2
A16])
Hi,
the following invalid code shows that gfortran does not reject
bad kinds for logicals:
program gfcbug57
implicit none
!
! These are logical kinds known by gfortran and many other compilers:
!
print *, kind (.true._1) ! This prints 1
print *, kind (.true._2) !
--- Comment #8 from pluto at agmk dot net 2007-02-14 22:24 ---
still bad :/
float convert( unsigned in )
{
float f;
__builtin_memcpy( f, in, sizeof( in ) );
return f;
}
unsigned short load( void* p )
{
unsigned short v;
__builtin_memcpy( v, p,
--- Comment #5 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-14 22:30 ---
I am looking at this but it is a bit hard to see how to make the distinction
between the two kinds. I don't want to introduce yet another loop in
warn_hidden but perhaps that is unavoidable. Any hints?
--
g++ compiles the following program:
void f() {}
int main(void)
{ foobar:f(); }
This problem arose from writing a single : instead of :: for a namespace. I
can't find any correct meaning for this code, and accepting means people might
accidentally not get the namespace function they wanted. Am I
--- Comment #9 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-14 22:31 ---
(In reply to comment #8)
PR middle-end/30768
* testsuite/ext/pb_ds/regression/list_update_data_map_rand.cc:
Xfail ICE for cris-*-*.
You really should not have xfail'd an ICE that just
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-14 22:34 ---
This is way defined valid code, even though it might look a bit weird at first
glance.
foobar here is a label and nothing more.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #2 from chris at bubblescope dot net 2007-02-14 22:36 ---
Ah, sorry, you are right. I stared at this for ages trying to figure out what
it could mean. Sorry.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30800
I noticed a performance regression on the following code:
$ cat a.c
#include stdint.h
#include stdio.h
void
add256 (uint64_t x[4], const uint64_t y[4])
{
unsigned char carry;
x[0] += y[0];
carry = (x[0] y[0]);
x[1] += y[1]+carry;
carry = carry ? (x[1] = y[1]) : (x[1] y[1]);
x[2] +=
--
fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Last
--- Comment #10 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-14 23:21
---
I have reproduced this with the attached .ii file and a cross-compiler to
cris-axis-elf. The problematic function is allocate_new_entry.
I believe that the problem is that the dom2 pass eliminates basic blocks,
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-14 23:26 ---
This was NOT caused by the lowering pass at all
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-14 23:26 ---
(In reply to comment #1)
This was NOT caused by the lowering pass at all.
^
subreg
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30801
--- Comment #11 from dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-14 23:54
---
(In reply to comment #10)
Diego, is this something that you might be able to help with?
Sure.
--
dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #12 from mark at codesourcery dot com 2007-02-14 23:56 ---
Subject: Re: [4.3 regression]: ICE in
ext/pb_ds/regression/list_update_data_map_rand.cc
dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
--- Comment #11 from dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-14 23:54
---
--- Comment #1 from kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-15 00:03 ---
Harald,
You have a knack for finding some of the weirdness bugs.
Anyway, I have a patch that detects and reports the illegal
kind type values. I'll submit it shortly to the list if
regression testing passes.
--
--- Comment #13 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-15 00:10 ---
I think just adding a bugzilla report about this, and not adding in an explicit
XFAIL, would have been sufficient. It's no biggie, however.
FYI it looks like solaris is also tripping over this.
--- Comment #14 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-15 00:13 ---
And HPUX
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2007-02/msg00543.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30768
--- Comment #15 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-15 00:13 ---
And SH4
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2007-02/msg00544.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30768
Hi All,
For the following code:
program test
real, allocatable :: pos(:,:)
allocate(pos(2,2))
pos = 0.0
print *,pos(5,:)
deallocate(pos)
end program test
when compiled with:
gfortran -fbounds-check test.f95
the out of bounds array reference in the print command should be picked up, but
isn't.
--- Comment #2 from kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-15 00:38 ---
A patch is here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-02/msg01311.html
--
kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
OtherBugsDependingO||27766
nThis||
--- Comment #16 from hp at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-15 01:31 ---
Sorry I've forgotten to post test-results.
Applying contrib/test_summary -t to the result of Geoff's btest-gcc.sh yielded,
as of r121948,
URL:http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2007-02/msg00550.html
before the xfail
--- Comment #17 from hp at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-15 01:39 ---
My arguments so far for xfailing are at
URL:http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-02/msg01281.html.
People having concerns about xfailing tests, please vent them there or at
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
--- Comment #3 from kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-15 02:03 ---
Subject: Bug 30799
Author: kargl
Date: Thu Feb 15 02:02:56 2007
New Revision: 121975
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=121975
Log:
2007-02-14 Steven G. Kargl [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR
--- Comment #7 from patchapp at dberlin dot org 2007-02-15 06:25 ---
Subject: Bug number PR30779
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/msg01321.html
--
--- Comment #8 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-15 06:48
---
Subject: Bug 30779
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Thu Feb 15 06:48:09 2007
New Revision: 121982
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=121982
Log:
2007-02-14 Jerry DeLisle [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR
--- Comment #9 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-15 06:51
---
Subject: Bug 30779
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Thu Feb 15 06:51:42 2007
New Revision: 121983
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=121983
Log:
2007-02-15 Jerry DeLisle [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR
--- Comment #10 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-15 07:04
---
Fixed on 4.3.
--
jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Hello,
When compiling gcc-4.2-20070207 I get the following warning (which is treated
as error and):
--
comperr.adb:182:30: warning: index for X may assume lower bound of 1
comperr.adb:182:30: warning: suggested replacement: X'First
comperr.adb:185:48: warning: index for X may
--- Comment #6 from kkojima at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-15 07:26 ---
Subject: Bug 29599
Author: kkojima
Date: Thu Feb 15 07:26:30 2007
New Revision: 121985
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=121985
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/29599
Backport from
--- Comment #6 from aoliva at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-15 07:27 ---
Subject: Bug 30189
Author: aoliva
Date: Thu Feb 15 07:27:00 2007
New Revision: 121986
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=121986
Log:
gcc/ChangeLog:
PR debug/30189
* dwarf2out.c (modified_type_die):
301 - 400 of 405 matches
Mail list logo
