So one way to move forward is to effectively have two manuals, one
containing traditional user-written text (GFDL), the other containing
generated text (GPL). If you print it out as a book, the generated
part would just appear as an appendix to the manual, it's mere
aggregation.
This is
The FSF's responsibility for legal matters under the Mission
Statement comes with a duty to the developers not to get in the way
of the Patches will be considered equally based on their technical
merits. principle from the Mission Statement. The FSF is failing in
its duty to what was
On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 6:38 PM, Bingfeng Mei b...@broadcom.com wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Richard Guenther [mailto:richard.guent...@gmail.com]
Sent: 03 August 2010 17:22
To: Bingfeng Mei
Cc: Alexander Monakov; gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: Restrict qualifier still not working?
Hi,
I've tested sh-softfp-20100718-2131 + sh-softfp-predicate-fix
on -m1, -m2, -m3, -m3 -ml, -m2a on sh-elf, sh4-linux and
sh64-linux
The SH toolchain was built with the following patches and regression
is completed.
1. sh-softfp-20100718-2131
2. sh-softfp-predicate-fix
3. Patch by Kaz
Naveen H. S navee...@kpitcummins.com wrote:
The SH toolchain was built with the following patches and regression
is completed.
1. sh-softfp-20100718-2131
2. sh-softfp-predicate-fix
3. Patch by Kaz Kojima-san at following link
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2010-07/msg00352.html
Thanks for
Hi,
alias_sets_conflict_p are still used in various places to determine
whether two memory accesses are aliased. It is based on unique set
number, which seems not correct with recent changes on alias
oracle. For example, in ddg.c cross-iteration memory dependence
is drawn by calling
On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 2:02 PM, Bingfeng Mei b...@broadcom.com wrote:
Hi,
alias_sets_conflict_p are still used in various places to determine
whether two memory accesses are aliased. It is based on unique set
number, which seems not correct with recent changes on alias
oracle. For example, in
first of all: I'm not subscribed to gcc's ML, so please cc: in any answers.
I'm cross-compiling an application to a platform whose SDK brings a gcc
which reports 'Thread model: single'. even so, the platform implements a
rudimentary thread support (a subset of posix), which leads me to
On 10-08-04 03:22 , Benjamin Kosnik wrote:
The FSF's responsibility for legal matters under the Mission
Statement comes with a duty to the developers not to get in the way
of the Patches will be considered equally based on their technical
merits. principle from the Mission Statement. The FSF
Hi,
I am looking at gcc-4.4.4, and porting a backend into this version.
However, what didn't break in previous 4.2 / 4.3, now keeps breaking
in both CB and priority algorithms.
Line 1792 of ira.c keeps breaking. For context here's the function:
1783 static void
1784
On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 2:02 PM, Bingfeng Mei b...@broadcom.com wrote:
Hi,
alias_sets_conflict_p are still used in various places to determine
whether two memory accesses are aliased. It is based on unique set
number, which seems not correct with recent changes on alias
oracle. For example, in
On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 5:26 PM, Steven Bosscher stevenb@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 2:02 PM, Bingfeng Mei b...@broadcom.com wrote:
Hi,
alias_sets_conflict_p are still used in various places to determine
whether two memory accesses are aliased. It is based on unique set
number,
For example, alias_sets_conflict_p will say the a[i]
is aliased with b[i]. It is both conservative and wrong.
void foo(int * restrict a, int * restrict b, int n)
{
int i;
for(i = 0; i n; i++)
{
a[i] = b[i] * 100;
}
}
Bingfeng
-Original Message-
From: Steven Bosscher
The core development team is very pleased to announce the availability
of PPL 0.11, a new release of the Parma Polyhedra Library.
This release has many new features, some of which developed in strict
coordination with the people behind GCC/Graphite. The main novelties
are:
- a class
On Wed, Aug 04, 2010 at 12:21:05AM -0700, Benjamin Kosnik wrote:
So one way to move forward is to effectively have two manuals, one
containing traditional user-written text (GFDL), the other containing
generated text (GPL). If you print it out as a book, the generated
part would just
On 08/04/2010 08:43 AM, Roberto Bagnara wrote:
The core development team is very pleased to announce the availability
of PPL 0.11, a new release of the Parma Polyhedra Library.
This release has many new features, some of which developed in strict
coordination with the people behind
On Wednesday 04 August 2010 01:53:56 gccad...@gcc.gnu.org wrote:
Snapshot gcc-4.4-20100803 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.4-20100803/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.4 SVN
So one way to move forward is to effectively have two manuals,
one containing traditional user-written text (GFDL), the other
containing generated text (GPL). If you print it out as a
book, the generated part would just appear as an appendix to
the manual, it's mere
On 08/04/2010 07:34 PM, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
So one way to move forward is to effectively have two manuals,
one containing traditional user-written text (GFDL), the other
containing generated text (GPL). If you print it out as a
book, the generated part would
On 4 August 2010 13:56, Marcos Dione wrote:
I'm cross-compiling an application to a platform whose SDK brings a gcc
which reports 'Thread model: single'. even so, the platform implements a
rudimentary thread support (a subset of posix), which leads me to think
that it should be possible to
On Wed, Aug 04, 2010 at 10:34:51AM -0700, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
You are being denied by RMS. He controls the copyright, the SC has
no legal say, and he's stubborn as hell.
When presented with weak arguments, then yes he will be stubborn but
rightly so.
I don't see what the
You probably haven't read this thread fully, or you wouldn't imply
that GCC should have an options manual separate from the user's
manual.
I have read the thread in full, and I do not see the problem with
keeping that info in a seperate manual; GCC has so many options for
various
On 08/04/2010 08:48 PM, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
You probably haven't read this thread fully, or you wouldn't imply
that GCC should have an options manual separate from the user's
manual.
I have read the thread in full, and I do not see the problem with
keeping that info in a
On Wed, Aug 04, 2010 at 05:43:33PM +0200, Roberto Bagnara wrote:
The core development team is very pleased to announce the availability
of PPL 0.11, a new release of the Parma Polyhedra Library.
This release has many new features, some of which developed in strict
coordination with the people
On 4 August 2010 19:48, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
I have read the thread in full, and I do not see the problem with
keeping that info in a seperate manual; GCC has so many options for
various architectures and systems that I think it makes technical
sense to have a Invoking GCC manual.
And
I'd hate to see generated documented discounted so quickly.
Especially if the alternative is no documentation.
I'd note the QT docs as a great example of embedded
comments and auto generated documentation done very well.
I have read the thread in full, and I do not see the problem with
keeping that info in a seperate manual; GCC has so many options
for various architectures and systems that I think it makes
technical sense to have a Invoking GCC manual.
And what about libstdc++ API docs, which
You are being denied by RMS. He controls the copyright, the SC has
no legal say, and he's stubborn as hell.
When presented with weak arguments, then yes he will be stubborn
but rightly so.
I don't see what the problem is with two manuals, from a users
On 10-08-04 16:03 , Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
There is no rule in the GNU project that all types of documentation
must be licensed under the GFDL. Sometimes it makes sense, good
examples are the gccint
I don't think we want gccint to be under the GFDL. This is the main
part of the
I ran gcc 162830 on x86 under a tool that checks for integer undefined
behaviors. The attached error messages show up when running make
check and when recompiling gcc.
Each line in the attachment is an error message giving the problematic
operator, its srcloc, the types of its operands, and
On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 10:03 PM, Alfred M. Szmidt a...@gnu.org wrote:
I have read the thread in full, and I do not see the problem with
keeping that info in a seperate manual; GCC has so many options
for various architectures and systems that I think it makes
technical sense to
I think the messages are clear enough. You should probably wait a few days to
let people comment and/or fix, and then file PRs. 1 per file seems to be the
right granularity.
Thanks Eric, that's what I'll do.
John
On 08/04/2010 10:52 PM, Richard Guenther wrote:
On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 10:03 PM, Alfred M. Szmidta...@gnu.org wrote:
I have read the thread in full, and I do not see the problem with
keeping that info in a seperate manual; GCC has so many options
for various architectures and
On Wed, Aug 04, 2010 at 02:12:18PM -0700, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
However, until there is a possibility to relicense anything GPL-GFDL I
cannot disagree. In fact, since the GFDL is more restrictive, it is the
same thing as the Affero GPL.
No, because there is explicit language in the Affero
On 4 August 2010 21:03, Alfred M. Szmidt a...@gnu.org wrote:
I have read the thread in full, and I do not see the problem with
keeping that info in a seperate manual; GCC has so many options
for various architectures and systems that I think it makes
technical sense to have a
On 08/04/2010 11:52 PM, Joe Buck wrote:
On Wed, Aug 04, 2010 at 02:12:18PM -0700, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
However, until there is a possibility to relicense anything GPL-GFDL I
cannot disagree. In fact, since the GFDL is more restrictive, it is the
same thing as the Affero GPL.
No, because
Roberto Bagnara Patricia M. Hill Enea Zaffanella
Applied Formal Methods Laboratory
Department of Mathematics
University of Parma, Italy
cool.. just downloaded it.. just curious if I need to install ppl and
cloog on the system then build gcc? right now with the latest snapshot
of gcc,
On Wed, August 4, 2010 8:45 pm, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 4 August 2010 13:56, Marcos Dione wrote:
so, in short: does a simple Thread model have any impact on C-only
programs that could use threads? in particular, how it does impact
Boehm's GC usage in a C-only program? if the impact is
On 08/04/2010 08:09 PM, Dennis Clarke wrote:
Roberto Bagnara Patricia M. Hill Enea Zaffanella
Applied Formal Methods Laboratory
Department of Mathematics
University of Parma, Italy
cool.. just downloaded it.. just curious if I need to install ppl and
cloog on the system then build gcc?
--- Comment #19 from ubizjak at gmail dot com 2010-08-04 07:10 ---
Also fixes ICE on alpha.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44584
--- Comment #19 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-04 07:31 ---
(In reply to comment #16)
Here is a better patch:
This patch also fixes the error messages in comment #0 on darwin with -m32.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42207
--- Comment #9 from uros at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-04 07:46 ---
Subject: Bug 43283
Author: uros
Date: Wed Aug 4 07:46:00 2010
New Revision: 162856
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=162856
Log:
Backport from mainline:
2010-07-20 Bingfeng Mei
--- Comment #10 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-04 08:32 ---
(In reply to comment #9)
With the patch in comment #5 there is one regression:
FAIL: gfortran.dg/typebound_operator_4.f03 -O (test for excess errors)
the extra errors are:
void foo (int * restrict a, int * restrict b, int * restrict c)
{
int i;
for(i = 0; i 100; i+=4)
{
a[i] = b[i] * c[i];
a[i+1] = b[i+1] * c[i+1];
a[i+2] = b[i+2] * c[i+2];
a[i+3] = b[i+3] * c[i+3];
}
}
Trunk x86-64 compiler (162821) produces code
Attempting to build gcc-4.6 r162856 (head as of a few minutes ago) on
i686-linux as a cross to armv5tel-linux-gnueabi fails with cc1 running out of
memory:
/tmp/objdir/./gcc/xgcc -B/tmp/objdir/./gcc/
-B/home/mikpe/pkgs/linux-x86/cross-armv5tel/armv5tel-unknown-linux-gnueabi/bin/
--- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-04 09:19 ---
Can you check where it sits eating all emmory?
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-04 09:19 ---
I'll bootstrap test that patch.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Reduced from gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ssa-dce-3.c:
int main(void)
{
unsigned j = 0;
while (1)
{
j += 500;
if (j % 7)
j++;
else
j--;
}
return 0;
}
--
Summary: CDDCE doesn't eliminate conditional code in infinite
loop
--- Comment #2 from mikpe at it dot uu dot se 2010-08-04 10:01 ---
Attaching gdb after cc1 just passed 2.5 G virtual:
0x080c0c93 in pool_alloc (pool=0xa45d708) at
/tmp/gcc-4.6-r162856/gcc/alloc-pool.c:252
252 {
Missing separate debuginfos, use: debuginfo-install glibc-2.10.2-1.i686
--- Comment #11 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-04 10:02 ---
(In reply to comment #10)
Reply to comment #9.
Yes, this is what I was thinking. I wanted to float the first step out there
to
see what else we would discover.
I think now that there are essentially no test
libcpp allows one to directly input non-ascii characters in source files (.f90
etc.); the used encoding can be set using the options:
-finput-charset=UTF-8
Cf. also: -fexec-charset and -fwide-exec-charset
and http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Preprocessor-Options.html
If one uses gfortran
--- Comment #1 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-04 10:19 ---
Created an attachment (id=21392)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21392action=view)
Test case in UTF-8 encoding
Compile with:
gfortran -cpp -finput-charset=UTF-8 wide.f90
Expected output:
--- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-04 11:09 ---
Subject: Bug 45176
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Aug 4 11:08:54 2010
New Revision: 162862
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=162862
Log:
2010-08-04 Richard Guenther rguent...@suse.de
PR
--- Comment #3 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-04 11:09 ---
Fixed.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #5 from kkojima at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-04 11:19 ---
FYI, SH fails to bootstrap with similar comparison failures:
Comparing stages 2 and 3
warning: gcc/cc1-checksum.o differs
Bootstrap comparison failure!
gcc/double-int.o differs
gcc/tree-vect-data-refs.o differs
--- Comment #13 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-04 11:51 ---
Subject: Bug 44857
Author: burnus
Date: Wed Aug 4 11:51:32 2010
New Revision: 162863
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=162863
Log:
2010-08-04 Tobias Burnus bur...@net-b.de
PR
--- Comment #14 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-04 11:53 ---
FIXED on the trunk (4.6). Thanks for the report!
--
burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #11 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-04 12:17 ---
At r162860, I see only one problem left: A linker error (undefined reference to
`vtab$inner.1582') on the following variation of comment #5/#6:
module module_myclass
implicit none
type :: inner
contains
--- Comment #6 from mikpe at it dot uu dot se 2010-08-04 12:27 ---
The -O2 -fcompare-debug failure on ARM is caused by r162678:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2010-07/msg01032.html
Both the original large testcase and the reduced one compile fine with
gcc-4.6-r162677 -O2
--- Comment #2 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-04 12:39 ---
Created an attachment (id=21393)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21393action=view)
Support -finput-charset= (accepts option, but does not fix the issue)
This patch allows the -finput-charset= but
--- Comment #7 from bernds at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-04 12:47 ---
Created an attachment (id=21394)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21394action=view)
A patch that should fix it
DEBUG_INSNs got me again. Actually the old byte dce was disabled and thus not
Please see 43949 which was about a very similar test case.
$ cat test.cpp
void f();
int c[3];
int result;
struct Vector {
static int get(int i) {
if (i = 3)
f();
return c[i];
}
};
void g(int index)
{
result = Vector::get(index) + Vector::get(index);
}
$
--- Comment #1 from hubicka at ucw dot cz 2010-08-04 13:05 ---
Subject: Re: New: CDDCE doesn't eliminate
conditional code in infinite loop
Hmm, so the problem is that we produce two alternating loops and both with
unknown number of iterations?
We might teach loop discovery to
--- Comment #5 from joachim dot reichel at gmx dot de 2010-08-04 13:06
---
Is there any reason not to commit the patch?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44919
--- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-04 13:09 ---
The reasoning of GCC goes as follows. There is a partial redundancy
along the two invocations of get(), as c[i] is possibly clobbered by f().
So we transform g() to
if (i = 3)
f();
tem1 = c[i];
if (i =
--- Comment #6 from abel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-04 13:17 ---
My employer's copyright assignment has expired, this would be fixed within a
week or so. Never mind because there's still time before the next 4.4 release.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44919
--- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-04 13:21 ---
(In reply to comment #1)
Subject: Re: New: CDDCE doesn't eliminate
conditional code in infinite loop
Hmm, so the problem is that we produce two alternating loops and both with
unknown number of
If parameter of function is passed as reference or pointer, there is no debug
information for type and all pointers/references are of type void*/.
--
Summary: No debug information for parameter type
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
--- Comment #1 from nikolay at totalviewtech dot com 2010-08-04 13:29
---
Created an attachment (id=21395)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21395action=view)
Reproducer
How to Repeat:
Untar reproducer and run debugger to line 53.
check all parameters, they all of
--- Comment #2 from redi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-04 13:54 ---
related to PR 44645 ?
--
redi at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from redi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-04 14:01 ---
there's no need to attach executables, people working on gcc bugs have access
to a compiler!
I think this is the same issue as I reported in PR 44645 as it only happens
with 4.5 not 4.1, 4.4 or 4.6
--
--- Comment #14 from ubizjak at gmail dot com 2010-08-04 14:04 ---
Following patch fixes my failures:
Index: lib/scanasm.exp
===
--- lib/scanasm.exp (revision 162854)
+++ lib/scanasm.exp (working copy)
@@ -316,7
--- Comment #22 from mikael at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-04 14:17 ---
Subject: Bug 42051
Author: mikael
Date: Wed Aug 4 14:17:31 2010
New Revision: 162865
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=162865
Log:
2010-08-04 Mikael Morin mik...@gcc.gnu.org
PR
--- Comment #12 from mikael at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-04 14:17 ---
Subject: Bug 44064
Author: mikael
Date: Wed Aug 4 14:17:31 2010
New Revision: 162865
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=162865
Log:
2010-08-04 Mikael Morin mik...@gcc.gnu.org
PR
--- Comment #15 from clerman at fuse dot net 2010-08-04 14:18 ---
Subject: Re: [4.6 Regression] ICE in
output_constructor_regular_field, at varasm.c:4996
You're welcome. Thanks for your help.
Norm
burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org wrote:
=
--- Comment #15 from uros at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-04 14:19 ---
Subject: Bug 44641
Author: uros
Date: Wed Aug 4 14:19:01 2010
New Revision: 162866
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=162866
Log:
PR c++/44641
* lib/scanasm.exp
--- Comment #4 from nikolay at totalviewtech dot com 2010-08-04 14:23
---
Yes, this looks similar. The same error is seen in dwarf
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45181
--- Comment #16 from ubizjak at gmail dot com 2010-08-04 14:28 ---
Fixed (for alpha) by extending regexp in dg-function-on-line procedure.
--
ubizjak at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #5 from redi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-04 14:29 ---
reduced
struct S { int f(S*); };
int S::f(S* p)
{
return 0;
}
int main()
{
S s;
return s.f(s);
}
within S::f p has type void*
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45181
On Linux/x86-64, revision 162853 failed to
build SPEC CPU 2000/2006:
With runspec -c lnx-x86_64-gcc.cfg -T base -n 1 -l -o asc -I all -e o3
Error with make 'specmake -j `/usr/bin/getconf _NPROCESSORS_ONLN` build
make.out 2 make.err': check file
--- Comment #1 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2010-08-04 14:49 ---
[...@gnu-35 delta]$ cat testcase-min.i
typedef struct TypHeader {
struct TypHeader * * ptr;
} * TypHandle;
void PlainRange ( hdList ) TypHandle hdList;
{
long lenList;
long low;
long inc;
--- Comment #2 from joachim dot reichel at gmx dot de 2010-08-04 15:00
---
Ok, I see. But that seems a bit unfortunate. Isn't there a great deal of such
code? Just think of some vector class: c would be a class member, get()
non-static and if...f() is an assert-like statement (that
--- Comment #4 from danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-04 15:00 ---
I back-ported r162697 to r162678 and see comparison fail at r162678.
--
danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #8 from bernds at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-04 15:16 ---
*** Bug 45150 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
bernds at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #5 from bernds at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-04 15:16 ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 45162 ***
--
bernds at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-04 15:30 ---
Confirmed.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
--- Comment #3 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2010-08-04 15:36 ---
It is caused by revision 162849:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2010-08/msg00060.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45182
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-04 15:44 ---
Since the compiler does not know that f() will never return, it is hard problem
to solve. If you mark f with the attribute noreturn, the warning will
disappear.
--
--- Comment #4 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2010-08-04 15:57 ---
This testcase doesn't have any warnings:
---
typedef struct TypHeader {
struct TypHeader ** ptr;
} *TypHandle;
void PlainRange (TypHandle hdList, long lenList, long low, long inc)
{
long i;
for (i = 1; i =
On Linux/ia32, revision 162863 gave
FAIL: gfortran.dg/derived_constructor_char_1.f90 -O (test for excess errors)
FAIL: gfortran.dg/derived_constructor_char_1.f90 -O scan-tree-dump-times
original five = ..txt=..AbCdE., .ZyXwV...; 1: dump file does not exist
FAIL:
Wrong code example:
int Test(int src)
{
a=0x5E+src; //here
return a;
}
--
Summary: integer lexem error-bug
Product: gcc
Version: 4.4.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
--- Comment #9 from danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-04 16:38 ---
The patch fixes the darwin comparison failure.
--
danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from schwab at linux-m68k dot org 2010-08-04 16:40 ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 33547 ***
--
schwab at linux-m68k dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from schwab at linux-m68k dot org 2010-08-04 16:40 ---
*** Bug 45184 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
schwab at linux-m68k dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
I am trying to build 4.5.1 for arm-elf. Although I succeed for 4.5.1 RC
(07-22-2010), the compilation fails for the final release. I have double
checked that I am compiling both versions exactly the same way.
1) export PATH=/data/gcc-arm/arm-elf/bin:$PATH
2) (build and install binutils 2.20.1
--- Comment #1 from e0600347 at student dot tuwien dot ac dot at
2010-08-04 16:48 ---
Created an attachment (id=21396)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21396action=view)
./configure output
Configure output before failing compile attached.
--
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-04 17:05 ---
What distribution are you running on your x86_64 machine?
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from e0600347 at student dot tuwien dot ac dot at
2010-08-04 17:26 ---
Arch Linux
GCC version of host: 4.5.0 20100610
binutils of host: 2.20.1-3
--
e0600347 at student dot tuwien dot ac dot at changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from e0600347 at student dot tuwien dot ac dot at
2010-08-04 17:35 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
Arch Linux
GCC version of host: 4.5.0 20100610
binutils of host: 2.20.1-3
One more bit of info about host compiler:
gcc -v
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=gcc
--- Comment #1 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-04 17:39 ---
PATCH - lightly tested. Now regtesting.
Index: gcc/fortran/resolve.c
===
--- gcc/fortran/resolve.c (Revision 162868)
+++ gcc/fortran/resolve.c
1 - 100 of 136 matches
Mail list logo
