--
What|Removed |Added
CC||pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot
||org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/sh
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-19
07:58 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> on the mainline I get an stack overflow in the GC.
And I have a work around for that. But that is only a work around, we are
creating too many varients of
FUNCTION_TYPE which se
--
What|Removed |Added
CC||dpatel at apple dot com,
||zack at codesourcery dot
--
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-debug
Target Milestone|--- |4.0.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id
The patch
2004-09-20 Matt Austern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Zack Weinberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* c-common.c (fix_string_type): Build the unqualified array
type unconditionally, then use c_build_qualified_type to get
the proper const-qualified variant, and set its
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-19
07:38 ---
on the mainline I get an stack overflow in the GC.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19513
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-19
07:29 ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> Removing target milestone; this is not release-critical.
Does not matter this has now been fixed, I had forgot to close it, oops.
--
What|Removed
--- Additional Comments From mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-19
07:28 ---
Removing target milestone; this is not release-critical.
--
What|Removed |Added
Target Mi
--- Additional Comments From ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-19
07:27 ---
Closing as you reported a successful C,C++,Obj-C,Java bootstrap.
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-19
07:21 ---
Java bugs are not showstoppers; removing target milestone.
--
What|Removed |Added
Target
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-19
06:55 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
... like a waste.
Since we are going to keep the BB's around for longer in 4.1.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19522
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-19
06:53 ---
Yes that is it. Basically we have two computed GOTO's at the beginging of the
BB which is okay really
since there is no way otherwise since we just remove the other BB (unless you
want to create a new BB
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-19
06:46 ---
Actually I think the verifying patch is wrong, because we can have multiple
computed lables at the
begining of a BB because we moved it from a different BB.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?
--- Additional Comments From law at redhat dot com 2005-01-19 06:46 ---
Subject: Re: DSE is not doing its job for
global variables
On Wed, 2005-01-19 at 02:44 +, dje at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> --- Additional Comments From dje at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-19 02:44
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-19
06:39 ---
I think the problem is in remove_bb.
This is the only place where we move lables around really.
basically here:
block_stmt_iterator new_bsi = bsi_start (new_bb);
we should just skip over the firs
--- Additional Comments From amodra at bigpond dot net dot au 2005-01-19
06:28 ---
The reason for the bus error is the __exchange_and_add decrement of _M_refcount.
On powerpc, lwarx and stwcx. must have an aligned effective address.
--
What|Removed |
--- Additional Comments From mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-19
06:17 ---
Jason, are you looking at this PR?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18604
--- Additional Comments From bje at au1 dot ibm dot com 2005-01-19 06:05
---
Subject: Re: basic_string::_M_rep() can produce an unnaturally aligned pointer
to _Rep
On Tue, Jan 18, 2005 at 09:45:48AM -, pcarlini at suse dot de wrote:
> In other terms, as far as this PR is concerne
Fix GCC so that a nonlocal label won't appear after local labels.
In other words, the following addition to tree_verify_flow_info should not
introduce regressions.
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-01/msg01191.html
--
Summary: Fix GCC so that a nonlocal label won't appear after
--- Additional Comments From schlie at comcast dot net 2005-01-19 05:26
---
(In reply to comment #8)
Never mind, as it's likely not worth the bother as the behavor
is undefined anyway, and the existing proposal is simpler.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19293
--- Additional Comments From schlie at comcast dot net 2005-01-19 05:17
---
Actually wonder if a better solutions would be to and (&) the rhs shift count by
Log2(rhs-mode-size) bit mask, thereby the resulting value will always be within
0 >= shift <= (N-1), resulting effectivly a shift m
--
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |rth at gcc dot gnu dot org
|dot org |
Status|NEW
--- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2005-01-19
04:30 ---
Would you please add the testcase to this bug as a file attachment?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19519
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-19
03:41 ---
Well I think there is wrong reloc somewhere or a reloc being resolved wrongly
because foo binds locally in x.c otherwise the protect is visibility is really
useless otherwise (except
maybe to make sure tha
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-19
03:31 ---
So help out here, which is more correct the GOT or the GOTOFF?(In reply to
comment #7)
> Please take a closer look at the testcase. It is different from
> bug 10908. Basically, main executable and DSO see d
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-19
03:11 ---
The difference between non protected and protected functions is the following
in the asm:
movl[EMAIL PROTECTED](%ebx), %eax
leal[EMAIL PROTECTED](%ebx), %eax
but really add -fPIC to
--- Additional Comments From dje at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-19 02:44
---
Steven's experiments seem to demonstrate that the current DSE implementation is
not very effective. GCC 4.0 includes RTL optimizations that will catch most if
not all of these cases, so it is not as if this wil
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-19
02:40 ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> Also fails on ppc-linux with ZCX.
But passes on ppc-darwin with ZCX.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19381
--- Additional Comments From rth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-19 02:35
---
So the bug is the end stab without the start stab? Or do you think that this
bit of code that corresponds not at all to any user code should have full stabs?
If the later, why?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
--- Additional Comments From mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-19
02:11 ---
G++ 4.0 is correct. This declaration gives only a signed 9-bit type,
independent of the ABI. Since +128 is not representable in 9 signed bits, it
wraps to -128. The same issue explains the other tests.
--- Additional Comments From janis187 at us dot ibm dot com 2005-01-19
02:05 ---
Created an attachment (id=7988)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=7988&action=view)
test case with script
I get the following output from running the attached script using compilers
I buil
--- Additional Comments From janis187 at us dot ibm dot com 2005-01-19
02:01 ---
There are two changes that affect this binary incompatibility: one
changes the layout of the class, and the other changes how the bitfield
is accessed. Mark, did this change on purpose and is it covered by
--- Additional Comments From hjl at lucon dot org 2005-01-19 01:47 ---
Please take a closer look at the testcase. It is different from
bug 10908. Basically, main executable and DSO see different
function pointer values for the SAME function. From the linker
/* Will references to this sym
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-19
01:45 ---
on ppc-darwin with ZCX enabled this passes.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19385
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-19
01:43 ---
This was fixed on somewhere between the 10th and 11th.
By one of the patches listed in:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-regression/2005-01/txt00012.txt
The current time for Hello World is:
Hello!
0.760u 0.110s 0:
--- Additional Comments From law at redhat dot com 2005-01-19 01:43 ---
Subject: Re: DSE is not doing its job for
global variables
On Wed, 2005-01-19 at 01:34 +, steven at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> --- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-19
--- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-19
01:34 ---
DSE2 also does almost nothing, so I just went ahead and posted a proposal
to just disable DSE: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-01/msg01183.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1888
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-19
01:16 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> This is a regression from 3.3; I think the cause is this line in cgraphunit.c
> (cgraph_build_static_cdtor): (approximately line 1847)
>
> DECL_IGNORED_P (decl) = 1;
DECL_IGNOR
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-19
01:06 ---
Does -gfull make this work?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19521
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-19
00:57 ---
Not a gcc bug so closing.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-19
00:56 ---
*** Bug 19520 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10908
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-19
00:56 ---
protected always binds local as you cannot override it so the bug is in the
linker/asm.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 10908 ***
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From bauhaus at futureapps dot de 2005-01-19 00:50
---
Argh, yes. There was another ada subdirectory, my fault, sorry.
After removing it, options.h now looks good, no more duplicates.
Thanks.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19517
--- Additional Comments From stuart at apple dot com 2005-01-19 00:49
---
This is a regression from 3.3; I think the cause is this line in cgraphunit.c
(cgraph_build_static_cdtor): (approximately line 1847)
DECL_IGNORED_P (decl) = 1;
Deleting this line "fixes" the symptom, but I beli
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-19
00:47 ---
This is really a dup of bug 10908.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19520
--- Additional Comments From hjl at lucon dot org 2005-01-19 00:41 ---
They aren't the same. It is function pointer vs. function. The other looks
like a linker bug.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19520
--- Additional Comments From stuart at apple dot com 2005-01-19 00:40
---
Created an attachment (id=7986)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=7986&action=view)
gcov-1.c testcase
Attaching the testcase for convenience.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19
gcov support entails an initialization function named "__GLOBAL__I_0_noop".
GCC omits function-begin stab for this function.
Here is the commandline:
[morris:/Volumes/sandbox/stuart] hasting2%
\/Volumes/sandbox/stuart/gcc.fsf.obj/gcc/xgcc -B
\/Volumes/sandbox/stuart/gcc.fsf.obj/gcc -g gcov.c -fp
--- Additional Comments From hjl at lucon dot org 2005-01-19 00:35 ---
The same bug also happen on i686-pc-linux-gnu:
gcc -fPIC -c -o x.o x.c
gcc -shared -o libx.so x.o
gcc -o foo m.c libx.so -Wl,-rpath,.
./foo
called from main foo_p: 0x80483e4
called from shared foo: 0x111524
shared f
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-19
00:34 ---
Isn't this just binutils ld/584?
http://sources.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=584
Alan M. claims this is a ld bug rather than a gcc bug.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19520
--- Additional Comments From hjl at lucon dot org 2005-01-19 00:27 ---
Created an attachment (id=7985)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=7985&action=view)
A testcase
With the new linker, I got
[EMAIL PROTECTED] x86_64-3]$ make
gcc -fPIC -c -o x.o x.c
gcc -shared -o l
Protected function pointer doesn't work right. For pointer to protected
function, gcc should treat it as if it is normal.
--
Summary: protected function pointer doesn't work right
Product: gcc
Version: 4.0.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norm
--- Additional Comments From bernie at develer dot com 2005-01-19 00:18
---
(In reply to comment #3)
A quick informal review.
> if (GET_CODE (operands[2]) == CONST_INT)
> {
> int k;
>
> if (!len)
> len = &k;
> !
This line contains spu
The following program triggers the bug box when
encoded as UTF-8.
It runs fine when used with Latin-1
characters. The compiler can test the robustness of your system
if you use iconv to encode the source text in EUC-JP
and then try to compile with -gnatiw -gnatWe. (I guess
that the characters belo
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-19
00:12 ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> The shift with zero comes from regmove.
Well I did figure out where the shift with zero came from see above but why it
comes about I don't
know.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
--- Additional Comments From bernie at develer dot com 2005-01-19 00:11
---
I'm no longer in charge for this bug.
--
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|bernie at develer
--
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |bernie at develer dot com
|dot org |
Status|NEW
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-19
00:07 ---
This is basically PR 18191 but for unions this time, the struct/array part has
been fixed.
Note I think the following patch caused it:
2004-01-28 Richard Henderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR
--- Additional Comments From bernie at develer dot com 2005-01-19 00:06
---
Oops, I forgot this bug should stay open until someone
figures out why GCC 3.4 leaks through insns with a 0
shift count.
I've reclassified the bug as affecting the middle-end.
--
What|Removed
--- Additional Comments From bernie at develer dot com 2005-01-19 00:04
---
*** Bug 19329 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From bernie at develer dot com 2005-01-19 00:03
---
(In reply to comment #11)
> By the way at #19293, you will also find a patch suggestion that should be
> eaysily adapted to all of the present shifting problems.
I agree PR19293 is a superset of this bug, so
--
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |rth at gcc dot gnu dot org
|dot org |
Status|UNCONFIRMED
--
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #7984|text/x-csrc |text/plain
mime type||
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19518
--- Additional Comments From joseph at codesourcery dot com 2005-01-18
23:52 ---
Subject: Re: bogus warning about complex "integer" types
from typedef
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005, stevenj at fftw dot org wrote:
> Okay, I guess I see what you mean. "double" in "double _Complex" is
> arguabl
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed||1
Last reconfirmed|-00-00 00:00:00 |2005-01-
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-18
23:49 ---
Fixed.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-18
23:47 ---
Confirmed, the issue is that DOM does not recognizes that b = *a; if(b) ... c =
*a; if (c) ... can be
changed (note the lacking of the != 0 which would be required for int/char,
etc.).
--
Wha
--- Additional Comments From bjoern dot m dot haase at web dot de
2005-01-18 23:43 ---
Sorry for this:
In my posting above, I have misspelled the bug number. I wanted to refer you
to bug #19293 (and not #19239, luckyly the number of possible permutations is
countable).
By the way
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-18
23:42 ---
This works for me also.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19517
--- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-18
23:37 ---
I looked at the constructor gimplification stuff recently. Lemme see if
there's an easy fix I can figure out.
--
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Additional Comments From bjoern dot m dot haase at web dot de
2005-01-18 23:35 ---
I have the impression that Bug #19329 is the same as bug #19239 (as one might
think already when looking at the similarity of the numbers :-) ) 19239,
howeverr so far has addressed the issue of *neg
--- Additional Comments From ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-18
23:34 ---
Just to be sure: check that you don't have 2 ada subdirectories in srcdir/gcc.
--
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Additional Comments From falk at debian dot org 2005-01-18 23:34
---
Created an attachment (id=7984)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=7984&action=view)
test case
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19518
gcc version 4.0.0 20050116 (experimental)
% gcc -O2 fbmmx.c -c -c
fbmmx.c: In function 'fbCompositeSolid_nxmmx':
fbmmx.c:56: error: unrecognizable insn:
(insn 332 125 128 3 (set (reg:V4HI 4 $4)
(const_vector:V4HI [
(const_int 255 [0xff])
(const_int 255 [
In a fresh directory, I did
../src/gcc/configure --prefix=/opt/GCC/4-01 \
--disable-nls \
--enable-languages=ada,c
This gives
...
checking for MPFR... yes
The following languages will be built: c,ada,ada
*** This configuration is not supported in the following subdirectories:
...
Note the du
--- Additional Comments From bjoern dot m dot haase at web dot de
2005-01-18 23:27 ---
Hi,
I have just stepped over a patch suggested by Bernardo Innocenti in order to
treat the case of "shift_count == 0" correctly. My presently suggested
patch (above) only treats the case of negati
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-18
23:23 ---
Hmm, the gimplifier is messing up (again, there was another bug like this).
Here is the reduced testcase which shows the problem:
typedef union {
char a2[8];
}aun;
void abort (void);
int main(void)
{
--- Additional Comments From stevenj at fftw dot org 2005-01-18 23:15
---
Subject: Re: bogus warning about complex "integer" types
from typedef
Okay, I guess I see what you mean. "double" in "double _Complex" is
arguably not a "type", but rather a type-specifier as defined in 6.7.2,
--- Additional Comments From ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-18
23:12 ---
> This is a midde-end problem (investing further)
> but we end up with an empty CONSTRUTOR and the middle-end is not expanding it
> correctly for the union.
Right, the 3.4.x back-end used to zero the
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-18
23:06 ---
This is a midde-end problem (investing further)
but we end up with an empty CONSTRUTOR and the middle-end is not expanding it
correctly for the
union.
--
What|Removed
--- Additional Comments From stevenj at fftw dot org 2005-01-18 22:56
---
Subject: Re: bogus warning about complex "integer" types
from typedef
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005, joseph at codesourcery dot com wrote:
>> typedef double R;
>> typedef R _Complex C;
>
> This is not valid code; you can'
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-18
22:52 ---
Invalid based on JSM's comment.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
--- Additional Comments From ch at csh-consult dot dk 2005-01-18 22:32
---
Yes I have, but I was lazy and wrote it in C#. I've put them up for download
here: http://212.242.245.122/100files.tar.gz (2.5MB)
There is also the command to invoke gcc (run.bat)
No -O flag is used.
--
http
--- Additional Comments From rguenth at tat dot physik dot uni-tuebingen
dot de 2005-01-18 22:29 ---
Done. PR19516.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19507
Actually a side-bug of 19507. The testcase
void bar(void);
void foo(const _Bool *flag)
{
if (*flag)
bar();
if (*flag)
bar();
}
Should be transformed to (at the tree level):
if (!*flag)
return;
bar();
if (*flag)
bar();
this is only done at
--- Additional Comments From joseph at codesourcery dot com 2005-01-18
22:20 ---
Subject: Re: New: bogus warning about complex "integer"
types from typedef
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005, gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> When compiling the following two lines:
>
> typedef double R;
typedef unsigned char uint8_t;
typedef unsigned short uint16_t;
typedef unsigned int uint32_t;
typedef unsigned long long upad64_t;
typedef struct _pthread_mutex {
struct {
uint16_t__pthread_mutex_flag1;
uint8_t __pthread_mutex_flag2;
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-18
22:05 ---
Subject: Bug 13470
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Branch: gcc-3_4-branch
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-01-18 22:05:08
Modified files:
gcc/ada: Change
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-18
22:03 ---
Can you try it now that PR 13470 is fixed on the mainline?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19456
NOTE: Defaulting component because reported component no longer exists
When compiling the following two lines:
typedef double R;
typedef R _Complex C;
with the flags -std=c99 -pedantic, gcc gives the bogus warning:
foo.c:2: warning: ISO C does not support complex integer types
(Code based on t
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-18
22:02 ---
Do you have a program which generates those files?
Also is this at -O0 or -O2?
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-18
22:00 ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> Subject: Re: missed tree-optimization
>
> this is done at RTL level, but not at tree level. I should file a
> separate bug for this one, really.
Yes because if we change flag t
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-18
22:00 ---
Subject: Bug 13470
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-01-18 22:00:13
Modified files:
gcc/ada: ChangeLog a-stunau.adb
Log message:
Passing 250 or so files from a larger software project (about 3MB of
sourcecode) to gcc at a time makes gcc use more than 400MB of memory. Possible
more as I had to stop the compilation.
I created a much simpler example. 100 equal .c files each containing:
static void mainX() {}
where X varies
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-18
21:52 ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> Confirmed, reduced testcase (20 lines :) ):
One more thing, the options to reproduce this with a normaly compiled compiler:
-march=pentium3 -O1 -m32
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzi
--- Additional Comments From mark at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-18 21:51
---
Some other things that could be checked:
- Using wrongly formatted JNI descriptor strings in
Get[Static](Field|Method)ID() (note '.' is not allowed, must be '/').
- Using a JNIEnv in another thread.
- LocalRef
--- Additional Comments From pcarlini at suse dot de 2005-01-18 21:50
---
> So the patch is ABI-neutral.
Great! (many thanks for the interesting explanation, Gaby)
Therefore, if Volker is willing to regtest the complete fix and post it...
P.S. Too bad that only -O3 triggers the warning
--- Additional Comments From gdr at integrable-solutions dot net
2005-01-18 21:46 ---
Subject: Re: [4.0 regression] Warning using list iterators
"pcarlini at suse dot de" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| > I think your patch is OK and should be applied.
|
| First blush, I agree. Is it 1
--- Additional Comments From ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-18
21:41 ---
Patch applied.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RES
--- Additional Comments From bjoern dot m dot haase at web dot de
2005-01-18 21:40 ---
Indeed the problem seems to be related to a problem during the reload pass. I
now think, that I have found a solution for the original problem that needs a
tiny change in the back-end.
DJ Delorie
1 - 100 of 234 matches
Mail list logo
