[Bug c++/20547] New: undefined reference to "static const" fields of classes

The sample codes¡G == #include #include struct T { static char const a = 3; }; std::vector ddd; int main() { ddd.push_back(T::a); /* this line of codes trigger the errors */ std::cerr << ddd.front() << std::endl; return 0; } ===

[Bug c++/19769] [4.0 Regression] GCC produces wrong dwarf2 output that breaks gdb

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-19 05:27 --- Fixed at least on the mainline (for 4.1). -- What|Removed |Added Summary|[4.0/4.1

[Bug c++/19769] [4.0/4.1 Regression] GCC produces wrong dwarf2 output that breaks gdb

--- Additional Comments From dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-19 03:50 --- Subject: Re: [4.0/4.1 Regression] GCC produces wrong dwarf2 output that breaks gdb On Sat, 2005-03-19 at 03:07 +, cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote: > --- Additional Comments From cvs

[Bug c++/19769] [4.0/4.1 Regression] GCC produces wrong dwarf2 output that breaks gdb

--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-19 03:07 --- Subject: Bug 19769 CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc Module name:gcc Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-03-19 03:06:52 Modified files: gcc: ChangeLog dwarf2out.c Log message:

[Bug fortran/20538] compiling -finline-functions -O2 and we crash at runtime

--- Additional Comments From pbrook at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-19 01:58 --- Due to general gfortran lameness only contained functions are ever inlined. Top-level functions are never inlined. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20538

[Bug fortran/20538] compiling -finline-functions -O2 and we crash at runtime

--- Additional Comments From tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-19 01:57 --- This modified testcase which removes the nested function, fails at -O2 by giving as output, but works at -O0. I'm not sure if this is a different manifestation of the same bug, so I'm putting this here

[Bug fortran/20538] compiling -finline-functions -O2 and we crash at runtime

--- Additional Comments From tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-19 01:47 --- The failure is dependent on the function being a nested function, the following doesn't segfault at -O2: subroutine advance(bodies) real, dimension(:)::bodies bodies = 1.0 end subroutine advance int

[Bug fortran/20538] compiling -finline-functions -O2 and we crash at runtime

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-19 01:42 --- This might be the same as PR 16898. -- What|Removed |Added BugsThisDependsOn|

[Bug fortran/20538] compiling -finline-functions -O2 and we crash at runtime

--- Additional Comments From tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-19 01:35 --- Further reduction: segfaults at -O2, runs at -O0. real vx(1) num=2 do i=1,num call advance(vx) end do contains subroutine advance(bodies) real, dimension(:)::bodies bodies = 1.0 end sub

[Bug target/20529] m6811-elf-g++ ICE

-- What|Removed |Added CC||ciceron at gcc dot gnu dot ||org http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/sh

[Bug target/20546] Loading and storing of packed structure elements uses wrong endian for PPC EABI Little Endian

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-19 01:26 --- PPC LE is not really supported any more. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20546

[Bug target/20546] Loading and storing of packed structure elements uses wrong endian for PPC EABI Little Endian

-- What|Removed |Added Severity|critical|normal Component|c |target http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=205

[Bug middle-end/20539] [4.0/4.1 Regression] ICE in simplify_subreg, at simplify-rtx.c:3674

--- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2005-03-19 01:25 --- some more subreg fun, weee! -- What|Removed |Added CC|

[Bug c/20546] New: Loading and storing of packed structure elements uses wrong endian for PPC EABI Little Endian

Using GCC 3.4 3.4.0 20040225 (prerelease) PPC EABI Little-Endian. For packed structure element read/writes, compiler is loading/storing data as big-endian instead of little-endian. Seen with all optimization levels, including off. Phenomena not seen with unpacked structures. Source: typedef struc

[Bug fortran/20538] compiling -finline-functions -O2 and we crash at runtime

--- Additional Comments From tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-19 00:54 --- Slightly reduced testcase, segfaults at -O2, runs with lower optimization. Removing any single statement leads to either illegal floating pointn numbers or makes the segfault disappear: character(len=8) arg

[Bug tree-optimization/19108] [4.0/4.1 regression] ICE initializing arrays

--- Additional Comments From sayler at thewalrus dot org 2005-03-18 23:00 --- Bug still present. The patch in #2 seems to fix the issue, though. I can't say that the hash function chosen is the most efficient, but it's surely better than an ICE. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_

[Bug ada/19526] Windows errorcodes wrong in Ada when tasking

--- Additional Comments From b201 at passagen dot se 2005-03-18 22:45 --- How come not many people see this as a bug? When a program behaves differently, just because a totally non-related task was introduced, I consider it a bug. I think Danny is on the right track. As for the re

[Bug fortran/20538] compiling -finline-functions -O2 and we crash at runtime

--- Additional Comments From kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-18 22:36 --- I added a "print *, size(bodies)" in the advance routine. We have troutmask:kargl[295] gfc -o jk -O2 jk.f90 troutmask:kargl[296] ./jk 1 -0.169075164 -595 -0.169075164 troutmask:kargl[297] gfc -o jk -

[Bug fortran/20538] compiling -finline-functions -O2 and we crash at runtime

--- Additional Comments From kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-18 22:24 --- It appears to be an optimization bug. It compiles and runs with "-O" and "-O -finline-functions". It seg faults with "-O2". The -finline-functions appears to be unrelated to the seg fault. -- http://gcc

[Bug c++/20461] [4.0/4.1 Regression] ICE at "class 'C' does not have any field named 'f'" error

--- Additional Comments From pcarlini at suse dot de 2005-03-18 22:16 --- Notice that the ICE happen only with checking enabled, but seems easy to fix and we can avoid "confused by earlier errors, bailing out" otherwise. -- What|Removed |Added ---

[Bug fortran/20541] INTEGER type declaration: ALLOCATABLE, compilation error

--- Additional Comments From kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-18 22:08 --- Your code is illegal with respect to the Fortran 95 standard. See section 4.4.1, page 38, of the (draft) standard, you'll find the following R426 component-attr-spec is POINTER

[Bug target/13822] enable -fomit-frame-pointer or at least -momit-frame-pointer by default on x86/dwarf2 platforms

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-18 22:06 --- *** Bug 20545 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- What|Removed |Added

[Bug middle-end/20545] unnecessary operations in tailcall

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-18 22:06 --- -fomit-frame-pointer "fixes" the problem, well this option really should be enabled by default and that is PR 13822 which I am marking this bug as a dup of. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of

[Bug middle-end/20545] New: unnecessary operations in tailcall

$ cat output-block.c int flush_output(void) { return add_block(); } $ gcc -O3 -S output-block.c $ cat output-block.s .file "output-block.c" .text .p2align 4,,15 .globl flush_output .type flush_output, @function flush_output: pushl %ebp movl

[Bug tree-optimization/20542] [4.1 Regression] Bootstrap failure at -Os

--- Additional Comments From dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-18 21:45 --- I'm testing a patch now -- What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu

[Bug tree-optimization/14796] [tree-ssa] combine two shifts into one

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-18 21:44 --- *** Bug 20544 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- What|Removed |Added

[Bug tree-optimization/20544] missed tree-fold opportunity (shift of shifted value).

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-18 21:44 --- *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 14796 *** -- What|Removed |Added

[Bug target/20540] "-march=i386" doesn't mean "limit instruction set to what 80386 understands"

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-18 21:42 --- (In reply to comment #5) > Why do you think movzbl is not an instruction on i386? Just one more nore, movzbl is the same as movzx. This is where AT&T vs Intel asm format is different. So this is not a bu

[Bug tree-optimization/20544] New: missed tree-fold opportunity (shift of shifted value).

This code should really be simplified to a single shift before the end of the tree optimization passes. Once we've expanded to RTL this is likely to be too complex to simplify on a 32-bit machine. unsigned long long int shifttwice(unsigned long long int v) { return v << 31 << 1; } --

[Bug tree-optimization/20542] [4.1 Regression] Bootstrap failure at -Os

--- Additional Comments From dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-18 21:33 --- Subject: Re: New: [4.1 Regression] Bootstrap failure at -Os On Fri, 2005-03-18 at 21:21 +, rearnsha at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote: > Bootstrapping with BOOT_CFLAGS="-Os -g" fails when the stage2

[Bug tree-optimization/20542] [4.1 Regression] Bootstrap failure at -Os

-- What|Removed |Added CC||dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot ||org, pinskia at gcc dot gnu

[Bug target/20540] "-march=i386" doesn't mean "limit instruction set to what 80386 understands"

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-18 21:25 --- Why do you think movzbl is not an instruction on i386? -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20540

[Bug tree-optimization/20542] [4.1 Regression] Bootstrap failure at -Os

--- Additional Comments From rearnsha at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-18 21:24 --- *** Bug 20543 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20542

[Bug tree-optimization/20543] [4.1 Regression] Bootstrap failure at -Os

--- Additional Comments From rearnsha at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-18 21:24 --- *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 20542 *** -- What|Removed |Added

[Bug tree-optimization/20543] New: [4.1 Regression] Bootstrap failure at -Os

Bootstrapping with BOOT_CFLAGS="-Os -g" fails when the stage2 cc1 is used to build crtstuff.o. The segmentation fault occurs in find_uses_to_rename_use but the error really seems to be in its caller find_uses_to_rename_bb (tree-ssa-loop-manip.c). Looking at the tree dumps we have in t49.loopinit

[Bug tree-optimization/20542] New: [4.1 Regression] Bootstrap failure at -Os

Bootstrapping with BOOT_CFLAGS="-Os -g" fails when the stage2 cc1 is used to build crtstuff.o. The segmentation fault occurs in find_uses_to_rename_use but the error really seems to be in its caller find_uses_to_rename_bb (tree-ssa-loop-manip.c). Looking at the tree dumps we have in t49.loopinit

[Bug middle-end/20539] [4.0/4.1 Regression] ICE in simplify_subreg, at simplify-rtx.c:3674

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-18 21:09 --- (In reply to comment #3) > : Search converges between 2004-05-11-trunk (#454) and 2004-05-14-trunk > (#455). Hmm, this would mean it was introduced by the tree-ssa merge. It works with the tree-ssa branch o

[Bug middle-end/20539] [4.0/4.1 Regression] ICE in simplify_subreg, at simplify-rtx.c:3674

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-18 21:08 --- Reduced testcase: char l7_en; long long l6_data_Z_0th; int t; void f() { if (((char )(l6_data_Z_0th>>1 & 1U)) & ((l6_data_Z_0th & 1U) | !(((char )(l6_data_Z_0th>>35 & 15U))==14U))) t = 0ULL; } :

[Bug libstdc++/20534] Erroneous #include of

--- Additional Comments From sacolcor at provide dot net 2005-03-18 20:57 --- I'm working on it, but it may take me a where to track it down to a minimal case. You're correct in that this is legal behavior for a conforming compiler; the actual "core" problem is that because gcc (and mo

[Bug middle-end/20539] [4.0/4.1 Regression] ICE in simplify_subreg, at simplify-rtx.c:3674

-- What|Removed |Added Summary|[4.0 Regression] ICE in |[4.0/4.1 Regression] ICE in |simplify_subreg, at |simplify_subreg, at

[Bug middle-end/20539] [4.0 Regression] ICE in simplify_subreg, at simplify-rtx.c:3674

-- What|Removed |Added Component|rtl-optimization|middle-end Keywords||ice-on-valid-code Summary|ICE in simplif

[Bug target/20540] "-march=i386" doesn't mean "limit instruction set to what 80386 understands"

--- Additional Comments From zeev dot tarantov at gmail dot com 2005-03-18 20:47 --- I forgot to say gcc was compiled with "-march=pentium3 -O3". I tried it now on gcc 3.3.5 and got the same deal. -- What|Removed |Added ---

[Bug rtl-optimization/20539] ICE in simplify_subreg, at simplify-rtx.c:3674

--- Additional Comments From John at xza5 dot com 2005-03-18 20:46 --- I should have added: - This is a regression from gcc-3.4.3 - The compiler I was testing was the snapshot: gcc-4.0-20050312 - The last snapshot I tried, gcc-4.0-20050220 exhibited the same behaviour -- http://gcc.gn

[Bug fortran/20541] New: INTEGER type declaration: ALLOCATABLE, compilation error

This line is a allocatable integer type declaration in a standard module " gfortran -ffree-form -O3 -c dvr.f90 In file dvr.f90:8 INTEGER(kind=4), ALLOCATABLE :: glmark(:) 1 Error: Attribute at (1) is not allowed in a TYPE definition make: *** [dvr.mod] Error 1

[Bug target/20540] "-march=i386" doesn't mean "limit instruction set to what 80386 understands"

--- Additional Comments From zeev dot tarantov at gmail dot com 2005-03-18 20:36 --- Created an attachment (id=8420) --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=8420&action=view) testcase unexpected output this is what I get from "gcc -march=i386 -O3 -S -g opcode.c -o opcode.i38

[Bug target/20540] "-march=i386" doesn't mean "limit instruction set to what 80386 understands"

--- Additional Comments From zeev dot tarantov at gmail dot com 2005-03-18 20:27 --- Created an attachment (id=8419) --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=8419&action=view) testcase expected output this is what I get from "gcc -march=i486 -O3 -S -g opcode.c -o opcode.i486.

[Bug target/20540] "-march=i386" doesn't mean "limit instruction set to what 80386 understands"

--- Additional Comments From zeev dot tarantov at gmail dot com 2005-03-18 20:26 --- Created an attachment (id=8418) --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=8418&action=view) testcase source -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20540

[Bug target/20540] New: "-march=i386" doesn't mean "limit instruction set to what 80386 understands"

gcc version 3.4.3-20050110 (Gentoo Linux 3.4.3.20050110, ssp-3.4.3.20050110-0, pie-8.7.7) Basically, I get P6 instructions in the assembly output when compiling with "-march=i386", but when I tried "-march=i486" id did the right thing (no P6 instructions). I hope it is just a simple problem of mis

[Bug rtl-optimization/20539] ICE in simplify_subreg, at simplify-rtx.c:3674

-- What|Removed |Added CC||pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot ||org http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/sh

[Bug rtl-optimization/20539] ICE in simplify_subreg, at simplify-rtx.c:3674

--- Additional Comments From John at xza5 dot com 2005-03-18 20:09 --- Created an attachment (id=8417) --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=8417&action=view) bzip'ed, preprocessed, trimmed testcase -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20539

[Bug rtl-optimization/20539] New: ICE in simplify_subreg, at simplify-rtx.c:3674

It's quite a small testcase. I hacked it down to about 3700 lines... More seriously, I haven't tried hacking about the (member) function that's causing the problem - I've just removed a load of irrelevant stuff from the file. This is the failure I found: [ALL]$ /usr/local/gcc/gcc-4.0-20050312/bi

[Bug bootstrap/20537] [4.1 Regression] GCC install libstdc++ headers in wrong dir

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-18 19:30 --- See: and follow ups. -- What|Removed |Added

[Bug bootstrap/20537] [4.1 Regression] GCC install libstdc++ headers in wrong dir

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-18 19:30 --- We know about this. -- What|Removed |Added CC||p

[Bug fortran/20538] New: compiling -finline-functions -O2 and we crash at runtime

From: program nbody implicit none integer result, num, i, k character(len=8) argv real*8, parameter :: tstep = 0.01d0 real*8, parameter :: PI = 3.141592653589793d0 real*8, parameter :: SOLA

[Bug c++/20537] New: GCC install libstdc++ headers in wrong dir

Current GCC mainline (4.1.0 20050318) install libstdc++ headers at FreeBSD 5.3 in /include/c++/const/ dir instead /include/c++/4.1.0/ I think problem related to last GCC version generation changes. I build and install without this problem GCC 4.1.0 20050313 Vladimir -- Summary

[Bug c++/20461] [4.0/4.1 Regression] ICE at "class 'C' does not have any field named 'f'" error

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-18 19:13 --- *** Bug 20536 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- What|Removed |Added

[Bug c++/20536] G++ segfault on tiny snipped of invalid code

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-18 19:13 --- *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 20461 *** -- What|Removed |Added

[Bug c++/20536] New: G++ segfault on tiny snipped of invalid code

Trying to compile the following invalid code with gcc (GCC) 4.1.0 20050312 (experimental) results in an ICE: segfault. Version 3.4.1 is not affectected. // Found by Wolfgang Wieser 03/2005. // Crash gcc (GCC) 4.1.0 20050312 (experim

[Bug ada/19382] ACATS cxb5002 simple To_Fortran test fails at runtime on s390-linux

--- Additional Comments From laurent at guerby dot net 2005-03-18 18:46 --- Still fails on 4.0.0 20050317 (prerelease) testsuite on s390-ibm-linux-gnu according to: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2005-03/msg01185.html -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19382

[Bug middle-end/20225] [4.0/4.1 regression] ICE during GC

--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-18 18:15 --- Subject: Bug 20225 CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc Module name:gcc Branch: gcc-4_0-branch Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-03-18 18:15:09 Modified files: gcc: Change

[Bug c/20535] add warning or error if storage size mismatch

--- Additional Comments From olh at suse dot de 2005-03-18 17:32 --- just checked, gcc4 accepts it (blkid.c) as well. -- What|Removed |Added Version|3.3.3

[Bug c/20535] New: add warning or error if storage size mismatch

We see more and more code like this, in this case e2fsprogs blkid: char c; c=getopt(...) getopt returns an int, and so does getc. But gcc stores the thing in something that cant hold the return type. It should warn with an obvious message, or even error out. -- Summary: add warning

[Bug c++/20463] [4.0/4.1 regression] ICE on using undefined type

--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-18 17:19 --- Subject: Bug 20463 CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc Module name:gcc Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-03-18 17:19:42 Modified files: gcc/testsuite : ChangeLog Added files: gcc/t

[Bug c++/20463] [4.0/4.1 regression] ICE on using undefined type

--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-18 17:16 --- Subject: Bug 20463 CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc Module name:gcc Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-03-18 17:16:24 Modified files: gcc/cp : ChangeLog parser.c Log message:

[Bug c++/20381] [4.0/4.1 Regression] ICE in build_ptrmemfunc, at cp/typeck.c:5702

--- Additional Comments From micis at gmx dot de 2005-03-18 17:04 --- Please ignore the coment above. I do get this error with gcc4.0.0 abd gcc4.1.0 Michael Cieslinski -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20381

[Bug libstdc++/20534] Erroneous #include of

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-18 16:54 --- Hmm, I know that the only header which is allowed to included twice is cassert/assert.h and change the behavior. Also I know standard headers are allowed to bring in other standard headers. So I don't

[Bug c/20533] documentation: attribute 'used', applied to a variable

-- What|Removed |Added Keywords||documentation http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20533

[Bug c++/19772] [3.4/4.0/4.1 Regression] crash on invalid template friend decl

--- Additional Comments From lerdsuwa at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-18 16:39 --- Got it. Mainline ICE on corrected code. 4.0 ICE on both original and corrected one. -- What|Removed |Added

[Bug c/20319] -fkeep-static-consts with -O asserted doesn't keep consts

--- Additional Comments From gary at intrepid dot com 2005-03-18 16:16 --- from http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-03/msg00491.html I think that the switch name -fkeep-static-consts might be more consistenly named if it was given the opposite sense and named something like -fdelete-unused-s

[Bug libstdc++/20534] New: Erroneous #include of

gcc/libstdc++-v3/include/debug/debug.h:272 reads: #include // TBD: temporary Is this "temporary" include still needed? It causes most uses of STL to pull in the assert header, which means that programs can (and have) failed to compile on versions of the compiler without this bug. --

[Bug c/20533] New: documentation: attribute 'used', applied to a variable

See related discussion in Bug #20319, and at http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-03/msg00450.html The "used" attribute is described only under "function attributes" and not under "variable attributes" in the documentation: used This attribute, attached to a function, means that code must be emitted fo

[Bug tree-optimization/19108] [4.0/4.1 regression] ICE initializing arrays

--- Additional Comments From sayler at thewalrus dot org 2005-03-18 15:49 --- working to replicate this in current CVS. -- What|Removed |Added CC|

[Bug c++/9782] constructor not called on higher-dimensional arrays of template types

--- Additional Comments From lerdsuwa at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-18 15:08 --- Now the code is rejected by GCC in 4.0 branch and mainline. -- What|Removed |Added

[Bug middle-end/20225] [4.0/4.1 regression] ICE during GC

--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-18 14:57 --- Subject: Bug 20225 CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc Module name:gcc Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-03-18 14:57:15 Modified files: gcc: ChangeLog cgraph.c varasm.c Log mes

[Bug rtl-optimization/20532] [4.0/4.1 Regression] Bad code for DImode left shifts by 31 and then 1

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-18 14:03 --- This was introduced between 20040630 and 20040702. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20532

[Bug java/20522] ICE in update_aliases, at java/decl.c:163

--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-18 13:59 --- Subject: Bug 20522 CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc Module name:gcc Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-03-18 13:59:11 Modified files: gcc/java : decl.c ChangeLog Log message:

[Bug java/20522] ICE in update_aliases, at java/decl.c:163

-- What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |aph at gcc dot gnu dot org |dot org | Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug java/20522] ICE in update_aliases, at java/decl.c:163

--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-18 13:57 --- Subject: Bug 20522 CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc Module name:gcc Branch: gcc-4_0-branch Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-03-18 13:57:15 Modified files: gcc/java : decl.c

[Bug rtl-optimization/20532] [4.0/4.1 Regression] Bad code for DImode left shifts by 31 and then 1

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-18 13:55 --- Confirmed with the following options on i686-pc-linux-gnu: -O1 -march=i386 -- What|Removed |Added ---

[Bug c/20532] Bad code for DImode left shifts by 31 and then 1

--- Additional Comments From macro at linux-mips dot org 2005-03-18 13:50 --- You need to pass at least -O1 when building this program to trigger the bug. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20532

[Bug c++/20463] [4.0/4.1 regression] ICE on using undefined type

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-18 13:48 --- Patch here: . -- What|Removed |Added

[Bug c/20532] New: Bad code for DImode left shifts by 31 and then 1

gcc (GCC) 4.0.0 20050316 (prerelease) (from the gcc-4_0-branch branch) emits bad code for DImode left shifts by 31 and then 1 (foo << 31 <<1). Instead of doing the shifts, both the lowpart (correctly) and the highpart (incorrectly) word get zeroed. If the shifts are replaced by ones by 30 and the

[Bug c/20531] gcc should warn about undefined behaviour

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-18 13:44 --- Confirmed. -- What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW

[Bug ada/19519] GNAT Bug Box when reading a program with UTF-8 encoded enumeration literals

--- Additional Comments From charlet at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-18 12:39 --- Fixed. Arno -- What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED

[Bug middle-end/20524] [4.0/4.1 regression] cris-axis-elf testsuite failures: gcc.c-torture/compile/20011119-1.c and -2

--- Additional Comments From joseph at codesourcery dot com 2005-03-18 12:27 --- Subject: Re: [4.0/4.1 regression] cris-axis-elf testsuite failures: gcc.c-torture/compile/2009-1.c and -2 2009-2.c seems to be failing on all HP-UX targets and i686-pc-linux-gnu, mainline and 4.0

[Bug c++/20463] [4.0/4.1 regression] ICE on using undefined type

--- Additional Comments From pcarlini at suse dot de 2005-03-18 12:04 --- Looking into it. -- What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |pcarlini at

[Bug ada/19519] GNAT Bug Box when reading a program with UTF-8 encoded enumeration literals

--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-18 11:51 --- Subject: Bug 19519 CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc Module name:gcc Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-03-18 11:50:32 Modified files: gcc/ada: namet.adb Log message: 2005

[Bug other/20531] New: gcc should warn about undefined behaviour

volatile struct { int x, y; } s; int foo() { return (s.x > s.y); // undefined behavior: // the order of volatile accesses // is undefined in this statment } -- Summary: gcc should warn about undefined behaviour P

[Bug c++/20103] [4.0/4.1 regression] ICE in create_tmp_var with C99 style struct initializer

--- Additional Comments From aoliva at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-18 10:14 --- Subject: Re: [PR c++/20103] failure to gimplify constructors for addressable types On Mar 18, 2005, Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mar 17, 2005, Richard Henderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote

[Bug tree-optimization/13952] [tree-ssa] SRA does not work for structs containing arrays

-- What|Removed |Added CC||pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot ||org Last reconfirmed|2004-09-28 0

[Bug ada/20530] New: gnatlink does not respect -mno-cygwin

despite passing -mno-cygwin as a gnatmake option and additionally as a gnatlink option, gnatlink adds the cygwin path to adalib to the link command. The libgnat is found first in the cygwin path and not in the mingw path. The link consequently fails. The problem is present on both gcc-3.3.3