--- Comment #2 from mark at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-23 08:19 ---
Can you take a look at this bug report chris?
--
mark at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
Mainline is ICE'ing on testsuite/gcc.c-torture/compile/sync-1.c for some
arguments to -march. For example:
./xgcc -B. -O2
/mnt/sysfs/rask/cvssrc/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/compile/sync-1.c -S -o
/tmp/sync-1.s -march=pentium
/mnt/sysfs/rask/cvssrc/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/compile/sync-1
--- Comment #6 from debian-gcc at lists dot debian dot org 2006-04-23
11:00 ---
test case from http://bugs.debian.org/351512
class gcjbug {
public static void main (String [] p) {
System.out.println(1++);
}
}
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8923
Dear all:
The command
creal(cpow(1.+I,I))
using complex arithmetic produces the double 0.
Presently, I have no other explanation for this
as assuming that this is a result of a bug in gcc
4.0.0 on Mac OSX, XCode.
I have now downloaded the version gcc 4.0.1,
and suddenly, the real part is no lo
[forwarded from http://bugs.debian.org/340651]
$ gij test
Segmentation fault
$ cat test.java
public class test
{
public test()
{
test t = new test();
}
public static void main(String argv[])
{
new test();
}
}
while the blackdown runtime prints
Exception
--- Comment #5 from patchapp at dberlin dot org 2006-04-23 11:25 ---
Subject: Bug number PR27236
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/2006-04/msg00871.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/sh
--- Comment #9 from patchapp at dberlin dot org 2006-04-23 11:25 ---
Subject: Bug number PR27218
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/2006-04/msg00872.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/sh
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/src/work/bug> cat t.f90
module const
! Kind parameters
integer, parameter :: dp = kind(1d0)
double precision reimMUE(2), reMUE, imMUE
equivalence (MUE, reimMUE)
equivalence (reimMUE(1), reMUE), (reimMUE(2), imMUE)
end module cons
--- Comment #1 from tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-23 11:45 ---
Since I still have it on my screen:
(gdb) p eq->expr->where->nextc-18
$6 = 0x8708de9 " use cross_section"
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27269
--- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-23 11:51 ---
Please read the bug-reporting instructions and provide a preprocessed testcase.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27267
--- Comment #5 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-23 11:56 ---
Subject: Bug 25099
Author: pault
Date: Sun Apr 23 11:56:37 2006
New Revision: 113194
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=113194
Log:
2006-04-23 Paul Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR fortran/
--- Comment #1 from rask at sygehus dot dk 2006-04-23 14:46 ---
Created an attachment (id=11317)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=11317&action=view)
Preprocessed source code
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27266
with a recent gcc snapshot on i386:
c++ (GCC) 4.2.0 20060325 (experimental)
the following tst program program:
template
struct Array {
Entry *array[32];
--- Comment #2 from paolo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-23 14:54 ---
Subject: Bug 27199
Author: paolo
Date: Sun Apr 23 14:54:26 2006
New Revision: 113195
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=113195
Log:
2006-04-23 Marc Glisse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR libstdc+
--- Comment #3 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2006-04-23 14:55 ---
Fixed.
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
--- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-23 15:47 ---
Confirmed. We hit
#1 0x080b0ffc in digest_init (type=, init=0xb7da6ed0)
at /space/rguenther/src/svn/gcc/gcc/cp/typeck2.c:788
788 gcc_assert (VEC_length (constructor_elt, v) <= len);
Also happens on th
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-23 16:00 ---
Also check with the C standard to what this is supposed to return.
If you are not including complex.h and stdio.h, then this code is invalid,
please use -Wall -W before posting the preprocessed source.
Also you sho
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-23 16:09 ---
Note Redhat's 4.1.0 is closer to 4.2.0 than 4.1.0.
Anyways confirmed a regression in that it worked in 4.1.0.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-23 16:10 ---
Also here is the backtrace:
#0 split_di (operands=0xc0c768, num=0, lo_half=0x7f89ab58,
hi_half=0x7f89ab48)
at /home/pinskia/src/newtest/trunk/gcc/config/i386/i386.c:8037
#1 0x007ff0eb in ix
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-23 16:16 ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 1373 ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #12 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-23 16:16
---
*** Bug 27268 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #13 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-23 16:18
---
A better testcase comes from PR 27268 which seg faults at all optimizations
level currently (though this case can also be optimized out to be an infinite
loop really):
public class test
{
public test()
{
The following code fails to run with the gij-4.1 runtime (4.1 branch 20060421),
works ok with the blackdown runtime (example distilled from FC's azureus-themed
patch by Stephan Michels).
$ cat TestLoadImage.java
import java.io.InputStream;
import org.eclipse.swt.graphics.Image;
import org.eclipse.
--- Comment #1 from doko at ubuntu dot com 2006-04-23 16:31 ---
Created an attachment (id=11318)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=11318&action=view)
test case
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27271
char *yn;
yn = (char *) malloc (sizeof (char) * x * y);
First subroutine included with {}:
char (*pointer)[x][y] = (char (*)[x][y]) yn;
&((*pointer)[0][0]) is 0x8052100
&((*pointer)[0][1]) is 0x8052107
Second routine independent function passed as pointer yn as parameter;
char (*pointer)[x][y] = (
--- Comment #5 from sayle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-23 17:25 ---
Subject: Bug 16641
Author: sayle
Date: Sun Apr 23 17:25:30 2006
New Revision: 113196
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=113196
Log:
PR target/16641
* config/fr30/fr30.h (GO_IF_LEGI
--- Comment #3 from sayle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-23 17:44 ---
Subject: Bug 21283
Author: sayle
Date: Sun Apr 23 17:44:46 2006
New Revision: 113198
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=113198
Log:
PR target/21283
* config/fr30/fr30.md (define_sp
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-23 17:46 ---
Can you provide a self contained example which actually compiles? As right now
I (and others) can only guess at what the problem is.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-23 18:01 ---
For PowerPC, either way is implemented the same in that it uses the same two
instructions (though with different operands).
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20517
--- Comment #7 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-23 18:04
---
Subject: Bug 26534
Author: mmitchel
Date: Sun Apr 23 18:04:33 2006
New Revision: 113199
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=113199
Log:
2006-04-23 Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR
--- Comment #8 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-23 18:05
---
Fixed in GCC 4.2.
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Sum
--- Comment #16 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-23 18:14
---
The correct fix for this issue is for the C++ front-end to save and restore
information about a declaration as scopes are entered and exited.
For example, given:
extern void f(int);
void g() {
extern voi
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |mark at codesourcery dot com
|dot org
--- Comment #7 from falk at debian dot org 2006-04-23 19:05 ---
I think this is a valid request. While random language extensions aren't
useful,
compatibility with C99 is. Maybe somebody else can comment on this...
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27235
I just tried to compile Linux kernel version 2.6.16.9 with a recent
GNU C compiler version 4.2 snapshot 20060422.
The compiler snapshot said
/home/dcb/gnu/42-20060422/results/bin/gcc -g -O3 -Wall
-Wp,-MD,drivers/char/.synclink_gt.o.d -nostdinc -isystem
/home/dcb/gnu/42-20060422/results/lib/g
--- Comment #1 from dcb314 at hotmail dot com 2006-04-23 19:12 ---
Created an attachment (id=11319)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=11319&action=view)
C source code
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27273
--- Comment #2 from falk at debian dot org 2006-04-23 19:34 ---
Confirmed. Test case:
unsigned char rx_async(unsigned char p) {
return p & 512;
}
--
falk at debian dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #5 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-23 20:05 ---
Fixed by:
2006-04-23 Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR c++/26534
* cp-tree.h (is_bitfield_expr_with_lowered_type): New function.
* typeck.c (is_bitfield_expr_with_lowered_type): New func
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot
|
--- Comment #2 from prog1 at yobinario dot com 2006-04-23 20:20 ---
Created an attachment (id=11320)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=11320&action=view)
test_code
OUTPUT:
./gcc_test
Printing matrix... 0x804a008
MATRIX [0][0] = [1] with pointer 0x804a008
MATRIX [0][1]
--- Comment #8 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-23 20:21 ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> I think this is a valid request. While random language extensions aren't
> useful,
> compatibility with C99 is. Maybe somebody else can comment on this...
There are a lot of differences be
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-23 20:24 ---
I just checked and this was fixed by:
2006-04-23 Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR c++/26534
* cp-tree.h (is_bitfield_expr_with_lowered_type): New function.
* typeck.c (is_bitfield_expr_
--- Comment #9 from acahalan at gmail dot com 2006-04-23 20:39 ---
Regarding Comment #8:
Of course I do not want g++ to be a perfect superset of gcc. That is
unreasonable, because it would break legitimate standards-conforming C++ code.
I only ask that C compatibility be provided for c
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-23 20:49 ---
*(pointer_yn)[0][6]
is different from:
(*pointer_yn)[0][6]
In fact the first one is equivalant to:
pointer_yn[0][6][0]
While the second one is equivalant to:
pointer_yn[0][0][6]
so you are running into different
--- Comment #10 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-23 20:53
---
(In reply to comment #9)
> I only ask that C compatibility be provided for code that would otherwise fail
> to compile as C++. This makes code reuse much easier.
I showed two other examples which are (were) reprot
--- Comment #6 from roger at eyesopen dot com 2006-04-23 21:19 ---
This should now be fixed on mainline. I've confirmed that a cross-compiler
to fr30-elf currently builds newlib without problems.
--
roger at eyesopen dot com changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #4 from roger at eyesopen dot com 2006-04-23 21:27 ---
This has now been fixed on mainline. I've confirmed that a cross-compiler
to fr30-elf can currently compile all of newlib without problems. If anyone
has an fr30 board or a simulator to check the testsuite that would be
There is no check for SSE support in this test.
--
Summary: execution test of gcc.dg/i386-sse-9.c fails on non-SSE
CPU
Product: gcc
Version: 4.0.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: trivial
Priority: P3
Comp
--- Comment #3 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-23 22:13
---
I agree that the C++ standard requires the behavior suggested by Joseph in
Comment #1.
However, my patch was not intended to fix this bug, and only does so by
accident. In particular, the last lines of decay_con
--- Comment #4 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2006-04-23 22:22 ---
Subject: Re: Bit-field promotions
On Sun, 23 Apr 2006, mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> However, my patch was not intended to fix this bug, and only does so by
> accident. In particular, the last lines o
--- Comment #17 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-23 23:14
---
Rewritting that loop like:
[kudzu:local/trunk/gcc] pinskia% svn diff tree-ssa-loop-niter.c
Index: tree-ssa-loop-niter.c
===
--- tree-ssa-loop-niter.c
--- Comment #18 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-23 23:15
---
Oh, I did not test the patch at all except on the testcase I gave in comment
#7.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26304
GCC configured with --enable-targets=powerpc-linux,powerpc64-linux
--with-cpu=default32 fails the treelang tests, when run with
RUNTESTFLAGS="--target_board=unix\{,-m64\}"
Matthias
Running target unix/-m64
FAIL: treelang/compile/badreturn.tree (test for errors, line 13)
FAIL: treelang/compile/
--- Comment #1 from debian-gcc at lists dot debian dot org 2006-04-23
23:39 ---
Created an attachment (id=11321)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=11321&action=view)
treelang.log
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27275
--- Comment #21 from ben at decadentplace dot org dot uk 2006-04-23 23:44
---
I have submitted a defect report about the difference from C in this respect;
this is now C++ core DR 577:
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/cwg_active.html#577
Please could the "fix" to GCC be rever
--- Comment #4 from tobutaz at gmail dot com 2006-04-23 23:57 ---
This is annoying, all of these fail:
3.4.5, 3.4.6, 4.0.3, 4.1.0
I've tried to build from i386-linux-gnu instead of x86_64-linux-gnu by passing
--host=i386 --target=m68k-elf to the configure script, to no avail.
--
htt
--- Comment #7 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-24 00:38 ---
here is the fix I came up with:
Index: cgraphunit.c
===
--- cgraphunit.c(revision 113199)
+++ cgraphunit.c(working copy)
@@ -1404,7 +140
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-24 00:38 ---
Here is the fix:
Index: c-typeck.c
===
--- c-typeck.c (revision 113199)
+++ c-typeck.c (working copy)
@@ -7978,7 +7978,8 @@ build_binary_op (enum tree
--- Comment #22 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-24 00:41
---
(In reply to comment #21)
> Please could the "fix" to GCC be reverted until this issue is settled?
Considering the orginal DR was rejected as not a defect, I doubt yours will
have an effect also.
See:
http://anubi
On Sun, 2006-04-23 at 23:14 +, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
>
> --- Comment #17 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-23 23:14
> ---
> Rewritting that loop like:
> [kudzu:local/trunk/gcc] pinskia% svn diff tree-ssa-loop-niter.c
> Index: tree-ssa-loop-niter.c
>
--- Comment #19 from dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-24 01:10
---
Subject: Re: [4.2 Regression]
25_algorithms/prev_permutation/1.cc on powerpc{64,}-linux and
powerpc-darwin
On Sun, 2006-04-23 at 23:14 +, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
>
> --- Comment #17
--- Comment #3 from ST at itsc dot cuhk dot edu dot hk 2006-04-24 01:30
---
Subject: RE: gcc 4.1.0 compilation fails on RHEL AS 3 (x86_64)
Thanks a lot.
-Original Message-
From: pcarlini at suse dot de [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, April 22, 2006 4:50 PM
To: ST
--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-24 01:50 ---
The ICE is due to looking at the type of a freed SSA_NAME during IV-OPTs.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-24 01:51 ---
This patch fixes the ICE for me but I don't know if it is the correct one:
Index: cp/typeck.c
===
--- cp/typeck.c (revision 113199)
+++ cp/typeck.c (wor
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-24 01:52 ---
I can no longer reproduce this. Does it reproduce for you still?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27088
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-24 01:54 ---
This patch fixes the ICE for me but I don't know if it is the correct one:
Index: tree.h
===
--- tree.h (revision 113199)
+++ tree.h (working
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-24 01:56 ---
This is a dup of bug 24955 which was closed as will not fix.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 24955 ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |
--- Comment #7 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-24 01:56 ---
*** Bug 27275 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-24 02:01 ---
Confirmed.
The testcase was introduced by:
2004-08-03 H.J. Lu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR target/16570
* gcc.dg/i386-sse-9.c: New test.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What
--- Comment #2 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-24 03:50
---
Subject: Bug 26912
Author: mmitchel
Date: Mon Apr 24 03:50:31 2006
New Revision: 113213
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=113213
Log:
PR c++/26912
* cp-tree.h (build_this_parm)
--- Comment #3 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-24 03:55
---
Fixed in 4.2.
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary
--- Comment #11 from acahalan at gmail dot com 2006-04-24 04:10 ---
When did gcc suddenly stop accepting new extensions?
For years gcc has been more of a practical real-world compiler than a pedantic
standards-only compiler. Many extensions have been added, both useful and
useless. Just
--- Comment #5 from sayle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-24 05:31 ---
Subject: Bug 21283
Author: sayle
Date: Mon Apr 24 05:31:28 2006
New Revision: 113215
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=113215
Log:
PR target/21283
* config/fr30/fr30.md (define_sp
73 matches
Mail list logo
