--- Comment #6 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-02 07:01 ---
Janis using the testcase in comment # 4 with the following options can you do a
regression hunt?
--param ggc-min-expand=0 --param ggc-min-heapsize=0
Thanks,
Pinski
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
--- Comment #7 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-02 07:02 ---
I want to say this is related to PR 26660.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #2 from algrant at acm dot org 2006-05-02 07:20 ---
Actually, I now wonder if the g++ 4.1 behavior would be correct
by the proposed resolution of (still open) Core Language Issue 252.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27141
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-02 07:22 ---
Confirmed, not fixed by the patch which fixes PR 26626.
Here is a reduced Fortran testcase:
MODULE parallel_rng_types
INTEGER, PARAMETER :: dp=KIND(0.0D0)
TYPE rng_stream_type
REAL(KIND=dp), DIMENSION(1) :: b
--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-02 07:25 ---
This is not fixed by the patch which fixes PR 26626.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27341
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-02 07:30 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> Actually, I now wonder if the g++ 4.1 behavior would be correct
> by the proposed resolution of (still open) Core Language Issue 252.
It is not still open though. It has been a defect sin
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-02 07:40 ---
And here is the C example (so this does not become not release blocking):
typedef struct atype
{
float bg[1], cg[1];
_Bool ant;
}atype;
void cp_assert(_Bool*, float*, int*, _Bool*);
void f(atype **rng_stre
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-02 07:43 ---
This has nothing to do with tail return optimization as 3.4.0 also did it.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #22 from rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-02 07:56
---
(In reply to comment #14)
> Hmm, I wonder if the following loop in scev_probably_wraps_p is wrong.
>
> estimate_numbers_of_iterations_loop (loop);
> for (bound = loop->bounds; bound; bound = bound->next)
>
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-02 07:56 ---
Janis, could you do a regression hunt on this one also, testcase from comment
#0 with -O2.
Thanks,
Pinski
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-02 08:01 ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> Seems to occur quite frequently, here's another test case:
>
Can you file that into a different bug?
As it is a different issue.
Actually the orginal testcase here was not fixed by the p
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfi
--- Comment #3 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-02 08:04 ---
VRP causes the definition for SMT.5_37 to vanish, but it doesn't update the
PHI node. After reassoc we have:
# SMT.5_26 = PHI ;
# bytes_left_22 = PHI ;
# seen_numbers_1 = PHI <0B(4), seen_num
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-02 08:08 ---
Confirmed.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
OtherBugsDependingO|
--- Comment #4 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-02 08:36 ---
Now, this is more like caused by cfg_cleanup. loop_optimizer_init () inserts a
basic block 11, so we have
(gdb) call debug_bb_n(6)
;; basic block 6, loop depth 0, count 0
;; prev block 5, next block 7
;; pred:
--- Comment #14 from tobias dot burnus at physik dot fu-berlin dot de
2006-05-02 08:37 ---
> Fixed on 4.1 and 4.2
Thanks for fixing :-)
Still it would be nice if it would be detected during compile time. In
my case it was burried in an
if(something that rarely happens) write(*,'(''
--- Comment #2 from charlet at adacore dot com 2006-05-02 08:46 ---
Subject: Re: ada build fails as cygwin does not have clearenv
> Here is the patch I tested. acats results below aren't a total disaster.
Patch looks reasonable to me, you have my OK.
Note that patches should be post
--- Comment #3 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-02 08:51 ---
The patch for PR26626 doesn't fix this either.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #4 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-02 08:56 ---
ICEing in the propagator engine during copyprop:
Substituing values and folding statements
Folded statement: tt_19 = &D.1547_18->cg;
into: tt_19 = &D.1547_12->cg;
*kaboom*
but same usual place:
#1 0
--- Comment #23 from rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-02 08:57
---
Somehow, we record that the loop iterates at most once, which obviously leads
to problems.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26304
The following invalid testcase causes an ICE when compiled with -Wall:
===
else
===
The error message is:
In file bug.f90:1
else
1
Error: Unexpected ELSE statement at (1)
bug.f90:0: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault
Without -Wall I get:
In file bug.f90:1
The following invalid code snippet ICEs with a segfault since GCC 3.4.0
(it also crashed with GCC 3.0.x):
===
struct A
{
A(const A&) !;
};
void foo(A b)
{
A a(b);
}
===
bug.cc:3: error: ex
The following testcase causes an ICE since GCC 3.4.0:
===
struct A
{
A& operator= (const A&) !;
};
struct B : A {};
void foo(B b)
{
b=b;
}
===
bug.cc:3: error: expected ';' before '!' token
bug.cc: In member function 'B& B::ope
--- Comment #4 from aph at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-02 10:08 ---
The real reason is that we want the actual caller of
SecurityManager.checkPermission(), but we're walking up the stack to the user
code that called Class.newInstance() Class.getMethod(). This problem is as far
as I'm aw
--- Comment #8 from martin at mpa-garching dot mpg dot de 2006-05-02 10:16
---
Hmm, I'm seeing a new ICE that could be related to your patch:
function rombint()
implicit none
real :: rombint
integer :: i, j
real :: g(6), g0, g1
10i=i+1
--- Comment #10 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-02 10:23
---
A reversal of PR23669 bootstrapped and regtested ok on
x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, in case c95008a is yet another spurious Ada failure.
=== acats tests ===
FAIL: c35507m
FAIL: c95008a
FAIL: cd2
--- Comment #3 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-02 10:38 ---
Subject: Bug 27310
Author: jakub
Date: Tue May 2 10:38:12 2006
New Revision: 113453
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=113453
Log:
PR middle-end/27310
* except.c (duplicate_eh_regi
--- Comment #3 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-02 10:40 ---
Subject: Bug 27325
Author: jakub
Date: Tue May 2 10:40:21 2006
New Revision: 113454
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=113454
Log:
PR middle-end/27325
* omp-low.c (lower_omp_sectio
--- Comment #3 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-02 10:41 ---
Subject: Bug 27328
Author: jakub
Date: Tue May 2 10:41:44 2006
New Revision: 113455
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=113455
Log:
PR middle-end/27328
* omp-low.c (remove_exit_barr
--- Comment #4 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-02 10:45 ---
Subject: Bug 27337
Author: jakub
Date: Tue May 2 10:44:55 2006
New Revision: 113456
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=113456
Log:
PR middle-end/27337
* gimplify.c (gimplify_scan_o
--- Comment #4 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-02 10:45 ---
Fixed in SVN.
--
jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGN
--- Comment #4 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-02 10:46 ---
Fixed in SVN.
--
jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGN
--- Comment #4 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-02 10:47 ---
Fixed in SVN.
--
jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGN
--- Comment #5 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-02 10:48 ---
Fixed in SVN.
--
jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGN
I just tried to compile Suse package gnome-print-0.37-18 with a recent
GNU C compiler version 4.2 snapshot 20060429.
The compiler snapshot said
if gcc -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I. -I.. -I.. -I.. -I/usr/include/freetype2
-I/opt/gnome/include/gnome-1.0 -DNEED_GNOMESUPPORT_H
-I/opt/gnome/lib64/gnome-lib
--- Comment #1 from dcb314 at hotmail dot com 2006-05-02 11:19 ---
Created an attachment (id=11357)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=11357&action=view)
C source code
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27381
. -Iada -I../../trunk/gcc/ada ../../trunk/gcc/ada/fname-uf.adb -o
ada/fname-uf.o
+===GNAT BUG DETECTED==+
| 4.2.0 20060502 (experimental) (x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu) GCC error: |
| in n_of_executions_at_least, at tree-ssa-loop-niter.c:1772
--- Comment #3 from billingd at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-02 11:38
---
Subject: Bug 27366
Author: billingd
Date: Tue May 2 11:38:35 2006
New Revision: 113457
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=113457
Log:
2006-05-02 David Billinghurst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-02 11:39 ---
Reducing.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27381
--- Comment #4 from billingd at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-02 11:45
---
Fixed in revision 113457. clearenv is not used by ada in 4.1
--
billingd at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
The following valid code snippet causes an ICE on mainline:
==
void foo()
{
L:
!&&L;
}
==
bug.c: In function 'foo':
bug.c:4: internal compiler error: tree check: expected tree that contains 'decl
with visibility' structure, have 'label_decl' in
c_c
The following invalid code snippet causes an ICE since GCC 4.0.3:
===
struct A
{
static const int i = j;
int x[i];
};
===
bug.cc:3: error: 'j' was not declared in this scope
bug.cc:4: internal compiler error: in size_binop, a
The following invalid code snippet causes an ICE since GCC 4.1.0
(and in GCC 3.3, 3.3.1, 3.3.2):
struct A {};
A a[] = { 0 };
The compiler loops forever until it runs out of memory:
bug.cc:3: error: initializer for 'A' must be brace-enclosed
bug.c
--- Comment #5 from dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-02 12:19 ---
Subject: Re: [4.2 Regression] ICE:
add_virtual_operand with pointers to arrays
On Tue, 2006-05-02 at 08:56 +, rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
>
> --- Comment #4 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu do
--- Comment #3 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-02 12:26 ---
Confirmed. Reduced testcase:
typedef char gchar;
typedef unsigned char xmlChar;
typedef struct _xmlNode xmlNode;
typedef xmlNode *xmlNodePtr;
struct _xmlNode {
struct _xmlNode *next;
struct _xmlNode *childs
--- Comment #10 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-02 12:28
---
Also lots of fortran testcases fail with the same ICE.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27144
--- Comment #4 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-02 12:37 ---
Caused by
Author: amacleod
Date: Fri Apr 28 20:39:18 2006
New Revision: 113356
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=113356
Log:
The condition the assert was flawed.
2006-04-28 Andrew MacLeod <[
--- Comment #11 from rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-02 12:42
---
The problem is that unsigned_type_for returns a size_type for pointers, and
that happens to be signed for fortran. I am not sure whether this is not a bug
in fortran frontend -- I think some places in gcc assume t
When passing three uint64_t arguments to a function, AVR-GCC
generates completely wrong code.
The first two uint64_t arguments are passed in registers, and
thus not affected.
The caller then allocates 8 bytes on the stack for the fourth
argument, but writes to 8 bytes beyond the allocated area
(d
--- Comment #1 from j at uriah dot heep dot sax dot de 2006-05-02 12:54
---
Created an attachment (id=11358)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=11358&action=view)
Testcase demonstrating the faulty code generated.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27386
--- Comment #2 from j at uriah dot heep dot sax dot de 2006-05-02 12:57
---
Created an attachment (id=11359)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=11359&action=view)
Faulty code generated by test case.
The faulty code is in lines 136...160.
First, 8 bytes of space are al
--- Comment #7 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-02 12:57
---
Subject: Bug 25871
Author: rsandifo
Date: Tue May 2 12:57:52 2006
New Revision: 113460
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=113460
Log:
2006-05-02 Joshua Kinard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR
--- Comment #8 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-02 13:02
---
Fixed on mainline.
--
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
S
--- Comment #4 from kazu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-02 14:05 ---
Subject: Bug 27374
Author: kazu
Date: Tue May 2 14:05:14 2006
New Revision: 113464
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=113464
Log:
Backport:
2006-05-01 Kazu Hirata <[EMAIL PROTECTE
The thunk for Thumb is not PIC even with -mthumb -fPIC.
struct A {
virtual void f ();
};
struct B {
virtual void g ();
};
struct C : public A, public B {
virtual void g();
};
void
C::g()
{
}
I've got a patch.
--
Summary: Thumb thunk is not PIC
Product: gcc
--- Comment #4 from sayle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-02 14:13 ---
Subject: Bug 27269
Author: sayle
Date: Tue May 2 14:13:17 2006
New Revision: 113465
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=113465
Log:
2006-05-02 Paul Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR fortran/27
--- Comment #3 from sayle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-02 14:13 ---
Subject: Bug 27324
Author: sayle
Date: Tue May 2 14:13:17 2006
New Revision: 113465
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=113465
Log:
2006-05-02 Paul Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR fortran/27
void
foo (void)
{
int i;
i = 0;
#pragma omp parallel shared (i)
{
#pragma omp master
i++;
#pragma omp parallel for
for (i = 0; i < 10; i++)
;
}
}
results in very weird omplower dump:
1) #pragma omp parallel shared(iD.1922) private(iD.1922)
for the outer parallel
--- Comment #5 from roger at eyesopen dot com 2006-05-02 14:24 ---
This should now be fixed on mainline, thanks to Paul's patch.
--
roger at eyesopen dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #4 from roger at eyesopen dot com 2006-05-02 14:26 ---
This should now be fixed on mainline by Paul's patch. Thanks.
--
roger at eyesopen dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-02 14:38 ---
Created an attachment (id=11360)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=11360&action=view)
pr27388.patch
Something like this cures this but I'm really not sure what exactly is
omp_is_private supposed to d
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-02 14:52 ---
void foo()
{
L:
&&L != 0 ;
}
---
Most likely also fails but is done in a different place.
PARM_DECL has the same issue but I already filed/fixed them.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
Testcase:
import javax.xml.stream.XMLStreamException;
import javax.xml.stream.XMLStreamWriter;
public class StAXWriter
{
XMLStreamWriter writer;
int indent = 0;
public void writeEnd(boolean wasEmpty)
{
try
{
indent -= 2;
for (int i = 0; i < indent; i++)
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |blocker
Component|c |tree-optimiza
--- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-02 14:56 ---
Happens at the point PRE calls cleanup_tree_cfg after purging dead eh edges.
Found partial redundancy for expression *VH.52 (VH.57)
Created value VH.86 for *D.934_6
Inserted pretmp.60_42 = D.1001_27 in predecessor 1
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |blocker
Summary|bootstrap fails building|[4.2 Regressi
See Summary.
--
Summary: [4.2 Regression]
gcc.target/x86_64/abi/test_complex_returning.c execution
fails at -O0
Product: gcc
Version: 4.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: wrong-code, ABI
Sever
--- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-02 15:02 ---
The same:
FAIL: gcc.dg/compat/scalar-return-3 c_compat_x_tst.o-c_compat_y_tst.o execute
FAIL: gcc.target/x86_64/abi/test_complex_returning.c execution, -O0
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2739
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-02 15:02 ---
gcc.target/x86_64/abi/test_complex_returning.c execution fails at -O0
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #1 from kazu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-02 15:04 ---
Subject: Bug 27387
Author: kazu
Date: Tue May 2 15:04:52 2006
New Revision: 113467
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=113467
Log:
gcc/
PR target/27387
* arm.c (arm_output_mi_thunk):
--- Comment #2 from kazu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-02 15:06 ---
Subject: Bug 27387
Author: kazu
Date: Tue May 2 15:06:35 2006
New Revision: 113468
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=113468
Log:
gcc/
PR target/27387
* arm.c (arm_output_mi_thunk):
--- Comment #3 from kazu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-02 15:13 ---
Subject: Bug 27387
Author: kazu
Date: Tue May 2 15:13:02 2006
New Revision: 113470
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=113470
Log:
gcc/
PR target/27387
* arm.c (arm_output_mi_thunk):
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-02 15:13 ---
Confirmed.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|norma
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.2.0 |4.0.4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27379
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-02 15:15 ---
Confirmed.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|norma
--- Comment #4 from kazu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-02 15:17 ---
Subject: Bug 27387
Author: kazu
Date: Tue May 2 15:17:25 2006
New Revision: 113471
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=113471
Log:
Backport:
2006-05-02 Kazu Hirata <[EMAIL PROTECTE
--- Comment #12 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-02 15:19
---
PR 27389 looks like a reduced testcase.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #3 from berndtrog at yahoo dot com 2006-05-02 15:19 ---
Is this one related to PR21834?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27386
==+
| 4.2.0 20060502 (experimental) (hppa-unknown-linux-gnu) GCC error:|
| in n_of_executions_at_least, at tree-ssa-loop-niter.c:1772 |
| Error detected at errout.adb:2573:1 |
| Please submit a bug report; see
--- Comment #4 from j at uriah dot heep dot sax dot de 2006-05-02 15:25
---
(In reply to comment #3)
> Is this one related to PR21834?
Possible, yes. The symptoms are similar. Sorry for missing that
one at my prior search.
Anyway, my report has a preprocessed source file attached, s
--- Comment #5 from kazu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-02 15:26 ---
Just checked in a patch.
--
kazu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Stat
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-02 15:26 ---
Confirmed.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCON
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-02 15:28 ---
Confirmed. this happens everywhere.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-02 15:31 ---
Confirmed.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCON
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|critical|normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27386
--- Comment #2 from mckinlay at redhat dot com 2006-05-02 15:33 ---
I could not reproduce the bootstrap failure on x86-64 as of revision 113466.
The test case does fail, however, when built with -findirect-dispatch.
Looks like a dupe of bug 26447 ?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/s
--- Comment #5 from j at uriah dot heep dot sax dot de 2006-05-02 15:33
---
(In reply to comment #4)
> > Is this one related to PR21834?
> Anyway, my report has a preprocessed source file attached, so it
> might be more useful to non-AVR aware GCC developers.
Perhaps Richard (Cc'ed)
--- Comment #6 from j at uriah dot heep dot sax dot de 2006-05-02 15:34
---
(Sorry, I hit a bit too fast.)
--
j at uriah dot heep dot sax dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.1.1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27371
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.2.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27367
--- Comment #7 from j at uriah dot heep dot sax dot de 2006-05-02 15:37
---
Forwarding this comment on behalf of Bjoern Haase:
Preliminary analysis of the RTL generated without optimization shows that
the problem is present already directly after expand. Maybe the problem
is triggered
--- Comment #5 from amacleod at redhat dot com 2006-05-02 15:38 ---
The assert condition is not flawed. It has exposed a second bug with the old
immuse iterator scheme that was also hidden by the old algorithm work around
Jeff had implemented.
When iterating over the immediate uses, an
--- Comment #6 from amacleod at redhat dot com 2006-05-02 15:40 ---
Created an attachment (id=11361)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=11361&action=view)
proposed patch
This is the patch undergoing testing.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27381
--- Comment #2 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-02 15:59
---
Subject: Bug 27309
Author: mmitchel
Date: Tue May 2 15:59:50 2006
New Revision: 113473
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=113473
Log:
PR c++/27309
* class.c (add_method): Call
--- Comment #4 from janis at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-02 16:14 ---
The warning was issued again with this patch:
http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?view=rev&rev=101269
r101269 | jason | 2005-06-23 14:44:21 + (Thu, 23 Jun 2005)
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=
--- Comment #2 from janis at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-02 16:16 ---
A regression hunt on powerpc-linux identified this patch:
http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?view=rev&rev=105682
r105682 | mmitchel | 2005-10-20 18:01:52 + (Thu, 20 Oct 2005)
--
janis at gcc dot gnu dot org c
--- Comment #14 from ed at eh3 dot com 2006-05-02 16:20 ---
Hi Jerry, I just re-ran the test case in this bug report and some other
examples from our oceanic/atmospheric model (mitgcm.org) using gfortran
which was checked out at about 12:30am (May 2) with:
svn -q checkout svn://gcc.
--- Comment #3 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-02 16:23
---
Fixed in 4.2.0.
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assigned
--- Comment #13 from reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-02 16:31
---
Mark, your patch seems to cause some fall-out.
The following testcase now ICEs on mainline:
===
template void T::foo;
===
bug.cc:1: error: variable
--- Comment #2 from schwab at suse dot de 2006-05-02 16:43 ---
Triggered by r113425.
--
schwab at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
1 - 100 of 153 matches
Mail list logo
