[Bug preprocessor/28022] New: Incorrect pedwarn for , expression in #if in c99 mode

This testcase: #if 1 , 0 #endif Should not warn with -std=c99 -pedantic. It currently does due to an inverted conditional. This (cpplib/expr.c:1376): default: /* case CPP_COMMA: */ if (CPP_PEDANTIC (pfile) && (!CPP_OPTION (pfile, c99) || !pfile->sta

[Bug c++/21210] [4.0 Regression] Trouble with __complex__ types default construction

--- Comment #12 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-14 05:28 --- . -- steven at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW

[Bug c++/21210] [4.0 Regression] Trouble with __complex__ types default construction

--- Comment #11 from sayle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-14 04:35 --- Subject: Bug 21210 Author: sayle Date: Wed Jun 14 04:35:29 2006 New Revision: 114634 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=114634 Log: PR c++/21210 * typeck2.c (build_functional_cast

[Bug c++/21210] [4.0 Regression] Trouble with __complex__ types default construction

-- pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added Known to work|3.4.0 4.2.0 |3.4.0 4.2.0 4.1.2 Summary|[4.0/4.1 Regression] Trouble|[4.

[Bug objc++/23716] obj-c++.dg/comp-types-10.mm ICE with the GNU runtime

--- Comment #5 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-14 04:19 --- *** Bug 28020 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added ---

[Bug objc++/28020] [4.2 regression] expected class 'type', have 'exceptional' (error_mark) in setup_one_parameter, at tree-inline.c:1067

--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-14 04:19 --- Actually this has been failing since the testcase was added and Objective-C++ was added. This is a dup of bug 23716. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 23716 *** -- pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org ch

[Bug c++/27227] [4.0/4.1/4.2 Regression] rejects valid code with some extern "C"

-- mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |mark at codesourcery dot com |dot org

[Bug target/27827] gcc 4 produces worse x87 code on all platforms than gcc 3

--- Comment #14 from whaley at cs dot utsa dot edu 2006-06-14 02:40 --- OK, I got access to some older machines, and it appears that Core is the only architecture that likes gcc 4's code. More precisely, I have confirmed that the following architectures run significantly slower using gc

[Bug c++/26577] [4.0/4.1/4.2 regression] ICE in cp_expr_size with volatile and call to static

--- Comment #8 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-14 02:16 --- Diego -- Your last comment was cut off. However, no, COMPLETE_TYPE_P does not imply that we know the size of the type, and it can't ever imply that, in C++. For a type with virtual bases, we don't know what th

[Bug c++/26559] [4.0/4.1/4.2 Regression] ICE with __builtin_constant_p in template argument

-- mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |mark at codesourcery dot com |dot org

[Bug libgomp/27254] FAIL: libgomp.fortran/reduction6.f90

--- Comment #2 from danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-14 00:59 --- Patch here: . -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27254

[Bug libfortran/27964] Wrong line ends on windows (XP)

--- Comment #3 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-14 00:32 --- My XP box died. I can't do much with this now. -- jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added

[Bug c++/22592] -fvisibility-inlines-hidden broken differently

--- Comment #8 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-13 23:28 --- Either 20218 is a bug or this is. It seems to me that 20218 is the bug. If you declare a function to be hidden, you are asserting that it will be defined in the current DSO. From the GCC documentation: "Two declara

[Bug c++/28017] lack of guard variables for explicitly instantiated template static data

--- Comment #9 from hhinnant at apple dot com 2006-06-13 22:02 --- (In reply to comment #8) Thanks. That not only makes sense to me now, but it passes the test. :-) -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28017

[Bug c++/28017] lack of guard variables for explicitly instantiated template static data

--- Comment #8 from pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu 2006-06-13 21:47 --- Subject: Re: lack of guard variables for explicitly instantiated template static data > > > > --- Comment #7 from hhinnant at apple dot com 2006-06-13 21:41 --- > (In reply to comment #6) > > Subjec

Re: [Bug c++/28017] lack of guard variables for explicitly instantiated template static data

> > > > --- Comment #7 from hhinnant at apple dot com 2006-06-13 21:41 --- > (In reply to comment #6) > > Subject: Re: lack of guard variables for explicitly instantiated template > > static data > > > > > #define NEEDS_GUARD_P(decl) (TREE_PUBLIC (decl) && (DECL_COMMON (decl) > >

[Bug c++/28017] lack of guard variables for explicitly instantiated template static data

--- Comment #7 from hhinnant at apple dot com 2006-06-13 21:41 --- (In reply to comment #6) > Subject: Re: lack of guard variables for explicitly instantiated template > static data > > > #define NEEDS_GUARD_P(decl) (TREE_PUBLIC (decl) && (DECL_COMMON (decl) > > \ > >

[Bug c++/28017] lack of guard variables for explicitly instantiated template static data

--- Comment #6 from pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu 2006-06-13 21:24 --- Subject: Re: lack of guard variables for explicitly instantiated template static data > #define NEEDS_GUARD_P(decl) (TREE_PUBLIC (decl) && (DECL_COMMON (decl) \ >

Re: [Bug c++/28017] lack of guard variables for explicitly instantiated template static data

> #define NEEDS_GUARD_P(decl) (TREE_PUBLIC (decl) && (DECL_COMMON (decl) \ > || DECL_ONE_ONLY (decl) \ > || DECL_WEAK (decl) \ > || > (!TA

[Bug c++/28017] lack of guard variables for explicitly instantiated template static data

--- Comment #5 from hhinnant at apple dot com 2006-06-13 21:23 --- (In reply to comment #4) >For Darwin we do not want explicit instantiations to be >linkonce. */ > > > This is why this testcase fails on darwin. > We should instead of just adding DECL_EXPLICIT_INSTANTIATION, c

[Bug objc++/28020] [4.2 regression] expected class 'type', have 'exceptional' (error_mark) in setup_one_parameter, at tree-inline.c:1067

--- Comment #1 from tbm at cyrius dot com 2006-06-13 20:30 --- Actually, this shows up with 20060530. It was introduced some time between 20060218 and 20051124. Unfortunately I don't have any compiler version inbetween these dates around so I cannot narrow it down further. -- http

[Bug rtl-optimization/28019] register allocator does not reschedule for x86 imull

--- Comment #3 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-13 20:26 --- The solution is "don't do -fschedule-insns on x86". Unless you first add heuristics in the scheduler to keep a better eye on register pressure, and fix the many known bugs in scheduling for x86. -- steven at gcc

[Bug objc++/28020] New: [4.2 regression] expected class 'type', have 'exceptional' (error_mark) in setup_one_parameter, at tree-inline.c:1067

A number of obj-c++ test cases fail with an ICE now (this didn't happen with 20060530): FAIL: obj-c++.dg/comp-types-10.mm (internal compiler error) ... FAIL: obj-c++.dg/try-catch-9.mm (internal compiler error) (sid)955:[EMAIL PROTECTED]: ..atch/gcc-snapshot-20060613] ./build/gcc/g++ -c -O

[Bug c++/28015] Nonspecific error messages

--- Comment #2 from philippe at fornux dot com 2006-06-13 20:17 --- I was compiling a big project and I ended up with this error message. I just tried to compile the same file by preprocessing it first (-E) and I don't have the error anymore. Actually I think some dependent file got in

[Bug rtl-optimization/28019] register allocator does not reschedule for x86 imull

-- pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Ever Confirmed|0 |1 Keyw

[Bug fortran/28004] Warn if intent(out) dummy variable is not set

--- Comment #1 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-13 19:45 --- Tobias, I presented a patch for this problem and for detected unassigned r-values that was rejected. I don't know what to say; I think that it's a bug, in principle, but the standard does not require it. Paul --

[Bug rtl-optimization/28019] register allocator does not reschedule for x86 imull

--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-13 19:45 --- Yes, yes we know, this is the nth bug about this issue. This looks like PR 9085. -- pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added ---

[Bug rtl-optimization/28019] ICE: x86 scheduler upsets local reg alloc

--- Comment #1 from stuart at apple dot com 2006-06-13 19:44 --- Created an attachment (id=11663) --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=11663&action=view) Testcase Attaching (same) testcase. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28019

[Bug rtl-optimization/28019] New: ICE: x86 scheduler upsets local reg alloc

Scheduler hoists an x86 IMUL (clobbers %eax) ahead of the first reference to a parameter passed in %eax. % /Volumes/sandbox/stuart/gcc.fsf.pure.debug.obj/gcc/cc1 reduce.c -quiet -mtune=generic -O2 -fschedule-insns reduce.c: In function '_perfInitPerfTable': reduce.c:43: error: unable to find a re

[Bug c++/28017] lack of guard variables for explicitly instantiated template static data

--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-13 19:37 --- For Darwin we do not want explicit instantiations to be linkonce. */ This is why this testcase fails on darwin. We should instead of just adding DECL_EXPLICIT_INSTANTIATION, check TARGET_WEAK_NOT_IN_ARCHIVE

[Bug fortran/28005] gfortran: mathmul produces wrong result

--- Comment #1 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-13 19:33 --- Tobias, Thanks for the recent batch of reports; this one, in particular, which is not at all good! I am heavily committed with a few other bugs; I'll see if FX or Thomas have the time. Otherwise I'll drop everything

[Bug c++/28018] [4.2 regression] g++.dg/ext/complit1.C fails: in emit_move_insn, at expr.c:3275

--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-13 19:28 --- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20103#c56 -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28018

[Bug c++/28018] [4.2 regression] g++.dg/ext/complit1.C fails: in emit_move_insn, at expr.c:3275

--- Comment #2 from tbm at cyrius dot com 2006-06-13 19:25 --- (In reply to comment #1) > Confirmed, I reported this in the bug report which changed this testcase. Which PR is that? I searched and couldn't find anything, and neither did 'svn log' show a recent change to the test case.

[Bug c++/28018] [4.2 regression] g++.dg/ext/complit1.C fails: in emit_move_insn, at expr.c:3275

--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-13 19:19 --- Confirmed, I reported this in the bug report which changed this testcase. -- pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added ---

[Bug c++/28017] lack of guard variables for explicitly instantiated template static data

--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-13 19:18 --- || DECL_ONE_ONLY (decl) || DECL_WEAK (decl) \ Actually those looks should include what is defined for Darwin. -- pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added

[Bug c++/28017] lack of guard variables for explicitly instantiated template static data

--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-13 19:15 --- (In reply to comment #1) > This works on x86-linux-gnu on the mainline. Oh and in 3.3.3. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28017

[Bug fortran/27980] Wrong allocation for zero-sized function result

--- Comment #3 from patchapp at dberlin dot org 2006-06-13 19:15 --- Subject: Bug number PR 27980 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/2006-06/msg00708.html -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/s

[Bug c++/28017] lack of guard variables for explicitly instantiated template static data

--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-13 19:14 --- This works on x86-linux-gnu on the mainline. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28017

[Bug c++/28018] New: [4.2 regression] g++.dg/ext/complit1.C fails: in emit_move_insn, at expr.c:3275

I get the following error in the test suite: FAIL: g++.dg/ext/complit1.C (internal compiler error) FAIL: g++.dg/ext/complit1.C (test for excess errors) This is fairly new. 20060530 worked. The error is: /home/tbm/x.c: In constructor 'Foo::Foo(int, int)': /home/tbm/x.c:14: error: ISO C++ forbid

[Bug c++/28017] New: lack of guard variables for explicitly instantiated template static data

I was passed a test case consisting of two translation units: // test.h #include class A { public: A() { mString = new char[2]; std::cout << "new: mString has value " << (void*) mString << std::endl; } ~A() { std::cout << "delete: mString has value

[Bug fortran/22210] gfc_conv_array_initializer weirdness

--- Comment #8 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-13 18:55 --- (In reply to comment #7) > Where did this one go to? Can we close it? It is still funny looking code. I might take a look this weekend or on June 27 when I am traveling to the GCC summit. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/

[Bug c++/28016] [4.2 Regression] emitting template constant

--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-13 18:52 --- It is only static const variables which are miss handled. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28016

[Bug c++/28016] [4.2 Regression] GCC 4.2 emitting static template constants as global symbols?

--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-13 18:49 --- Confirmed. (In reply to comment #1) > template > const bool scalar_divides_assign::computed = true; For this case above, nothing should be emitted. -- pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What

[Bug c++/28016] GCC 4.2 emitting static template constants as global symbols?

--- Comment #1 from bredelin at ucla dot edu 2006-06-13 18:30 --- Here is some source code that exhibits the problem: begin a.C - template struct scalar_divides_assign { static const bool computed ; }; template const bool scalar_divides_assign::compute

[Bug c++/28016] New: GCC 4.2 emitting static template constants as global symbols?

I have some software that uses the BOOST matrix library UBLAS (1.33.1). This software compiles and links with GCC 4.1.1 (Debian Linux system - GNU ld) but gives linking errors with GCC 4.2: substitution.o:(.data+0x0): multiple definition of `_ZN5boost7numeric5ublas21scalar_divides_assignIT_T0_E8c

[Bug c++/21210] [4.0/4.1 Regression] Trouble with __complex__ types default construction

--- Comment #10 from sayle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-13 18:06 --- Subject: Bug 21210 Author: sayle Date: Tue Jun 13 18:06:00 2006 New Revision: 114618 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=114618 Log: PR c++/21210 * typeck2.c (build_functional_cast

[Bug target/28014] space-optimized divide used inconsistently

--- Comment #3 from amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-13 18:05 --- Fixed. -- amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED

[Bug target/28014] space-optimized divide used inconsistently

--- Comment #2 from amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-13 17:45 --- Subject: Bug 28014 Author: amylaar Date: Tue Jun 13 17:44:56 2006 New Revision: 114616 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=114616 Log: PR target/28014: gcc: * config/sh/t-

[Bug fortran/27998] character arrays: warn if erray constructor values have different lengths

-- pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |pault at gcc dot gnu dot org |dot org

[Bug fortran/27996] Compile time warn for: character(2) :: str = 'ABC' (expression truncated)

-- pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |pault at gcc dot gnu dot org |dot org

[Bug tree-optimization/28003] [4.2 Regression] optimizer bug

--- Comment #6 from dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-13 17:15 --- So it should have been marked global, and should alias the global var, but apparently the global var doesn't pop into it's alias set -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28003

[Bug c++/27748] [4.2 Regression] rejects _Pragma with macros

--- Comment #6 from sje at cup dot hp dot com 2006-06-13 16:54 --- The new _Pragma1.C and _Pragma6.c tests are failing on ia64-hp-hpux11.23 because that platform does not define HANDLE_PRAGMA_PACK_PUSH_POP. Presumably there are other platforms that also do not define this and will also

[Bug target/26792] [4.2 Regression] C++ is broken on *-*-darwin*

--- Comment #4 from howarth at nitro dot med dot uc dot edu 2006-06-13 16:44 --- Geoff, Does any other os, that uses gcc, version libgcc_s in the manner that Apple does? Simply not setting MACOSX_DEPLOYMENT_TARGET during the build of gcc 4.2 doesn't make the problem go away. The res

[Bug c++/28015] Nonspecific error messages

--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-13 16:37 --- I cannot reproduce this with a simple: struct timespec {}; #include -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28015

[Bug c++/28015] New: Nonspecific error messages

Greetings: I am trying to compile an application and I am getting error massages like the following one. Obviously the "previous definition" doesn't point to the first definition of "struct timespec" but to the redundant definition. This is therefore pretty useless: /usr/include/time.h:119: err

[Bug middle-end/27733] [4.1 Regression] Large compile time regression

--- Comment #20 from soete dot joel at tiscali dot be 2006-06-13 15:43 --- (In reply to comment #19) > Fixed, but we may want the patch on 4.0 too. > Curious I didn't notice this pb gcc-4.0? -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27733

[Bug tree-optimization/5035] Incorrectly produces '`' might be used uninitialized in this function'

--- Comment #13 from dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-13 15:22 --- Some year we'll have to use the control dependence graph to see if all the conditions are the same :) -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5035

[Bug target/28014] space-optimized divide used inconsistently

--- Comment #1 from amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-13 15:21 --- Created an attachment (id=11661) --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=11661&action=view) test case This testcase goes in testsuite/g++.dg/eh . -- amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

[Bug tree-optimization/27830] [4.1 regression] ICE: verify_stmts failed (invalid operand to unary operator)

-- pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added Known to fail|4.1.2 4.2.0 |4.1.2 Known to work|4.1.0 |4.1.0 4.2.0 3.4

[Bug target/28014] New: space-optimized divide used inconsistently

sh-elf has space optimized division functions for -m4 / -m4-single, which are provided in a separate library, which is used when statically linking with -Os . However, libgcc itself constains some references to the divide functions. If these functions have not been used by something else earlier,

[Bug bootstrap/22541] Building into empty PREFIX causes broken limits.h to be installed

--- Comment #5 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-13 14:54 --- Fixed in 4.1.2 and the mainline. -- pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added

[Bug tree-optimization/27798] gimplifying "return CONSTANT" creates unneeded temporaties

--- Comment #4 from dnovillo at redhat dot com 2006-06-13 14:49 --- Subject: Re: gimplifying "return CONSTANT" creates unneeded temporaties dann at godzilla dot ics dot uci dot edu wrote on 06/13/06 10:42: > --- Comment #3 from dann at godzilla dot ics dot uci dot edu 2006-06-13

[Bug tree-optimization/27798] gimplifying "return CONSTANT" creates unneeded temporaties

--- Comment #3 from dann at godzilla dot ics dot uci dot edu 2006-06-13 14:42 --- One of the issues with this PR and also 27800, 27809 and 27810 is that this extra work/memory allocation done for a number of functions that are never used: like all the inline functions present in the gli

[Bug bootstrap/22541] Building into empty PREFIX causes broken limits.h to be installed

--- Comment #4 from bernds at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-13 14:39 --- Subject: Bug 22541 Author: bernds Date: Tue Jun 13 14:39:42 2006 New Revision: 114611 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=114611 Log: PR bootstrap/22541 From Dan Kegel <[EMAIL PROTE

[Bug tree-optimization/28003] [4.2 Regression] optimizer bug

--- Comment #5 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-13 14:26 --- (In reply to comment #4) > The only thing i can think of is that SMT.68 is not marked global. > Is it? Some how I missed that before: SMT.68, UID 2839, struct reduced_cell_two_fold_info, is aliased, is addressable

[Bug tree-optimization/27809] inefficient gimplification of globals

--- Comment #4 from dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-13 14:26 --- gimplification is almost certainly the wrong place to be doing the kind of dataflow we'd need to determine where we could insert load/save pairs of globals. Really. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id

[Bug tree-optimization/27809] inefficient gimplification of globals

--- Comment #3 from dann at godzilla dot ics dot uci dot edu 2006-06-13 14:22 --- (In reply to comment #2) > (In reply to comment #1) > > Hmm, it should have produced G.3, G.n, at least I would have thought. > > > > No, we intentionally use the same variable for the lexically identica

[Bug middle-end/27896] inefficient lowering for return

--- Comment #2 from dann at godzilla dot ics dot uci dot edu 2006-06-13 14:18 --- Add Diego to the CC list as per his request. -- dann at godzilla dot ics dot uci dot edu changed: What|Removed |Added ---

[Bug middle-end/28010] [4.1/4.2 regression] ICE because of fold_rtx endless recursion

--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-13 14:14 --- Looking at the reduced testcase here, it looks even more the same as PR 27616. -- pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added --

[Bug tree-optimization/27809] inefficient gimplification of globals

--- Comment #2 from rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-13 14:09 --- (In reply to comment #1) > Hmm, it should have produced G.3, G.n, at least I would have thought. > No, we intentionally use the same variable for the lexically identical expressions, see internal_get_tmp_var/lookup

[Bug target/27767] Problem: gcc 4.0.3 on Unix_SV

--- Comment #6 from mirko dot bruzzone at primeur dot com 2006-06-13 13:59 --- (In reply to comment #5) > Subject: Re: Problem: gcc 4.0.3 on Unix_SV > > mirko dot bruzzone at primeur dot com wrote: > > gt-c-pragma.h:46: parse error before `__attribute__' > > gt-c-pragma.h uses attrib

[Bug tree-optimization/28003] [4.2 Regression] optimizer bug

--- Comment #4 from dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-13 13:29 --- Subject: Re: [4.2 Regression] optimizer bug pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote: > --- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-13 04:41 > --- > Hmm, we get after dce, just: > reduced_cel

Re: [Bug tree-optimization/28003] [4.2 Regression] optimizer bug

pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote: > --- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-13 04:41 > --- > Hmm, we get after dce, just: > reduced_cell_two_folds[26] = {}; > > And DCE removes: > this_616 = &reduced_cell_two_folds[26].u; > > # SMT.68_1055 = V_MAY_DEF

[Bug tree-optimization/28003] [4.2 Regression] optimizer bug

--- Comment #3 from reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-13 13:11 --- Confirmed. Shorter testcase (should return 0, but returns 1): struct A { int i, j[9]; A() : i(1) { j[0]=j[1]=j[2]=j[3]=j[4]=j[5]=j[6]=j[7]=

[Bug middle-end/27733] [4.1 Regression] Large compile time regression

--- Comment #19 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2006-06-13 13:06 --- Fixed, but we may want the patch on 4.0 too. -- bonzini at gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added

[Bug middle-end/27733] [4.1 Regression] Large compile time regression

--- Comment #18 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2006-06-13 13:05 --- Subject: Bug 27733 Author: bonzini Date: Tue Jun 13 13:05:39 2006 New Revision: 114610 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=114610 Log: 2006-06-13 Paolo Bonzini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> PR middle-en

[Bug java/1305] [JSR133] GCJ ignores volatile modifier

--- Comment #8 from aph at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-13 12:52 --- Note that this patch has some problems. In particular, it doesn't work with BC-compiled code. Also, on x86 it doesn't insert memory barrier instructions, but this is arguably a bug in __sync_synchronize() rather than a

[Bug java/27908] VMSecureRandom generateSeed infinite loop? (Regression)

--- Comment #14 from aph at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-13 12:44 --- Subject: Bug 27908 Author: aph Date: Tue Jun 13 12:43:56 2006 New Revision: 114609 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=114609 Log: 2006-06-09 Andrew Haley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> PR java/1305

[Bug java/1305] [JSR133] GCJ ignores volatile modifier

--- Comment #7 from aph at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-13 12:44 --- Subject: Bug 1305 Author: aph Date: Tue Jun 13 12:43:56 2006 New Revision: 114609 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=114609 Log: 2006-06-09 Andrew Haley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> PR java/1305

[Bug tree-optimization/27798] gimplifying "return CONSTANT" creates unneeded temporaties

--- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-13 11:53 --- The inliner needs this temporary appearantly. Otherwise you'll get bar () { int D.1524; : if (D.1524 != 0) goto ; else goto ; :; abort (); :; return; } out of inline int foo () { return 0; } void bar(

[Bug middle-end/28010] [4.1/4.2 regression] ICE because of fold_rtx endless recursion

--- Comment #1 from reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-13 11:53 --- Confirmed. Shorter testcase (crashes with or without -m32): struct A { char c; __SIZE_TYPE__ i, j; }; int foo(struct A* p) { if ((char*)p != (char*)p + p->i) re

[Bug target/28011] [SH] g++ generates wrong code, if '-fno-exceptions' and '-O' options are specified

--- Comment #1 from saito at densan dot co dot jp 2006-06-13 10:43 --- Created an attachment (id=11660) --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=11660&action=view) testcase This testcase is very large because this file already includes header files and this came from firefox'

[Bug target/28011] New: [SH] g++ generates wrong code, if '-fno-exceptions' and '-O' options are specified

g++ generates wrong code, if '-fno-exceptions' and '-O' options are specified. I did following tests. In the case of 1, wrong code was generated. 1. sh4-linux-g++ -S -O -fno-exceptions testcase.cc 2. sh4-linux-g++ -S -O2 -fno-exceptions testcase.cc Source code is as follows but I will attach the

[Bug middle-end/28010] New: [4.1/4.2 regression] ICE because of fold_rtx endless recursion

typedef struct { unsigned int addr; unsigned int next; unsigned int prev; } list; static inline list * shift (list * l, unsigned na) { return (list *) ((char *) l + na); } static inline int is_valid (list * l) { return shift (l, l->prev)->next == (l->addr); } static inline int not_empt

[Bug c++/27894] [4.1/4.2 Regression] "internal compiler error: Segmentation fault" with -O

--- Comment #7 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-13 09:21 --- Subject: Bug 27894 Author: jakub Date: Tue Jun 13 09:21:30 2006 New Revision: 114607 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=114607 Log: PR middle-end/27793 * cp-tree.h (cxx_int_tree_map

[Bug c++/26757] C++ front-end producing two DECLs with the same UID

--- Comment #28 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-13 09:21 --- Subject: Bug 26757 Author: jakub Date: Tue Jun 13 09:21:30 2006 New Revision: 114607 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=114607 Log: PR middle-end/27793 * cp-tree.h (cxx_int_tree_ma

[Bug middle-end/27793] [4.1 Regression] num_ssa_names inconsistent or immediate use iterator wrong

--- Comment #20 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-13 09:21 --- Subject: Bug 27793 Author: jakub Date: Tue Jun 13 09:21:30 2006 New Revision: 114607 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=114607 Log: PR middle-end/27793 * cp-tree.h (cxx_int_tree_ma

[Bug middle-end/26807] [4.2 Regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/torture/pr24626-1.c -O2 (test for excess errors)

--- Comment #17 from mkuvyrkov at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-13 09:03 --- I tested this fix on a cross from i386-pc-linux-gnu and it did well on those three tests. Can, please, someone check if the regressions gone on hppa? -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26807

[Bug middle-end/26807] [4.2 Regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/torture/pr24626-1.c -O2 (test for excess errors)

--- Comment #16 from mkuvyrkov at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-13 09:01 --- Subject: Bug 26807 Author: mkuvyrkov Date: Tue Jun 13 09:00:52 2006 New Revision: 114606 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=114606 Log: 2006-06-13 Maxim Kuvyrkov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

[Bug debug/26754] [4.0/4.1 Regression] Wrong debug info for variable accessed non-locally

--- Comment #8 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-13 08:56 --- Fixed on mainline. -- ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added

[Bug debug/26754] [4.0/4.1/4.2 Regression] Wrong debug info for variable accessed non-locally

--- Comment #7 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-13 08:55 --- Subject: Bug 26754 Author: ebotcazou Date: Tue Jun 13 08:55:40 2006 New Revision: 114605 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=114605 Log: PR debug/26754 * gimplify.c (declare_tmp

[Bug target/27863] [4.2 Regression] ICE in check_cfg, at haifa-sched.c:4615

--- Comment #6 from mkuvyrkov at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-13 08:51 --- Subject: Bug 27863 Author: mkuvyrkov Date: Tue Jun 13 08:50:53 2006 New Revision: 114604 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=114604 Log: 2006-06-13 Maxim Kuvyrkov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

[Bug target/28007] sse autovectorizer emits wrong code involving shifts

--- Comment #5 from uros at kss-loka dot si 2006-06-13 07:44 --- Similar problem was solved for gcc-4.1 in PR target/22480. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28007

[Bug middle-end/27536] [4.2 Regression] -fsection-anchors breaks Ada

--- Comment #15 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-13 07:24 --- Fixed. -- rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW

[Bug middle-end/27536] [4.2 Regression] -fsection-anchors breaks Ada

--- Comment #14 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-13 07:24 --- Subject: Bug 27536 Author: rguenth Date: Tue Jun 13 07:23:59 2006 New Revision: 114601 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=114601 Log: 2006-06-13 Richard Guenther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

[Bug tree-optimization/27830] [4.1/4.2 regression] ICE: verify_stmts failed (invalid operand to unary operator)

--- Comment #9 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-13 07:22 --- Subject: Bug 27830 Author: rguenth Date: Tue Jun 13 07:22:04 2006 New Revision: 114600 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=114600 Log: 2006-06-13 Richard Guenther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> PR

[Bug libgcj/28009] libjava cannot be cross-built; X_CFLAGS includes /usr/include

--- Comment #2 from tbm at cyrius dot com 2006-06-13 07:17 --- Created an attachment (id=11659) --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=11659&action=view) command line causing problem Here's a sample command line showing the problem. Removing the -I/usr/include makes it wor

[Bug libgcj/28009] libjava cannot be cross-built; X_CFLAGS includes /usr/include

--- Comment #1 from tbm at cyrius dot com 2006-06-13 07:13 --- Created an attachment (id=11658) --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=11658&action=view) alpha-linux-gnu/libjava/config.log -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28009

[Bug libgcj/28009] New: libjava cannot be cross-built; X_CFLAGS includes /usr/include

libjava fails to cross-build because the Makefile includes an -I/usr/include. Removing that makes it work. I've seen this a number of times now, i386 to alpha-linux, i386 to m68-linux, etc. The problem is this in the Makefile: X_CFLAGS = -I/usr/include and X_CFLAGS is part of AM_CXXFLAGS which