[Bug c++/28218] [4.1 Regression] ICE when building Inkscape with gcc-4.1 with -O2 -ffast-math

2006-07-01 Thread vapier at gentoo dot org
--- Comment #1 from vapier at gentoo dot org 2006-07-02 06:16 --- Created an attachment (id=11793) --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=11793&action=view) PR28218-ice.ii -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28218

[Bug c++/28218] New: [4.1 Regression] ICE when building Inkscape with gcc-4.1 with -O2 -ffast-math

2006-07-01 Thread vapier at gentoo dot org
attempting to build Inkscape-1.44 with -O2 -ffast-math triggers an ICE with gcc-4.1.1: text-editing.cpp: In function 'void sp_te_adjust_linespacing_screen(SPItem*, const Inkscape::Text::Layout::iterator&, const Inkscape::Text::Layout::iterator&, SPDesktop*, gdouble)': text-editing.cpp:1005: intern

[Bug middle-end/20218] Can't use __attribute__ ((visibility ("hidden"))) to hide a symbol

2006-07-01 Thread jason at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #23 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-02 04:30 --- (In reply to comment #22) > I still say if the definition was not marked as having a visibility, then the > code is wrong as someone could mark stuff weirdly. Yes, if someone's code marks a function as hidden in a tr

[Bug c++/21675] -fvisibility : misleading documentation and low QoI

2006-07-01 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-02 02:53 --- Fixed. -- pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED

[Bug c++/27000] visibility push/pop and templates go crazy

2006-07-01 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
-- 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=27000

[Bug middle-end/20218] Can't use __attribute__ ((visibility ("hidden"))) to hide a symbol

2006-07-01 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #22 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-02 02:41 --- I still say if the definition was not marked as having a visibility, then the code is wrong as someone could mark stuff weirdly. Now does the other question (since I cannot remember when looking at the elf standar

[Bug c++/28215] [4.2 regression] Bootstrap failure on arm-eabi

2006-07-01 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-02 02:36 --- Fixed. -- pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRM

[Bug middle-end/28216] [4.1/4.2 regression] mangled warning message

2006-07-01 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-02 01:28 --- PR 25923 is about the fortran issue but I think they are really the same issue and nothing to do with Fortran or Ada and just the pretty print is doing something wrong. -- pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

[Bug middle-end/28216] [4.1/4.2 regression] mangled warning message

2006-07-01 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-02 01:26 --- This problem existed in 4.1.0 also and with Fortran as well, I think there is already a bug about the mangled warning message. -- pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed

[Bug c++/21498] clause 7.1.5.3/2 of the c++ is not enforced

2006-07-01 Thread mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #5 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-01 22:09 --- This code is not invalid, and G++ is correct to accept it. DR68 permits this grammatical production and typedef-names for classes are class-names. -- mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What

[Bug ada/28216] [4.2 regression] mangled error message

2006-07-01 Thread schwab at suse dot de
-- schwab at suse dot de changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |4.2.0 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28216

[Bug c++/28217] [4.2 regression] ICE in tree_int_cst_sgn

2006-07-01 Thread schwab at suse dot de
-- schwab at suse dot de changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |4.2.0 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28217

[Bug c++/28215] [4.2 regression] Bootstrap failure on arm-eabi

2006-07-01 Thread jason at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #2 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-01 22:01 --- Subject: Bug 28215 Author: jason Date: Sat Jul 1 22:01:18 2006 New Revision: 115118 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=115118 Log: PR c++/28215 * method.c (make_thunk): Unset DECL_

[Bug c++/28217] New: [4.2 regression] ICE in tree_int_cst_sgn

2006-07-01 Thread schwab at suse dot de
/tmp/cvs/gcc-20060701/Build/./gcc/xgcc -shared-libgcc -B/tmp/cvs/gcc-20060701/Build/./gcc -nostdinc++ -L/tmp/cvs/gcc-20060701/Build/ia64-suse-linux/libstdc++-v3/src -L/tmp/cvs/gcc-20060701/Build/ia64-suse-linux/libstdc++-v3/src/.libs -B/tmp/cvs/gcc-20060701/Build/root/ia64-suse-linux/bin/ -B/tmp

[Bug ada/28216] New: [4.2 regression] mangled error message

2006-07-01 Thread schwab at suse dot de
When the Ada compiler prints an error/warning message some parts of it are displayed out of order. /tmp/cvs/gcc-20060701/Build/./gcc/xgcc -B/tmp/cvs/gcc-20060701/Build/./gcc/ -B/tmp/cvs/gcc-20060701/Build/root/ia64-suse-linux/bin/ -B/tmp/cvs/gcc-20060701/Build/root/ia64-suse-linux/lib/ -isystem

[Bug c++/28215] [4.2 regression] Bootstrap failure on arm-eabi

2006-07-01 Thread rearnsha at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #1 from rearnsha at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-01 18:04 --- Created an attachment (id=11787) --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=11787&action=view) gziped attachment of failing source file (pre-processed) cc1plus fstream-inst.ii -quiet -dumpbase fstream-ins

[Bug c++/28215] New: [4.2 regression] Bootstrap failure on arm-eabi

2006-07-01 Thread rearnsha at gcc dot gnu dot org
The arm-none-eabi compiler gets a segmentation fault while building libstdc++. A back-trace shows that the fault is in determine_visibility() where we are dereferencing a null pointer. #0 determine_visibility (decl=0xbca2e280) at /home/rearnsha/gnusrc/gcc-cross/trunk/gcc/cp/decl2.c:1753 #1

[Bug middle-end/27428] [4.0/4.1 regression] ICE with goto in erroneous code

2006-07-01 Thread sayle at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #7 from sayle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-01 16:32 --- Subject: Bug 27428 Author: sayle Date: Sat Jul 1 16:32:00 2006 New Revision: 115116 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=115116 Log: PR middle-end/27428 * c-lex.c (c_lex_with_flags)

[Bug fortran/19259] ";" as first nonblank character on a line should be an error

2006-07-01 Thread tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #4 from tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-01 15:03 --- Subject: Bug 19259 Author: tobi Date: Sat Jul 1 15:03:30 2006 New Revision: 115115 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=115115 Log: 2006-07-01 Tobias Schlueter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> fortran/ PR fort

[Bug c++/21498] clause 7.1.5.3/2 of the c++ is not enforced

2006-07-01 Thread steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #4 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-01 11:18 --- Mark, this bug concerns a C++ standard question, perhaps you could give your interpretation... -- steven at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added

[Bug c++/28214] ICE precompiling headers

2006-07-01 Thread tk at giga dot or dot at
--- Comment #1 from tk at giga dot or dot at 2006-07-01 10:41 --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] says it's a NetBSD problem, because NetBSD "does not use the normal checksum stuff". Sorry for the bogus report. -- tk at giga dot or dot at changed: What|Removed |

[Bug c++/28214] New: ICE precompiling headers

2006-07-01 Thread tk at giga dot or dot at
When compiling wxGTK-2.6.3 with "gcc (GCC) 4.1.2 20060628 prerelease (NetBSD nb1 20060602)", it fails with: ./bk-make-pch .pch/wxprec_basedll/wx/wxprec.h.gch wx/wxprec.h c++ -I.pch/wxprec_ basedll -D__WXGTK__ -I./src/regex -DwxUSE_GUI=0 -DWXMAKINGDLL_BASE -DwxUSE_BASE=1 -fPIC -DPIC -

[Bug target/28181] [4.0/4.1/4.2 regression] ICE in reload_cse_simplify_operands, at postreload.c:393 on m68k

2006-07-01 Thread schwab at suse dot de
--- Comment #6 from schwab at suse dot de 2006-07-01 07:01 --- The bug is much older, I was able to get it fail using the sources at the 3.4 branch point. That 3.4.6 does not fail is probably just coincidence. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28181