[Bug middle-end/28493] [4.1/4.2 Regression] Wrong address of stack object used for destructor call on PPC

2006-09-08 Thread jason at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #15 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-08 07:14 --- The bug is in expand_builtin_setjmp_receiver: /* Now put in the code to restore the frame pointer, and argument pointer, if needed. */ [...] emit_move_insn (virtual_stack_vars_rtx, hard_frame_pointer_rtx);

[Bug middle-end/28493] [4.1/4.2 Regression] Wrong address of stack object used for destructor call on PPC

2006-09-08 Thread jason at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #16 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-08 07:37 --- The line in question dates back to when __builtin_setjmp was first added in 1996. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28493

[Bug c++/27371] [4.1 Regression] Does not warn about unused function result (__attribute__((warn_unused_result)))

2006-09-08 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #10 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-08 07:40 --- Only fixed on the mainline. -- rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added

[Bug c++/28981] New: g++ -pedantic issues error array bound not integer although it is a constant

2006-09-08 Thread brase at lucent dot com
g++ version: 4.1.1 target platform: linux kernel 2.6.13-15 with option pedantic the following line does not compile outside main: int array3[(const unsigned short) (20.5 * 3)]; error message from compiler is: error: array bound is not an integer constant to me this is wrong because the

[Bug rtl-optimization/28982] New: Incorrect reloading of automodification expressions

2006-09-08 Thread rsandifo at gcc dot gnu dot org
If reload decides to create an automodification reload (POST_MODIFY, etc.), inc_for_reload will not deal correctly with any reloads for the base and index registers. This problem is related to: 2006-03-29 Paul Brook [EMAIL PROTECTED] * reload1.c (choose_reload_regs): Check for all

[Bug rtl-optimization/28982] Incorrect reloading of automodification expressions

2006-09-08 Thread rsandifo at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #1 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-08 08:37 --- Created an attachment (id=12211) -- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=12211action=view) Testcase This brute-force test fails with -O2 -mfloat-abi=softfp. -- rsandifo at gcc dot gnu dot org

[Bug c/28983] New: Problem creating a new pass

2006-09-08 Thread daknhro at hotmail dot com
Well, i want to create a new pass for gcc. i do all passes an introduce my pass in passes.c p = pass_tree_loop.sub; NEXT_PASS (pass_tree_loop_init); NEXT_PASS (pass_tree_blocking); I do the tree-blocking.c static void main_tree_blocking (void) { struct loops loops

[Bug libstdc++/28811] --with-pic vs static libraries and libstdc++

2006-09-08 Thread pluto at agmk dot net
--- Comment #6 from pluto at agmk dot net 2006-09-08 12:48 --- any idea how to fix this? i can test proposals. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28811

[Bug c++/26957] [4.0/4.1/4.2 regression] ICE in make_decl_rtl, at varasm.c:871

2006-09-08 Thread tausq at debian dot org
--- Comment #13 from tausq at debian dot org 2006-09-08 15:04 --- Works for me on the original test case (ACE package) and on the reduced test case in #3. Tested on hppa-linux native. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26957

[Bug tree-optimization/28983] Problem creating a new pass

2006-09-08 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-08 15:51 --- This is the wrong place to report a problem about your own pass if you have not done any debugging yourself. -- pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added

[Bug c++/26957] [4.0/4.1 regression] ICE in make_decl_rtl, at varasm.c:871

2006-09-08 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #14 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-08 15:51 --- Then fixed on the mainline, marking as such and changing back to new for the other branches. -- pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added

[Bug tree-optimization/28983] Problem creating a new pass

2006-09-08 Thread daknhro at hotmail dot com
--- Comment #2 from daknhro at hotmail dot com 2006-09-08 16:28 --- can i have a debugging?(In reply to comment #1) This is the wrong place to report a problem about your own pass if you have not done any debugging yourself. how i do a debugginh --

[Bug target/28968] gcc/config/i386/winnt-stubs.c is not linked in - build fails

2006-09-08 Thread mkoeppe at gmx dot de
--- Comment #4 from mkoeppe at gmx dot de 2006-09-08 16:41 --- (In reply to comment #3) And the other question is how did you get passed PR 15212? I now tested make bootstrap on native i586-pc-interix3. This bug (PR 28968) occurs there, too, when building the stage1. I think it is

[Bug c++/26957] [4.0/4.1 regression] ICE in make_decl_rtl, at varasm.c:871

2006-09-08 Thread jason at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #15 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-08 16:52 --- Subject: Bug 26957 Author: jason Date: Fri Sep 8 16:52:40 2006 New Revision: 116781 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=116781 Log: PR c++/26957 * method.c (use_thunk): Clear

[Bug c++/26957] [4.0/4.1 regression] ICE in make_decl_rtl, at varasm.c:871

2006-09-08 Thread jason at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #16 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-08 16:54 --- Subject: Bug 26957 Author: jason Date: Fri Sep 8 16:53:55 2006 New Revision: 116782 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=116782 Log: PR c++/26957 * method.c (use_thunk): Clear

[Bug c++/26957] [4.0/4.1 regression] ICE in make_decl_rtl, at varasm.c:871

2006-09-08 Thread jason at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #17 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-08 16:54 --- Applied to 4.0 and 4.1 as well. -- jason at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added

[Bug c++/17395] Incorrect lookup for parameters

2006-09-08 Thread amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #7 from amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-08 17:26 --- I suppose this accepts-invalid problem is related: struct I { int i; } i = { 0 }; int f (int i, int j = i.i) { return i + j; } -- amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed

[Bug c++/28985] New: class member access using a qualified-id fails to check for match of classes

2006-09-08 Thread amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org
The following code violates clause 4 of 3.4.5 class C {}; void f () { C o; class C {}; o.C::~C (); } -- Summary: class member access using a qualified-id fails to check for match of classes Product: gcc Version: 4.2.0

[Bug c++/28986] New: Failure to diagnose overflow in constant expression

2006-09-08 Thread amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org
g++ doesn't diagnose the overflow (clause 5 paragraph 5) in the following constant expression: #include limits.h long l = LONG_MAX+1; -- Summary: Failure to diagnose overflow in constant expression Product: gcc Version: 4.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug c/28504] [4.0/4.1/4.2 regression] ICE with variable sized array

2006-09-08 Thread jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #2 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-08 18:51 --- Working on a fix. -- jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added

[Bug c++/28988] New: g++ does not check first type name in pseudo-destructor-name

2006-09-08 Thread amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org
The following code is accepted, contrary to clause 5.2.4: typedef int C; typedef double D; void f () { C o; o.D::~C (); } -- Summary: g++ does not check first type name in pseudo-destructor- name Product: gcc Version: 4.2.0

[Bug middle-end/28980] [4.0/4.1/4.2 Regression] ICE with loc_descriptor_from_tree_1 with -g

2006-09-08 Thread janis at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #7 from janis at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-08 19:11 --- A regression hunt on powerpc-linux, using the reduced testcase from comment #4 with no options, identified this patch for which that test starts compiling cleanly: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?view=revrev=116450

[Bug middle-end/28980] [4.0/4.1/4.2 Regression] ICE in loc_descriptor_from_tree_1 with -g

2006-09-08 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #8 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-08 19:14 --- So the ICE in tree_low_cst has been fixed in the next releases of GCC 4.1.x and 4.0.x, that is good news but we still have the ICE in loc_descriptor_from_tree_1 now. -- pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

[Bug c++/28989] New: post-increment of bool variable accepted as lvalue

2006-09-08 Thread amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org
void f() { bool i = 0; i++ = 6; } -- Summary: post-increment of bool variable accepted as lvalue Product: gcc Version: 4.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: accepts-invalid Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug c++/28989] [4.0/4.1/4.2 Regression] post-increment of bool variable accepted as lvalue

2006-09-08 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-08 19:33 --- Confirmed, though in 3.0.4 to 3.4.0 we gave a weird error for this code: t.cc: In function `void f()': t.cc:5: error: assignment of read-only location -- pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What

[Bug java/28979] GCJ errors out when compiling .class files produced by Scala 2.1.8

2006-09-08 Thread tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #4 from tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-08 19:34 --- Also see PR 28892 -- tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added

[Bug c++/28990] New: const new: Inherited constructor accepted in lieu of user-defined constructor

2006-09-08 Thread amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org
The following is accepted despite the requirements of 5.3.4 paragraph 15 of a user-defined constructor: class B { public: B (); }; class C : B {}; const C * f () { const C *p = new const C[1]; return p; } -- Summary: const new: Inherited constructor accepted in lieu of

[Bug c++/20040] A new expression must check the access level of delete operator

2006-09-08 Thread amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #2 from amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-08 20:30 --- g++ also fails to check the accessibility of the destructor: class C { private: void operator delete (void *p) throw (); }; void f () { C *p = new C; } class D { private: ~D (); }; void g () { D *p =

[Bug tree-optimization/28983] Problem creating a new pass

2006-09-08 Thread steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #3 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-08 20:32 --- See http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/DebuggingGCC Please stop asking questions here and try to figure out something for yourself, from the wiki, from the documentation, by experimenting, or when all else fails, on the

[Bug rtl-optimization/28925] problem with zero_extract during gcse

2006-09-08 Thread ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #3 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-08 20:45 --- The approach looks OK but the fix should use invalidate_any_buried_refs. Post the revised version to gcc-patches if it works (read the guidelines on http://gcc.gnu.org/contribute.html) and I'll formally approve

[Bug c++/28991] New: Static constructor emitted instead of initialized variable

2006-09-08 Thread us15 at os dot inf dot tu-dresden dot de
() {}; }; void (*T::handler)() = func; int main() { T t; return 0; } gcc version 4.2.0 20060908 (experimental) emits: 08048416 t global constructors keyed to _ZN1T7handlerE 08049664 B T::handler 4.1.1 and 3.4.6 emit: 0804962c D T::handler -- Summary: Static constructor emitted

[Bug c++/28991] Static constructor emitted instead of initialized variable

2006-09-08 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-08 21:00 --- Hmm, this worked in 4.2.0 20060821 -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28991

[Bug c++/28991] Static constructor emitted instead of initialized variable

2006-09-08 Thread adam at os dot inf dot tu-dresden dot de
--- Comment #2 from adam at os dot inf dot tu-dresden dot de 2006-09-08 21:07 --- gcc version 4.2.0 20060903 (experimental) also gives: 080483f2 t global constructors keyed to _ZN1T7handlerE 08049650 B T::handler -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28991

[Bug middle-end/28493] [4.1/4.2 Regression] Wrong address of stack object used for destructor call on PPC

2006-09-08 Thread jason at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #17 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-08 22:37 --- Hmm, it seems things are a bit more complicated than I thought. Without my change to expand_builtin_setjmp_receiver, Janis's test passes at -O0 and fails at -O1; the adjustment of r31 at -O0 is actually correct.

[Bug c++/28992] New: g++ lacks the empty bodyin an if-statement warning emitted by gcc

2006-09-08 Thread simon_baldwin at yahoo dot com
$ cat bad_if.cc #include stdio.h int main() { if (0); { /* Semicolon accidentally added between condition and brace. */ printf(Not intended to be printed\n); } return 0; } $ .../i686-unknown-linux-gnu-g++ --version i686-unknown-linux-gnu-g++ (GCC) 4.1.0 $

[Bug middle-end/28493] [4.1/4.2 Regression] Wrong address of stack object used for destructor call on PPC

2006-09-08 Thread jason at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #18 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-08 22:52 --- Janis: the most part of the -fstack-protector patch that seems plausible for causing this problem was the change to expand_function_end to call sjlj_emit_function_exit_after at a different point. But that section of

[Bug c++/28858] [4.0/4.1/4.2 regression] Algorithm to find the end of a template parameter list is flawed

2006-09-08 Thread reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #2 from reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-08 22:56 --- Subject: Bug 28858 Author: reichelt Date: Fri Sep 8 22:56:44 2006 New Revision: 116788 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=116788 Log: PR c++/28858 * parser.c

[Bug c++/28858] [4.0/4.1/4.2 regression] Algorithm to find the end of a template parameter list is flawed

2006-09-08 Thread reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #3 from reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-08 23:28 --- Fixed on mainline. Won't backport to 4.1 and 4.0 branch. -- reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added

[Bug c++/28992] g++ lacks the empty bodyin an if-statement warning emitted by gcc

2006-09-08 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-08 23:28 --- This is a dup of bug 5520 which was fixed in 4.2.0. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 5520 *** -- pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added

[Bug c++/5520] Add a warning to detect empty body of if statements (like in the C frontend)

2006-09-08 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #11 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-08 23:28 --- *** Bug 28992 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added

[Bug fortran/28993] New: Internal compiler error: in gfc_get_symbol_decl, at fortran/trans-decl.c:783

2006-09-08 Thread danp57 at optonline dot net
gfortran -v -save-temps -c Diags.f95 Using built-in specs. Target: powerpc-apple-darwin8.7.0 Configured with: ../gcc-4.0.3/configure --prefix=/usr/local --enable-languages=c,c++,f95,java --with-gmp=/usr/local/lib --with-mpfr=/usr/local/lib Thread model: posix gcc version 4.0.3

[Bug c++/26696] [4.0/4.1/4.2 Regression] ICE with statement forming unused static member function reference

2006-09-08 Thread reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #10 from reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-08 23:33 --- The fix is incomplete. The following testcase still fails: == struct A { static void foo(); }; void bar() { A().foo; } == -- reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot

[Bug c/28504] [4.0/4.1/4.2 regression] ICE with variable sized array

2006-09-08 Thread jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #3 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-08 23:41 --- Subject: Bug 28504 Author: jsm28 Date: Fri Sep 8 23:41:21 2006 New Revision: 116789 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=116789 Log: PR c/28504 * c-tree.h (struct c_arg_info): Add

[Bug c++/26696] [4.0/4.1/4.2 Regression] ICE with statement forming unused static member function reference

2006-09-08 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #11 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-08 23:45 --- (In reply to comment #10) The fix is incomplete. The following testcase still fails: Can you file a new bug report since the orginal testcase here was fixed, even though your testcase is very closely related it

[Bug testsuite/25327] g++.dg/compat/struct-layout-1.exp broken for installed compiler testing

2006-09-08 Thread jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #1 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-09 00:03 --- This was fixed by 2005-12-13 Mark Mitchell [EMAIL PROTECTED] Jakub Jelinek [EMAIL PROTECTED] * g++.dg/compat/struct-layout-1.exp: Do not link with libiberty. *

[Bug c++/28990] const new: Inherited constructor accepted in lieu of user-defined constructor

2006-09-08 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-09 00:16 --- Related to PR 20039. -- pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added

[Bug bootstrap/28994] New: 64-bit problem in host-darwin.c

2006-09-08 Thread lucier at math dot purdue dot edu
When configuring and bootstrapping with #!/bin/tcsh /bin/rm -rf *; env CC='gcc -mcpu=970 -m64' ../configure --prefix=/pkgs/gcc-test-64 --enable-languages=c --disable-checking; make -j 16 bootstrap BOOT_CFLAGS='-O2 -g -mcpu=970 -m64' build.log bootstrap fails with

[Bug c/28504] [4.0/4.1 regression] ICE with variable sized array

2006-09-08 Thread jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #4 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-09 01:02 --- Patch doesn't apply cleanly to 4.1 branch. -- jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added

[Bug java/28979] GCJ errors out when compiling .class files produced by Scala 2.1.8

2006-09-08 Thread vnasardinov at gmail dot com
--- Comment #5 from vnasardinov at gmail dot com 2006-09-09 01:05 --- PR 28892 reminded me that I had forgotten to mention one thing. The attached program (attachment 12208) runs fine under gij. To be more precise, it does more or less the same thing it does under Sun's JDK. Under

[Bug fortran/28993] Internal compiler error: in gfc_get_symbol_decl, at fortran/trans-decl.c:783

2006-09-08 Thread jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #1 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-09 01:17 --- Please upgarde to at least 4.1 version of gfortran. This compiles fine for me with latest gfortran 4.2. 100's of bugs have been fixed since 4.0 series. -- jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

[Bug fortran/28993] Internal compiler error: in gfc_get_symbol_decl, at fortran/trans-decl.c:783

2006-09-08 Thread danp57 at optonline dot net
--- Comment #2 from danp57 at optonline dot net 2006-09-09 01:19 --- There is a syntax error in the code: the function tqli() declaration is missing the terminal ')' Dan -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28993

[Bug fortran/28993] Internal compiler error: in gfc_get_symbol_decl, at fortran/trans-decl.c:783

2006-09-08 Thread danp57 at optonline dot net
--- Comment #3 from danp57 at optonline dot net 2006-09-09 01:20 --- I will upgrade... -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28993

RE: [Bug bootstrap/28994] New: 64-bit problem in host-darwin.c

2006-09-08 Thread Jack Howarth
Bradley, I would think it would only make sense to try to build 64-bit only using the --enable-multilib=no and then some incantation of the configure for a ppc64 target of darwin (which doesn't exist). This really doesn't make sense to do since, unlike x86_64, Darwin's default libs on both ppc

[Bug tree-optimization/28983] Problem creating a new pass

2006-09-08 Thread dberlin at dberlin dot org
--- Comment #4 from dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-09 02:26 --- Subject: Re: New: Problem creating a new pass Then i do make and make install without problems,but when i try to compiler a c code.. I'd highly suggest you email gcc@, use the current development version,

[Bug c++/27177] [4.0/4.1/4.2 Regression] ICE in build_simple_base_path, at cp/class.c:474

2006-09-08 Thread mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #9 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-09 03:17 --- The case in Comment #8 is now broken on 4.1/4.2. -- mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added

[Bug c++/28985] [4.0/4.1/4.2 Regression] class member access using a qualified-id fails to check for match of classes

2006-09-08 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-09 04:10 --- Confirmed, a regression from 3.3.3 which gave: t.cc: In function `void f()': t.cc:10: error: lookup of `C' in the scope of `class C' (`class C') does not match lookup in the current scope (`class f()::C') To me

[Bug c++/28986] Failure to diagnose overflow in constant expression

2006-09-08 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-09 04:14 --- Confirmed, not a regression and only happens with the C++ front-end. -- pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added

[Bug libfortran/28995] New: libgfortran build now fails on Darwin PPC

2006-09-08 Thread howarth at nitro dot med dot uc dot edu
Somewhere between r116775 and r116795, the build of libgfortran has become broken on Darwin PPC. The build now fails with... /bin/sh ./libtool --mode=compile /sw/src/fink.build/gcc4-4.1.999-20060908/darwin_objdir/./gcc/xgcc -B/sw/src/fink.build/gcc4-4.1.999-20060908/darwin_objdir/./gcc/ -B/sw/lib

[Bug c++/28988] [4.0/4.1/4.2 Regression] g++ does not check first type name in pseudo-destructor-name

2006-09-08 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-09 04:16 --- Confirmed, another regression from 3.3.3: t.cc: In function `void f()': t.cc:9: qualified type `double' does not match destructor name `~C' t.cc:9: type of `o' does not match destructor type `double' (type was `C'

[Bug target/28995] [4.2 Regression] libgfortran build now fails on Darwin PPC

2006-09-08 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-09 04:22 --- This is obviously caused by: * config/darwin.c (machopic_select_section): Support literal16. (machopic_select_rtx_section): Ditto. Is a new cctools needed now? -- pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org

[Bug c++/28991] [4.2 Regression] Static constructor emitted instead of initialized variable

2006-09-08 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-09 04:28 --- (In reply to comment #1) Hmm, this worked in 4.2.0 20060821 But it was broke in 4.2.0 20060831. -- pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added

[Bug c++/28588] [4.0/4.1 Regression] static private function

2006-09-08 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
-- pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|4.0.4 |4.2.0 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28588

[Bug c++/28991] [4.2 Regression] Static constructor emitted instead of initialized variable

2006-09-08 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-09 05:03 --- This looks like it was caused by PR 28588. In store_init_value, we have a BASELINK. -- pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added

[Bug c++/28991] [4.2 Regression] Static constructor emitted instead of initialized variable

2006-09-08 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #5 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-09 05:23 --- If we have another function in the overloaded set for the BASELINK: class T { static void (* handler)(); static void func(); static void func(int); }; void (*T::handler)() = func; We don't get the

[Bug c++/28991] [4.2 Regression] Static constructor emitted instead of initialized variable

2006-09-08 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #6 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-09 05:39 --- I cannot figure out which function should be stripping the BASELINK expression. OVERLOADS work because perform_implicit_conversion strips it after going through the overloaded set to figure out which function is

[Bug c++/28956] Illegal array initialization accepted

2006-09-08 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-09 05:42 --- This is also related to PR 20039. -- pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added

[Bug rtl-optimization/28940] [4.0/4.1/4.2 Regression] address selection does not work correctly

2006-09-08 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-09 05:48 --- For x86, 3.4.0 produces: movl4(%esp), %edx movsbl a+1(%edx),%eax movsbl b+1(%edx),%edx addl%edx, %eax ret While 4.0.0 produced: movl4(%esp), %edx

[Bug testsuite/28969] FAIL: gcc.dg/nrv3.c scan-tree-dump-times return slot optimization 2

2006-09-08 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-09 05:50 --- Confirmed, the size of the struct is too small to cause it to be returned by reference. See the patch at http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-09/msg00051.html for a fix. -- pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org