--- Comment #5 from eduardo dot iniesta at aquiline dot es 2007-04-23
07:53 ---
(In reply to comment #4)
Please post the output of running gcj -C -v Fail.java
Thanks.
The output of running gcj -C -v Fail.java is:
$ gcj -C -v Fail.java salida_compila.txt
Usando especificaciones
--- Comment #3 from chrbr at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-04-23 07:59 ---
Hi Kaj,
The same problem seems to transpire from the movsf_ie pattern for the sh2a-fpu
that also have 32 bit memory instructions. So your fix also applies there.
Note that traditional sh memory move instructions can
I get the following segfault with current gcc 4.3. This was introduced
between 20070330-r123378 (works) and 20070417-r123941 (segfault). This
is related to the use of anonymous namespace.
I believe it was caused by:
2007-04-16 Seongbae Park [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR c++/29365
*
--- Comment #6 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-04-23 08:52 ---
Subject: Bug 31616
Author: ghazi
Date: Mon Apr 23 08:52:24 2007
New Revision: 124059
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=124059
Log:
PR fortran/31616
* gfortran.dg/open_errors.f90:
--- Comment #4 from kkojima at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-04-23 09:53 ---
The same problem seems to transpire from the movsf_ie pattern for the sh2a-fpu
that also have 32 bit memory instructions. So your fix also applies there.
Ah, thanks! I'll add movsf_ie part when I return to this
--- Comment #9 from anirkko at insel dot ch 2007-04-23 11:35 ---
(In reply to comment #8)
The bootstrap works fine with all flags equal to '-O2'
Great, thanks for the confirmation.
Still worrysome, because somewhere in the installation instructions, it is
recommended to
--- Comment #10 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-04-23 11:55
---
It is in the main directory, file FAQ, section Optimizing the compiler
itself:
If you want to test a particular optimization option, it's useful to
try bootstrapping the compiler with that
--- Comment #6 from keinstein_junior at gmx dot net 2007-04-23 12:08
---
I tried to add a new testcase which shows the error with my gfortran-4.2. But
got an error.
It's located at http://rcswww.urz.tu-dresden.de/~s7935097/src-differror2.tgz
now.
FYI alloys.mod depends on the other
--- Comment #2 from krebbel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-04-23 12:21 ---
In your example the memset function is called with -1 as length argument. When
GCC tries to expand this as a builtin function an assertion in the s390 back
end function s390_expand_setmem is triggered. Although an
--- Comment #10 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-04-23 12:47
---
Mine.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #6 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-04-23 13:35 ---
(In reply to comment #5)
It is OK with me.
Ok, excellent. For 4_2-branch we have a nuisance, in that the original testcase
involves -Wconversion which in that branch does nothing in C++. Thus I tested
on ia64-linux the
--- Comment #7 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-04-23 13:36 ---
Created an attachment (id=13430)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=13430action=view)
Patch for 4_2-branch
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31638
--- Comment #3 from uweigand at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-04-23 14:51
---
I don't think the patch is correct; according to the C standard,
the third argument of memset is of type size_t, which must be
an *unsigned* type, so it cannot in fact be negative.
What apparently happens is that
In cp/decl.c there is this code
warning (OPT_Wshadow, shadowing %s function %q#D,
DECL_BUILT_IN (olddecl) ? built-in : library,
olddecl);
The strings substituted for the first %s are not available for translation, so
this can not be
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-04-23 15:07 ---
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-04/msg01191.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31663
In
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2007-04/msg01156.html
there is
FAIL: g++.old-deja/g++.other/vbase5.C execution test
--
Summary: [4.3 regression]: g++.old-deja/g++.other/vbase5.C
execution test
Product: gcc
Version: 4.3.0
--- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-04-23 15:26 ---
Confirmed, I also see this.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #7 from tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-04-23 15:26 ---
Subject: Bug 30468
Author: tromey
Date: Mon Apr 23 15:26:21 2007
New Revision: 124067
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=124067
Log:
PR preprocessor/30468:
* mkdeps.c (apply_vpath):
--- Comment #8 from tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-04-23 15:27 ---
Subject: Bug 30468
Author: tromey
Date: Mon Apr 23 15:26:51 2007
New Revision: 124068
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=124068
Log:
PR preprocessor/30468:
* mkdeps.c (apply_vpath):
SSE4.1 has pmovzx and pmovsx. For code like:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] vect]$ cat pmovzxbw.c
typedef unsigned char vec_t;
typedef unsigned short vecx_t;
extern __attribute__((aligned(16))) vec_t x [64];
extern __attribute__((aligned(16))) vecx_t y [64];
void
foo ()
{
int i;
for (i = 0; i 64; i++)
--- Comment #9 from tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-04-23 15:27 ---
Fixed on 4.1 and 4.2 branches.
--
tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from vaclav dot kocian at wo dot cz 2007-04-23 15:33 ---
My RAM is 512MB. Well, the newer version of gcc says :
You need to increase the datasize limit to at least 70 (and set
kern.maxdsiz=734003200 in /boot/loader.conf) to build with Java
support.
I do not
--- Comment #8 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-04-23 16:14 ---
Subject: Bug 31620
Author: pault
Date: Mon Apr 23 16:13:48 2007
New Revision: 124069
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=124069
Log:
2007-04-23 Paul Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR
--- Comment #3 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-04-23 16:14 ---
Subject: Bug 31630
Author: pault
Date: Mon Apr 23 16:13:48 2007
New Revision: 124069
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=124069
Log:
2007-04-23 Paul Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR
--- Comment #2 from theodore dot papadopoulo at sophia dot inria dot fr
2007-04-23 16:46 ---
(From update of attachment 13378)
Slightly simplified the testcase
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31598
--- Comment #2 from spark at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-04-23 16:53 ---
My patch (which is still waiting for a review) should fix this.
--
spark at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from theodore dot papadopoulo at sophia dot inria dot fr
2007-04-23 17:01 ---
Sorry to have added you without asking Jakub, but it looks like you are one of
the person that deals with OpenMP and this bug seems to have been unnoticed
up to now...
It seems that this
--- Comment #5 from janis at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-04-23 17:02 ---
A regression hunt on powerc-linux using the submitter's testcase identified the
following patch:
http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?view=revrev=64815
r64815 | nathan | 2003-03-24 19:47:17 + (Mon, 24 Mar 2003)
--- Comment #3 from janis at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-04-23 17:06 ---
A regression hunt on powerpc-linux identified the following patch:
http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?view=revrev=69715
r69715 | mmitchel | 2003-07-23 18:44:43 + (Wed, 23 Jul 2003)
--
janis at gcc dot gnu
--- Comment #3 from janis at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-04-23 17:19 ---
A regression hunt on powerpc-linux identified the following patch:
http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?view=revrev=116311
r116311 | jason | 2006-08-21 13:54:57 -0700 (Mon, 21 Aug 2006)
--
janis at gcc dot gnu dot
--- Comment #6 from tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-04-23 17:24 ---
Ok. You are running a version of gcj 4.3 from *before* the gcj-eclipse
merge. So, this is correctly marked as a duplicate.
If you update and rebuild, and follow the new instructions vis a vis ecj1,
you will get a
--- Comment #4 from numerical dot simulation at web dot de 2007-04-23
17:24 ---
Sorry, the link was wrong, must be
http://groups.google.de/group/comp.lang.c++.moderated/browse_thread/thread/8c3b8a84ed78b003/4d9603171894a75d?hl=de#4d9603171894a75d
--
--- Comment #7 from janis at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-04-23 17:27 ---
A regression hunt identified the tree-ssa merge to mainline.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31411
--- Comment #9 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-04-23 17:52 ---
Fixed on trunk
Paul
--
pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-04-23 17:52 ---
Fixed on trunk
Paul
--
pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Reported by Arjan van Dijk,
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2007-04/msg00367.html
gfortran rejects the following code with the error:
By-value argument at (1) is not allowed in this context
This is because the following check is matched: resolve.c,
resolve_actual_arglist():
/*
--
fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot
|
Ada compiler, GNAT, blows up during compilation of the code segment below with
an unhandled exception error message raised RTSIFND.RE_NOT_AVAILABLE :
rts.find.adb:210
package Abstract_Base is
pragma Pure;
type Base_Type is abstract tagged limited private;
procedure Update (This :
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot
|
#include stdio.h
typedef struct{
char data[261];
int n;
} packet;
int main(int argc, char *argv[]){
packet p;
//It should print packet=265... it prints packet=268
printf(packet = %d\n, sizeof(packet));
//It should print p=265... it prints p=268
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-04-23 19:32 ---
Learn about alignment when doing struct layout. Basically you want to use the
attribute packed to get the sizes you want.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #6 from amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-04-23 19:37 ---
(In reply to comment #5)
Fixed.
I also see mayalias-2 failing with gcc 4.2 on arc at
-O3 -fomit-frame-pointer.
Life analysis finds a 'clever' way to initialize the pointer p
by copying the frame pointer and then
The following code compiles in all the gcc versions I tested (4.0.1, 4.1.1,
4.1.2):
templateint i void doit() {
i = 0;
}
templateconst int i class X {
public:
void foo() {
doiti();
}
};
int i;
Xi x;
int main(int argc, char **argv) {
x.foo();
}
Note that if i is
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-04-23 20:14 ---
Confirmed, not a regression as far as I can tell.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
jason at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |jason at gcc dot gnu dot org
|dot org
This feature is used classic Fortran 77 libraries such as Starpac, as
mentioned in comp.lang.fortran on 23-Apr-2007 .
c:\fortran type d1mach.f90
function d1mach(i)
implicit none
double precision d1mach,dmach(5)
integer i,large(4),small(4)
equivalence ( dmach(1), small(1) )
equivalence ( dmach(2),
--- Comment #8 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-04-23 20:44 ---
Subject: Bug 31618
Author: tkoenig
Date: Mon Apr 23 20:43:54 2007
New Revision: 124079
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=124079
Log:
2007-04-23 Thomas Koenig [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR
--- Comment #9 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-04-23 20:46 ---
Fixed on trunk.
Maybe we should backport this once 4.2.1 is open.
--
tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #8 from brooks at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-04-23 20:48 ---
*** Bug 31672 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
brooks at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from brooks at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-04-23 20:48 ---
Thanks for reporting this -- this is a rather nicer testcase than the one we
had for this already.
I've also changed the title of PR #29786 to make it easier to find.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of
--- Comment #9 from brooks at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-04-23 20:49 ---
I'm changing the name of this bug to make it a lot easier to find, now that we
know what the actual problem is.
Also, PR #31672 contains an excellent testcase for this, which I'll quote here:
--- Comment #17 from arcangelpip at hotmail dot com 2007-04-23 20:51
---
Yup, that did it. Building the cross compiler with that patch fixed the test
case ICE and the one I kept getting from gettext.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29826
--
brooks at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P5 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29786
--- Comment #10 from roger at eyesopen dot com 2007-04-23 20:54 ---
Many thanks to Paul for fixing this, and my apologies for being overloaded at
work and not being available to investigate it fully myself.
I believe that Paul's fix of explicitly checking expr1-ref-next is the
correct
--- Comment #11 from roger at eyesopen dot com 2007-04-23 21:05 ---
Duh! I am missing something obvious! The ref-u.ar.type == AR_FULL test on
line 1120 returns true. The test for ref-next needs to be moved earlier.
Sorry again for the inconvenience. Clearly, my brain isn't working
The error message
`for' loop initial declaration used outside C99 mode
is just confusing to the average user. The default -std level is gnu89
which forbids for loop initial declarations, but as the user might not
have even heard about C99 let alone mentioned that somewhere on purpose,
this
--- Comment #1 from j at uriah dot heep dot sax dot de 2007-04-23 21:34
---
Created an attachment (id=13431)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=13431action=view)
Suggested patch.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31673
I get an internal consistency failure on ia64 with current gcc 4.3. This
was introduced between 20070326 and 20070422. It doesn't happen on x86_64.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ /usr/lib/gcc-snapshot/bin/g++ -c
kdeedu-libextdate_la.all_cpp.cc
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ /usr/lib/gcc-snapshot/bin/g++ -c -O
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-04-23 21:39 ---
this message causes an unusual high amount of support traffic.
Does it? This is the first time I have seen a request for a change.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31673
--- Comment #1 from tbm at cyrius dot com 2007-04-23 21:40 ---
Created an attachment (id=13432)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=13432action=view)
testcase
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31674
--- Comment #3 from j at uriah dot heep dot sax dot de 2007-04-23 21:49
---
(In reply to comment #2)
this message causes an unusual high amount of support traffic.
Does it? This is the first time I have seen a request for a change.
When I first saw it, it took quite a while
--- Comment #10 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-04-23 21:50
---
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-23 20:51:45 PriorityP5 P2
The release manager is the only one who is able to change the priority.
Changing the Priority back to P5 based on this is a fortran bug so
--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-04-23 21:57 ---
(Just reading that single article is enough, alas the rest of that
thread is getting *way* off.)
Sounds like this is a case of not reading the documentation again.
--
--- Comment #5 from j at uriah dot heep dot sax dot de 2007-04-23 22:05
---
(In reply to comment #4)
Sounds like this is a case of not reading the documentation again.
Well, unlike many others, he even *knew* something about C99, yet he
did not grok the error message's content. And
We should have a header file that's used for stuff shared by the front-end and
library, such as magic constants used in library functions arguments. It would
avoid code duplication between gcc/fortran/gfortran.h and libgfortran.h, with
all the benefits of maintainance and readability you can
--- Comment #3 from janis at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-04-23 22:26 ---
A regression hunt on powerpc-linux identified this mainline patch:
http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?view=revrev=116409
r116409 | nathan | 2006-08-25 09:56:07 -0700 (Fri, 25 Aug 2006)
This patch was backported to
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work|2.95.3 3.2.3|2.95.3 3.2.3 4.1.2
Target Milestone|4.2.0
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot
|
--
fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Last
--
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 #2 from tbm at cyrius dot com 2007-04-23 22:54 ---
Slightly more reduced:
class QString
{
public:QString ();
QString operator+= (const QString str);
};
class Qt
{
};
template class T class QValueListIterator
{
};
template class T class QValueList
{
public:typedef
--- Comment #3 from janis at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-04-23 23:28 ---
A regression hunt on powerpc-linux for mainline shows that it was fixed by this
patch:
http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?view=revrev=122829
r122829 | mmitchel | 2007-03-12 00:26:39 + (Mon, 12 Mar 2007)
That
--- Comment #5 from kkojima at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-04-23 23:43 ---
Created an attachment (id=13433)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=13433action=view)
proposed patch
I'm testing this now.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31403
Test gcc.c-torture/execute/built-in-setjmp.c has failed execution on
powerpc*-unknown-linux-gnu with -O1 for both -m32 and -m64 since this mainline
patch was added:
http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?view=revrev=123919
r123919 | rakdver | 2007-04-17 16:42:29 + (Tue, 17 Apr 2007)
It started
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot
|
--
rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot
|dot org
Test gcc.dg/memcpy-1.c, added on 2006-11-28, has always failed the optimized
tree dump scan on powerpc64-unknown-linux-gnu. The contents of the scanned
file
are:
;; Function test (test)
Analyzing Edge Insertions.
test (a)
{
int nasty_local$a;
struct a nasty_local;
bb 2:
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-04-24 00:30 ---
A couple of issues here:
nasty_local.a = nasty_local$a;
is a SRA issue and that should not be needed.
The rest is just SRA not doing element copy for the struct (it is not a big
issue) and the testcase should
--- Comment #1 from rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-04-24 00:32 ---
ppc64-linux does not build just now, I will fix the problem once it does again.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31676
int test(int* A, int B) { return A B; }
$ gcc t.c -fsyntax-only -pedantic -ansi -std=c99
t.c: In function 'test':
t.c:3: warning: comparison between pointer and integer
According to C99 6.5.8p2, this should be rejected.
-Chris
--
Summary: invalid C99 code accepted with warning
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-04-24 00:46 ---
You have to use -pedantic-errors to get the error.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from sabre at nondot dot org 2007-04-24 01:14 ---
Doh, right, thanks! :)
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31678
82 matches
Mail list logo
