--- Comment #2 from vapier at gentoo dot org 2008-04-20 04:47 ---
Created an attachment (id=15498)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=15498&action=view)
af_volnorm.i
original test case
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35982
--- Comment #1 from vapier at gentoo dot org 2008-04-20 04:46 ---
the reduced test case
$ cat af_volnorm.i
struct mem {
float avg;
int len;
};
float method2_int16(struct mem *mem)
{
int i;
float avg;
for (i = 0; i < 100; ++i)
avg +
building mplayer with gcc-4.3.0 triggers an ICE. gcc-4.1.2 and gcc-4.2.3 work
fine.
powerpc-unknown-linux-gnu-gcc -Wdisabled-optimization -Wno-pointer-sign
-Wdeclaration-after-statement -I. -I.. -I../libavutil -Wall -Wno-switch
-Wpointer-arith -Wredundant-decls -O4 -mcpu=970 -mtune=970 -pipe -ff
--
hjl dot tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |kris dot van dot hees at
|dot org
--- Comment #3 from kris dot van dot hees at oracle dot com 2008-04-20
00:51 ---
Can someone assign this bug to me? I'm waiting for 'write after approval'
commit privs right now, and it seems that I do not have bugzilla privs.
I'm currently looking into this.
--
http://gcc.gnu.or
--- Comment #2 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2008-04-19 23:29 ---
Confirmed on Linux/Intel64.
--
hjl dot tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #9 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-04-19 22:32 ---
Fixed on trunk and 4.3.
Thanks for the report.
Paul
--
pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #9 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-04-19 22:32 ---
Fixed on trunk and 4.3.
Thanks for the report.
Paul
--
pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #6 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-04-19 22:32 ---
Fixed on trunk and 4.3.
Thanks for the report.
Paul
--
pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #8 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-04-19 22:31 ---
Subject: Bug 35946
Author: pault
Date: Sat Apr 19 22:30:03 2008
New Revision: 134475
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=134475
Log:
2008-04-19 Paul Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR fortran/
--- Comment #11 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-04-19 22:31 ---
Subject: Bug 35944
Author: pault
Date: Sat Apr 19 22:30:03 2008
New Revision: 134475
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=134475
Log:
2008-04-19 Paul Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR fortran
--- Comment #8 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-04-19 22:31 ---
Subject: Bug 35959
Author: pault
Date: Sat Apr 19 22:30:03 2008
New Revision: 134475
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=134475
Log:
2008-04-19 Paul Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR fortran/
--- Comment #5 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-04-19 22:31 ---
Subject: Bug 35947
Author: pault
Date: Sat Apr 19 22:30:03 2008
New Revision: 134475
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=134475
Log:
2008-04-19 Paul Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR fortran/
--- Comment #4 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-04-19 21:56 ---
Subject: Bug 35947
Author: pault
Date: Sat Apr 19 21:55:24 2008
New Revision: 134472
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=134472
Log:
2008-04-19 Paul Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR fortran/
--- Comment #7 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-04-19 21:56 ---
Subject: Bug 35946
Author: pault
Date: Sat Apr 19 21:55:24 2008
New Revision: 134472
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=134472
Log:
2008-04-19 Paul Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR fortran/
--- Comment #10 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-04-19 21:56 ---
Subject: Bug 35944
Author: pault
Date: Sat Apr 19 21:55:24 2008
New Revision: 134472
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=134472
Log:
2008-04-19 Paul Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR fortran
--- Comment #7 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-04-19 21:56 ---
Subject: Bug 35959
Author: pault
Date: Sat Apr 19 21:55:24 2008
New Revision: 134472
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=134472
Log:
2008-04-19 Paul Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR fortran/
--- Comment #6 from tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-04-19 21:35 ---
Subject: Bug 35979
Author: tromey
Date: Sat Apr 19 21:35:02 2008
New Revision: 134471
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=134471
Log:
PR libgcj/35979:
* jni.cc (_Jv_JNI_NewStringUTF
--- Comment #5 from tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-04-19 21:35 ---
Fix checked in.
--
tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|AS
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-04-19 21:23 ---
The warnings should not happen with long being 64bits. I don't know why the
tests did not test long long also.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
On *-apple-darwin9 gcc.dg/utf-cvt.c (and g++.dg/ext/utf-cvt.C) fails to give
warnings at lines 46 and 47 when tested with -m64.
--
Summary: FAIL: gcc.dg/utf-cvt.c (test for warnings, line 46/47)
with -m64
Product: gcc
Version: 4.4.0
--- Comment #4 from tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-04-19 21:16 ---
Testing a patch.
--
tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|u
--- Comment #17 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-04-19 21:12
---
I am reopening this PR. In my further attempts to reduce the test case here to
help with the "apparent" problem with PR35154 I have discovered two things:
1. The test case can only be reduced slightly before th
--- Comment #3 from thomas dot g dot girard at free dot fr 2008-04-19
20:54 ---
You are absolutely right, thanks for pointing this out. The SIGSEGV gets
converted to an NPE.
But Sun's implementation does not throw an NPE. Please have a look at the
attached testcase. You can launch it u
--- Comment #2 from thomas dot g dot girard at free dot fr 2008-04-19
20:51 ---
Created an attachment (id=15497)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=15497&action=view)
testcase for NewStringUTF
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35979
--- Comment #1 from tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-04-19 19:55 ---
>From your comment I assume that java-gnome is using the JNI NewStringUTF call.
This does not directly call _Jv_NewStringUTF. Instead, it calls
_Jv_JNI_NewStringUTF
(in jni.cc). That code wraps the call to _Jv_NewSt
The canonical type of types with the may_alias attribute is the canonical type
of the type without the may_alias attribute set. But
/* The "canonical" type for this type node, which can be used to
compare the type for equality with another type. If two types are
equal (based on the semantic
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-04-19 16:55 ---
I don't think this is a bug, even being in that scope, you still cannot take a
address of a private/protected static member function.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35978
Cory Cohen wrote on 19 April 2008 16:31:
> Hello again,
>
> Several days ago I sent a bug report about an internal
> compiler error to
> the cygwin and gcc-bugs lists. I've not heard back anything
> from either
> of the lists, and was wondering if there was something more that I
> needed to prov
Hello again,
Several days ago I sent a bug report about an internal compiler error to
the cygwin and gcc-bugs lists. I've not heard back anything from either
of the lists, and was wondering if there was something more that I
needed to provide. I realize there's no support contract here, and
--- Comment #3 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-04-19 14:11 ---
Created an attachment (id=15496)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=15496&action=view)
proposed patch
Here's a patch.
I'll regression-test and commit tomorrow, probably.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/
--- Comment #6 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-04-19 13:09 ---
Re. comment #4: If you have no idea what SCC-VN is supposed to serve, such bold
statements as made in this comment are _severely_ misguided.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35972
--- Comment #5 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-04-19 12:28 ---
Actually this is a false warning from strict-overflow. As the testcase is
supposed to test for the transformation it doesn't matter if -O or -O2 is used
though.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35
--- Comment #16 from george at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-04-19 12:08 ---
Thanks for the report. For the record, here is the approval for this patch:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2008-02/msg01011.html
--
george at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
Hello,
when running java-gnome 4 unit tests, I've found out that gij NewStringUTF
implementation crashes when its argument is NULL. Indeed in natString.cc the
very first line of _Jv_NewStringUTF(const char *bytes) calls strlen(bytes),
without checking whether bytes is NULL or not. Hence the crash.
--- Comment #2 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-04-19 11:29 ---
We don't check for empty arrays in reshape.
Should be fairly straightforward.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35960
gcc-4.X (4.0 up to 4.3) rejects the following valid c++ code: a private static
member function pointer is passed as a template argument, the function
visibility is resolved in the wrong scope ...
template
struct binder {
inline void foo() {
(*fn)();
}
};
struct tester {
private:
--- Comment #6 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-04-19 08:45 ---
This fixes it, albeit with one regression (scalarize_parameter_array_1.f90):
Index: gcc/fortran/trans-array.c
===
*** gcc/fortran/trans-array.c (revisi
--- Comment #3 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-04-19 08:36 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> I have started a regression hunt on this one. If any one finds the problem,
> let me know, the hunt could take a while.
>
Jerry,
In fixing PR35946, I have fixed this fella too:)
Call off
--- Comment #2 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-04-19 07:58
---
I have started a regression hunt on this one. If any one finds the problem,
let me know, the hunt could take a while.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35947
--- Comment #1 from dcb314 at hotmail dot com 2008-04-19 07:47 ---
Created an attachment (id=15495)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=15495&action=view)
proposed patch
proposed patch for version 4.4 snapshot 20080411
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id
41 matches
Mail list logo
