--- Comment #4 from hailijuan at gmail dot com 2009-09-24 09:50 ---
There is another problem with gcc -m64 -pg since 4.4.0, seen from below:
# file
/import/dr3/i386/gcc-4.4.0/lib/gcc/i386-pc-solaris2.11/4.4.0/amd64/gmon.o
/import/dr3/i386/gcc-4.4.0/lib/gcc/i386-pc-solaris2.11/4.4.0
Product: gcc
Version: 4.4.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: regression
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: hailijuan at gmail dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id
Product: gcc
Version: 4.4.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: hailijuan at gmail dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi
--- Comment #2 from hailijuan at gmail dot com 2009-06-17 10:07 ---
Subject: Re: __sync_fetch_and_add seems not working well for
-march=i686
Yes, I have seen the difference. Thanks muchly. I will close it.
2009/6/17 jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org
Product: gcc
Version: 4.4.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: hailijuan at gmail dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40183
--- Comment #1 from hailijuan at gmail dot com 2009-05-18 10:07 ---
Created an attachment (id=17885)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=17885action=view)
static-1.C and static-1a.cc
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40183
at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: hailijuan at gmail dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39775
--- Comment #1 from hailijuan at gmail dot com 2009-04-15 07:43 ---
Created an attachment (id=17642)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=17642action=view)
check_delete.cc and its header files.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39775
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
Priority: P3
Component: c
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: hailijuan at gmail dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36351
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
Priority: P3
Component: c
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: hailijuan at gmail dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36354
--- Comment #4 from hailijuan at gmail dot com 2008-05-28 08:54 ---
Subject: Re: OpenMP-C++: segmentation fault in basic string constructors
no. thanks for your comments. i have correct the testcase. the error
is gone with gcc-4.2. thanks again.
2008/5/28 pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot
Version: 4.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
Priority: P3
Component: c++
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: hailijuan at gmail dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36288
--- Comment #1 from hailijuan at gmail dot com 2008-05-21 08:41 ---
Created an attachment (id=15660)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=15660action=view)
C++ OpenMP program.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36288
--- Comment #1 from hailijuan at gmail dot com 2008-02-18 04:37 ---
the error message was raised in finish_omp_threadprivate (cp/semantics.c). It
was the field TREE_USED set to 1 that trigered the error. build_aggr_init set
TREE_USED of variable a. the call frame looks like:
=[1
considered first
use
Product: gcc
Version: 4.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
Priority: P3
Component: c++
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: hailijuan at gmail dot com
http
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: hailijuan at gmail dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35055
--- Comment #7 from hailijuan at gmail dot com 2007-12-20 02:21 ---
fixed in revision 131059
--
hailijuan at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component: c++
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: hailijuan at gmail dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34513
--- Comment #1 from hailijuan at gmail dot com 2007-12-17 17:37 ---
Created an attachment (id=14785)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=14785action=view)
openmp testcase
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34513
--- Comment #3 from hailijuan at gmail dot com 2007-12-18 03:24 ---
Subject: Re: static variable not found for C++ OpenMP
no, failed even when compiling with -O2 -g. could you show me your
compiler version and options? thanks.
17 Dec 2007 18:13:37 -, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot
dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: hailijuan at gmail dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34517
--- Comment #1 from hailijuan at gmail dot com 2007-12-18 06:07 ---
Created an attachment (id=14789)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=14789action=view)
C++ OpenMP testcase
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34517
ReportedBy: hailijuan at gmail dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34258
--- Comment #1 from hailijuan at gmail dot com 2007-11-28 09:17 ---
Created an attachment (id=14652)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=14652action=view)
to address the bug in g++ exception handler
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34258
--- Comment #8 from hailijuan at gmail dot com 2007-10-31 07:18 ---
Subject: Re: gfortran: incorrect output for array of dynamic bounds
running a.out compiled with -fbounds-check and then get following message:
micro# ./a.out
Fortran runtime error: Array reference out of bounds
--- Comment #9 from hailijuan at gmail dot com 2007-10-31 07:20 ---
invalid testcase.
--
hailijuan at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: hailijuan at gmail dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33954
--- Comment #3 from hailijuan at gmail dot com 2007-10-31 05:46 ---
Subject: Re: gfortran: incorrect output for array of dynamic bounds
exactly! but why gfortran does that? is that permitted by fortran
standards? thanks a lot.
31 Oct 2007 04:01:08 -, jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot
--- Comment #6 from hailijuan at gmail dot com 2007-10-31 06:17 ---
Subject: Re: gfortran: incorrect output for array of dynamic bounds
not like that. it's right to use a(j,i) which has j as lower dimension.
memory layout of array(0:2, 0:1) is like:
a(0,0), a(1,0), a(2,0), a(0,1
29 matches
Mail list logo
