--- Comment #19 from aph at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-09-04 18:00 ---
Subject: Bug 27908
Author: aph
Date: Tue Sep 4 18:00:31 2007
New Revision: 128098
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=128098
Log:
2007-09-04 Andrew Haley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR java/27908
--- Comment #18 from aph at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-09-04 17:58 ---
Subject: Bug 27908
Author: aph
Date: Tue Sep 4 17:57:52 2007
New Revision: 128097
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=128097
Log:
2007-09-04 Andrew Haley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR java/27908
--- Comment #17 from aph at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-09-04 17:55 ---
Subject: Bug 27908
Author: aph
Date: Tue Sep 4 17:54:56 2007
New Revision: 128094
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=128094
Log:
2007-09-04 Andrew Haley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR java/27908
--- Comment #16 from aph at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-09-04 14:00 ---
Subject: Bug 27908
Author: aph
Date: Tue Sep 4 14:00:06 2007
New Revision: 128082
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=128082
Log:
2007-09-04 Andrew Haley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR java/27908
--- Comment #15 from aph at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-19 17:38 ---
Subject: Bug 27908
Author: aph
Date: Mon Jun 19 17:38:08 2006
New Revision: 114778
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=114778
Log:
2006-06-19 Andrew Haley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR java/1305
--- Comment #14 from aph at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-13 12:44 ---
Subject: Bug 27908
Author: aph
Date: Tue Jun 13 12:43:56 2006
New Revision: 114609
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=114609
Log:
2006-06-09 Andrew Haley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR java/1305
--- Comment #13 from csm at gnu dot org 2006-06-07 04:49 ---
Very little (I'd assume no) code in Classpath requires that the `volatile'
modifier be properly supported. 0.91 introduced a class that did, that's all.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27908
--- Comment #12 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-07 03:23
---
(In reply to comment #11)
> Alright, but, it seems strange that code that worked 2 months ago is suddenly
> broken due to a bug filed 6 years ago. The "Regression" status of this
> particular situation and this pa
--- Comment #11 from r_ovidius at eml dot cc 2006-06-07 03:16 ---
Alright, but, it seems strange that code that worked 2 months ago is suddenly
broken due to a bug filed 6 years ago. The "Regression" status of this
particular situation and this particular code seems to get lost when cal
--- Comment #10 from csm at gnu dot org 2006-06-07 02:52 ---
Duplicate of bug 1305. A workaround for this case exists.
The bytecode problem mentioned below has been filed as bug 27925.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 1305 ***
--
csm at gnu dot org changed:
--- Comment #9 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-07 00:14 ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> A workaround is to replace:
>
> while (running)
> counter++;
Is running marked as volatile?
If it is, then this is a dup of bug 1305, otherwise this is a bug in both the
library sou
--- Comment #8 from csm at gnu dot org 2006-06-07 00:08 ---
A workaround is to replace:
while (running)
counter++;
with:
while (isRunning ())
counter++;
And to add a method:
boolean isRunning ()
{
return running;
}
I'm working on a patch for this.
--
http
--- Comment #7 from csm at gnu dot org 2006-06-06 21:32 ---
Also note that this test case works fine if compiled to a native binary (C++
ABI) with -O1. So there are likely two bugs here: an optimization issue, and a
bytecode generation issue.
--
csm at gnu dot org changed:
13 matches
Mail list logo
