From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13955 invoked by alias); 14 Feb 2005 22:13:31 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 13895 invoked by alias); 14 Feb 2005 22:13:24 -0000 Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 05:08:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20050214221324.13894.qmail@sourceware.org> From: "dnovillo at redhat dot com" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org In-Reply-To: <20050209180751.19865.pluto@pld-linux.org> References: <20050209180751.19865.pluto@pld-linux.org> Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug ada/19865] [4.0 Regression] ice / gnat bug detected. X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-SW-Source: 2005-02/txt/msg01537.txt.bz2 List-Id: ------- Additional Comments From dnovillo at redhat dot com 2005-02-14 22:13 ------- Subject: Re: [4.0 Regression] ice / gnat bug detected. pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote: > ------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-14 22:10 ------- > From PR 18706 when I was looking into the bootstrap bug before > > "I think this is the same failure as the current bootstrap problem on ppc-darwin. > For the bootstrap problem we have the following CONST_DECL: > static struct gnat__strings__string_access C.828 = {.P_ARRAY=(character[(long int) > .P_BOUNDS->LB0:(long int) > .P_BOUNDS->UB0] *) "", > .P_BOUNDS=&{.LB0=1, .UB0=0}}; > > Notice how we take the address of a CONSTRUCTOR this is wrong and we should never do that." > That tells me nothing. Show me the failure and the spot where we fail. You don't seem to be sure of what the problem is. Diego. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19865