Re: c++/9524

Re: c++/9524

[Wolfgang Bangerth]

The following reply was made to PR c++/9524; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: Wolfgang Bangerth <bangerth@ticam.utexas.edu>
To: gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org
Cc:  
Subject: Re: c++/9524
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 10:07:44 -0600 (CST)

 This one is almost the same as 9868, but not exactly. I'll keep open both 
 reports for this reason. 9868 has some more information about the 
 connection of the two.
 
 W.
 
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Wolfgang Bangerth             email:            bangerth@ticam.utexas.edu
                               www: http://www.ticam.utexas.edu/~bangerth/
 
 

c++/9524

[mmitchel]

The following reply was made to PR c++/9524; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: mmitchel@gcc.gnu.org
To: gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org
Cc:  
Subject: c++/9524
Date: 8 Mar 2003 09:12:54 -0000

 CVSROOT:	/cvs/gcc
 Module name:	gcc
 Changes by:	mmitchel@gcc.gnu.org	2003-03-08 09:12:54
 
 Modified files:
 	gcc/cp         : ChangeLog call.c cp-tree.h decl2.c init.c 
 	                 parser.c 
 	gcc/testsuite  : ChangeLog 
 	gcc/testsuite/g++.old-deja/g++.other: decl5.C 
 Added files:
 	gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/abi: cookie1.C cookie2.C 
 	gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/parse: builtin1.C class1.C namespace7.C 
 	gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/template: field1.C 
 
 Log message:
 	PR c++/9809
 	* g++.dg/parse/builtin1.C: New test.
 	
 	PR c++/9982
 	* g++.dg/abi/cookie1.C: New test.
 	* g++.dg/abi/cookie2.C: Likewise.
 	
 	PR c++/9524
 	* g++.dg/parse/field1.C: New test.
 	
 	PR c++/9912
 	* g++.dg/parse/class1.C: New test.
 	* g++.dg/parse/namespace7.C: Likewise.
 	* g++.old-deja/g++.other/decl5.C: Remove XFAILs.
 
 Patches:
 http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/gcc/cp/ChangeLog.diff?cvsroot=gcc&r1=1.3247&r2=1.3248
 http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/gcc/cp/call.c.diff?cvsroot=gcc&r1=1.363&r2=1.364
 http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/gcc/cp/cp-tree.h.diff?cvsroot=gcc&r1=1.819&r2=1.820
 http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/gcc/cp/decl2.c.diff?cvsroot=gcc&r1=1.600&r2=1.601
 http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/gcc/cp/init.c.diff?cvsroot=gcc&r1=1.311&r2=1.312
 http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/gcc/cp/parser.c.diff?cvsroot=gcc&r1=1.49&r2=1.50
 http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog.diff?cvsroot=gcc&r1=1.2478&r2=1.2479
 http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/abi/cookie1.C.diff?cvsroot=gcc&r1=NONE&r2=1.1
 http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/abi/cookie2.C.diff?cvsroot=gcc&r1=NONE&r2=1.1
 http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/parse/builtin1.C.diff?cvsroot=gcc&r1=NONE&r2=1.1
 http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/parse/class1.C.diff?cvsroot=gcc&r1=NONE&r2=1.1
 http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/parse/namespace7.C.diff?cvsroot=gcc&r1=NONE&r2=1.1
 http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/template/field1.C.diff?cvsroot=gcc&r1=NONE&r2=1.1
 http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/gcc/testsuite/g++.old-deja/g++.other/decl5.C.diff?cvsroot=gcc&r1=1.5&r2=1.6
 

Re: c++/9524

[Wolfgang Bangerth]

The following reply was made to PR c++/9524; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: Wolfgang Bangerth <bangerth@ticam.utexas.edu>
To: gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org
Cc:  
Subject: Re: c++/9524
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 14:18:09 -0600 (CST)

 ---------- Forwarded message ----------
 Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 20:57:46 +0100 (CET)
 From: Michael Matz <matz@suse.de>
 To: Wolfgang Bangerth <bangerth@ticam.utexas.edu>
 Cc: gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org
 Subject: Re: c++/9524
 
 Hi,
 
 On Fri, 21 Feb 2003, Wolfgang Bangerth wrote:
 
 > It seems as if this has been fixed on mainline,
 
 No:
 
 % cvs -z2 up -A
 [omitted]
 % cd ../devel; make -j 8
 [omitted]
 
 % cd ../ ; ./devel/gcc/cc1plus -version
 GNU C++ version 3.4 20030221 (experimental) (i686-pc-linux-gnu)
         compiled by GNU C version 2.95.3 20010315 (SuSE).
 options passed:
 options enabled:  -fpeephole -ffunction-cse -fkeep-static-consts
  -fpcc-struct-return -fgcse-lm -fgcse-sm -fsched-interblock -fsched-spec
  -fbranch-count-reg -fexceptions -fcommon -fgnu-linker -fargument-alias
  -fzero-initialized-in-bss -fident -fmath-errno -ftrapping-math -m80387
  -mhard-float -mno-soft-float -mieee-fp -mfp-ret-in-387
  -maccumulate-outgoing-args -mcpu=pentiumpro -march=i386
 
 % cat boost.ii
 struct A {
   void (*f)(void);
 };
 
 template< typename R >
 struct B : public A {
   void g()
   {
     A::f();
   }
 };
 template class B<bool>;
 
 % ./devel/gcc/cc1plus boost.ii
  void B<R>::g() void B<R>::g() [with R = bool] void B<R>::g() [with R = bool]
 boost.ii:12:   instantiated from here
 boost.ii:9: internal compiler error: in c_expand_expr, at c-common.c:4339
 Please submit a full bug report,
 with preprocessed source if appropriate.
 See <URL:http://www.gnu.org/software/gcc/bugs.html> for instructions.
 
 Regarding 3.3 branch:
 
 % cd ../3.3-clean/gcc; cvs -z2 up ; cd ../devel; make -j 8; cd ..
 
 % ./devel/gcc/cc1plus -version
 GNU C++ version 3.3 20030221 (prerelease) (i686-pc-linux-gnu)
         compiled by GNU C version 2.95.3 20010315 (SuSE).
 
 % ./devel/gcc/cc1plus boost.ii
  void B<R>::g() void B<R>::g() [with R = bool] void B<R>::g() [with R = bool]
 boost.ii:12:   instantiated from here
 boost.ii:9: internal compiler error: in c_expand_expr, at c-common.c:4319
 Please submit a full bug report,
 with preprocessed source if appropriate.
 See <URL:http://www.gnu.org/software/gcc/bugs.html> for instructions.
 
 > on a 3.3 snapshot of 2003-02-14. Can you double check whether it may
 > already have been fixed on 3.3 as well and if not possibly identify the
 > patch that fixed it on mainline, for backporting?
 
 There is no patch fixing it.
 
 
 Ciao,
 Michael.
 

Re: c++/9524

[Wolfgang Bangerth]

The following reply was made to PR c++/9524; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: Wolfgang Bangerth <bangerth@ticam.utexas.edu>
To: Michael Matz <matz@suse.de>
Cc: gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: c++/9524
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 14:03:52 -0600 (CST)

 > > It seems as if this has been fixed on mainline,
 > 
 > No:
 > [...]
 
 Uhm, but it does compile for me with mainline, while I see the failure 
 with 3.3. Will put it on my list to check after the next update.
 
 W.
 
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Wolfgang Bangerth             email:            bangerth@ticam.utexas.edu
                               www: http://www.ticam.utexas.edu/~bangerth/
 
 
 

Re: c++/9524

[Wolfgang Bangerth]

The following reply was made to PR c++/9524; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: Wolfgang Bangerth <bangerth@ticam.utexas.edu>
To: matz@suse.de, <gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org>
Cc:  
Subject: Re: c++/9524
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 13:07:13 -0600 (CST)

 Michael,
 apparently it was forgotten to update synopsis and priority of this report 
 to reflect a regression. I just did this. 
 
 It seems as if this has been fixed on mainline, but it still aborts for me 
 on a 3.3 snapshot of 2003-02-14. Can you double check whether it may 
 already have been fixed on 3.3 as well and if not possibly identify the 
 patch that fixed it on mainline, for backporting?
 
 W.
 
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Wolfgang Bangerth             email:            bangerth@ticam.utexas.edu
                               www: http://www.ticam.utexas.edu/~bangerth/