(new) Failure building GFortran (Cygwin)

Angelo Graziosi wrote on 05 July 2008 12:16:

For the sake of completeness I want to flag that the current snapshot
4.4-20080704 has new failures:

/work/gcc/gcc/ggc-page.c -o ggc-page.o
cc1: warnings being treated as errors
/work/gcc/gcc/ggc-page.c: In function 'alloc_page':
/work/gcc/gcc/ggc-page.c:802: error: request for implicit conversion
from 'void *' to 'char *' not permitted in C++
/work/gcc/gcc/ggc-page.c:845: error: request for implicit conversion
from 'void *' to 'struct page_entry *' not permitted in C++
make[3]: [ggc-page.o] Error 1

But I am confused in any case: Why 'not permitted in C++'?
Isn't xgcc a C compiler?

I am enabling only C,Fortran!

This is probably fallout from Kaveh's current work on making sure gcc
stays c++ compatible. Your patch looked good to me, you should send it with
a ChangeLog to gcc-patches.

cheers,
DaveK
--
Can't think of a witty .sigline today

Gabriel Dos Reis ha scritto:
Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 3:48 AM, Angelo Graziosi
<wrote:
>Ian Lance Taylor ha scritto:
This is K, with a ChangeLog entry, if it passes bootstrap with the
appropriate configure option.
>>
>The following bootstraps rev. 137613, having configured as
>>
>${gcc_dir}/configure "${prefix_dir}" \
>"${eprefix_dir}" \
>"${sysconf_dir}" \
>"${lib_dir}" \
>"${libexec_dir}" \
>"${man_dir}" \
>"${info_dir}" \
>,fortran \
>\
>\
>\
>\
>\
>\
>\
>\
>\
>\
>\
>\
>\
>\
>
>>
>
>gcc/ChangeLog:
>2008-07-08 Angelo Graziosi <>
>>
>>
>* ggc-page.c (alloc_page):
>Substituting xmalloc, xcalloc with
>XNEWVEC and XCNEWVAR macros which add the
>needed casts.
>>
>>
>>
>gcc.orig/gcc/ggc-page.c 2008-06-29 06:39:16.000000000 +0200
>gcc/gcc/ggc-page.c 2008-07-08 09:00:20.906250000 +0200
>@@ -799,7 +799,7 @@
>alloc_size = GGC_QUIRE_SIZE * G.pagesize;
>else
>alloc_size = entry_size + G.pagesize - 1;
>- allocation = xmalloc (alloc_size);
>+ allocation = XNEWVEC (char, alloc_size);

K.

>page = (char *) (((size_t) allocation + G.pagesize - 1) &
>-G.pagesize);
>head_slop = page - allocation;
>@@ -842,7 +842,7 @@
>struct page_entry *e, *f = G.free_pages;
>for (a = enda - G.pagesize; a != page; a -= G.pagesize)
>{
>- e = xcalloc (1, page_entry_size);
>+ e = XCNEWVAR (struct page_entry, page_entry_size);

K.


>e->order = order;
>e->bytes = G.pagesize;
>e->page = a;
>

If the patch is K, may someone apply/commit it so we can test it also
with the next 4.4 snapshot?


Thanks,
Angelo.


Pace gioia!

Gabriel Dos Reis ha scritto:
Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 3:48 AM, Angelo Graziosi
<wrote:
>Ian Lance Taylor ha scritto:
This is K, with a ChangeLog entry, if it passes bootstrap with the
appropriate configure option.
>>
>The following bootstraps rev. 137613, having configured as
>>
>${gcc_dir}/configure "${prefix_dir}" \
>"${eprefix_dir}" \
>"${sysconf_dir}" \
>"${lib_dir}" \
>"${libexec_dir}" \
>"${man_dir}" \
>"${info_dir}" \
>,fortran \
>\
>\
>\
>\
>\
>\
>\
>\
>\
>\
>\
>\
>\
>\
>
>>
>
>gcc/ChangeLog:
>2008-07-08 Angelo Graziosi <>
>>
>>
>* ggc-page.c (alloc_page):
>Substituting xmalloc, xcalloc with
>XNEWVEC and XCNEWVAR macros which add the
>needed casts.
>>
>>
>>
>gcc.orig/gcc/ggc-page.c 2008-06-29 06:39:16.000000000 +0200
>gcc/gcc/ggc-page.c 2008-07-08 09:00:20.906250000 +0200
>@@ -799,7 +799,7 @@
>alloc_size = GGC_QUIRE_SIZE * G.pagesize;
>else
>alloc_size = entry_size + G.pagesize - 1;
>- allocation = xmalloc (alloc_size);
>+ allocation = XNEWVEC (char, alloc_size);

K.

>page = (char *) (((size_t) allocation + G.pagesize - 1) &
>-G.pagesize);
>head_slop = page - allocation;
>@@ -842,7 +842,7 @@
>struct page_entry *e, *f = G.free_pages;
>for (a = enda - G.pagesize; a != page; a -= G.pagesize)
>{
>- e = xcalloc (1, page_entry_size);
>+ e = XCNEWVAR (struct page_entry, page_entry_size);

K.


>e->order = order;
>e->bytes = G.pagesize;
>e->page = a;
>

If the patch is K, may someone apply/commit it so we can test it also
with the next 4.4 snapshot?


Thanks,
Angelo.


Pace gioia!

Angelo Graziosi wrote on 11 July 2008 09:09:

Gabriel Dos Reis ha scritto:

>
>K.

>
>K.

If the patch is K, may someone apply/commit it so we can test it also
with the next 4.4 snapshot?

If nobody else does it first, I could help out with this at the weekend
(most likely sunday evening).

cheers,
DaveK
--
Can't think of a witty .sigline today

Angelo Graziosi wrote on 11 July 2008 09:09:

Gabriel Dos Reis ha scritto:

>
>K.

>
>K.

If the patch is K, may someone apply/commit it so we can test it also
with the next 4.4 snapshot?

If nobody else does it first, I could help out with this at the weekend
(most likely sunday evening).

cheers,
DaveK
--
Can't think of a witty .sigline today