--- Comment #7 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-07 23:43 ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> Subject: Bug 43959
> Author: danglin
> Date: Tue Sep 7 23:23:30 2010
> New Revision: 163979
> URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=163979
> L
--- Comment #3 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-02 15:24 ---
> Please check whether
> +/* { dg-add-options c99_runtime } */
> +/* { dg-require-effective-target c99_runtime } */
You're right that these foldings should succeed anyway, the c99_runtime should
not be
--- Comment #16 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-03-30 17:25 ---
PASSes on 4.5 trunk, but still XFAILs on 4.4 branch. Since it's a 4.4
regression, should the patch be backported to 4.4 ?
--
ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Re
--- Comment #20 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-03-30 17:22 ---
Still have gcc.dg/pr34668-1.c failing on mainline (with checking enabled).
--
ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #14 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-03-30 17:17 ---
Reconfirm
--
ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2009-12
--- Comment #19 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-03-30 17:16 ---
gcc.dg/pr30957-1.c still XFAILs on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
--
ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #10 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-03-30 17:11 ---
Still happens on 4.5 trunk.
--
ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last
--- Comment #26 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-03-27 19:03 ---
Completed full bootstrap and testsuite on powerpc-unknown-linux-gnu with extra
-fpic/-fPIC passes. The only difference was that the testcase va-arg-trap-1.c
was fixed.
Installed on 4.4 branch.
--
ghazi at gcc
--- Comment #25 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-03-27 18:56 ---
Subject: Bug 39254
Author: ghazi
Date: Sat Mar 27 18:56:08 2010
New Revision: 157780
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=157780
Log:
Backport:
2009-06-16 J"
--- Comment #4 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-03-24 18:11 ---
OK, I'll modify the testcase to ensure function f() gets inlined.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43495
--- Comment #2 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-03-23 22:17 ---
Testcase also fails on sparc64-unknown-linux-gnu with -fpic/-fPIC in both 32
and 64 bit modes:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2010-03/msg00753.html
--
ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What
--- Comment #21 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-03-23 19:55 ---
As noted in duplicate PR43500, I am able to reproduce this error on plain
powerpc-unknown-linux-gnu when adding -fPIC. I can run tests for the 4.4.
branch but it will take several days to get a baseline result vs a
t org
ReportedBy: ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org
GCC target triplet: powerpc-unknown-linux-gnu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43500
--- Comment #1 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-03-23 19:05 ---
Testcase also fails on powerpc-unknown-linux-gnu with -fpic/-fPIC:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2010-03/msg01630.html
--
ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
ormal
Priority: P3
Component: libgomp
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org
GCC target triplet: powerpc-unknown-linux-gnu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43499
--- Comment #1 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-03-23 18:39 ---
The "-O0" vs "-O0 -g" diffs appear to be the same except for line number
changes. So here is just the "-O0 -g" diffs for both testcases:
line #69
< .LCL1:
> .LCL0:
line #70
<
: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org
GCC target triplet: powerpc-unknown-linux-gnu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43497
t org
ReportedBy: ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org
GCC target triplet: powerpc-unknown-linux-gnu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43496
ReportedBy: ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org
GCC target triplet: ia64-unknown-linux-gnu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43495
--- Comment #1 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-03-23 17:36 ---
4.4.4 ia64 results with error:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2010-03/msg01631.html
4.5.0 ia64 results with error:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2010-03/msg01997.html
--
ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot
: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org
GCC target triplet: ia64-unknown-linux-gnu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43494
--- Comment #36 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-03-11 17:00 ---
I'm seeing failures for gcc.dg/torture/asm-subreg-1.c on
armv5tel-unknown-linux-gnueabi on mainline and 4.4/4.3 branches when using
-fpic or -fPIC and optimizing. See:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/20
--- Comment #5 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-03-10 21:15 ---
Subject: Bug 38163
Author: ghazi
Date: Wed Mar 10 21:15:16 2010
New Revision: 157370
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=157370
Log:
Backport:
2008-12-12 Uros Bizjak
--- Comment #4 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-03-01 07:15 ---
Is this a dup of 29404 ?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42308
--
ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||4.3.4 4.4.3
Known to work||4.3.5
--- Comment #7 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-23 09:42 ---
Subject: Bug 21769
Author: ghazi
Date: Tue Feb 23 09:41:37 2010
New Revision: 156991
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=156991
Log:
Backport:
2010-01-20 Janis
--- Comment #6 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-23 08:12 ---
Subject: Bug 21769
Author: ghazi
Date: Tue Feb 23 08:12:35 2010
New Revision: 156990
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=156990
Log:
Backport:
2010-01-20 Janis
--- Comment #23 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-05 17:26 ---
(In reply to comment #22)
> Kaveh, you are comparing apples to oranges: in the first case the GNU locale
> model is used, a complete set of locale data is installed, thus the testcase
> is
> run and it f
--- Comment #21 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-05 16:55 ---
Sometime in Jan 2010 between revisions 155638 and 155826, this testcase stopped
failing on the trunk:
FAIL: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2010-01/msg00507.html
no FAIL: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults
--- Comment #6 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-26 16:31 ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> I've found that the problem doesn't occur when assembler patch 118683-03 is
> installed.
If this issue is fixed, perhaps you could add a note to:
http://gcc.gnu.org/install
--- Comment #9 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-07 21:58 ---
Subject: Bug 42424
Author: ghazi
Date: Thu Jan 7 21:58:23 2010
New Revision: 155712
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=155712
Log:
PR bootstrap/42424
* configure.ac:
--- Comment #7 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-06 23:26 ---
Proposed patch:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-01/msg00300.html
The bug is masked on my box by an old libgmp installation. So to be sure the
above patch actually fixes the problem, I'd appreciate he
--- Comment #6 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-03 15:31 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> OK, I can reproduce the issue.
> The problem is that mpc isn't told where to find the gmp and mpfr libraries.
> [...]
> Except that on some targets, ".libs" is
--- Comment #1 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-02 16:24 ---
I was able to do a C-only bootstrap of mainline with all three libraries
in-tree on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu. I used mpc-0.8, mpfr-2.4.2, gmp-4.3.1 and
bootstrapped with gcc-4.3.2. I cannot reproduce this problem
--- Comment #13 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-20 16:12 ---
Reconfirming on all active branches for x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu:
gcc-4.5: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2009-12/msg01759.html
gcc-4.4: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2009-12/msg01486.html
gcc-4.3
--- Comment #16 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-18 17:16 ---
(In reply to comment #15)
> Now that MPC is required by gcc, I'll take a look
> at making gfortran give a consistent result when
> comparing its constant folding with generated code.
BTW, I put in som
--- Comment #31 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-11 16:44 ---
*** Bug 42074 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #13 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-11 16:44 ---
The Darwin issue is being tracked in PR42333. Since the LTO issue is fixed, to
avoid confusion I'll close this one as a dup.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 42333 ***
--
ghazi at gcc dot gn
--- Comment #28 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-09 18:55 ---
(In reply to comment #26)
> I am still a bit confused about this bug. When we leave -lm out of the linkage
> of builtin-math-7.exe, where does the ___divdc3 call get resolved from?
The ___divdc3 function is d
--- Comment #17 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-09 00:34 ---
(In reply to comment #15)
> (In reply to comment #13)
> > You can try filing a bug report at Apple, but I think a better route would
> > be
> > to see if we can avoid linking in the system __
--- Comment #14 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-09 00:06 ---
(In reply to comment #11)
> I think I understand why apple gcc42 does not show the problem: it does not
> call ___divdc3:
It is possible that some versions of GCC (Apple's and/or FSF's) inline the
--- Comment #13 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-08 23:58 ---
(In reply to comment #12)
> .. seems likely that there are two things here: 1. we seem to be generating
> (probably) less efficient code than older versions of the compiler ... and 2.
> possibly the ___divdc
--- Comment #7 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-08 20:24 ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> Considering that builtin-math-7.c doesn't exist in gcc 4.4 branch, it is
> unclear what that test should do there.
Jack - Focusing on builtin-math-7.c (which tests multiple thi
--- Comment #2 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-08 16:46 ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> > As such, it isn't necessarily a bug in GCC, however
> > this PR will help track if there is a possible workaround.
> As far as I understand the use of the gcc compilers
--- Comment #11 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-08 16:35 ---
(In reply to comment #10)
> I had a look at the problem and found that it is due to the -lm flag used in
> the test suite. [...]
> and tgcc.dg/torture/builtin-math-7.c passes when it is compiled manually
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: other
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org
GCC target triplet: *-*-darwin10
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzil
--- Comment #9 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-08 08:08 ---
Jack, what does this program do on darwin9 and darwin10?
(The correct output is "2 0".)
int main(void)
{
volatile _Complex double val = (__DBL_MAX__ * 0.5 + __DBL_MAX__ * 0.5i);
val /= (__DBL_MA
--- Comment #8 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-08 07:18 ---
Here's a reduced testcase for the -flto/-fwhopr failures. If you compile it
with "-O2 -flto" or "-O2 -fwhopr" you get the wrong answers:
nan nan
nan nan
If you use just -O2, you get th
--- Comment #7 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-08 06:10 ---
I took a quick look. First, there seems to be two separate bugs reported here.
One bug, reported by HJ, appears to be lto/whopr related, and so happens on
systems lto is activated. The other bug is specific to
--- Comment #14 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-08 05:24 ---
Done. :-)
--
ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #13 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-07 15:55 ---
Done.
--
ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #12 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-07 15:45 ---
Subject: Bug 40302
Author: ghazi
Date: Mon Dec 7 15:45:01 2009
New Revision: 155047
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=155047
Log:
PR other/40302
* configure.ac (HAVE_mpc
--- Comment #11 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-07 15:43 ---
Subject: Bug 40302
Author: ghazi
Date: Mon Dec 7 15:42:55 2009
New Revision: 155046
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=155046
Log:
PR other/40302
* builtins.c: Remove
--- Comment #10 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-07 15:37 ---
Subject: Bug 40302
Author: ghazi
Date: Mon Dec 7 15:36:46 2009
New Revision: 155045
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=155045
Log:
PR other/40302
* gcc.dg/torture/builti
--- Comment #9 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-07 15:33 ---
Subject: Bug 40302
Author: ghazi
Date: Mon Dec 7 15:32:43 2009
New Revision: 155043
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=155043
Log:
PR other/40302
* arith.c: Remove
--- Comment #12 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-06 16:11 ---
Subject: Bug 30447
Author: ghazi
Date: Sun Dec 6 16:11:06 2009
New Revision: 155023
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=155023
Log:
PR middle-end/30447
PR middle-e
--- Comment #12 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-06 16:11 ---
Subject: Bug 30789
Author: ghazi
Date: Sun Dec 6 16:11:06 2009
New Revision: 155023
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=155023
Log:
PR middle-end/30447
PR middle-e
--- Comment #8 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-06 16:11 ---
Subject: Bug 40302
Author: ghazi
Date: Sun Dec 6 16:11:06 2009
New Revision: 155023
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=155023
Log:
PR middle-end/30447
PR middle-e
--- Comment #28 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-01 15:14 ---
Backport to 4.4? Or close this and PR41501?
--
ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #13 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-30 02:00 ---
Fixed.
--
ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #12 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-30 01:58 ---
I believe I fixed this issue in Sept 2006 in gcc-4.0.4, see:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-09/msg01032.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-09/msg01163.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-09
--- Comment #12 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-29 16:34 ---
Rainer, I believe this bug has been appropriatly analyzed and diagnosed. You
have the affected system and can test, are you working on a fix?
--
ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #14 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-29 16:21 ---
This testcase was "fixed" here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-01/msg01134.html
Can we close this one?
--
ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #33 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-29 16:12 ---
The flag -frtl-abstract-sequences was removed and the relevant testcases
deleted. Should we resolve this PR as WONTFIX ?
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-03/msg01800.html
--
ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #1 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-23 18:15 ---
Sorry the second results for 154391 link is:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2009-11/msg02040.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42156
suite regressions
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: objc++
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: ghazi at gcc do
--- Comment #18 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-22 18:01 ---
Still fails
--
ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2009
--- Comment #12 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-22 17:58 ---
What remains to be done here?
--
ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #29 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-22 17:54 ---
The -fpic/-fPIC failures have been fixed long ago in gcc-4.3.x.
Can we close this bug?
--
ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-22 17:23 ---
Patch on mainline needs to be backported to 4.4.x branch.
--
ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org
GCC target triplet: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu i686-unknown-linux-gnu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42111
--- Comment #3 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-16 15:57 ---
See PR34999
--
ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status
--- Comment #7 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-15 17:58 ---
Patches submitted to do all of the above cleanups, etc.
--
ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #9 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-11 02:46 ---
Fixed.
--
ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #8 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-10 16:17 ---
Subject: Bug 41987
Author: ghazi
Date: Tue Nov 10 16:16:57 2009
New Revision: 154065
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=154065
Log:
PR tree-optimization/41987
* fold
--- Comment #7 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-10 05:56 ---
Patch posted here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-11/msg00488.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41987
--- Comment #6 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-09 17:56 ---
The bug is not latent and also it is not in GCC code related MPC. It lies in
the tree-based fallback code I wrote to handle complex division when MPC is not
used. This code will still persist even after the switch
--- Comment #9 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-05 02:55 ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> > Say I have a silly question, how is gmp.h getting pulled into gcc.c in the
> > first place? It's supposed to come in via real.h which should only get
> > inclu
--- Comment #7 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-10-22 18:13 ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> I'm not sure we can claim there is GMP breakage at all: they could argue
> that anyone including can be expected to link with -lgmp as well.
> I just don't know if it i
--- Comment #5 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-10-21 19:51 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> > (Also, you don't mention what version of gmp you were using.)
> Right, sorry: I've tried this with the latest version, gmp 4.3.1.
Okay I checked gmp source tarballs, an
--- Comment #2 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-10-21 01:48 ---
I would prefer a solution that does not involve linking xgcc and cpp with
libgmp since that links in unecessary code and/or yields a runtime penalty for
loading the shared library.
It's unusual that we've
--- Comment #11 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-10-14 06:15 ---
(In reply to comment #10)
> > except for cproj because that has a wierd non-c99 implementation in glibc.
>
> I don't see why one particular library having a bug in its implementation
> of cpro
--- Comment #6 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-10-14 01:59 ---
Remember to remove the testsuite effective-target code for mpc, mpc_pow and
mpc_arc. Also remove the dg- commands in various individual tests.
--
ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #9 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-10-14 01:57 ---
Support for the "arc" functions is done in the mpc svn repository which will be
released as mpc-0.8 at the end of October. Use of these functions has been
checked into mainline. All C99 builtin co
--- Comment #32 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-10-02 03:52 ---
Subject: Bug 33197
Author: ghazi
Date: Fri Oct 2 03:52:05 2009
New Revision: 152394
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=152394
Log:
PR fortran/33197
* gfortran.h (HAVE
--- Comment #4 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-09-27 13:59 ---
Fixed
--
ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #3 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-09-24 20:45 ---
Subject: Bug 41435
Author: ghazi
Date: Thu Sep 24 20:44:55 2009
New Revision: 152145
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=152145
Log:
PR middle-end/41435
* fold-const.c (con
--- Comment #2 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-09-24 07:08 ---
Patch posted here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-09/msg01685.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41435
--- Comment #1 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-09-23 18:24 ---
Mine, working on a patch
--
ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component: middle-end
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41435
: objc++
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org
GCC target triplet: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41430
--- Comment #1 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-09-21 15:04 ---
To reproduce, target x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu and compile g++.dg/gomp/pr37189.C
with:
cc1plus -quiet -v pr37189.C -dumpbase pr37189.C -mtune=generic -auxbase pr37189
-version -fopenmp -fpic -o pr37189.s
: P3
Component: middle-end
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org
GCC target triplet: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41429
--- Comment #8 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-09-20 16:21 ---
Current GCC mainline incorporates all the complex math functions included with
mpc-0.7. All that's left are the complex "arc" functions which are expected in
a future MPC release, possibly mpc-0.8.
--- Comment #11 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-09-20 16:08 ---
Fixed, but depends on hard-requiring MPC.
--
ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #10 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-09-20 15:39 ---
Subject: Bug 30789
Author: ghazi
Date: Sun Sep 20 15:39:22 2009
New Revision: 151904
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=151904
Log:
PR middle-end/30789
* builtins.c (do_
--- Comment #27 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-09-07 01:04 ---
(In reply to comment #25)
> Subject: Bug 34999
> Author: jakub
> Date: Fri Jul 24 23:30:39 2009
> New Revision: 150069
> URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=150069
--- Comment #10 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-09-07 00:59 ---
(In reply to comment #9)
> See this note for some details on the semantics of this warning,
> with respect to keywords:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2008-07/msg00808.html
What's the status of
--- Comment #9 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-08-31 03:05 ---
Patch for remaining issues posted here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-08/msg01614.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30789
--- Comment #7 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-08-24 14:43 ---
Joseph - back in comment#2, you noted that the results of infinity and zero can
be ambiguous. I.e. Infinity in either part of a complex number (perhaps
infinity of either sign?) is sufficient, and a pair of zeros
1 - 100 of 638 matches
Mail list logo
