http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46188
--- Comment #3 from Jens Maurer 2010-10-27
06:14:31 UTC ---
Created attachment 22170
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22170
improved testcase
The previous testcase had the problem that the compiler could legitimately
assume th
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46195
--- Comment #5 from Jack Howarth 2010-10-27
03:22:07 UTC ---
The diff between the assembly of gcc.c-torture/compile/20001212-1.c -O0 at
-m32 generated by r165964 and r165965 is...
--- 20001212-1.s.r1659642010-10-26 23:16:07.0 -0400
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46195
--- Comment #4 from Jack Howarth 2010-10-27
03:20:34 UTC ---
Created attachment 22169
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22169
assembly for gcc.c-torture/compile/20001212-1.c -O0 -m32 at r165965
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46195
--- Comment #3 from Jack Howarth 2010-10-27
03:19:54 UTC ---
Created attachment 22168
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22168
assembly for gcc.c-torture/compile/20001212-1.c -O0 -m32 at r165964
Generated with /Users/howarth/da
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46171
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek 2010-10-27
02:51:32 UTC ---
So we have RTL like:
(insn 6 3 7 2 (set (reg:SF 21 xmm0)
(reg/v:SF 61 [ f ])) pr46171.c:7 110 {*movsf_internal}
(nil))
(call_insn 7 6 17 2 (set (reg:SF 21 xmm0)
(
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46191
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46177
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46183
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46185
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46195
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46195
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|UNCONFIRMED
Last reconfirmed|2010-10-27 01:42
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46195
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
000/gcc-4.6-20101026/gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/compile/2818-1.c
(timeout = 300)
/sw/src/fink.build/gcc46-4.6.0-1000/gcc-4.6-20101026/gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/compile/2818-1.c:
In function 'foo':
/sw/src/fink.build/gcc46-4.6.0-1000/gcc-4.6-20101026/gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46179
--- Comment #3 from Finn Thain 2010-10-27
00:47:23 UTC ---
> Just to check that this is not a lingering issue from backporting, do you have
> the following comment in gcc/config/m68k/m68k.c ?
Yes, I checked that much. After that, I checked that
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46194
Summary: [4.5/4.6 Regression] gcc.dg/graphite/block-0.c FAILs
with -ftree-parallelize-loops
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priori
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46044
--- Comment #3 from Steve Ellcey 2010-10-26 23:46:04
UTC ---
This may be related to PR 43603.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46044
Steve Ellcey changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46193
Summary: ICE: in omp_reduction_init, at omp-low.c:2212 with
-ftree-parallelize-loops
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46192
--- Comment #1 from Rolf Ebert 2010-10-26
22:40:50 UTC ---
It might be related to PR37599
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46192
Summary: renaming of a volatile variable generates wrong code
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: ada
AssignedTo:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46191
Summary: Non-absolute names in libgcc_s.so
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
AssignedTo: unassig...@gcc.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46179
--- Comment #2 from Maxim Kuvyrkov 2010-10-26
22:14:02 UTC ---
Just to check that this is not a lingering issue from backporting, do you have
the following comment in gcc/config/m68k/m68k.c ? I fixed a very similar issue
before checking the fina
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46190
Summary: ICE in vect_enhance_data_refs_alignment when building
fma3d
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46188
Jens Maurer changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #22164|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46186
--- Comment #21 from Dominique d'Humieres
2010-10-26 21:06:48 UTC ---
> I guess you mean LLVM instead of clang,
Yes, if you prefer. I was referring to the command I used.
> F (6, a * a * a * a * a + 2 * a * a * a + 5 * a)
you probably mean
F
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46179
Andreas Schwab changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46152
--- Comment #14 from Steve Kargl
2010-10-26 21:01:57 UTC ---
On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 07:43:49PM +, burnus at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46152
>
> --- Comment #13 from Tobias Burnus 2010-10-26
> 19:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46186
--- Comment #20 from Jakub Jelinek 2010-10-26
21:00:11 UTC ---
If I translate the assembly back to C, it seems it is performing part of the
arithmetics in TImode:
unsigned long f (unsigned long a, unsigned long b)
{
if (a >= b)
return 0;
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46186
--- Comment #19 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2010-10-26 20:29:56 UTC ---
On Tue, 26 Oct 2010, dominiq at lps dot ens.fr wrote:
> --- Comment #13 from Dominique d'Humieres
> 2010-10-26 16:36:05 UTC ---
> > This multiplication transformati
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46167
Ira Rosen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46189
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46167
--- Comment #3 from irar at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-10-26 20:16:13 UTC ---
Author: irar
Date: Tue Oct 26 20:15:52 2010
New Revision: 165985
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=165985
Log:
PR tree-optimization/46167
* tree-v
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45736
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45979
--- Comment #7 from Mikael Pettersson 2010-10-26
19:45:30 UTC ---
The patch tested ok and has now been submitted:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-10/msg02252.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46152
--- Comment #13 from Tobias Burnus 2010-10-26
19:43:43 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #12)
> New patch attached. This passed regression testing.
The patch is OK from my side.
I assume there is still an error printed but error but the extra error
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46010
--- Comment #13 from Jerry DeLisle 2010-10-26
19:37:39 UTC ---
Fixed on trunk. I will backport to 4.4 and 4.5 in the next few weeks since
this is a wrong code problem.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46010
--- Comment #12 from Jerry DeLisle 2010-10-26
19:34:29 UTC ---
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Tue Oct 26 19:34:21 2010
New Revision: 165981
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=165981
Log:
2010-10-26 Jerry DeLisle
PR libgfortra
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46187
--- Comment #2 from Uros Bizjak 2010-10-26 19:28:34
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #0)
> The code is supposed to emit the correct instruction suffix for SUB using %z
> when n is an immediate value that does not give the operand size away. Is
> th
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46186
--- Comment #18 from Jakub Jelinek 2010-10-26
19:11:59 UTC ---
I guess you mean LLVM instead of clang, I'm pretty sure the FE doesn't perform
this optimization.
Anyway, given:
#define F(n, exp) \
unsigned long
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46185
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.6.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46188
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski 2010-10-26
19:08:37 UTC ---
I think this has some undefined code in it.
The dynamic type of this->data changes a few times and I don't know the current
type when delete[] is called.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46010
--- Comment #11 from Jerry DeLisle 2010-10-26
19:05:14 UTC ---
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Tue Oct 26 19:05:08 2010
New Revision: 165979
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=165979
Log:
2010-10-26 Jerry DeLisle
PR libgfortra
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46174
--- Comment #4 from Daniel Kraft 2010-10-26 19:00:34
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> Possible implementation scheme: vtab$t contains besides the normal type-bound
> procedures and init/size/hash also an two function points: $copy and $free,
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46186
--- Comment #17 from Dominique d'Humieres
2010-10-26 18:53:49 UTC ---
Note that clang seems to know the general result: \sum_{i=a}^b p(i)=P(b), where
p(i) is a given polynomial of degree n and P(x) a polynomial of degree n+1 such
that P(x)=P(x-1)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46189
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46189
Summary: Oudated item in GNAT documentation
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.0
URL: http://www.adacore.com/wp-content/files/auto_update/gn
at-unw-docs/html/gnat_ugn_24.html
St
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46186
--- Comment #16 from Jakub Jelinek 2010-10-26
18:43:40 UTC ---
chrec_apply is called with
{a_4(D), +, {a_4(D) + 1, +, 1}_1}_1
chrec and ~a_4(D) + b_5(D) in x.
I wonder if this can be fixed just by recognizing such special cases in
chrec_apply (af
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46181
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46185
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46120
--- Comment #4 from Martin Jambor 2010-10-26
18:14:42 UTC ---
Yes, I know why this happens and actually have a prototype patch to
fix it but it depends on another patch I need to get accepted first.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46155
--- Comment #12 from Dr. David Kirkby
2010-10-26 17:59:38 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #11)
> (In reply to comment #7)
> > In your opinion, are IBM wrong to define fprnd_t in /usr/include/float.h?
>
> IBM's definition of fprnd_t in is within #i
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42647
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42647
--- Comment #12 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-10-26 17:38:51 UTC ---
Author: janus
Date: Tue Oct 26 17:38:42 2010
New Revision: 165973
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=165973
Log:
2010-10-26 Janus Weil
PR fortran/
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46186
--- Comment #15 from Dominique d'Humieres
2010-10-26 17:15:31 UTC ---
> For sum += 2 or sum += b sccp handles this, so I wonder whether it couldn't
> handle even the sum += a case.
2 and b are constants while a is not. For constants you have to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46188
Summary: -fipa-cp removes destructor call
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
AssignedTo: unassig...@gcc.gnu.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46186
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45736
--- Comment #4 from Jan Hubicka 2010-10-26
16:40:33 UTC ---
Author: hubicka
Date: Tue Oct 26 16:40:16 2010
New Revision: 165972
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=165972
Log:
PR middle-end/45736
* cgraph.c (cgraph_set
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46186
--- Comment #13 from Dominique d'Humieres
2010-10-26 16:36:05 UTC ---
> This multiplication transformation is incorrect if the loop wraps
> (unsigned always wraps; never overflows).
I think this is wrong: wrapping is nothing but a modulo 2^n o
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46184
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46186
--- Comment #12 from pinskia at gmail dot com
2010-10-26 15:56:20 UTC ---
On Oct 26, 2010, at 7:30 AM, "j...@jak-linux.org" wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46186
>
> --- Comment #1 from Julian Andres Klode
> 2010-10-26 1
On Oct 26, 2010, at 7:30 AM, "j...@jak-linux.org" > wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46186
--- Comment #1 from Julian Andres Klode
2010-10-26 14:30:24 UTC ---
Created attachment 22162
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22162
Clang's assember
This multi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46167
--- Comment #2 from irar at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-10-26 15:53:33 UTC ---
Author: irar
Date: Tue Oct 26 15:53:28 2010
New Revision: 165970
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=165970
Log:
PR tree-optimization/46167
* tree-v
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46186
--- Comment #11 from Paolo Carlini 2010-10-26
15:42:58 UTC ---
Can we please stop talking about nano and giga numbers like kids? If an
optimization like complete loop unrolling is involved of course very small or
large numbers can be involved, do
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46186
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #10
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46120
Steve Ellcey changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sje at cup dot hp.com
--- Comment #3 from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46186
--- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely 2010-10-26
15:28:51 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
>
> Since the optimization seems to be mostly there in -O3, it's just a matter of
> enabling it in -O2.
Or if you want all optimisations, it's just a matt
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45827
--- Comment #30 from Hans-Werner Boschmann 2010-10-26 15:27:27 UTC ---
I've realized today, that the sample code is actually invalid. If you look at
lines 488 and 681 in arguments.f03, you'll see:
subroutine
argument_initialize(this,arg_list,shor
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46186
--- Comment #8 from Julian Andres Klode 2010-10-26
15:25:56 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> You get this kind of speedup if the compiler knows that the result of the loop
> is
>
> sum=(b*(b-1)-a*(a-1))/2
>
> In which case the timing is meani
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46166
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46166
--- Comment #4 from Steve Kargl
2010-10-26 15:09:37 UTC ---
Janus,
See comment #2. The problem is tauc is used
before it is initialized. This is a bogus
bug report.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46187
--- Comment #1 from Udo Steinberg 2010-10-26
15:03:01 UTC ---
Bug #31768 is probably related.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46183
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46187
Summary: Invalid instruction suffix generated by %z
Product: gcc
Version: 4.4.5
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
AssignedTo: unassi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46166
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||janus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46186
--- Comment #7 from Julian Andres Klode 2010-10-26
15:00:37 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> (In reply to comment #4)
> > GCC's output is significantly faster at -O3 or without the noinline
> > attribute
>
> I just tested and at -O3, gcc-4.4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46186
--- Comment #6 from Dominique d'Humieres 2010-10-26
14:59:18 UTC ---
You get this kind of speedup if the compiler knows that the result of the loop
is
sum=(b*(b-1)-a*(a-1))/2
In which case the timing is meaningless (it is 0.000s on my laptop),
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46186
--- Comment #5 from Julian Andres Klode 2010-10-26
14:53:24 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> GCC's output is significantly faster at -O3 or without the noinline attribute
I just tested and at -O3, gcc-4.4 creates slow code and gcc-4.5 fast cod
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46186
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely 2010-10-26
14:47:12 UTC ---
GCC's output is significantly faster at -O3 or without the noinline attribute
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46018
--- Comment #11 from Art Haas 2010-10-26 14:40:04
UTC ---
I ended up trying the version posted in a follow-up mail:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-10/msg02065.html
The bootstrap still failed.
I've now got access to a i386-pc-solaris2.1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46186
--- Comment #3 from Julian Andres Klode 2010-10-26
14:32:27 UTC ---
System information:
Using built-in specs.
Target: x86_64-linux-gnu
Configured with: ../src/configure -v --with-pkgversion='Debian 4.4.5-5'
--with-bugurl=file:///usr/share/doc/gc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46186
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||paolo.carlini at oracle dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46186
--- Comment #1 from Julian Andres Klode 2010-10-26
14:30:24 UTC ---
Created attachment 22162
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22162
Clang's assember
Attaching the assembler output from clang, it should help understand which
op
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46182
Mikael Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46186
Summary: Clang creates code running 1600 times faster than
gcc's
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Priority: P3
Component: c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46185
Summary: [4.6 Regression] gcc.dg/graphite/interchange-4.c FAILs
with -fno-ipa-cp
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46184
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.6.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46149
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46153
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.5.2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46157
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46160
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.5.2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46182
--- Comment #1 from Dominique d'Humieres 2010-10-26
14:06:55 UTC ---
Forwarded from http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/2010-10/msg02167.html
> > It would be nice to have a run time check for such invalid use of
> > unallocated allocatable variables (
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46165
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.3.6
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46168
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.3.6
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46172
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.3.6
Summary|[4.2/4.3/4.4/
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44948
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46184
Summary: [4.6 Regression] ICE: SIGSEGV in
vectorizable_reduction (tree-vect-loop.c:4067) with -O
-ftree-vectorize -fno-tree-copy-prop -fno-tree-dce
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46177
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44948
--- Comment #22 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-10-26
13:56:46 UTC ---
Author: hjl
Date: Tue Oct 26 13:56:42 2010
New Revision: 165965
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=165965
Log:
Properly align parameters on stack for x86.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46183
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.6.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45687
Ian Lance Taylor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
1 - 100 of 143 matches
Mail list logo
