http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46125
Wei Li changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46195
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|2010-10-27 11:26:53
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46207
Summary: std::atomic::store(...) fails to compile
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
AssignedTo: unass
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46206
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46206
Summary: using typedef-name error with typedef name hiding
struct name
Product: gcc
Version: 4.1.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46205
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46195
--- Comment #18 from Jack Howarth 2010-10-28
00:43:00 UTC ---
Full regression results for patch in comment 12...
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2010-10/msg02196.html
show that the four failures in comment 14 are the only remaining regres
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46205
Summary: Invalid FORALL fails to compile
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
AssignedTo: unassig...@gcc.g
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46204
Summary: g++.dg/torture/stackalign/throw-1.C fails to compile
on IA64
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: link-failure
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45997
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46034
--- Comment #8 from Zdenek Sojka 2010-10-27 22:59:53
UTC ---
Created attachment 22186
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22186
reduced testcase
Needs only "-O -fexpensive-optimizations" to reproduce
Relevant valgrind output:
$
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46001
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.6.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46058
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Status|UNCO
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46034
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski 2010-10-27
22:38:26 UTC ---
Fails also with revision 164656.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46195
--- Comment #17 from Jack Howarth 2010-10-27
22:37:36 UTC ---
Created attachment 22185
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22185
diff between assembly for gcc.dg/compat/struct-by-value-18_x.c at -m32 using
r165964 and r165965/patc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46195
--- Comment #16 from Jack Howarth 2010-10-27
22:36:12 UTC ---
Created attachment 22184
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22184
assembly for gcc.dg/compat/struct-by-value-18_x.c at -m32 using r165965 and
patch 22178
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46195
--- Comment #15 from Jack Howarth 2010-10-27
22:34:46 UTC ---
Created attachment 22183
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22183
assembly for gcc.dg/compat/struct-by-value-18_x.c at -m32 using r165964
Created with...
/Users/howa
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46034
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski 2010-10-27
22:34:40 UTC ---
The most reduced testcase I could get:
intersect_al(int n, int k)
{
int i;
for (i = 0; i < n; i++)
{
k = __builtin_abs(k);
set_x_next(k / 2);
}
}
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46034
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski 2010-10-27
22:19:13 UTC ---
But that is because we have something like XOR (ASHIFTRT) Where the operand of
the ASHIFTRT is the same XOR again.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46034
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski 2010-10-27
22:16:55 UTC ---
We are going into an infinite loop in if_then_else_cond.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46034
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.6.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46034
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Status|UNCO
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46043
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35688
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46201
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46001
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32049
--- Comment #9 from Tobias Burnus 2010-10-27
21:53:14 UTC ---
Last patch: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2010-10/msg00262.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46196
--- Comment #3 from Dominique d'Humieres 2010-10-27
21:51:23 UTC ---
With the patch in comment #2, several of my codelets are rejected: for instance
the test in comment #24 of pr42274 is rejected with:
[macbook] f90/bug% gfc pr42274_5.f90
pr4227
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46201
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46153
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46175
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46161
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46161
--- Comment #2 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-10-27 21:41:56 UTC ---
Author: janus
Date: Wed Oct 27 21:41:52 2010
New Revision: 166018
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=166018
Log:
2010-10-27 Janus Weil
PR fortran/4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46173
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Keywords|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46169
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Status|UNCO
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46136
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42121
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46203
--- Comment #1 from Benjamin Kosnik 2010-10-27
21:30:29 UTC ---
Created attachment 22182
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22182
pre-processed sources
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46203
Summary: constexpr weirdness w/ default ctors
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
AssignedTo: unassig...@gc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46135
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46132
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46164
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ra, wrong-code
Status|UNCONFI
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46202
Summary: Makefile doesn't support install-strip
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Component: other
AssignedTo: unas
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46105
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely 2010-10-27
21:03:50 UTC ---
I think the point is that the element partial specialization should be
preferred, but GCC considers them ambiguous, and uses the primary template.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46159
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46112
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46105
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski 2010-10-27
20:53:14 UTC ---
The error message that GCC gives is:
t.cc:25:22: error: ambiguous class template instantiation for ‘struct
element’
t.cc:12:8: error: candidates are: struct element::type>
t.cc:17:8: e
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46194
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.5.2
configure
--prefix=/volumes/dev/gfortran-4.6-trunk --enable-languages=fortran
--disable-bootstrap
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.6.0 20101027 (experimental) (GCC)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46190
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.6.0
Summary|ICE in
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46124
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||error-recovery
Status|UNCONFI
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46125
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|ABI |
Severity|critical
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46170
Dodji Seketeli changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot |dodji at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46091
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Severity|no
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46196
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46195
--- Comment #14 from Jack Howarth 2010-10-27
19:04:25 UTC ---
Latest patch still leaves the regressions...
FAIL: gcc.dg/compat/struct-by-value-18 c_compat_x_tst.o compile
FAIL: gcc.dg/compat/struct-by-value-18 c_compat_y_tst.o compile
FAIL: gcc.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46198
--- Comment #2 from tbp 2010-10-27 18:10:21 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> The situation is thus totally under control ;)
I concede you may have a point :)
Yet, for size builds, it really can't possibly make sense, ever (and that's
what lead m
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46198
Uros Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2288
--- Comment #15 from Janis Johnson 2010-10-27
17:38:36 UTC ---
Peter, I don't know what address you should use for me; ask on #gcc if you
should use the IBM one, otherwise it's janis.marie.john...@gmail.com.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46198
Summary: movd xmm, r (xmm -> GPR) may hit the stack
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Component: target
AssignedTo: u
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2288
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-p
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46197
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46195
--- Comment #11 from Jack Howarth 2010-10-27
13:35:26 UTC ---
Created attachment 22177
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22177
diff between assembly for gcc.c-torture/execute/20040709-1.c at -m32 using
r165964 vs r165965+22174
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46197
--- Comment #2 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-10-27
13:32:58 UTC ---
Author: hjl
Date: Wed Oct 27 13:32:54 2010
New Revision: 166001
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=166001
Log:
Replace UNSPEC_STACK_CHECK with UNSPECV_SPLI
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46195
--- Comment #10 from Jack Howarth 2010-10-27
13:32:44 UTC ---
Created attachment 22176
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22176
assembly file for gcc.c-torture/execute/20040709-1.c -O0 at -m32 using r165965
with patch 22174
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46195
--- Comment #9 from Jack Howarth 2010-10-27
13:31:18 UTC ---
Created attachment 22175
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22175
assembly file for gcc.c-torture/execute/20040709-1.c -O0 at -m32 using r165964
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46179
--- Comment #5 from Finn Thain 2010-10-27
13:28:01 UTC ---
> The invalid address is generated by output_move_double.
I have to say it, the .md files I looked at are hands-down the most complex and
baroque code I've ever seen. So I don't understa
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46195
--- Comment #8 from Jack Howarth 2010-10-27
13:22:42 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> Created attachment 22174 [details]
> An updated patch
>
> Please try this one.
A quick manual test of only those test cases listed in the original report
sh
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46197
Uros Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-p
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46188
--- Comment #6 from Jens Maurer 2010-10-27
13:15:19 UTC ---
Thanks. Yes, the testcase was reduced from preprocessed files. Unfortunately,
you can't remove the "#pragma interface" without breaking the testcase. But
the only documented effect th
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46188
--- Comment #6 from Jens Maurer 2010-10-27
13:15:19 UTC ---
Thanks. Yes, the testcase was reduced from preprocessed files. Unfortunately,
you can't remove the "#pragma interface" without breaking the testcase. But
the only documented effect th
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46197
Summary: Bad split_stack_return pattern in i386.md
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
AssignedTo: unassig
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46128
Ian Bolton changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46191
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek 2010-10-27
12:44:16 UTC ---
Linker does that if -lfoo instead of libfoo.a form is used in the linker
script.
So perhaps we could just use that. As libgcc_s linker script name is different
and -lgcc is only a lib
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46195
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|UNCONFIRMED
Ever Confirmed|1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46191
--- Comment #5 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2010-10-27 12:02:35 UTC ---
On Wed, 27 Oct 2010, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> Using absolute names is undesirable too, because then gcc is not actually
> relocatable. Guess we want somethin
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46196
--- Comment #1 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-10-27 11:58:15 UTC ---
Yes. Apparently a duplicate of PR 44917/44926.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46195
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #22173|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46191
Ian Bolton changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
--- Comment #4 from Ian Bolton 2010
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46191
Ian Bolton changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46195
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|middle-end |target
Target Milestone|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46195
--- Comment #6 from H.J. Lu 2010-10-27 10:51:06
UTC ---
Created attachment 22173
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22173
A patch
Please try this patch.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45785
--- Comment #6 from Zdenek Sojka 2010-10-27 10:48:13
UTC ---
That is indeed much faster
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46188
--- Comment #5 from Zdenek Sojka 2010-10-27 10:30:35
UTC ---
Created attachment 22172
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22172
the second part of testcase
I used this file to complete your testcase. It defines remaining function
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46194
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45785
--- Comment #5 from Frédéric Buclin 2010-10-27
09:52:17 UTC ---
Could you try:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/buglist.cgi?quicksearch=ALL+comment%3Alto_symtab_merge_decls_1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45818
Frédéric Buclin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
--- Comment #2 from Frédéric Bu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45827
--- Comment #31 from Hans-Werner Boschmann 2010-10-27 09:35:07 UTC ---
I've posted the generic issue as Bug 46196
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46196
Summary: [OOP] gfortran compiles invalid generic TBP: dummy
arguments are type compatible
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46179
--- Comment #4 from Andreas Schwab 2010-10-27 08:41:05
UTC ---
The invalid address is generated by output_move_double.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46191
--- Comment #2 from Andreas Schwab 2010-10-27 08:33:07
UTC ---
The parts may not be installed in the same directory and relative names may
break in the presence of symbolic links.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46188
--- Comment #4 from Jens Maurer 2010-10-27
07:55:37 UTC ---
Created attachment 22171
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22171
two "if" conditions removed from the testcase
Two "if" conditions increase the complexity of the assem
92 matches
Mail list logo
