http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47945
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #8
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47945
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47945
Thomas Henlich changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |minor
--- Comment #6 from Thomas Henlich
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47836
--- Comment #11 from Ralf Wildenhues 2011-03-02
05:57:38 UTC ---
The automatic enabling of zlib was turned on by revision 152434, a merge of the
lto branch. It seems you can use --disable-lto or --with-system-zlib to
disable a target zlib from b
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46887
--- Comment #3 from Ralf Wildenhues 2011-03-02
05:49:25 UTC ---
dje, you marked this PR as NEW. Why? Michael didn't confirm it with pristine
GCC. If you can reproduce it yourself, please reread and follow comment #1.
Thanks.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47949
Summary: Missed optimization for -Os using xchg instead of mov.
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Component: target
A
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47898
Kazumoto Kojima changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||sh4-*-*
Priority|P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47935
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47935
--- Comment #3 from Alan Modra 2011-03-02 01:15:47
UTC ---
Author: amodra
Date: Wed Mar 2 01:15:44 2011
New Revision: 170607
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=170607
Log:
PR target/47935
* config/rs6000/predicates.md
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36299
--- Comment #7 from Vincent Lefèvre 2011-03-02
01:15:23 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> I think the intention is to warn, at least for a == (void *)0, since the
> address of a cannot be zero or null. So I would say that this is a regression.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47935
--- Comment #2 from Alan Modra 2011-03-02 00:54:25
UTC ---
Author: amodra
Date: Wed Mar 2 00:54:22 2011
New Revision: 170606
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=170606
Log:
PR target/47935
* config/rs6000/predicates.md
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47924
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #7
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47943
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47945
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47908
--- Comment #2 from Mikael Pettersson 2011-03-01
23:45:01 UTC ---
m68k needs to define TARGET_OVERRIDE_OPTIONS_AFTER_CHANGE in order to override
the instruction scheduling options implied by attribute((optimize(2))).
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47851
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.6.0
--- Comment #4 from Paolo Carlini
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47948
Summary: ICE: in emit_move_insn, at expr.c:3355 with -mno-sse2
on very simple code
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47913
--- Comment #6 from Paolo Carlini 2011-03-01
23:00:05 UTC ---
Thanks again for your help on this.
Preliminarily, a few observations: 1- Please make sure the code is minimally
documented (are the comments in longlong.h enough?); 2- I see stuff li
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46159
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47851
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46282
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47851
--- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill 2011-03-01
22:44:41 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Tue Mar 1 22:44:35 2011
New Revision: 170601
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=170601
Log:
PR c++/47851
* call.c (standard_conversion)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46282
--- Comment #1 from Jason Merrill 2011-03-01
22:44:30 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Tue Mar 1 22:44:26 2011
New Revision: 170600
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=170600
Log:
PR c++/46282
* decl2.c (grokbitfield): Hand
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47200
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47913
--- Comment #5 from Marc Glisse 2011-03-01
22:15:48 UTC ---
Created attachment 23509
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=23509
Overkill
I was having a hard time making it nice and clean, so I went for totally
overkill. It might b
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47899
--- Comment #4 from Zdenek Dvorak 2011-03-01
22:13:15 UTC ---
Created attachment 23508
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=23508
proposed fix
When the non-exit path is removed during the complete peeling of the loop, we
may need
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47947
Pat Haugen changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pthaugen at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47283
--- Comment #20 from Steve Ellcey 2011-03-01 21:50:38
UTC ---
It is still working for me on ia64-hp-hpux11.23 in 32 and 64 bit
modes but it is failing on my ia64-debian-linux-gnu system. I failed to notice
that earlier.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47145
--- Comment #22 from Benjamin Kosnik 2011-03-01
21:31:57 UTC ---
Here's a plan.
Remove as per #4
-AC_CHECK_FILE([/usr/share/sgml/docbook/xsl-ns-stylesheets/VERSION],
- [glibcxx_stylesheets=yes], [glibcxx_stylesheets=no])
replace
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47947
David Edelsohn changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||powerpc-*-*
Status|UNCONFIRM
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47447
--- Comment #8 from asharif at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-03-01 19:39:49 UTC ---
Ping. Andrew or Richard, how can I rework my patch to address this issue?
Thanks,
gcc-build-xxx/gcc/xgcc -v
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=/home/uros/gcc-build-xxx/gcc/xgcc
Target: ia64-suse-linux-gnu
Configured with: ../gcc-svn/trunk/configure --target=ia64-suse-linux-gnu
--enable-languages=c,c++
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.6.0 20110301 (experimental) [trunk revis
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47744
--- Comment #6 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-03-01
19:21:21 UTC ---
Author: hjl
Date: Tue Mar 1 19:21:18 2011
New Revision: 170599
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=170599
Log:
Add PLUS bas support to ix86_simplify_base_d
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47497
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #19 from Jan Hubicka
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47497
--- Comment #18 from Jan Hubicka 2011-03-01
19:07:36 UTC ---
Created attachment 23507
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=23507
patch I am testing
Hi,
the problem is with thunks referring thunks or aliases.
lto-symtab is wrong h
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47946
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-03-01
18:39:17 UTC ---
Created attachment 23506
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=23506
gcc46-pr47946.patch
Untested fix.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39246
--- Comment #7 from Jing Yu 2011-03-01 18:08:57 UTC
---
I am on leave from 02/01/2011 to 05/30/2011. I may not reply your
email during this period.
If you have Android toolchain questions/issues/requests, please
contact Doug (dougk...@google.com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39246
--- Comment #6 from Andreas Krebbel 2011-03-01
18:08:11 UTC ---
The first difference between x86_64 and s390x appears in 004t.gimple since
s390x returns complex numbers in memory:
x86_64:
foo ()
{
float D.2684;
C D.2685;
C f;
D.2684 =
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43038
--- Comment #11 from Jan Hubicka 2011-03-01 17:41:48
UTC ---
> > The original LTO proposal included assembler changes to allow multiple
> > local symbols with the same name in the output. You could resurrect that,
> > though allowing reference
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47926
--- Comment #2 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-03-01
17:31:35 UTC ---
Author: hjl
Date: Tue Mar 1 17:31:31 2011
New Revision: 170598
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=170598
Log:
Use movl to load trampoline address for x32.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47744
--- Comment #5 from H.J. Lu 2011-03-01 17:27:00
UTC ---
Another one:
[hjl@gnu-6 ilp32-26]$ cat x.c
typedef union rtunion_def {
struct rtx_def *rtx;
} rtunion;
typedef struct rtx_def {
unsigned short code;
rtunion fld[1];
} *rtx;
extern rtx
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47947
Summary: Varibles of type vector double are not copied
correctly in gcc-4.5.1 and gcc-4.6.0
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: critical
Prio
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47940
--- Comment #6 from mlg 2011-03-01 17:23:41 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> (In reply to comment #0)
> >
> > Functions that call pure virtual functions cannot
> > be called from constructors and destructors.
> > This may be discovered at compi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47639
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47946
Michael Matz changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||matz at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 fro
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47639
--- Comment #6 from Richard Guenther 2011-03-01
17:06:45 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Mar 1 17:06:41 2011
New Revision: 170596
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=170596
Log:
2011-03-01 Richard Guenther
Backpo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47890
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46723
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46723
--- Comment #14 from Richard Guenther 2011-03-01
17:04:32 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Mar 1 17:04:26 2011
New Revision: 170595
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=170595
Log:
2011-03-01 Richard Guenther
Backp
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47890
--- Comment #9 from Richard Guenther 2011-03-01
17:04:32 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Mar 1 17:04:26 2011
New Revision: 170595
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=170595
Log:
2011-03-01 Richard Guenther
Backpo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47939
--- Comment #7 from Richard Guenther 2011-03-01
17:01:38 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> On Tue, 1 Mar 2011, rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> > The patch bootstrapped and tested ok. Removing
> >
> > if (!flag_gen_aux_info && (TYPE_QU
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47939
--- Comment #6 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2011-03-01 16:52:37 UTC ---
On Tue, 1 Mar 2011, rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> The patch bootstrapped and tested ok. Removing
>
> if (!flag_gen_aux_info && (TYPE_QUALS (element_type)))
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43038
--- Comment #10 from Richard Guenther 2011-03-01
16:42:26 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #9)
> On Tue, 1 Mar 2011, d.g.gorbachev at gmail dot com wrote:
>
> > > The problem is that statics need to be mangled, so they persist
> > > as i.1234 instea
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43038
--- Comment #9 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2011-03-01 16:39:23 UTC ---
On Tue, 1 Mar 2011, d.g.gorbachev at gmail dot com wrote:
> > The problem is that statics need to be mangled, so they persist
> > as i.1234 instead. Really refering t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42769
--- Comment #34 from Mikael Morin 2011-03-01
16:26:53 UTC ---
The hack in comment 32 compiles correctly comment 24, but rejects the following
variant (with the type-bound call in a subroutine) with:
use mod2
1
Error: Name 'my_get' at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45797
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46459
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47939
--- Comment #5 from Richard Guenther 2011-03-01
15:41:53 UTC ---
The patch bootstrapped and tested ok. Removing
if (!flag_gen_aux_info && (TYPE_QUALS (element_type)))
type = TYPE_MAIN_VARIANT (type);
unconditionally breaks gcc.dg/array-q
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43829
--- Comment #33 from Dominique d'Humieres
2011-03-01 15:41:36 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #32)
> Created attachment 23268 [details]
> More up-to-date patch
Although this patch is probably not suitable for stage 4, I have it in my tree
for some
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36299
--- Comment #6 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2011-03-01
15:37:25 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
>
> So, I assume that it has been fixed anyway. Do you confirm?
I think the intention is to warn, at least for a == (void *)0, since the
address of a c
the bug with various member
types. It still fails on two cases when using array members. I don't think
they are errors. Running
sh constexpr-ctor-templ.cpp
with 4.6.0 20110301 now yields the following (output compressed for legibility
[snip] = -c constexpr-ctor-tem
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47946
--- Comment #1 from hariharans at picochip dot com 2011-03-01 15:31:47 UTC ---
Created attachment 23504
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=23504
The assembly code
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47946
Summary: Dwarf uses 64-bits to refer to a structure offset
unnecessarily
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36299
--- Comment #5 from Vincent Lefèvre 2011-03-01
15:05:19 UTC ---
Under Debian, I can no longer reproduce the problem with GCC 4.5.2:
$ gcc-4.5 -Wall warn-nulladdress.c
$ gcc-4.5 -Waddress warn-nulladdress.c
$ gcc-4.4 -Wall warn-nulladdress.c
warn
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47939
--- Comment #4 from Richard Guenther 2011-03-01
14:49:43 UTC ---
That said, specifying -aux-info /dev/null also fixes this bug. Huh.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47945
--- Comment #4 from Thomas Henlich
2011-03-01 14:44:54 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> 0.142857142857142849218750 is still within the accuracy of IEEE
> double.
> All numbers map to the same IEEE double.
This is technically correct;
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47939
--- Comment #3 from Richard Guenther 2011-03-01
14:36:31 UTC ---
Better patch, I'm giving that a quick test.
Index: c-decl.c
===
--- c-decl.c(revision 170589)
+++ c-decl.c(w
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47939
--- Comment #2 from Richard Guenther 2011-03-01
14:31:35 UTC ---
The lack of knowledge of George_t is the worst side-effect of this bug.
/* { dg-do run } */
/* { dg-options "-g" } */
typedef struct _Harry { int dummy; } Harry_t;
Harry_t harry;
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47945
--- Comment #3 from Andreas Schwab 2011-03-01 14:27:54
UTC ---
0.142857142857142849218750 is still within the accuracy of IEEE double.
All numbers map to the same IEEE double.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47939
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47945
--- Comment #2 from Thomas Henlich
2011-03-01 14:01:56 UTC ---
Created attachment 23502
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=23502
C test case
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47945
--- Comment #1 from Thomas Henlich
2011-03-01 14:01:32 UTC ---
Created attachment 23501
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=23501
Test case
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47945
Summary: REAL(8) output conversion error on MinGW32
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libfortran
AssignedTo: un
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47942
--- Comment #4 from Johan Andersson 2011-03-01
13:58:00 UTC ---
Thanks for the quick reply and advice to use static_cast, the reinterpret_cast
was a temporary memory lapse!
The old GCC version was because I used a web-interface to verify the pro
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47942
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-03-01
13:45:26 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> Your options are either to use C++0x mode (classes without linkage can be used
> as template arguments in C++0x) or to upcast the pointer
It seems that th
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47944
Summary: Several graphite tests SEGV on Solaris 10/x86
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47942
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47943
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47942
--- Comment #1 from Johan Andersson 2011-03-01
13:28:26 UTC ---
I might add that this bug is also present in gcc (Debian 4.4.5-11) 4.4.5.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47941
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47923
--- Comment #7 from Mirko 2011-03-01
13:20:54 UTC ---
Created attachment 23500
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=23500
Test with XLC
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47844
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|I/O: data transfer |Array stride ignored for
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47923
--- Comment #6 from Mirko 2011-03-01
13:20:17 UTC ---
Hello,
I have tried to compile with XLC.
I set the variables with the following lines:
export LDR_CNTRL=MAXDATA=0x5000
export LDR_CNTRL=MACDATA=0x3000
export PATH=/usr/vac/bin:/usr/va
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47890
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.6.0
Summary|[4.5/4.6 Regr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47890
--- Comment #7 from Richard Guenther 2011-03-01
13:18:29 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Mar 1 13:18:25 2011
New Revision: 170593
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=170593
Log:
2011-03-01 Richard Guenther
PR tree-op
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47943
--- Comment #1 from Martin Jambor 2011-03-01
13:11:23 UTC ---
Created attachment 23499
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=23499
Testcase
The testcase.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47943
Summary: PRE fails to move a load before a loop with LTO
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: lto
AssignedTo: unas
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47942
Summary: Not possible to initialize a shared_ptr with a class
defined in function scope, inheriting from a global
scope base class
Product: gcc
Version: 4.1.2
Stat
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47941
Summary: [4.6 Regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/guality/vla-2.c
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: lto
AssignedTo: unassi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47896
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||alias
--- Comment #3 from Richard Guen
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43038
--- Comment #8 from Dmitry Gorbachev
2011-03-01 12:46:39 UTC ---
> The problem is that statics need to be mangled, so they persist
> as i.1234 instead. Really refering to a local symbol in asm is
> going to be difficult with LTO (any global or o
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47850
--- Comment #7 from Paul Thomas 2011-03-01 12:45:34
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> (In reply to comment #3)
> > -std=f95 no longer generates the error that it should:
> >logical, parameter :: buf(3) = [(any(sc(i) ==nc), i = 1, 3)]
> >
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47940
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-03-01
12:32:19 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> "abstract virtual" - the class is abstract, the function is pure virtual.
I forgot I already changed that ;)
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2010-05/msg0043
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47940
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-03-01
12:30:06 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #0)
>
> Functions that call pure virtual functions cannot
> be called from constructors and destructors.
> This may be discovered at compile-time, and the above
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47940
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Summary|can call
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47938
Janne Blomqvist changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47835
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ro at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #8 from R
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47404
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47940
--- Comment #2 from mlg 2011-03-01 11:34:30 UTC ---
Yes it _is_ hard to detect. My colleague was suspecting
a build system bug/feature at first (hours for a full rebuild).
If it was a direct call, there would be a linker error.
>If the call was d
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47850
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||franke.daniel at gmail dot
1 - 100 of 126 matches
Mail list logo
