http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49686
Summary: [4.7 Regression] CFI notes are missed for delayed slot
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: EH
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45437
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45437
--- Comment #17 from Jason Merrill 2011-07-09
03:33:56 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Sat Jul 9 03:33:54 2011
New Revision: 176072
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=176072
Log:
PR c++/45437
gcc/
* gimplify.c (goa_stabil
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49670
--- Comment #10 from Jeffrey Walton 2011-07-09
03:32:20 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> The included source compiles OK for me with:
>
> ~/gcc-build/gcc/cc1plus -quiet -O2 -m32 -g -fstack-protector -march=prescott
> -mtune=prescott --param l1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49685
Summary: libgcc_s.so not compiled without optimization when
requested
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Comp
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49684
Summary: [4.7 Regression]: build fails on crtstuff.c / crtbegin
using default CRT_CALL_STATIC_FUNCTION
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: build
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49680
--- Comment #15 from Hans-Peter Nilsson 2011-07-09
00:32:08 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #11)
> Basically, nonsense like
>
> static void __attribute__((__used__)) call___do_global_dtors_aux (void) { asm
> ("\t.section\t.fini"); __do_global_dtor
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49680
--- Comment #13 from Richard Henderson 2011-07-08
23:48:56 UTC ---
Author: rth
Date: Fri Jul 8 23:48:53 2011
New Revision: 176065
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=176065
Log:
dwarf2cfi: Insert notes correctly wrt tablejumps
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49680
--- Comment #14 from Richard Henderson 2011-07-08
23:49:01 UTC ---
Author: rth
Date: Fri Jul 8 23:48:59 2011
New Revision: 176066
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=176066
Log:
dwarf2cfi: Flush queued saves at the end of the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49519
Janis Johnson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||janis at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #25
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49680
--- Comment #12 from Richard Henderson 2011-07-08
23:36:57 UTC ---
Rainer, please give me the command-line for this. I can't seem to
reproduce the assembler warnings from a cross-compiler.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49683
Summary: The system cannot execute the specified program
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
AssignedTo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49680
--- Comment #11 from Richard Henderson 2011-07-08
23:03:59 UTC ---
HP, the CRIS problem is something else.
Basically, nonsense like
static void __attribute__((__used__)) call___do_global_dtors_aux (void) { asm
("\t.section\t.fini"); __do_globa
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49680
--- Comment #10 from Hans-Peter Nilsson 2011-07-08
22:46:42 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> I'm going to do s/PREV_INSN/prev_nonnote_nondebug_insn/g and assert that the
> right insns and code_label is seen in cris_asm_output_case_end anyway.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49680
--- Comment #9 from Hans-Peter Nilsson 2011-07-08
22:30:34 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> I'm pretty sure that tablejumps are required to be adjacent,
> and that the notes are Really In the Wrong Place.
No real insns are supposed to be there
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49680
--- Comment #8 from Richard Henderson 2011-07-08
22:14:52 UTC ---
I'm pretty sure that tablejumps are required to be adjacent,
and that the notes are Really In the Wrong Place.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49680
--- Comment #7 from Hans-Peter Nilsson 2011-07-08
22:08:31 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> I see the problem wrt cris -- we really shouldn't delay the output
> of the CFI note that late. I'll fix that and see if I can still
> reproduce the ir
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49680
Richard Henderson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49680
--- Comment #5 from Hans-Peter Nilsson 2011-07-08
21:27:01 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> I see a similar build failure for cris-elf, FWIW so I take a wild guess and
> assume it's the same issue.
...but in the case for cris-elf it seems the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49513
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot com
--- Comment #4 fro
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49680
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hp at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47230
Matt Turner changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mattst88 at gmail dot com
--- Comment #11 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49621
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[4.5/4.6/4.7 regression]|[4.5 regression] ICE in
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49621
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-07-08
20:10:16 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Jul 8 20:09:58 2011
New Revision: 176063
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=176063
Log:
PR target/49621
* config/rs6000/rs6000.c (r
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49621
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-07-08
20:10:22 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Jul 8 20:10:18 2011
New Revision: 176064
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=176064
Log:
PR target/49621
* config/rs6000/rs6000.c (r
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49682
Summary: [alpha] gcc-4.6.1: ICE at -O2 and -O3
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: rtl-optimization
AssignedTo: u
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49681
Summary: 4.6.1 cross-build fails in libquadmath/libiberty
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: bootstrap
AssignedT
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49680
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.7.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49680
--- Comment #1 from Rainer Orth 2011-07-08 19:03:37 UTC
---
Created attachment 24719
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24719
preprocessed input
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49680
--- Comment #3 from Rainer Orth 2011-07-08 19:04:45 UTC
---
Created attachment 24721
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24721
broken assembler output
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49680
--- Comment #2 from Rainer Orth 2011-07-08 19:04:13 UTC
---
Created attachment 24720
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24720
working assembler output
20110704 (r175811) and 20110708 (r176045), IRIX 6.5 bootstrap got
broken.
A trivial a.out SEGVs in __register_frame_info_bases:
Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault.
__register_frame_info_bases (begin=0x10004604, ob=0x1000, tbase=0x0,
dbase=0x0) at /vol/gcc/src/hg/trunk
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49679
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-07-08
18:37:41 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> a and b must be the same.
No, it's undefined behaviour. Anything can happen.
http://blog.llvm.org/2011/05/what-every-c-programmer-should-know.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49679
--- Comment #3 from Jordan 2011-07-08 18:32:55
UTC ---
I know the warnings, but look the code
a+=++a+a++;
b+=++b+b++;
cout << "a=" << a << endl << "b=" << b << endl;
cin >> a;
a and b must be the same.
if i re
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49679
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45437
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Status|NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49679
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski 2011-07-08
17:55:35 UTC ---
You are invoking undefined behavior because C++ does not specify what order of
the operands happen first.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46779
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||otaylor at redhat dot com
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49679
Summary: Increment/decrement operator (++/--) not working as
expected
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compon
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45291
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46779
--- Comment #12 from Georg-Johann Lay 2011-07-08
17:46:42 UTC ---
Author: gjl
Date: Fri Jul 8 17:46:38 2011
New Revision: 176055
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=176055
Log:
PR target/46779
Backport from mainline S
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45603
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46779
--- Comment #11 from Georg-Johann Lay 2011-07-08
17:38:43 UTC ---
Author: gjl
Date: Fri Jul 8 17:38:39 2011
New Revision: 176053
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=176053
Log:
PR target/46779
* config/avr/avr.c (avr_
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45603
--- Comment #12 from Jason Merrill 2011-07-08
17:39:23 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Fri Jul 8 17:39:17 2011
New Revision: 176054
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=176054
Log:
PR c++/45603
* decl.c (expand_static_init)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45603
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20020
--- Comment #11 from Gary Funck 2011-07-08 17:20:32
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #10)
> Note: I don't know how this fix fits in with the x86_64 ABI, and obviously
> once
> this fix is in place, the binary call interface will change for 128 bit
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20020
--- Comment #10 from Gary Funck 2011-07-08 16:58:55
UTC ---
Note: I don't know how this fix fits in with the x86_64 ABI, and obviously once
this fix is in place, the binary call interface will change for 128 bit
struct/union arguments. As noted
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49678
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||arm
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49559
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #24717|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20020
--- Comment #9 from Gary Funck 2011-07-08 16:20:50
UTC ---
This note is both a ping for this rather old bug report, as well as a follow up
with some additional information.
For the ping side of things, we have been using this patch for the pas
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49678
Summary: scan for mov fails in gcc.target/arm/pr42575.c
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
AssignedTo: un
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44071
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mirq-gccboogs at rere dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43460
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49559
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #24613|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42894
--- Comment #26 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-07-08
15:35:01 UTC ---
It could, but I don't have time to do it myself. So, if somebody goes ahead
and tests the backport, fine.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49676
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-07-08
15:31:38 UTC ---
Created attachment 24716
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24716
gcc47-pr49676.patch
Attached patch saves those 2 bytes.
To answer the general question, for < DWARF
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42894
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comm
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49169
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Status|UNCO
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45697
--- Comment #3 from Jason Merrill 2011-07-08
14:57:52 UTC ---
Created attachment 24715
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24715
patch
But here's a patch against pre-4.7 to do what you want.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49677
Summary: GCC 4.6.0 LTO files not compatible with GCC 4.6.1
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: lto
AssignedTo: un
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45697
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |SUSPENDED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48454
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Version|unknow
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49676
Jan Kratochvil changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49673
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49673
--- Comment #1 from Jason Merrill 2011-07-08
14:24:17 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Fri Jul 8 14:24:14 2011
New Revision: 176045
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=176045
Log:
PR c++/49673
gcc/c-family/
* c-common.c (c_
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49676
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=49519
--- Comment #24 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-07-08
13:12:05 UTC ---
Author: hjl
Date: Fri Jul 8 13:12:03 2011
New Revision: 176042
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=176042
Log:
Fix PR middle-end/49519.
gcc/
2011-07-08
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49130
--- Comment #11 from Jan Kratochvil
2011-07-08 12:33:19 UTC ---
I do not see any functionality problem from it, neither now and neither in the
future.
(In reply to comment #7)
> But DW_AT_name really represents the name of the operator as writte
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49673
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49675
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
Compon
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43118
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
Kno
bute__((noinline, noclone))
self (int i)
{
if (i == 200)
self (i + 1);
else
d (i + 2);
}
-g -O2
gcc (GCC) 4.7.0 20110708 (experimental)
DW_AT_GNU_call_site_value: 26 byte block: f3 1 55 23 2 8 cb f3 1 55 8 20 24 10
80 80 80 80 80 19 2e 28 1 0 16 13(DW_OP_GNU_entry_value: (DW_OP_reg
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49675
Summary: jacobi.F90:90:0: internal compiler error: Segmentation
fault
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compon
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49559
--- Comment #17 from Paolo Carlini 2011-07-08
11:46:10 UTC ---
The *_backward case seems rather straightforward, with the roles of the
__first1, __last1 and __first2, __last2 ranges swapped.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47918
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48108
--- Comment #15 from Jack Howarth 2011-07-08
11:18:25 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #14)
> Created attachment 24712 [details]
> updated work in progress
>
> there were a couple of hunks in the previous from another LTO patch, that
> reportedly ga
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49398
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49559
--- Comment #16 from Paolo Carlini 2011-07-08
11:01:06 UTC ---
I believe I'm making good progress in analyzing, thus fixing, the issue with
inplace_merge: what I see clearly now is that - as noticed in Comment 9 for the
first time - __move_merge,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47918
Mikael Pettersson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|m68k-linux |m68k-linux,
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48108
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #24705|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49671
--- Comment #4 from Richard Guenther 2011-07-08
10:30:32 UTC ---
Doesn't the outermost component also need TREE_THIS_VOLATILE? So I suppose
sink the
TREE_THIS_VOLATILE (*tp) = TREE_THIS_VOLATILE (old);
from the else branch as well.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49674
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||documentation
Status|UNCON
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48727
--- Comment #7 from Rainer Orth 2011-07-08 10:20:39 UTC
---
Author: ro
Date: Fri Jul 8 10:20:36 2011
New Revision: 176034
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=176034
Log:
PR testsuite/48727
* g++.dg/opt/devirt2.C: Use s
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49670
--- Comment #9 from Jeffrey Walton 2011-07-08
09:51:21 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> The included source compiles OK for me with:
>
> ~/gcc-build/gcc/cc1plus -quiet -O2 -m32 -g -fstack-protector -march=prescott
> -mtune=prescott --param l1-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47918
--- Comment #6 from Mikael Pettersson 2011-07-08
09:42:26 UTC ---
I can trigger the bug on i386 too, if I tweak the i386 backend to push function
parameters rather than moving them to pre-allocated stack space, and to
disallow regparm promotion f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49670
--- Comment #8 from Uros Bizjak 2011-07-08 09:42:59
UTC ---
The included source compiles OK for me with:
~/gcc-build/gcc/cc1plus -quiet -O2 -m32 -g -fstack-protector -march=prescott
-mtune=prescott --param l1-cache-size=16 --param l1-cache-line-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49674
Summary: Improve documentation for __attribute__ __section__
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
AssignedTo: un
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40528
--- Comment #16 from Agner Fog 2011-07-08 08:52:32 UTC
---
(In reply to comment #15)
> (In reply to comment #14)
> > (In reply to comment #13)
> > > What is the status of this issue?
> >
> > It is implemented on ifunc branch.
> >
> > > Is optio
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49662
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization, xfail
Co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49662
--- Comment #3 from Richard Guenther 2011-07-08
08:42:36 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri Jul 8 08:42:31 2011
New Revision: 176031
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=176031
Log:
2011-07-08 Richard Guenther
PR tree-op
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49670
--- Comment #7 from Jeffrey Walton 2011-07-08
08:36:08 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> Please add all information and especially preprocessed source, as explained in
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs/#detailed
Crypto++ sources:
`svn checkout https://
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49670
--- Comment #6 from Jeffrey Walton 2011-07-08
08:35:55 UTC ---
Created attachment 24711
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24711
File asn.ii from class causing internal compiler error
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49670
--- Comment #5 from Jeffrey Walton 2011-07-08
08:35:11 UTC ---
Created attachment 24710
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24710
File asn.s from class file causing internal compiler error
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49670
--- Comment #4 from Jeffrey Walton 2011-07-08
08:07:43 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #0)
> Sorry if this was previously reported. Searching returned an error stating I
> used an invalid file extension.
>
> I was attempting to compile the latest C
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=4131
Thiago Macieira changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||thiago at kde dot org
--- Comment #26 fr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49673
Summary: [C++0x] const variables initialised with constexpr
constructor placed in .data not .rodata
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49670
--- Comment #3 from Uros Bizjak 2011-07-08 07:54:33
UTC ---
Please add all information and especially preprocessed source, as explained in
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs/#detailed
97 matches
Mail list logo
