http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47725
--- Comment #20 from Paul Bone 2011-07-22
06:07:11 UTC ---
Created attachment 24808
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24808
Test case generated by Mercury Compiler
This is a test case generated by the Mercury compiler, it has b
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47725
--- Comment #19 from Paul Bone 2011-07-22
06:01:30 UTC ---
I'm seeing the same problem in gcc 4.4 and 4.6, I did not test 4.5:
paul@semillion:~/code/mercury-compiler-rotd-2011-06-23/compiler$ gcc-4.4 -v -c
-o /tmp/out.o -O1 ml_backend.ml_closure
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48155
--- Comment #5 from Paul Bone 2011-07-22
05:59:24 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
Sorry, this comment was filed against the wrong bug. Please ignore/delete it.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48155
Paul Bone changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pbone at csse dot
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49811
--- Comment #1 from Nathan 2011-07-22 04:16:08 UTC
---
Created attachment 24807
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24807
GCC output when run with additional '-v -save-temps'
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49811
Summary: Crash at __do_global_dtors_aux when compiled with
'-shared -static'
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49791
--- Comment #10 from Jerry DeLisle 2011-07-22
01:28:19 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> (In reply to comment #3)
> > If the bug reporter can, I think he should convert all the input files to
> > the
> > Fortran 90 syntax of namelists. However,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49810
--- Comment #1 from John David Anglin 2011-07-22
00:05:29 UTC ---
This occurs in stage2. It seems we are now using C++ by default but
there isn't a C++ version of libiberty.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49810
Summary: [4.7 Regression] ld: Unsatisfied symbol
"strsignal(int)" in file collect2.o
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47654
Sebastian Pop changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49649
Sebastian Pop changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49649
--- Comment #2 from Sebastian Pop 2011-07-21 22:58:02
UTC ---
Author: spop
Date: Thu Jul 21 22:57:59 2011
New Revision: 176605
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=176605
Log:
Infer types based on lb and ub.
2011-07-21 Sebasti
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47654
--- Comment #10 from Sebastian Pop 2011-07-21
22:58:02 UTC ---
Author: spop
Date: Thu Jul 21 22:57:59 2011
New Revision: 176605
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=176605
Log:
Infer types based on lb and ub.
2011-07-21 Sebast
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49705
Ian Lance Taylor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
--- Comment #8 from Ian Lance Tayl
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49705
--- Comment #7 from ian at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-07-21
21:30:26 UTC ---
Author: ian
Date: Thu Jul 21 21:30:24 2011
New Revision: 176591
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=176591
Log:
gcc/c-family:
PR middle-end/49705
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49600
--- Comment #5 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-07-21 21:21:01 UTC ---
Author: uros
Date: Thu Jul 21 21:20:59 2011
New Revision: 176589
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=176589
Log:
Backport from mainline
2011-07-04 U
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34888
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49807
--- Comment #5 from Georg-Johann Lay 2011-07-21
20:46:05 UTC ---
In this case it would not reduce the size of the store, but how can this be
seen?
It cannot be seen from the insn/pattern alone.
Do you have an idea how to attack this optimization
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49807
--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gmail dot com
2011-07-21 20:39:08 UTC ---
On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 1:34 PM, gjl at gcc dot gnu.org
wrote:
> I don't know the exact rationale why volatile_ok is false in combine.
> It' obviously about volatile correc
On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 1:34 PM, gjl at gcc dot gnu.org
wrote:
> I don't know the exact rationale why volatile_ok is false in combine.
> It' obviously about volatile correctnet, but I don't see what would break
> here.
It can, when dealing optimizations that reduce the size of load/stores
of vol
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49807
--- Comment #3 from Georg-Johann Lay 2011-07-21
20:34:14 UTC ---
> (In reply to comment #2)
> That's not quite correct. In avr-libc the header file sfr_defs.h will define a
> register as this:
>
> #define SPDR (*((volatile char *) 0x2c))
(volat
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49749
--- Comment #14 from William J. Schmidt
2011-07-21 20:27:21 UTC ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Thu Jul 21 20:27:17 2011
New Revision: 176585
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=176585
Log:
2011-07-21 Bill Schmidt
PR tree-op
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49809
Summary: [4.7 regression] gimple_check failure at -O3
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Comp
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49807
--- Comment #2 from Eric Weddington
2011-07-21 20:12:58 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #0)
> This C source:
>
> #define SPDR (*((char volatile*) 0x2c))
Hi Johann,
That's not quite correct. In avr-libc the header file sfr_defs.h will define a
reg
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49798
--- Comment #17 from Uros Bizjak 2011-07-21 20:12:50
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #16)
> I didn't see it with -mx32. I got
Hm, I also don't get this anymore...
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49798
--- Comment #16 from H.J. Lu 2011-07-21 19:59:31
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #9)
> Please compare optimized tree dumps from i686 (a) compilation vs x32 (b):
>
> (b)
>
> foo (union U u)
> {
> double D.2709;
> _Bool D.2704;
> double D.2702
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49786
--- Comment #16 from Ian Lance Taylor 2011-07-21 19:56:59
UTC ---
Forgot to mention that I ran "make -j6 profiledbootstrap".
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49786
--- Comment #15 from Ian Lance Taylor 2011-07-21 19:56:28
UTC ---
Martin: I was able to reproduce it by configuring using --with-ld to point to a
newly built version of gold configured with --enable-plugins.
Markus: That patch will fix the probl
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49808
Summary: GCC adds an address-of somewhere!
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
Priority: P3
Component: c++
AssignedTo: unassig...@gcc.gnu.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49807
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||eric.weddington at atmel
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49807
--- Comment #1 from Georg-Johann Lay 2011-07-21
19:34:27 UTC ---
Created attachment 24804
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24804
C test case as in the initial PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49807
Summary: Missed byte (subreg) extraction
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: rtl-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49791
--- Comment #9 from Jerry DeLisle 2011-07-21
18:32:31 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> Jerry what do you think? I have to admit that I have not the slightest idea
> what ionml->touched does - thus, I cannot come up of a possibly failing
As you
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49749
--- Comment #13 from William J. Schmidt
2011-07-21 18:07:42 UTC ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Thu Jul 21 18:07:39 2011
New Revision: 176581
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=176581
Log:
2011-07-21 Bill Schmidt
PR tree-op
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49798
--- Comment #15 from H.J. Lu 2011-07-21 17:24:01
UTC ---
Another example:
[hjl@gnu-6 pr49798]$ cat y.i
union U
{
int *m;
long long d;
};
extern int ;
long long
foo ()
{
union U v = { &};
return v.d;
}
[hjl@gnu-6 pr49798]$ /export
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49798
--- Comment #14 from H.J. Lu 2011-07-21 17:19:06
UTC ---
It looks like (symbol_ref:DI ("")) is treated as zero_extend
for symbol address. My patch just does that, similar to Sparc.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49798
--- Comment #13 from H.J. Lu 2011-07-21 17:16:35
UTC ---
With -mx32 -O, I got
foo (union U u)
{
union U v;
_Bool D.2704;
double D.2703;
double D.2702;
int D.2701;
# BLOCK 2 freq:1
# PRED: ENTRY [100.0%] (fallthru,exec)
v =
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49798
Uros Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #12
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49798
--- Comment #11 from Uros Bizjak 2011-07-21 16:36:56
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #10)
> > Does this looks OK?
>
> We can't compare x32 directly with ia32 since ia32 doesn't support
> movdi_internal_rex64. We want to use 64bit instructions for
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49798
--- Comment #10 from H.J. Lu 2011-07-21 16:32:01
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #9)
> Please compare optimized tree dumps from i686 (a) compilation vs x32 (b):
>
> (a)
>
> foo (union U u)
> {
> union U v;
> _Bool D.2000;
> double D.1999;
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49798
--- Comment #9 from Uros Bizjak 2011-07-21 16:25:49
UTC ---
Please compare optimized tree dumps from i686 (a) compilation vs x32 (b):
(a)
foo (union U u)
{
union U v;
_Bool D.2000;
double D.1999;
double D.1998;
int D.1997;
:
v = {}
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49798
--- Comment #8 from H.J. Lu 2011-07-21 16:03:20
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> IRA generates
>
> (insn 13 3 18 2 (set (reg/v:DI 21 xmm0 [orig:63 v ] [63])
> (mem/u/c/i:DI (symbol_ref/u:DI ("*.LC0") [flags 0x2]) [0 S8 A64]))
> x.i:12
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49798
--- Comment #7 from H.J. Lu 2011-07-21 15:53:56
UTC ---
IRA generates
(insn 13 3 18 2 (set (reg/v:DI 21 xmm0 [orig:63 v ] [63])
(mem/u/c/i:DI (symbol_ref/u:DI ("*.LC0") [flags 0x2]) [0 S8 A64]))
x.i:12 62 {*movdi_internal_rex64}
(ex
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49806
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49806
--- Comment #2 from Richard Guenther 2011-07-21
15:50:38 UTC ---
*** Bug 49805 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49805
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30112
--- Comment #6 from Paolo Carlini 2011-07-21
15:49:16 UTC ---
Agreed (indeed, I saw both in Bugzilla but never figured out which one you
preferred ;)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49806
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone|--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30112
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|jason at redhat dot com |
--- Comment #5 from Jason Merrill 2011-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49805
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone|--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30112
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47997
--- Comment #23 from Iain Sandoe 2011-07-21 14:52:26
UTC ---
OK, done some more debugging
so one can't call fix_string_type () twice on the same string and get a
sensible result...
... the determination of the string type by equating to one
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49806
Summary: [4.7 Regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/vrp47.c
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
AssignedTo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49799
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49805
Summary: [4.7 Regression] FAIL: FAIL: gcc.target/i386/andor-2.c
scan-assembler-not sete
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49779
--- Comment #6 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2011-07-21 14:26:05 UTC ---
See PR 44715 for previous discussion of issues with loop control
statements in statement expressions.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49798
--- Comment #6 from H.J. Lu 2011-07-21 14:02:54
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> (In reply to comment #4)
>
> > > Linker should put correct address (so, zero extended 32bit address) here.
> >
> > Did you mean assembler? In many cases, .quad i
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49798
--- Comment #5 from Uros Bizjak 2011-07-21 13:30:22
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> > Linker should put correct address (so, zero extended 32bit address) here.
>
> Did you mean assembler? In many cases, .quad is still simply wrong (PR 47446)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49804
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49770
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49770
--- Comment #5 from Richard Guenther 2011-07-21
13:19:27 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu Jul 21 13:19:18 2011
New Revision: 176567
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=176567
Log:
2011-07-21 Richard Guenther
PR tree-op
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49804
Summary: regression gcc4.7 from 20110709 to 20110716 on ia64,
sparc64 freebsd9.0 Configuration mismatch!
[libgcc-extra-parts] Error
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Sta
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49786
--- Comment #14 from Markus Trippelsdorf
2011-07-21 13:10:36 UTC ---
H.J. also reported:
lto1: error: caller edge count is negative
in the description. So it's likely the same issue
as in comment #10.
BTW the following already fixes the problem
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49798
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-p
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49786
--- Comment #13 from Martin Jambor 2011-07-21
13:00:31 UTC ---
The problem in the summary is a call graph verification error, which
is most likely a duplicate of PR 49796 (an infrastructure/verifier
problem really) while the problem reported in c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49799
Mikael Pettersson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comme
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1773
--- Comment #86 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-07-21 12:44:59 UTC ---
> --- Comment #85 from Paolo Carlini
> 2011-07-21 12:34:21 UTC ---
> Fair enough, and I should really find the time to go again through the entire
> trail. Just w
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1773
--- Comment #85 from Paolo Carlini 2011-07-21
12:34:21 UTC ---
Fair enough, and I should really find the time to go again through the entire
trail. Just wanted to add that for a C header to be 'C++ ready' is a rather
vaguely defined notion, thus,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49796
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1773
--- Comment #84 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-07-21 12:14:17 UTC ---
> --- Comment #83 from Paolo Carlini
> 2011-07-21 12:08:32 UTC ---
> Ok, thus I marked 30112 as blocking this, I'll try to raise its priority.
Fine, thanks.
> O
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30112
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at redhat dot com
--- Comment #4 fr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1773
--- Comment #83 from Paolo Carlini 2011-07-21
12:08:32 UTC ---
Ok, thus I marked 30112 as blocking this, I'll try to raise its priority.
Otherwise Rainer, ok, in terms of producing an actual patch I was addressing
mostly Marc, but, unless I'm badl
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49749
--- Comment #12 from Richard Guenther 2011-07-21
12:04:01 UTC ---
+ tree arg = gimple_phi_arg (stmt, i)->def;
+ if (TREE_CODE (arg) == SSA_NAME)
+{
+ gimple def_stmt = SSA_NAME_DEF_STMT (arg);
+ if (def_stmt
+ &&
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1773
--- Comment #82 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-07-21 11:32:42 UTC ---
> --- Comment #81 from Paolo Carlini
> 2011-07-21 09:52:11 UTC ---
> Marc and Rainer, if you have proposals for Solaris, I think this is the right
> time for 4.7.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49799
Mikael Pettersson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikpe at it dot uu.se
--- Comment #1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47997
--- Comment #22 from Iain Sandoe 2011-07-21 10:36:02
UTC ---
hmm, comment #21 is not the right solution ... (even if it works)
... the right solution is either
(a) to handle arrays of arbitrary-sized ints in fix_string_type () (without
ass
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49798
--- Comment #3 from Uros Bizjak 2011-07-21 10:25:28
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> To get Pmode value out of symbol in ptr_mode, we have to do zero-extension
> ourself.
Linker should put correct address (so, zero extended 32bit address) her
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49802
--- Comment #4 from Tobias Burnus 2011-07-21
10:21:22 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
>by_value (character(kind=1)[1:_y] y, integer(kind=4) _y)
Technically, it makes sense that it does not work: The caller passes +
bytes: sizeof(str) and si
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49802
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||20585
Summary|[F2008] Handle V
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49802
--- Comment #2 from Tobias Burnus 2011-07-21
09:55:16 UTC ---
Created attachment 24803
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24803
Patch for the resolver/parse part - not for the actual implementation
Implementation strategy:
* Fo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1773
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||paolo.carlini at oracle dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48973
--- Comment #17 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-07-21
09:39:19 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Jul 21 09:39:16 2011
New Revision: 176555
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=176555
Log:
PR middle-end/48973
* expr.c (expand_expr_
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49802
--- Comment #1 from Tobias Burnus 2011-07-21
09:20:22 UTC ---
Additionally, the follow constraint of Fortran 2003 is gone:
C528 (R501) If the VALUE attribute is specified, the length type
parameter values shall be omitted or spec
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49803
Summary: [C++0x] erroneous variant-member initialization in a
union containing an anonymous struct
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47997
--- Comment #21 from Iain Sandoe 2011-07-21 09:05:10
UTC ---
This is indeed a new bug - if there is to be any lengthly deliberation, please
move it to its own PR (against objective-c).
calling fix_string_type () on a tree that is already a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49802
Summary: [F2008] Handle VALUE with arrays (DIMENSION)
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: rejects-valid
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Componen
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49801
--- Comment #1 from Paulo J. Matos 2011-07-21
09:03:06 UTC ---
I pinpointed this issue to the bitmaps computed in
df_live_verify_transfer_functions (df-problems.c).
bitmap saved_gen has no bit set while bb_info->gen has bit 16 set
(corresponding
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38479
--- Comment #6 from Ionut Anghelcovici
2011-07-21 08:55:46 UTC ---
The problem only occurs when the argument to a function is a 64 bit type and
gcc tries to store it in r3/stack. This creates a different function prolog
than the usual. The reason
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49801
Summary: df_live_verify_transfer_functions fails with to use of
CC_REGNUM and checking enabled in rx backend
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49049
--- Comment #5 from Matthias Klose 2011-07-21 08:31:56
UTC ---
Created attachment 24801
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24801
preprocessed volume.i source
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49049
Matthias Klose changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||doko at ubuntu dot com
--- Comment #4 fr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49800
Summary: segfault with -fsched-pressure -fdump-rtl-sched1
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: rtl-optimization
As
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47997
--- Comment #20 from Iain Sandoe 2011-07-21 07:54:51
UTC ---
hm .. I think this might be a new (objc). bug, rather than a back-end problem;
since it doesn't show with normal c-strings (even when compiled -x
objective-c).
Will try to take a loo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49799
Summary: gcc arm generates illegal sbfx instruction
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
AssignedTo: unassi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1773
__vic changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||d.v.a at ngs dot ru
--- Comment #80 from __vic 20
95 matches
Mail list logo
