http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49813
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #51
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49791
--- Comment #18 from Tobias Burnus 2011-07-28
05:47:39 UTC ---
The issue of the original report (comment 0) is now fixed for GCC 4.4 to the
trunk (4.7): The vendor extension extended array read of normal arrays in
namelists works again.
However,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45586
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45586
--- Comment #61 from Tobias Burnus 2011-07-28
05:40:28 UTC ---
Author: burnus
Date: Thu Jul 28 05:40:21 2011
New Revision: 176858
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=176858
Log:
2011-07-28 Tobias Burnus
PR fortran/4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49791
--- Comment #17 from Tobias Burnus 2011-07-28
05:39:00 UTC ---
Author: burnus
Date: Thu Jul 28 05:38:54 2011
New Revision: 176857
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=176857
Log:
2011-07-28 Tobias Burnus
Backport fro
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47715
--- Comment #14 from H.J. Lu 2011-07-28 02:45:20
UTC ---
TLS on X32 is almost identical to TLS on x86-64. The only
difference is x32 address space is 32bit. That means TLS
symbols can be in either SImode or DImode with upper 32bit
zero.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47715
--- Comment #13 from H.J. Lu 2011-07-28 02:43:35
UTC ---
Another testcase:
[hjl@gnu-6 ilp32-28]$ cat y.i
extern __thread int *foo;
extern void x (void *);
void
bar ()
{
x ((void *) &foo);
}
[hjl@gnu-6 ilp32-28]$ make y.s
/export/build/gnu/gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49879
--- Comment #2 from Arnaud Lacombe 2011-07-28
01:22:25 UTC ---
Created attachment 24852
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24852
non-reduced testcase
command to reproduce the ICE:
% h8300-elf-gcc -O2 -mh -mint32 -g -fomit-frame
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49877
--- Comment #4 from Arnaud Lacombe 2011-07-28
01:06:49 UTC ---
Created attachment 24851
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24851
non-reduced testcase
synaptics.i: command to trigger the ICE:
% h8300-elf-gcc -O2 -mh -mint32 -c -
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49877
--- Comment #3 from Arnaud Lacombe 2011-07-28
01:02:32 UTC ---
Created attachment 24850
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24850
non-reduced testcase
ldr.i: command to trigger the ICE:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49877
--- Comment #2 from Arnaud Lacombe 2011-07-28
01:00:03 UTC ---
Created attachment 24849
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24849
add non-reduced testcase
command to trigger the ICE:
% h8300-elf-gcc -O1 -mh -mint32 -c -o vsprint
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49864
--- Comment #3 from Richard Henderson 2011-07-28
00:06:16 UTC ---
Hum, this patch is too hacky and likely to fail for
other targets for different reasons. We need a more
comprehensive solution.
Consider it withdrawn.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49881
Richard Henderson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47908
--- Comment #6 from Thorsten Glaser 2011-07-27 23:29:13
UTC ---
Mikael, can you please publish your “fully tested patches to fix this for
4.4.5, 4.5.2, and 4.6.0” so we can at least include this in the packages?
If the FSF itself (i.e. gnulib) s
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49813
--- Comment #50 from Kaveh Ghazi 2011-07-27 23:13:18
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #46)
> Another note, about std::nextafter, std::nexttoward, & co: I see mpfr provides
> an mpfr_nexttoward, which likely could be exploited in builtins.c pretty
> e
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49881
--- Comment #1 from Eric Weddington
2011-07-27 23:13:31 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #0)
> Created attachment 24848 [details]
> Hack to set ACCUMULATE_OUTGOING_ARGS
>
> While looking at PR49864 I noticed some awful code.
>
> First, the argument
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49813
--- Comment #49 from Paolo Carlini 2011-07-27
22:56:10 UTC ---
Thanks for your feedback Kaveh. Note, however, that, as I mentioned only today
in Comment #45, with -m32 we have problems also with the overload for double, I
have no idea how to fix
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49881
Summary: [AVR] Inefficient stack manipulation around calls
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assign
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49880
Summary: SuperH: ICE when -m4 is used with -mdiv=call-div1
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
AssignedTo:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45586
--- Comment #60 from Tobias Burnus 2011-07-27
22:33:03 UTC ---
Author: burnus
Date: Wed Jul 27 22:33:00 2011
New Revision: 176852
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=176852
Log:
2011-07-27 Tobias Burnus
PR fortran/4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49813
--- Comment #48 from Kaveh Ghazi 2011-07-27 22:32:57
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #41)
> The testcase in Comment #30 has the types wrong, the below is a corrected
> version (the substance of the issue doesn't change at all). I'm also thinking
> o
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49864
--- Comment #2 from Richard Henderson 2011-07-27
22:17:47 UTC ---
Created attachment 24847
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24847
proposed patch
This appears to fix the problem for this testcase.
Please run through a complete
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49112
--- Comment #18 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-07-27 21:56:36 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #17)
> Janus, this regression (comment 6 remains to be done) is assigned to you. Are
> you still working on it?
Well, at least it's on my (unfortunately
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49791
--- Comment #16 from Tobias Burnus 2011-07-27
21:35:15 UTC ---
Author: burnus
Date: Wed Jul 27 21:35:08 2011
New Revision: 176850
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=176850
Log:
2011-07-27 Tobias Burnus
Backport fro
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49112
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #17
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49875
--- Comment #2 from Aldy Hernandez 2011-07-27
19:51:09 UTC ---
Author: aldyh
Date: Wed Jul 27 19:51:04 2011
New Revision: 176848
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=176848
Log:
PR middle-end/49875
* c-c++-common/
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20072
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49813
--- Comment #47 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-07-27 19:33:55 UTC ---
Author: paolo
Date: Wed Jul 27 19:33:51 2011
New Revision: 176847
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=176847
Log:
2011-07-27 Paolo Carlini
PR c++
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49866
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49875
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49878
--- Comment #1 from Arnaud Lacombe 2011-07-27
18:51:21 UTC ---
Created attachment 24846
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24846
reduced testcase.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49876
--- Comment #2 from Sebastian Pop 2011-07-27 18:50:32
UTC ---
Patch:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-07/msg02453.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49879
--- Comment #1 from Arnaud Lacombe 2011-07-27
18:47:41 UTC ---
testcase to come
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49879
Summary: [h8300] ICE in maybe_record_trace_start, at
dwarf2cfi.c:2439
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compon
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49877
--- Comment #1 from Arnaud Lacombe 2011-07-27
18:45:26 UTC ---
also triggering:
/src/linux/linux/drivers/input/mouse/synaptics.c:679:1: error: insn does not
satisfy its constraints:
(insn 274 1532 1533 23 (set (mem/c:QI (plus:SI (reg/f:SI 7 sp)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49878
Summary: [h8300] ICE in based_loc_descr, at dwarf2out.c:10478
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
AssignedTo: u
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49877
Summary: [h8300] ICE in in reload_cse_simplify_operands: insn
does not satisfy its constraints
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49876
Sebastian Pop changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46194
Sebastian Pop changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49876
Summary: [4.7 Regression] FAIL: gfortran.dg/graphite/pr43097.f
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
Ass
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49866
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-07-27
18:19:44 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Jul 27 18:19:40 2011
New Revision: 176842
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=176842
Log:
PR target/49866
* gcc.target/i386/pr49866.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49866
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-07-27
18:17:20 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Jul 27 18:17:15 2011
New Revision: 176841
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=176841
Log:
PR target/49866
* config/i386/i386.md (*cal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47594
Sebastian Pop changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47092
Sebastian Pop changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=7263
--- Comment #39 from Dodji Seketeli 2011-07-27
18:12:44 UTC ---
Just so that I don't forget the link, a second version of the patch set for
this was submitted for review to
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-07/msg01316.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47594
Sebastian Pop changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zsojka at seznam dot cz
--- Comment #7 fr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33255
Dodji Seketeli changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #24833|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49547
Yukhin Kirill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49547
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49547
Yukhin Kirill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49875
Summary: FAIL: c-c++-common/cxxbitfields-4.c
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
AssignedTo: unassig..
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49874
--- Comment #2 from Arnaud Lacombe 2011-07-27
17:48:53 UTC ---
as is version 4.7.0 20110609 (experimental)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49874
--- Comment #1 from Arnaud Lacombe 2011-07-27
17:46:18 UTC ---
gcc version 4.6.2 20110726 (prerelease) (GCC) is affected too.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49791
--- Comment #15 from Tobias Burnus 2011-07-27
17:45:10 UTC ---
Author: burnus
Date: Wed Jul 27 17:45:01 2011
New Revision: 176839
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=176839
Log:
2011-07-27 Tobias Burnus
Backport fro
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47958
Uros Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||49860
--- Comment #3 from Uros Bizjak 2011
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49755
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49865
--- Comment #2 from sgunderson at bigfoot dot com 2011-07-27 17:28:19 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> Actually, thinking about it, the most efficient code sequence would be just
> giving 4100 to memset instead of 4096, but that's for an enhancem
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49874
Summary: [h8300] ICE in
compute_frame_pointer_to_fb_displacement, at
dwarf2out.c:16312
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.5
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49871
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47372
Uros Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x32
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49844
--- Comment #3 from PcX 2011-07-27 17:22:39 UTC
---
I found that if I add the option "-flto-partition=none", the problem will
disappear.
As is :
-
g++.exe -shared
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49813
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ghazi at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #46
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49873
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski 2011-07-27
17:00:06 UTC ---
I think this code is undefined because you are subtracting two "arrays" which
produces an undefined result in C.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49471
Sebastian Pop changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49873
Summary: Optimizer regression
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
AssignedTo: unassig...@gcc.gn
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45450
--- Comment #2 from Sebastian Pop 2011-07-27 16:53:06
UTC ---
Author: spop
Date: Wed Jul 27 16:53:02 2011
New Revision: 176837
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=176837
Log:
PR45450: disable legality check after an openscop re
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47691
Sebastian Pop changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49471
--- Comment #7 from Sebastian Pop 2011-07-27 16:53:15
UTC ---
Author: spop
Date: Wed Jul 27 16:53:09 2011
New Revision: 176838
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=176838
Log:
Fix PR49471: canonicalize_loop_ivs should not genera
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47691
--- Comment #5 from Sebastian Pop 2011-07-27 16:52:58
UTC ---
Author: spop
Date: Wed Jul 27 16:52:52 2011
New Revision: 176836
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=176836
Log:
Fix PR47691: do not abort compilation when code gene
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49872
Summary: Missed optimization: Could coalesce neighboring
memsets
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Compon
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49813
--- Comment #45 from Paolo Carlini 2011-07-27
16:48:55 UTC ---
I have just noticed that with -m32 the isinf overloads for float and double are
also affected, that is:
constexpr bool
isinf(float __x)
{ return __builtin_isinf(__x); }
constexpr bo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49864
Richard Henderson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49313
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
On Wed, 2011-07-27 07:46:55 -0700, XS8J9 wrote:
> code that used to compile under gcc 4.1.2 now won't compile under gcc 4.4.5
>
> I am getting errors such as:
>
> error: 'timeval' does not name a type
> error: '::exit' has not been declared
> error: 'atof' was not declared in this scope
>
> has
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48789
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comm
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49313
--- Comment #5 from Georg-Johann Lay 2011-07-27
16:39:18 UTC ---
Author: gjl
Date: Wed Jul 27 16:39:13 2011
New Revision: 176835
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=176835
Log:
PR target/49313
* config/avr/libgcc.S (__
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49871
Summary: -gdwarf-3 creates invalid DWARF3 with
DW_AT_data_member_location attribute
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: wrong-debug
Severity:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47407
--- Comment #3 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-07-27 16:24:19 UTC ---
> --- Comment #2 from Martin Jambor 2011-07-27
> 14:18:12 UTC ---
> Like for many other targets that skip this test, the value of
> MOVE_RATIO of the target can s
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49860
--- Comment #9 from H.J. Lu 2011-07-27 16:16:54
UTC ---
Let's punt it for now. We will investigate it later.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49860
--- Comment #8 from H.J. Lu 2011-07-27 16:14:39
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> (In reply to comment #6)
>
> > > > This testcase is about valid address for x86_64_immediate_operand
> > > > and x86_64_zext_immediate_operand. If it is valid fo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49870
Summary: regex_match vs. "^"
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
AssignedTo: unassig...@gcc.gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49860
--- Comment #7 from Uros Bizjak 2011-07-27 16:04:47
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> > > This testcase is about valid address for x86_64_immediate_operand
> > > and x86_64_zext_immediate_operand. If it is valid for TARGET_32BIT,
> > > it shou
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49860
--- Comment #6 from H.J. Lu 2011-07-27 15:42:37
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> (In reply to comment #4)
>
> > > Can you prevent x32 to generate DImode symbols? No, since Pmode is still
> > > in
> > > DImode and DImode addresses are *valid*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49860
--- Comment #5 from Uros Bizjak 2011-07-27 15:10:13
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> > Can you prevent x32 to generate DImode symbols? No, since Pmode is still in
> > DImode and DImode addresses are *valid* addresses. For the testcase from PR,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48802
Marc Glisse changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
code that used to compile under gcc 4.1.2 now won't compile under gcc 4.4.5
I am getting errors such as:
error: 'timeval' does not name a type
error: '::exit' has not been declared
error: 'atof' was not declared in this scope
has anyone experienced this before?
thanks
Chris
--
View this messa
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49820
--- Comment #15 from Agner Fog 2011-07-27 14:27:33 UTC
---
How do you define "clever things"? Checking that a variable is within the
allowed range is certainly a standard thing that every SW teacher tells you to
do. I think it is reasonable to ex
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49869
Summary: Excessive loop versioning done by vectorization +
predictive commoning
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
Sever
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47407
--- Comment #2 from Martin Jambor 2011-07-27
14:18:12 UTC ---
Like for many other targets that skip this test, the value of
MOVE_RATIO of the target can simply be too small for SRA to consider
total scalarization profitable.
With the current tru
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49597
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49597
--- Comment #4 from david.sagan at gmail dot com 2011-07-27 13:43:18 UTC ---
Yes a later version does not show the bug. Much thanks.
-- David
(In reply to comment #3)
> (In reply to comment #2)
> > I will tke this one.
>
> Jerry: Judging from c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49867
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-07-27
13:03:35 UTC ---
void
foo ()
{
switch (3)
{
struct S
{
void bar ()
{
case 3: break;
}
};
}
}
doesn't ICE, but is accepted while IMHO it sh
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49860
--- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu 2011-07-27 12:56:01
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> (In reply to comment #2)
>
> > > Assembler should accept R_X86_64_64 and zero-extend it to 8 bytes. It is
> > > the
> > > same issue as [1].
> > >
> > > [1] htt
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49866
--- Comment #5 from Uros Bizjak 2011-07-27 12:55:40
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> Created attachment 24842 [details]
> gcc46-pr49866.patch
>
> Well, you are the i386 maintainer, not me.
> Anyway, if you don't disagree here is what I'd try t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49866
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49860
Uros Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3 from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49868
Summary: Implement named address space to place/access data in
flash memory
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49860
--- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu 2011-07-27 12:39:39
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> Assembler should accept R_X86_64_64 and zero-extend it to 8 bytes. It is the
> same issue as [1].
>
> [1] http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-07/msg01825.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18437
--- Comment #5 from Richard Guenther 2011-07-27
12:38:20 UTC ---
The initial testcase is probably a bad example (3x3 matrix). The following
testcase is borrowed from Polyhedron rnflow and is vectorized by ICC but
not by GCC (the ICC variant is 1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49867
Summary: [C++0x] ICE on lambda inside switch with case labels
in the lambda
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
1 - 100 of 120 matches
Mail list logo
