http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49919
Summary: problem with building gcc 4.6.1 on Mac OS X Lion
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
AssignedTo: una
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1773
--- Comment #94 from Marc Glisse 2011-07-30
23:16:55 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #92)
> Created attachment 24874 [details]
> for Solaris 11
If I manually fixinclude the getc problem and the pow declarations, the only
unexpected testsuite failure
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47659
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48876
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49681
Igor Pashev changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pashev.igor at gmail dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48876
--- Comment #5 from Thomas Koenig 2011-07-30
21:33:14 UTC ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Sat Jul 30 21:33:11 2011
New Revision: 176963
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=176963
Log:
2011-07-30 Thomas Koenig
Backport from tr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1773
--- Comment #93 from Paolo Carlini 2011-07-30
21:15:30 UTC ---
If we can converge, with Rainer' help too, to something working at least on
current Solaris (besides Linux), I'm pretty sure we'll be able to deliver it in
4.7.0!
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49918
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1773
--- Comment #92 from Marc Glisse 2011-07-30
21:08:20 UTC ---
Created attachment 24874
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24874
for Solaris 11
Still some bugs. And I didn't include the patch to mangle std::tm/ldiv_t/... as
if they
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1773
--- Comment #91 from Marc Glisse 2011-07-30
21:02:20 UTC ---
solaris also provides the pow(*,int) overloads (see DR550). Should these be
fixincluded out? On the other hand, solaris doesn't provide the cos(int)
overload, so cos(0) fails as ambiguou
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49918
Summary: Spurious -Wconvert warnings when using a BOZ data
statement
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Priority: P3
Componen
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49917
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49917
--- Comment #4 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-07-30 20:29:32 UTC ---
Author: paolo
Date: Sat Jul 30 20:29:29 2011
New Revision: 176962
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=176962
Log:
2011-07-30 Paolo Carlini
PR test
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49917
--- Comment #3 from Marc Glisse 2011-07-30
20:25:19 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> Looks like the test should a dg-do run (not implicitly a dg-do compile!)
Aha! It never crossed my mind...
> then changed to assign if i != 2, right?
I think
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49917
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1773
--- Comment #90 from Marc Glisse 2011-07-30
20:19:42 UTC ---
How does one go about reporting a bug in solaris? In Solaris 11, with
-std=c++** (as opposed to gnu++**), __cplusplus=199711L and without -m64 or
-pthreads, iso/stdio_iso.h doesn't decla
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49917
--- Comment #1 from Paolo Carlini 2011-07-30
20:06:34 UTC ---
Looks like the test should a dg-do run (not implicitly a dg-do compile!) and
then changed to assign if i != 2, right? Then I believe it would work as a
regression test for c++/13865.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49917
Summary: g++.dg/init/for1.C wrong?
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
AssignedTo: unassig...@gcc.gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49916
Summary: matrix-reorg optimization segmentation fault
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
Assig
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49915
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49915
Mikael Pettersson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikpe at it dot uu.se
--- Comment #1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49915
Summary: Function call with 2-D arrays and -O2 (or
strict-aliasing and inlining) gives random results
Product: gcc
Version: 4.1.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49914
--- Comment #1 from Marc Glisse 2011-07-30
18:29:06 UTC ---
Also occurs at gcc/tree-ssa-loop-prefetch.c:797 and in many places in
gcc/tree-ssa-math-opts.c.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48876
--- Comment #4 from Thomas Koenig 2011-07-30
18:17:57 UTC ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Sat Jul 30 18:17:55 2011
New Revision: 176961
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=176961
Log:
2011-07-30 Thomas Koenig
PR fortran/48876
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49914
Summary: call to abs(long long) in gcc/fold-const.c
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: other
AssignedTo: unassig
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49094
--- Comment #14 from Martin Jambor 2011-07-30
17:15:12 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #11)
> tst2.c also fails with an alignment related problem. I'm unsue if this should
> be reported in another bug.
>
It it fails with a current checkout of the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49913
--- Comment #1 from Bake Timmons 2011-07-30
16:50:55 UTC ---
Sorry, forgot command line that led to the ICE: gcc -v -B. -r -nostdlib -c
-Wno-invalid-offsetof -Wall -O2 -fgraphite-identity jsclone.ii
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49912
--- Comment #1 from Bake Timmons 2011-07-30
16:49:14 UTC ---
Sorry, forgot command line that led to the ICE: gcc -v -B. -r -nostdlib -Wall
-O -freorder-blocks-and-partition elf.ii
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49913
Summary: ICE from -O2 -fgraphite-identity :
extract_range_from_binary_expr, at tree-vrp.c:2318
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49912
Summary: ICE from -freorder-blocks-and-partition :
verify_flow_info failed
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
C
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49638
--- Comment #2 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-07-30 16:23:25 UTC ---
Note: In resolve.c there is 'check_typebound_override' which should take care
of these kind of things. It already rejects overriding procedures with
different result types, an
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49638
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49896
--- Comment #6 from Harald van Dijk 2011-07-30
14:59:09 UTC ---
> The initializer results in integer overflow which is undefined behaviour
No, it doesn't result in integer overflow. 0x8000 is a constant of type
unsigned int, which is implici
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49911
Summary: vrp2 + -fstrict-enums incorrectly remove predicate
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49909
--- Comment #8 from Jack Howarth 2011-07-30
14:22:07 UTC ---
Also, while I don't have a Core Solo or Core Duo machine to test this on, I
would expect this issue to exist on other i386-*-* targets. The default build
will create a multilibs for x8
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49909
--- Comment #7 from Jack Howarth 2011-07-30
14:06:08 UTC ---
How would I perform a cross-compilation in this situation? I considered that
option but isn't cross-compilation designed for the situation when neither the
code generated by the base co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49094
--- Comment #13 from Søren Holm 2011-07-30 12:37:41 UTC ---
gcc 4.4.6 generates the following code with the "static" keyword
unsigned int aostk_font_strwidth(const struct aostk_font* font, const char*
str) {
0: e5d02004ldrbr2, [r
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43513
--- Comment #6 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-07-30 12:37:50 UTC ---
Author: vries
Date: Sat Jul 30 12:37:47 2011
New Revision: 176959
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=176959
Log:
2011-07-30 Tom de Vries
PR middle-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49094
--- Comment #12 from Søren Holm 2011-07-30 12:30:25 UTC ---
Oh... I just realized that the failing case does not fail because of the first
ldr-instruction. It fails becasue of something else. Maybe you guys have a
better eye for ARM-assembler to b
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49094
Søren Holm changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sgh at sgh dot dk
--- Comment #11 from Søren
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49094
--- Comment #10 from Søren Holm 2011-07-30 12:10:57 UTC ---
Created attachment 24869
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24869
Another testcase that fails. Even with current 4.6
With "static" on line 33 the code generated is wrong
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49896
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-07-30
12:09:28 UTC ---
The initializer results in integer overflow which is undefined behaviour, so if
G++ accepts it but requires the variable to be defined then that is a
reasonable result.
The modified
Re http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/2011-07/msg02349.html
This mailing list is for automatically generated emails from Bugzilla,
mails sent to it directly may get missed or ignored. You should send
questions about using GCC to the gcc-help list. Bugs should be
reported to Bugzilla, not by email. Y
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49870
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-07-30
11:38:01 UTC ---
See PR 47724
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48876
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49909
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49907
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Keywords|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23621
Andreas Schwab changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Known to work|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49909
--- Comment #5 from Andreas Schwab 2011-07-30 07:51:29
UTC ---
If you want to build x86-64 multilib natively you must use a capable host.
Otherwise force cross compilation.
49 matches
Mail list logo
