http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50081
Bug #: 50081
Summary: Wrong code (wrong order) generated with -O2 or -Os
while function return a struct
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.4.2
Statu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45941
--- Comment #1 from Matt Turner 2011-08-15 04:33:57
UTC ---
Created attachment 25010
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25010
lto-streamer-in.i.bz2
Test case (preprocessed lto-streamer-in.c from gcc-4.5.3 sources).
$ mips64el-u
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50080
Bug #: 50080
Summary: error: 'template' (as a disambiguator) is only allowed
within templates
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.2
Status: UNCONFI
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50065
--- Comment #8 from Zhangxi Tan 2011-08-14
21:00:40 UTC ---
Thanks for the clear explanation.
I agree that a memory barrier would solve this issue.
Regarding the spinlock_unlock in linux, the regular arch_spin_unlock is
implemented with a single
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50079
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|hppa2.0w-hp-hpux11.11 |hppa2.0w-hp-hpux11.11
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50079
--- Comment #1 from John David Anglin 2011-08-14
19:16:06 UTC ---
Breakpoint 1, memcpy (dest=0x40001ab0, src=0x40001ab0, n=81) at
/test/gnu/gcc/gcc/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/init/copy7.C:9
9 if (dest == src)
(gdb) p/x $r26
$1 = 0x40001ab0
(gdb) p
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50079
Bug #: 50079
Summary: [4.7 Regression] FAIL: g++.dg/init/copy7.C execution
test
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50074
--- Comment #5 from Dominique d'Humieres 2011-08-14
17:22:32 UTC ---
> It also failed with -fPIC on Linux/x86-64. It should be disabled
> if PIC is enabled by default.
Well, the test succeeds at revision 176041 and I don't see why it should be
d
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50074
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|tree-optimization |testsuite
--- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu 2011-08-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50074
--- Comment #3 from Dominique d'Humieres 2011-08-14
16:43:22 UTC ---
Created attachment 25009
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25009
failing assembly
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50074
--- Comment #2 from Dominique d'Humieres 2011-08-14
16:42:48 UTC ---
Created attachment 25008
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25008
working assembly
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50074
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hjl at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31316
yashik_poc...@mail.ru changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||yashik_pochty at mail dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50070
--- Comment #7 from Dominique d'Humieres 2011-08-14
13:20:27 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
For the record, F95 and F2003 have a similar constraint, respectively:
Constraint: A common-block-object shall not be a dummy argument, an allocatable
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50070
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50065
--- Comment #7 from Eric Botcazou 2011-08-14
13:00:06 UTC ---
> I don't think this is an valid optimization.
>
> There are only two memory models in SPARC32, TSO and PSO (not RMO in the
> 64-bit
> v9). Both don't allow relaxing the read->write
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50065
--- Comment #6 from Eric Botcazou 2011-08-14
12:42:47 UTC ---
> The code is equivalent to
>
> volatile unsigned char lock;
> int remap_barrier;
>
> while (atomic_test_and_set(lock)) {
>while (lock) {
> ;
>}
> }
> remap_barrier++;
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50012
--- Comment #2 from Mikael Pettersson 2011-08-14
12:25:12 UTC ---
The warning is lost due to this fragment of r148952 (with the rest of r148952
disabled):
--- gcc/cp/typeck.c(revision 148951)
+++ gcc/cp/typeck.c(revision 148952)
@@ -4018
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50070
--- Comment #5 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-08-14 12:07:55 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> ifort rejects the original test case with:
>
> error #6756: A COMMON block data object must not be an automatic object. [Z]
> common n,z
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50070
--- Comment #4 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-08-14 12:02:57 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> The relevant quote from the F08 std is probably:
>
> "C417 (R422) A type-param-value in a char-length shall be a colon, asterisk,
> or
> speciļ¬cat
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50032
--- Comment #5 from Richard Guenther 2011-08-14
09:58:01 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> > if your math library implementation has a slower cosf than cos it's
> > definitely broken ;)
>
> So it is at least for fedora (see
> http://sources.red
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50061
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Target Milestone|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50063
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[avr]: DSE: wrong code for |[4.6/4.7 Regression] DSE:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50066
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50067
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.7.0
Summary|Wrong code wi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50068
--- Comment #3 from Richard Guenther 2011-08-14
09:44:40 UTC ---
last_basic_block should never be 0, it should at least be NUM_FIXED_BLOCKS.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50073
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50074
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.7.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50073
--- Comment #3 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-08-14 09:37:28 UTC ---
Author: janus
Date: Sun Aug 14 09:37:25 2011
New Revision: 177745
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=177745
Log:
2011-08-14 Janus Weil
PR fortran/5
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50078
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50065
--- Comment #5 from Mikael Pettersson 2011-08-14
09:24:31 UTC ---
You need a _compiler_ barrier before the store in _unlock().
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50078
Mikael Pettersson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikpe at it dot uu.se
--- Comment #1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49903
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49903
--- Comment #6 from Georg-Johann Lay 2011-08-14
09:10:20 UTC ---
Author: gjl
Date: Sun Aug 14 09:10:13 2011
New Revision: 177744
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=177744
Log:
* PR target/49903
* config/avr/avr.md (UN
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49992
--- Comment #50 from Iain Sandoe 2011-08-14 08:10:32
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #42)
> I have no clue about what to do for Ada.
Ada is unaffected on i686-darwin9 ...
... it won't bootstrap on powerpc-darwin9 for 4.6 or trunk (investigating)
35 matches
Mail list logo
