http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50788
Bug #: 50788
Summary: [4.7 Regression] ICE: in merge_overlapping_regs, at
regrename.c:318 with -mavx -fpeel-loops
-fstack-protector-all and __builtin_ia32_maskloadpd256
Classificat
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50787
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50787
Bug #: 50787
Summary: [4.6 Regression] reference fails to bind directly to
variable
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50786
Bug #: 50786
Summary: temporary files not cleaned up on LTO errors
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prior
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50531
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39777
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|gcc-bugs at g
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48087
--- Comment #12 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2011-10-19
01:44:12 UTC ---
I think the problem is the seen_error() test in gimple_push_cleanup. I am
guessing that it does some kind of "folding" that is skipped when an error has
been issued. There are t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50785
--- Comment #1 from Paolo Carlini 2011-10-19
01:34:50 UTC ---
What happens if you add a definition: constexpr double test::value; after your
struct like you would for any non-constrexpr static data member?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50785
Bug #: 50785
Summary: [C++0x][constexpr] static constexpr double undefined
reference
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
in the range of [0,
4294967295]
GNU C++ (GCC) version 4.7.0 20111018 (experimental) (i686-pc-cygwin)
compiled by GNU C version 4.7.0 20111014 (experimental), GMP version
5.0.2, MPFR version 3.2.0-dev, MPC version 0.9
GGC heuristics: --param ggc-min-expand=30 --param ggc-min-heaps
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41103
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu.org |
Known to fail|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39409
--- Comment #3 from Paolo Carlini 2011-10-19
00:14:07 UTC ---
David, any take on this one? Thanks in advance.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38761
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jsm28 at gcc dot gnu.org,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40831
--- Comment #17 from Andrew Pinski 2011-10-19
00:01:54 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #13)
> It would be nice to fix it in binutils and in gdb as well.
libiberty should be merged automatically ...
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40831
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||andi-gcc at firstfloor dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50783
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50749
--- Comment #3 from Oleg Endo 2011-10-19 00:00:01 UTC
---
Kaz,
do you happen to know why the following is defined in sh.h?
#define USE_LOAD_POST_INCREMENT(mode)((mode == SImode || mode == DImode) \
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50783
Bug #: 50783
Summary: builtin c++ demanger does not handle clones
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priori
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50782
--- Comment #3 from Ethan Tira-Thompson 2011-10-18
23:55:47 UTC ---
I figured out what I did differently, I did some 'minor cleanup' and moved n
out of the function scope. This actually changes the optimization results.
This is just for referen
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48087
--- Comment #11 from Paolo Carlini 2011-10-18
23:42:43 UTC ---
Manuel, we need you help for some of these nasty diagnostic issues.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50746
--- Comment #9 from Iain Sandoe 2011-10-18 23:05:06
UTC ---
pr37482 and vect114 seem OK now on powerpc-darwin9 (we have had bootstrap
problems - which are not cleared yet for some languages).
We also now have a large number of struct-layout-1, v
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50694
--- Comment #6 from Kazumoto Kojima 2011-10-18
22:50:19 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> I'll send in a patch with a couple of other cosmetic changes later, OK?
Please go for it.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50694
--- Comment #5 from Oleg Endo 2011-10-18 22:37:13 UTC
---
(In reply to comment #4)
> There are no real uses of SH1/SH2/SH2E/SH3E cores anymore, I think.
True. But the SH7020 (SH1) is still listed on digikey for an amazing
collector's price ;)
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50743
Mikael Pettersson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50694
--- Comment #4 from Kazumoto Kojima 2011-10-18
22:24:32 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
There are no real uses of SH1/SH2/SH2E/SH3E cores anymore, I think.
I agree that taking care of -m2e is not worth. Perhaps same for
-m1. Anyway, your chang
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50770
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50754
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50694
--- Comment #3 from Oleg Endo 2011-10-18 21:33:06 UTC
---
(In reply to comment #2)
> Ah. One liner
>
> -#define DRIVER_SELF_SPECS "%{m2a:%{ml:%eSH2a does not support
> little-endian}}"
> +#define DRIVER_SELF_SPECS "%{m2a*:%{ml:%eSH2a does not
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50782
--- Comment #2 from Ethan Tira-Thompson 2011-10-18
21:28:42 UTC ---
Argh, sorry for the spastic updates, but I checked again and I definitely have
these lines in my console history:
$ g++ test.cc -o test -Wall -g -O3 && ./test
100
111
But now I'
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50782
--- Comment #1 from Ethan Tira-Thompson 2011-10-18
21:16:23 UTC ---
I'm sorry, apparently I messed something up in my testing.
The output of -O3 is actually:
000
111
The output of -O0 is:
100
111
So the optimize attribute is being applied afte
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50724
--- Comment #35 from Ethan Tira-Thompson 2011-10-18
21:09:07 UTC ---
Thanks all for the info!
I should have realized there was literally an attribute/pragma called
'optimize' (duh), and it's already in the docs... for some reason I had gotten
th
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50777
--- Comment #3 from Ian Lance Taylor 2011-10-18 21:07:12
UTC ---
I would advise handling madvise in the same way that we handle AM_ICONV in
gcc/configure.ac, to work around a similar issue.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50782
Bug #: 50782
Summary: optimize pragma not applying fast-math
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50760
Dodji Seketeli changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48087
--- Comment #10 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2011-10-18
20:22:52 UTC ---
The gimple generated with -Wreturn-type and with -Werror=return-type is even
different. At least at revision 164549.
*** pr48087.cc.004t.gimple-Wreturn-type 2011-10-18 22:17:16
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50678
--- Comment #51 from Eric Botcazou 2011-10-18
20:04:38 UTC ---
> 2. if the vendor decides to 'fix' libunwind .. we won't detect this ...
> (although I still think this idea is worth pursuing, on the grounds that 'no
> fix' or a fix to Libc are m
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50717
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Stubbs 2011-10-18 19:57:19
UTC ---
Author: ams
Date: Tue Oct 18 19:57:15 2011
New Revision: 180164
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=180164
Log:
2011-10-18 Andrew Stubbs
PR tree-optimization
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50781
Bug #: 50781
Summary: ICE: in expand_vec_perm_broadcast_1, at
config/i386/i386.c:35998 with -mavx and
__builtin_shuffle()
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50754
--- Comment #6 from Dominique d'Humieres 2011-10-18
19:43:39 UTC ---
> does solve the problem.
Oops!-( I ment "does not solve the problem": when the fingers don't follow the
brain;-).
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50780
Bug #: 50780
Summary: [4.7 Regression] ICE: verify_gimple failed: invalid
operands in ternary operation with -ftree-vectorize
-fnon-call-exceptions
Classification: Unclassified
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50531
--- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill 2011-10-18
19:36:34 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Tue Oct 18 19:36:29 2011
New Revision: 180163
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=180163
Log:
PR c++/50531
* pt.c (instantiate_decl): Rec
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50531
--- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill 2011-10-18
19:36:34 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Tue Oct 18 19:36:29 2011
New Revision: 180163
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=180163
Log:
PR c++/50531
* pt.c (instantiate_decl): Rec
|
--- Comment #5 from Joost VandeVondele
2011-10-18 19:22:04 UTC ---
No, not quite. With the original commandline I still see a failure here for
gcc version 4.7.0 20111018 (experimental) [trunk revision 180161] (GCC)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50678
--- Comment #50 from Iain Sandoe 2011-10-18 19:18:38
UTC ---
well I've hit a few issues.
1. _Unwind_Find_FDE is not part of the public interface (nor are the types it
needs).
2. if the vendor decides to 'fix' libunwind .. we won't detect this ..
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50754
Joost VandeVondele changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50778
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50779
--- Comment #1 from Ruben Van Boxem
2011-10-18 18:43:39 UTC ---
Created attachment 25547
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25547
Compile with "g++ -O[012] -c profileparser.ii" to trigger the error
(preprocessed with x86_64-w64-m
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50779
Bug #: 50779
Summary: always_inline function fails to inline
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50771
--- Comment #2 from CM 2011-10-18 18:20:18 UTC
---
It is RedHat Linux 64bit, platform x86_64:
emdhouapd07 (energy2) hoops: uname -a
Linux emdhouapd07 2.6.18-238.9.1.el5 #1 SMP Fri Mar 18 12:42:39 EDT 2011 x86_64
x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux
> Becau
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50742
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50500
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50500
--- Comment #1 from Jason Merrill 2011-10-18
17:39:26 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Tue Oct 18 17:39:15 2011
New Revision: 180159
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=180159
Log:
PR c++/50500
DR 1082
* class.c (type_ha
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50742
--- Comment #3 from Jason Merrill 2011-10-18
17:39:39 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Tue Oct 18 17:39:31 2011
New Revision: 180160
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=180160
Log:
PR c++/50742
* decl.c (check_previous_goto_
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50737
Uros Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|dwarf2 EH targets |alphaev68-pc-linux-gnu
|(
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50737
--- Comment #16 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-18 17:30:27 UTC ---
Author: uros
Date: Tue Oct 18 17:30:12 2011
New Revision: 180158
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=180158
Log:
gcc/ChangeLog:
2011-10-18 Uros Bizjak
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50678
--- Comment #49 from Iain Sandoe 2011-10-18 17:26:28
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #48)
> I have one question: how this unwinder problem relates to the other ones
> reported in bugzilla?
To the bugs I am aware of, totally unrelated ...
This pro
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50737
--- Comment #15 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-18 17:26:42 UTC ---
Author: uros
Date: Tue Oct 18 17:26:32 2011
New Revision: 180157
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=180157
Log:
gcc/ChangeLog:
2011-10-18 Uros Bizjak
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50769
--- Comment #3 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-18 17:16:15 UTC ---
Created attachment 25546
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25546
update patch
currently testing on x86_64.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50763
--- Comment #5 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-18 17:14:28 UTC ---
Created attachment 25545
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25545
updated patch
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50678
--- Comment #48 from Dominique d'Humieres
2011-10-18 17:06:44 UTC ---
I have bootstrapped gcc on x86_64-apple-darwin10 at revision 180138 with the
patch at http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-10/msg01617.html. All the Ada
tests pass with it.
T
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50778
Bug #: 50778
Summary: [4.7 Regression] Bootstrap failure on
powerpc-apple-darwin9
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47485
nightstrike changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nightstrike at gmail dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50678
--- Comment #47 from Iain Sandoe 2011-10-18 16:22:10
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #46)
> > that seems reasonable if the result can be cached - otherwise it's
> > potentially
> > a big hit.
>
> We don't really care about performances here: a sig
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50678
--- Comment #46 from Eric Botcazou 2011-10-18
16:03:20 UTC ---
> that seems reasonable if the result can be cached - otherwise it's potentially
> a big hit.
We don't really care about performances here: a signal has been raised and
we're about t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50777
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48087
--- Comment #8 from Paolo Carlini 2011-10-18
16:02:26 UTC ---
Thanks Manuel: if I understand correctly, this way we could not only avoid the
regression but even do better than 4.4, and again, the fix could be very simple
(is only hiding itself ve
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48087
--- Comment #9 from Paolo Carlini 2011-10-18
16:08:02 UTC ---
Note however that the bug I closed as duplicate of this one shows that in some
cases the problem manifests itself as *bogus* warning.. But I'm pretty sure the
issue ultimately is one
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50776
Nadav Har'El changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48087
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50686
--- Comment #17 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-10-18 15:37:49 UTC ---
> --- Comment #16 from Bernd Schmidt 2011-10-17
> 17:37:11 UTC ---
> Sorry, I was being imprecise - only the instances where we generate notes 374
> and 375 are
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50420
Mikael Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50735
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-10-18
15:33:16 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Oct 18 15:33:12 2011
New Revision: 180154
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=180154
Log:
PR tree-optimization/50735
* function.c (gi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50678
--- Comment #45 from Iain Sandoe 2011-10-18 15:32:33
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #44)
> > I think we'll need to apply the patch in the short/medium term and then
> > figure
> > out how to control it - which will depend on which system(s) a fix
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50777
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-10-18
15:26:08 UTC ---
My guess would not be a missing header, but missing feature test macro
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50420
--- Comment #12 from Mikael Morin 2011-10-18
15:23:10 UTC ---
Author: mikael
Date: Tue Oct 18 15:23:04 2011
New Revision: 180153
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=180153
Log:
PR fortran/50420
* gfortran.dg/coarray_sub
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50678
--- Comment #44 from Eric Botcazou 2011-10-18
15:22:14 UTC ---
> Created attachment 25540 [details]
> demonstration of the fault using c++/vendor's tools
>
> after Eric solved my inverted-logic thinko ...
> .. I reproduced using g++-4.2
> bug f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50420
--- Comment #11 from Mikael Morin 2011-10-18
15:17:34 UTC ---
Author: mikael
Date: Tue Oct 18 15:17:29 2011
New Revision: 180152
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=180152
Log:
PR fortran/50420
* trans.c (gfc_build_arra
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50777
Bug #: 50777
Summary: [4.7 regression] bootstrap fails on Solaris 10
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
Prio
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50420
--- Comment #10 from Mikael Morin 2011-10-18
15:13:58 UTC ---
Author: mikael
Date: Tue Oct 18 15:13:45 2011
New Revision: 180151
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=180151
Log:
PR fortran/50420
* trans-types.c (gfc_buil
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21659
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50420
--- Comment #9 from Mikael Morin 2011-10-18
15:11:27 UTC ---
Author: mikael
Date: Tue Oct 18 15:11:21 2011
New Revision: 180150
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=180150
Log:
PR fortran/50420
* simplify.c (simplify_cob
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44236
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50759
Joseph S. Myers changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dodji at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50420
--- Comment #8 from Mikael Morin 2011-10-18
15:05:34 UTC ---
Author: mikael
Date: Tue Oct 18 15:05:30 2011
New Revision: 180148
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=180148
Log:
PR fortran/50420
* check.c (dim_corank_chec
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50420
--- Comment #7 from Mikael Morin 2011-10-18
15:02:46 UTC ---
Author: mikael
Date: Tue Oct 18 15:02:38 2011
New Revision: 180147
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=180147
Log:
PR fortran/50420
* trans-intrinsic.c (walk_
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50420
--- Comment #6 from Mikael Morin 2011-10-18
14:59:11 UTC ---
Author: mikael
Date: Tue Oct 18 14:59:07 2011
New Revision: 180146
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=180146
Log:
PR fortran/50420
* trans-intrinsic.c (walk_
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50106
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50420
--- Comment #5 from Mikael Morin 2011-10-18
14:55:54 UTC ---
Author: mikael
Date: Tue Oct 18 14:55:48 2011
New Revision: 180145
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=180145
Log:
PR fortran/50420
* trans-array.c (gfc_walk_
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50773
--- Comment #4 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2011-10-18 14:49:28 UTC ---
On Tue, 18 Oct 2011, rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> Needs -fexcess-precision=standard -m32 to trigger. libcpp does the
> parsing of FP constants IIRC, and the C+
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50420
--- Comment #4 from Mikael Morin 2011-10-18
14:45:49 UTC ---
Author: mikael
Date: Tue Oct 18 14:45:46 2011
New Revision: 180143
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=180143
Log:
PR fortran/50420
* trans-array.c (gfc_conv_
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50420
--- Comment #3 from Mikael Morin 2011-10-18
14:42:24 UTC ---
Author: mikael
Date: Tue Oct 18 14:42:21 2011
New Revision: 180142
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=180142
Log:
PR fortran/50420
* trans-array.c (gfc_conv_
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50769
--- Comment #2 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-18 14:32:11 UTC ---
Created attachment 25544
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25544
tentative patch
This PR is similar to PR50672.
We discover that blocks 6 and 7 are equal a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45690
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50719
--- Comment #3 from Sean McGovern 2011-10-18
14:25:20 UTC ---
Have not been successful building trunk on i386-pc-solaris2.10 yet. Will answer
these questions when I have a working build again.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50106
--- Comment #6 from Sebastian Huber
2011-10-18 14:19:55 UTC ---
Created attachment 25543
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25543
arm-eabi-g++ -march=armv5t -mthumb -Os -S compiler1.test.ii -o
compiler1.test.eabi.GCC-4.5.4.Os.s
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50776
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-10-18
14:18:49 UTC ---
I can't reproduce this with any version.
What platform are you using? (You failed to provide that, as requested by the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs/ page)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50769
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50776
Bug #: 50776
Summary: unused object optimized out, despite having
constructor
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
S
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50552
--- Comment #3 from Vittorio Zecca 2011-10-18
13:55:31 UTC ---
I am traveling in Korea, and I cannot look at the standard now.
If you believe this is a non-issue then please close it.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47023
--- Comment #23 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-18 13:45:32 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #22)
> (In reply to comment #21)
> > The question is also how SIZEOF should act on data pointers:
> > Should it give the size of the pointer itself, or t
1 - 100 of 161 matches
Mail list logo
