http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35367
--- Comment #3 from Serge Belyshev
2011-10-29 06:55:58 UTC ---
Created attachment 25657
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25657
taken from debian's config-ml.diff
Similar bug in libffi (misdetection of target when using --enabl
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50521
--- Comment #13 from Tomohiro Kashiwada 2011-10-29
06:50:11 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #12)
> Regarding the double load. In a statement like a = b, both a & be should be
> individually accessed even if they refer to the same storage. So
> bit
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50909
Bug #: 50909
Summary: Process "#pragma options align=reset" correctly on Mac
OS X
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31247
--- Comment #14 from sylvain.pion at sophia dot inria.fr 2011-10-29 04:22:49
UTC ---
(@Paolo : I still receive email at my old address, so far)
I don't have a strong opinion on this. It's certainly nice to have a strongly
compliant mode to make
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50708
--- Comment #2 from Ryan Mansfield 2011-10-29
01:16:37 UTC ---
My large testcase reduced to:
void
foo ()
{
unsigned int a = 1 << 0x8000;
}
with: ../gcc/configure --prefix=/usr/lsd/Linux --verbose
--with-mpc=/usr/lsd/Linux --with-mpfr=/usr/lsd/Linux --with-gmp=/usr/lsd/Linux
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.7.0 20111028 (experimental) (GCC)
System is: Ubuntu 10.04, x86_64
Failing command:
gcc -save-temps -c -D_BSD_SOURCE -DXASSE
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50864
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
AssignedTo|paolo.carlini at o
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50864
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[4.6 Regression] ICE with |[4.6/4.7 Regression] ICE
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50901
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50900
--- Comment #11 from karl at freefriends dot org 2011-10-28 23:25:25 UTC ---
By "the Texinfo for lgpl 2.1" I mean the Texinfo source document for
LGPLv2.1. To be even more specific, what's needed is to replace
copying-lib.texi with the contents of
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50870
--- Comment #8 from Paolo Carlini 2011-10-28
23:23:43 UTC ---
Thanks HJ.
Dodji, I tried to help a bit with these issues and made some progress, thanks
to Jason's help, of course. But this remaining issue is probably too hard to
debug for me, giv
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50900
--- Comment #10 from Steve Kargl
2011-10-28 23:18:46 UTC ---
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 10:53:26PM +, karl at freefriends dot org wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50900
>
> --- Comment #9 from karl at freefriends dot org 201
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50907
Bug #: 50907
Summary: [4.7 Regression] EDGE_CROSSING incorrectly set across
same section with -freorder-blocks-and-partition -fPIC
-fprofile-use
Classification: Unclassified
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50900
--- Comment #9 from karl at freefriends dot org 2011-10-28 22:53:26 UTC ---
I was completely specific. I am talking about fixing copying-lib.texi. I gave
a url to the current canonical version for that document.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50900
--- Comment #8 from Steve Kargl
2011-10-28 22:50:49 UTC ---
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 10:19:02PM +, karl at freefriends dot org wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50900
>
> karl at freefriends dot org changed:
>
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50900
karl at freefriends dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||karl at freefriends dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50880
--- Comment #10 from Paolo Carlini 2011-10-28
22:09:57 UTC ---
Richard, I have no problems with BC2. This is code I wrote rather quickly a few
years ago, adapting it from glibc, essentially, and then each year that went
by, fewer and fewer system
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50880
--- Comment #9 from Richard B. Kreckel 2011-10-28
21:54:07 UTC ---
Created attachment 25654
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25654
BC2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50880
--- Comment #8 from Richard B. Kreckel 2011-10-28
21:53:30 UTC ---
Created attachment 25653
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25653
BC1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50880
--- Comment #7 from Richard B. Kreckel 2011-10-28
21:52:08 UTC ---
> As soon as I find a bit of
> time, we can also *consistently over all those cases* use __builtin_signbit,
> as
> suggested by Gaby elsewhere. I have to double check with the mi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50816
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-debug
Known to work|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50891
--- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu 2011-10-28 21:20:09
UTC ---
We have
(set (reg:DI 2) (mem))
...
(set (reg:HI 2) (const_int))
...
(set (reg:SI 2) (const_int))
Since we don't if know
(set (reg:HI 2) (const_int))
will update the whole register, move2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50900
--- Comment #6 from Steve Kargl
2011-10-28 20:34:17 UTC ---
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 08:15:34PM +, sch...@linux-m68k.org wrote:
> 2011-02-14 Karl Berry
>
> * doc/texinfo.tex (\sectionheading): check that we are not in an
> environm
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50906
--- Comment #3 from Kyle Moffett 2011-10-28
20:32:18 UTC ---
Created attachment 25652
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25652
Assembled unwindtestfunc.cc (with -Os)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50906
--- Comment #2 from Kyle Moffett 2011-10-28
20:31:54 UTC ---
Created attachment 25651
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25651
Assembled unwindtestfunc.cc (with -O2)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50906
--- Comment #1 from Kyle Moffett 2011-10-28
20:29:53 UTC ---
Created attachment 25650
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25650
Test case, part 2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50906
Bug #: 50906
Summary: e500 exception unwinding under "-Os" causes SIGSEGV
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50903
--- Comment #4 from Jack Howarth 2011-10-28
20:19:40 UTC ---
Also be aware of http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=9571. The Xcode 4.x
llvm-gcc still suffers from this bug (although it is fixed in llvm.org's
llvm-gcc 2.9 release) and can't bootst
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50900
Andreas Schwab changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||karl at gnu dot org
--- Comment #5 from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50905
--- Comment #4 from xunxun 2011-10-28 20:14:38
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> Yes if you mean without -O1/-O2/-O3 -ftree-parallelize-loops does not work,
> this is expected as explained in the manual, -O1 enables more than the options
> that
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50903
Jack Howarth changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||howarth at nitro dot
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50905
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50905
xunxun changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
Resolution|INVALID
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50905
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50870
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dodji at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #7 from H.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50905
Bug #: 50905
Summary: Gcc4.6.x's -ftree-parallelize-loops is effective only
when using "-O2/-O3 -ffast-math"
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50904
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50900
--- Comment #4 from Steve Kargl
2011-10-28 19:02:20 UTC ---
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 06:33:57PM +, sch...@linux-m68k.org wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50900
>
> --- Comment #3 from Andreas Schwab 2011-10-28
> 18:33:57
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50864
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[4.6/4.7 Regression] ICE|[4.6 Regression] ICE with
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50864
--- Comment #12 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-10-28 18:40:29 UTC ---
Author: paolo
Date: Fri Oct 28 18:40:22 2011
New Revision: 180623
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=180623
Log:
/cp
2011-10-28 Paolo Carlini
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50900
--- Comment #3 from Andreas Schwab 2011-10-28 18:33:57
UTC ---
That's not the one being used.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50903
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50900
--- Comment #2 from Steve Kargl
2011-10-28 18:22:43 UTC ---
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 05:28:54PM +, sch...@linux-m68k.org wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50900
>
> --- Comment #1 from Andreas Schwab 2011-10-28
> 17:28:54
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49313
--- Comment #11 from Georg-Johann Lay 2011-10-28
17:48:04 UTC ---
Author: gjl
Date: Fri Oct 28 17:47:56 2011
New Revision: 180620
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=180620
Log:
PR target/49313
* config/avr/avr.md (pari
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50521
--- Comment #12 from Henrik Nordström
2011-10-28 17:46:15 UTC ---
Regarding the double load. In a statement like a = b, both a & be should be
individually accessed even if they refer to the same storage. So
bitfield.bits.a = bitfield.bits.c sho
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50902
--- Comment #5 from Jack Howarth 2011-10-28
17:35:50 UTC ---
The attached MarvinNOEPotential.ii preprocessed source is another instance of
this bug in the xplor-nih 2.27 build...
g++-fsf-4.7 -c MarvinNOEPotential.ii -O2 -ftree-vectorize -fpermis
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50902
--- Comment #4 from Jack Howarth 2011-10-28
17:34:30 UTC ---
Created attachment 25647
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25647
preprocessed source for marvin/MarvinNOEPotential.cc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50900
--- Comment #1 from Andreas Schwab 2011-10-28 17:28:54
UTC ---
What's the version of your texinfo.tex? I get no such error with version
2010-06-17.11.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49363
--- Comment #10 from Sriraman Tallam 2011-10-28
17:28:23 UTC ---
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 7:00 AM, vincenzo.innocente at cern dot ch
wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49363
>
> --- Comment #9 from vincenzo Innocente
> 2011-10
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50904
Bug #: 50904
Summary: Induct benchmark of polyhedron slows down when
-fno-protect-parens is enabled by -Ofast.
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49316
--- Comment #7 from Graham Reed 2011-10-28 17:17:54
UTC ---
I've now gotten the trunk (SVN 180430) built on AIX 5.3 TL4; the problem is the
same as 4.6.1 and is also "solved" with the same patch.
So this is definitely not target-specific, it see
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50903
--- Comment #1 from Hadjidakis 2011-10-28
17:13:38 UTC ---
Created attachment 25646
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25646
config.log for gfortran
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50903
Bug #: 50903
Summary: configure:14607: error: GNU Fortran is not working;
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50870
--- Comment #6 from Paolo Carlini 2011-10-28
16:40:15 UTC ---
HJ, if you are willing to help you have to use -std=c++0x with this (see the
[C++0x] in the Description]. 4_5-branch accepts the snippet, the regression is
rather old.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50902
--- Comment #3 from Jack Howarth 2011-10-28
16:35:21 UTC ---
Could this be an unresolved corner-case of PR48098?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50902
--- Comment #2 from Jack Howarth 2011-10-28
16:11:38 UTC ---
Created attachment 25645
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25645
gdb log for single stepping from last call to tree.c:1382 before crash
-DNDEBUG -DCPLUSPLUS
-DUSE_CDS_NAMESPACE
for gcc trunk built with...
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=g++-fsf-4.7
COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/sw/lib/gcc4.7/libexec/gcc/x86_64-apple-darwin11.2.0/4.7.0/lto-wrapper
Target: x86_64-apple-darwin11.2.0
Configured with: ../gcc-4.7-20111028/configure --prefix
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50902
Bug #: 50902
Summary: intVar/dinternal.cc ICEs at -O2 -ftree-vectorize
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50870
--- Comment #5 from H.J. Lu 2011-10-28 15:53:39
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> HJ, any chance you can figure out when we regressed for testcase in Comment #3
> ?
I tried different versions of GCC, I got
pr50870.cc:8: error: expected type-sp
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50901
Bug #: 50901
Summary: [4.6/4.7 Regression] ICE: in build_new_op, at
cp/call.c:5016
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50900
Bug #: 50900
Summary: 'gmake pdf' fails in libiberty
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50448
--- Comment #4 from Paolo Bonzini 2011-10-28 14:26:57
UTC ---
Can't you just test on x86_64-linux?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49363
--- Comment #9 from vincenzo Innocente
2011-10-28 14:00:18 UTC ---
That's a pity.
It would be very useful though to have at least a patch to test so that we can
have something to use in prototypes and eventually a working solution for 4.8
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50857
--- Comment #3 from iant at google dot com 2011-10-28
13:56:23 UTC ---
I suppose you could drop something into POSTSTAGE1_FLAGS_TO_PASS. But
it's not the right thing to do. We want to use -fno-exceptions
-fno-rtti even when using --disable-boot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50899
Bug #: 50899
Summary: need @direntry for gcov
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50857
--- Comment #2 from Richard Guenther 2011-10-28
13:08:10 UTC ---
Hm, well - I would rather unconditionally enable those options for stage2 and
3 (we know it'll be G++ at built) and leave them off for stage1. Any way
to just influence stage2+? O
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50898
Bug #: 50898
Summary: Register allocation depends on function return
expression on x86 32-bits
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONF
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50448
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bonzini at gnu dot org
--- Comment #3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45650
--- Comment #6 from Gerald Pfeifer 2011-10-28
12:56:49 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> gcc-4.7.0.20111022 now builds fine on ia64
Also if you remove files/patch-unwind-ia64.h from the lang/gcc47
port on FreeBSD which I assume you are using?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50890
--- Comment #2 from Richard Guenther 2011-10-28
12:45:28 UTC ---
Bah, probably triggered by that change but reveals some bigger issue with how
we keep the mismatched-function-flags (gimple_call_cannot_inline_p and
the corresponding edge flag e->c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50678
--- Comment #56 from Iain Sandoe 2011-10-28 12:01:10
UTC ---
please leave this bug open for now - it is not really fixed, the patch applied
is a workaround.
once we get a response to the radar, we'll know better how to proceed.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50678
--- Comment #55 from Iain Sandoe 2011-10-28 11:59:10
UTC ---
Author: iains
Date: Fri Oct 28 11:59:07 2011
New Revision: 180613
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=180613
Log:
ada:
PR target/50678
* init.c (Darwin/__gn
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50896
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.7.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50896
Bug #: 50896
Summary: FAIL: [4.7 Regression] g++.dg/lto/20100302
cp_lto_20100302_0.o-cp_lto_20100302_1.o link, -flto
-fabi-version=2 (internal compiler error)
Classification: Uncla
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50079
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45650
--- Comment #5 from Anton Shterenlikht 2011-10-28
10:57:58 UTC ---
gcc-4.7.0.20111022 now builds fine on ia64
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50079
--- Comment #6 from Richard Guenther 2011-10-28
10:52:51 UTC ---
Btw, for the truly anal folks with a memcpy implementation that breaks with
src == dest we can add a target hook that specifies to use memmove for
block move expansion instead of me
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47918
--- Comment #11 from jules at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-28 10:48:36 UTC ---
Author: jules
Date: Fri Oct 28 10:48:32 2011
New Revision: 180611
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=180611
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/47918
* relo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31247
--- Comment #13 from Marc Glisse 2011-10-28
10:18:43 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #12)
> (In reply to comment #10)
> > An iterator is either a pointer or a class with the
> > typedefs.
>
> Or a type for which iterator_traits has been specialized
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50164
Ilya Enkovich changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50876
--- Comment #20 from rguenther at suse dot de
2011-10-28 10:01:45 UTC ---
On Fri, 28 Oct 2011, iains at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50876
>
> --- Comment #17 from Iain Sandoe 2011-10-28
> 09:12:07 UTC
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43813
Marc Glisse changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marc.glisse at normalesup
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31247
--- Comment #12 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-10-28
09:57:01 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #10)
> An iterator is either a pointer or a class with the
> typedefs.
Or a type for which iterator_traits has been specialized?
I'm not really interested in
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50870
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com
--- Comment #4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50876
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50885
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|tree-optimization |testsuite
Target Milestone|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50876
--- Comment #18 from Richard Guenther 2011-10-28
09:46:32 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri Oct 28 09:46:26 2011
New Revision: 180608
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=180608
Log:
2010-10-28 Richard Guenther
PR driver
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50890
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50892
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31247
--- Comment #11 from Paolo Carlini 2011-10-28
09:40:36 UTC ---
Interesting, thanks.
By the way, I would guess Sylvain' email doesn't work anymore, thus it's
unlikely that he can give us his feedback ;) (or does he have a forward in
place, as far
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31247
Marc Glisse changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marc.glisse at normalesup
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49363
--- Comment #8 from rguenther at suse dot de
2011-10-28 09:14:29 UTC ---
On Fri, 28 Oct 2011, vincenzo.innocente at cern dot ch wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49363
>
> --- Comment #7 from vincenzo Innocente
> 2011-10-28
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50876
--- Comment #17 from Iain Sandoe 2011-10-28 09:12:07
UTC ---
I notice that f{un}signed-char is marked for LTO in the .opts file - does that
make any difference to the logic?
funsigned-char
C ObjC C++ ObjC++ LTO Var(flag_signed_char, 0)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30066
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50880
--- Comment #6 from Paolo Carlini 2011-10-28
09:10:09 UTC ---
Indeed you are right about the sign, in terms at least of consistency with the
rest of the fallback implementations which already have got quite a number of
comparisons with zero with
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49363
--- Comment #7 from vincenzo Innocente
2011-10-28 09:06:30 UTC ---
sorry to ping again.
Stage 1 is supposed to end Nov 7th.
Will the new feature work out by Sri make for 4.7?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50895
Bug #: 50895
Summary: Build failure in jni.cc
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
Priority: P3
Compo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50521
--- Comment #11 from Tomohiro Kashiwada 2011-10-28
08:15:39 UTC ---
Created attachment 25642
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25642
patch to honor STRICT_ALIGNMENT
honor STRICT_ALIGNMENT when accessing non-volatile-bitfields
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50521
--- Comment #10 from Tomohiro Kashiwada 2011-10-28
08:13:31 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #9)
> http://infocenter.arm.com/help/topic/com.arm.doc.ihi0042d/IHI0042D_aapcs.pdf
> section 7.1.7.5.
Thanks, I see.
On ARM ABI, reading or writing to volat
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38644
--- Comment #54 from Sebastian Huber
2011-10-28 07:31:19 UTC ---
I tested with GCC 4.6.2 and the patch provided by Mikael Pettersson. It works
for -march=armv4t and -march=armv5t, but not for -march=armv5te:
--- test-armv5te.s 2011-10-28 0
1 - 100 of 106 matches
Mail list logo
