http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51263
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||markus at trippelsdorf dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32039
fabien at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51265
Bug #: 51265
Summary: internal compiler error: in finish_decltype_type, at
cp/semantics.c:5244
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONF
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51261
--- Comment #1 from Zdenek Sojka 2011-11-22 05:30:59
UTC ---
Happens in r181597 as well.
$ diff testcase.*gkd
52c52
< (const_int 32675 [0x7fa3]))) testcase.C:3# {*cmpdi_1}
---
> (const_int 32551 [0x7f27]))) testcase.C:3#
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51200
--- Comment #2 from Joey Ye 2011-11-22 03:58:29 UTC ---
Here is a test case fix.
With this patch, backend part of Bernd's original patch can be skipped. Thus
DJ's concern of unnecessary change can be addressed.
Also this test case intends to war
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51264
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski 2011-11-22
03:44:39 UTC ---
Created attachment 25877
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25877
Patch which improves the use of clobbers for toplevel BIND expressions.
Though at -O0 we should not
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51134
--- Comment #9 from H.J. Lu 2011-11-22 03:30:54
UTC ---
On Linux/x86-64, configured with
--enable-clocale=gnu --with-system-zlib --with-demangler-in-ld --enable-shared
--prefix=/usr/gcc-4.7.0 --with-local-prefix=/usr/local -with-arch=core2
--wit
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51264
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski 2011-11-22
03:03:37 UTC ---
Hmm, I don't think we need a clobber for the outer most scope of the function
really. Though that might only allow us to get the bootstrap to work better
and might improve code genera
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51264
--- Comment #5 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-11-22 02:57:45 UTC ---
Difference in dumps just before error in r181172, at tree.cc.014t.cfg:
...
r181171 | r181172
unsigned int iterative_hash_expr(un unsigned int
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51264
--- Comment #4 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-11-22 02:52:20 UTC ---
dumps start diverging at tree.cc.004t.gimple:
...
r181171 | r181172
unsigned int iterative_hash_expr(un unsigned int iterative_hash_expr(un
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51264
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||matz at suse dot de
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51264
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski 2011-11-22
01:47:58 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #0)
> This might be a duplicate of PR20681, but I'm filing it just in case it's not.
It is. I had some patches which improve the situation here but I lost them
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51264
--- Comment #1 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-11-22 01:38:07 UTC ---
Minimal example tree.cc:
...
extern void iterative_hash (const int *);
unsigned int
iterative_hash_expr (unsigned int val)
{
int code;
switch (val)
{
default:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51264
Bug #: 51264
Summary: O0 Bootstrap failure: control reaches end of non-void
function
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51074
Pat Haugen changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pthaugen at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51263
Bug #: 51263
Summary: ICE in inline_small_functions when compiling scummvm
with -O2 -flto
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51263
--- Comment #1 from Matt Hargett 2011-11-21 23:58:48 UTC
---
Created attachment 25876
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25876
pre-processed source of the file that triggers the ICE
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51251
--- Comment #10 from Joel Sherrill 2011-11-21
23:08:20 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #9)
> In addition to the comments so far about what the testsuite framework
> should be doing, I also think the sparc option processing is currently
> doing the r
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51262
Bug #: 51262
Summary: [4.7 Regression] ICE: SIGSEGV in
primary_template_instantiation_p (pt.c:2874) with
-flto -g
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Ve
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47747
torvald at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51249
--- Comment #3 from Alan Modra 2011-11-21 22:21:13
UTC ---
Sorry, I misread the code. Indeed, the mutex will be left at 2.
I'm chasing a frustratingly elusive locking bug. Symptoms are that one or two
libgomp tests fail each gcc testsuite run,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11750
fabien at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|20
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51239
Dodji Seketeli changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51261
Bug #: 51261
Summary: [4.7 Regression] -fcompare-debug with memset()
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50325
--- Comment #21 from davem at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-11-21 21:50:46 UTC ---
Author: davem
Date: Mon Nov 21 21:50:41 2011
New Revision: 181598
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=181598
Log:
Revert regression causing changes to stor
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51260
Bug #: 51260
Summary: PARAMETER array with constructor initializer:
Compile-time simplify single element access
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51259
Bug #: 51259
Summary: no escape on control characters on linemarker lines
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: trivial
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50827
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-11-21
21:07:23 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Nov 21 21:07:19 2011
New Revision: 181597
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=181597
Log:
PR debug/50827
* var-tracking.c (loc_cmp):
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51218
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.7.0 |4.6.3
--- Comment #19 from Tobias Burnus
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51218
--- Comment #18 from Steve Kargl
2011-11-21 20:21:01 UTC ---
On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 08:02:20PM +, burnus at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51218
>
> --- Comment #17 from Tobias Burnus 2011-11-21
> 20:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51218
--- Comment #17 from Tobias Burnus 2011-11-21
20:02:20 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #16)
> One thing it relies on is that the compiler recognizes
> that the bad function are not pure, as they have a
> side effect (e.g. accessing module variable c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50958
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51258
--- Comment #2 from Richard Henderson 2011-11-21
19:41:16 UTC ---
The quoted test ought to have worked for i386-solaris.
If one of those predicates is wrong (e.g. is-effective-target ia32)
then there are other tests in the testsuite that are goin
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51218
--- Comment #16 from Harald Anlauf 2011-11-21 19:31:13
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #15)
> Because it generates "wrong-code" and I wasn't completely convinced that there
> is no bug lurking in implicit_pure. Thus, for me the status is an
> "unco
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50958
--- Comment #4 from Jason Merrill 2011-11-21
19:27:35 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Mon Nov 21 19:27:30 2011
New Revision: 181595
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=181595
Log:
PR c++/50958
gcc/cp/
* parser.c (lookup_lit
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51258
Andrew Macleod changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amacleod at redhat dot com
--- Comment #
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51251
--- Comment #9 from davem at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-11-21 19:11:56 UTC ---
In addition to the comments so far about what the testsuite framework
should be doing, I also think the sparc option processing is currently
doing the right thing given the in
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50888
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Haley 2011-11-21 18:02:29
UTC ---
I suppose I don't really object to a workaround in libjava, but surely the
sensible thing to do is fix isspace() not to throw. It can't, anyway: that
would be in breach of its spec.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50935
--- Comment #6 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-11-21 17:30:21 UTC ---
> --- Comment #5 from Paolo Bonzini 2011-11-21
> 17:25:20 UTC ---
> What's exactly the problem with gdb that requires disabling largefiles?
gdb (and only gdb AFA
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51258
Bug #: 51258
Summary: 64-bit gcc.dg/atomic-compare-exchange-5.c link failure
on 32-bit Solaris/x86
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UN
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50935
--- Comment #5 from Paolo Bonzini 2011-11-21 17:25:20
UTC ---
What's exactly the problem with gdb that requires disabling largefiles?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51196
--- Comment #5 from Paolo Carlini 2011-11-21
17:04:47 UTC ---
Created attachment 25873
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25873
Sanity checked on x86_64-linux and lightly tested arm-none-eabi
In practice, this works for me. Mayb
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50283
--- Comment #5 from John David Anglin 2011-11-21
17:04:20 UTC ---
Regarding label placement of frame related insns, we have the following
rtl for f2:
(insn 14 2 15 (sequence [
(call_insn 5 2 11 (parallel [
(ca
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50935
--- Comment #4 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-11-21 16:50:54 UTC ---
I forgot: while one could use ACX_LARGEFILE everywhere in GCC (and I
tried that using --disable-largefile when configuring gcc works with a
default-configured gld),
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50935
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bonzini at gnu dot org
Target Milestone|-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47611
torvald at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28718
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gjl at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #10
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50764
Michael Matz changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||matz at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #11 fr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51130
Michael Matz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51125
Michael Matz changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zsojka at seznam dot cz
--- Comment #7 fro
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50827
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51022
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
URL|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51196
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|Greta.Yorsh at arm dot com |
--- Comment #4 from Paolo Carlini 2011-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43745
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Priority
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51211
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50802
--- Comment #18 from dave.anglin at bell dot net 2011-11-21 14:59:53 UTC ---
On 11/18/2011 9:05 PM, amylaar at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> Could you test if this also fixes your regressions?
It does.
Thanks,
Dave
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51143
Dodji Seketeli changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51249
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50852
--- Comment #3 from dodji at seketeli dot org
2011-11-21 14:43:25 UTC ---
A candidate patch was sent to
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-11/msg01859.html for this.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51251
--- Comment #8 from Joel Sherrill 2011-11-21 14:06:27
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> > The issue is that when running on real hardware, you can't use arbitrary cpu
> > flags and expect it to work. And it is wrong to say xfail on sparc-rtems
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51231
Evgeniy Dushistov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.4.5
Known to fail|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50074
--- Comment #13 from Andreas Krebbel 2011-11-21
13:31:16 UTC ---
This fixes the testcase on s390x. Tested with r181554.
Thanks!
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48023
torvald at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51125
--- Comment #6 from Michael Matz 2011-11-21 13:28:08
UTC ---
Yes, the patch submission to the mailing list was incorrect and contained a
non-intended change. The patch as committed and ChangeLogged is correct.
Aldy: yes, I'm taking a peek.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51251
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|target |testsuite
Summary|SPARC _64 in
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50686
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #25473|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51251
--- Comment #6 from Joel Sherrill 2011-11-21 12:21:26
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> > Hmmm... because of the way the test is compiled and the target flags are
> > added,
> > there is ... "-mcpu=ultrasparc -mvis" and then later on the comman
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51251
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51185
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51185
--- Comment #4 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-11-21 11:21:20 UTC ---
Author: paolo
Date: Mon Nov 21 11:21:13 2011
New Revision: 181557
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=181557
Log:
2011-11-21 Daniel Krugler
PR lib
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51144
--- Comment #6 from Andreas Krebbel 2011-11-21
10:10:31 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> PR middle-end/51144
> * output.h (fprint_w): Remove.
> * final.c (fprint_w): Remove.
> (output_addr_const): Change fprint_w back to fprintf
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51159
--- Comment #5 from sebastian.heg...@tu-dresden.de 2011-11-21 09:43:23 UTC ---
Any chance of seeing the fix backported to 4.6, though?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48835
--- Comment #41 from Mikael Pettersson 2011-11-21
09:25:27 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #25)
> The first 4.6.1 bootstrap attempt failed at the very first Ada compilation
> step
> in stage 3, with a SEGV in gnat1 when compiling ada/a-charac.ads.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50678
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |SUSPENDED
--- Comment #60 from Eric Botca
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50678
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
--- Comment #59 from Iain Sandoe 2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50678
--- Comment #58 from Iain Sandoe 2011-11-21 09:04:14
UTC ---
Author: iains
Date: Mon Nov 21 09:04:08 2011
New Revision: 181553
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=181553
Log:
gcc/ada:
Backport from mainline r181474
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49313
--- Comment #13 from Georg-Johann Lay 2011-11-21
08:56:51 UTC ---
Author: gjl
Date: Mon Nov 21 08:56:44 2011
New Revision: 181551
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=181551
Log:
PR target/49313
* config/avr/t-avr (LIB2F
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51218
--- Comment #15 from Tobias Burnus 2011-11-21
08:41:21 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #14)
> Tobias, Why did you mark this PR with the "wrong-code" keyword?
Because it generates "wrong-code" and I wasn't completely convinced that there
is no bug l
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51257
Bug #: 51257
Summary: Template changes scope of friend functions
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priorit
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50325
--- Comment #20 from Iain Sandoe 2011-11-21 08:08:18
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #18)
> Patch also break mips-linux-gnu. See:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-11/msg02004.html
I applied this on top of r181530 and reg-strapped on
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51251
--- Comment #4 from Tobias Burnus 2011-11-21
08:07:29 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> Hmmm... because of the way the test is compiled and the target flags are
> added,
> there is ... "-mcpu=ultrasparc -mvis" and then later on the command line
81 matches
Mail list logo
