http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51298
--- Comment #4 from Alan Modra 2011-12-15 07:57:44
UTC ---
Yes, this bug and more are still in gcc-4.6. I haven't had time to look at
backporting any of my libgomp fixes.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51298
Andrew Benson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||abenson at caltech dot edu
--- Comment #3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51562
Bug #: 51562
Summary: Expression evaluation with commas seems incorrect in
gcc 4.5.2, 4.4.4
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.2
Status: UNCONFIRM
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50962
Igor Zamyatin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51558
--- Comment #6 from Paolo Carlini 2011-12-15
02:25:03 UTC ---
Created attachment 26098
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26098
Completed patch
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51558
--- Comment #5 from Paolo Carlini 2011-12-15
02:24:08 UTC ---
Uhmm, I don't know, probably yes. If we are in doubt we can as well use what
I'm going to attach, which resolves the src/ fallback. Which change leads to
the best error messages?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48186
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48184
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48182
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51353
--- Comment #2 from Nathan Keynes
2011-12-15 02:14:48 UTC ---
Testing this out,
*(((volatile void **)__builtin_frame_address(0))+1) = exc;
still does not work in 4.4.6 and 4.5.3, but
*(((void * volatile *)__builtin_frame_address(0))
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47857
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39029
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski 2011-12-15
02:11:02 UTC ---
*** Bug 47857 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47801
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski 2011-12-15
02:11:24 UTC ---
Is this fixed now?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47645
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47258
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski 2011-12-15
02:03:43 UTC ---
Can you try this patch:
Index: tree-outof-ssa.c
===
--- tree-outof-ssa.c(revision 67191)
+++ tree-outof-ssa.c(re
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51558
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-12-15
02:01:24 UTC ---
Would the condition of the static_assert need to depend on the template
parameter somehow, to avoid the case where no valid specialization can ever be
generated? (Which would be ill-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47229
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46972
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47018
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47733
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||wkor97gy0eef1fr at i dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51558
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jwakely.gcc at gmail dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23656
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47733
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||janis at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #7 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48825
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49247
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47733
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51558
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50952
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50952
--- Comment #9 from Steve Kargl
2011-12-15 01:35:58 UTC ---
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 12:10:05AM +, pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> --- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski 2011-12-15
> 00:10:05 UTC ---
> Has this been fixed now?
>
Yes, I b
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51472
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51513
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Status|UN
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51465
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51465
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|blocker |normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51343
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51560
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51561
Dave Abrahams changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51561
--- Comment #2 from Dave Abrahams 2011-12-15
00:58:37 UTC ---
Close this please! So sorry; I was totally misinterpreting what I saw.
There's no compiler crash.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51162
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51561
--- Comment #1 from Dave Abrahams 2011-12-15
00:53:24 UTC ---
Created attachment 26097
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26097
reproducer
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51561
Bug #: 51561
Summary: Compilation segfault
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51231
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|major |normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51103
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51156
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51024
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51088
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||assemble-failure,
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51560
Bug #: 51560
Summary: std::set::cbegin()/cend() etc. return iterator
instead of const_iterator
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONF
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45235
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51017
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski 2011-12-15
00:28:51 UTC ---
It might be interesting to get numbers for the trunk. There have been some
register allocator fixes which might have improved this.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50962
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski 2011-12-15
00:22:03 UTC ---
Has this been fixed now?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50996
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski 2011-12-15
00:20:31 UTC ---
It works for me on the trunk, configured with --target=lm32-elf.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50952
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||build
Target|x86_64-*-freebsd
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51366
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51271
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Target Milestone|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51271
--- Comment #13 from Andrew Pinski 2011-12-15
00:02:14 UTC ---
I think my patch for PR 51471 will also fix this bug. I now know why I could
not reproduce it, I was using slightly different scheduling (-march=octeon
rather than the default).
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51556
--- Comment #4 from Andy Lutomirski 2011-12-15 00:00:18
UTC ---
Created attachment 26095
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26095
Partially reduced test case
This is reduced by a combination of fiddling by hand and automated red
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51352
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Status|UNCONFIR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51360
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Keywords|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48516
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41159
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikulas at artax dot
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41159
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||howarth at nitro dot
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41159
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tommino at online dot de
--- Comment #13
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51300
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45448
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51559
--- Comment #1 from Domingo Alvarez 2011-12-14
23:41:16 UTC ---
Created attachment 26094
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26094
A c program that demonstrate the same problem
Here is a c program that exibits the same problem, s
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51557
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-12-14
23:40:58 UTC ---
Created attachment 26093
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26093
gcc47-pr51557.patch
Untested fix.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51279
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51331
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.1.2
Target Milestone|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51353
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski 2011-12-14
23:28:00 UTC ---
I think this should be:
*(((volatile void **)__builtin_frame_address(0))+1) = exc;
GCC thinks it does not alias thing which is why it is removing it.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51458
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50286
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Status|UN
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51557
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51050
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44077
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||lloyd at randombit dot net
--- Comment #1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44077
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51457
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51473
Dodji Seketeli changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51471
--- Comment #11 from Andrew Pinski 2011-12-14
22:58:55 UTC ---
This is the patch which I am testing:
Index: genattrtab.c
===
--- genattrtab.c(revision 182342)
+++ genattrtab.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51558
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-12-14
22:57:11 UTC ---
Could we put a static_assert in the default operator() definition?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51228
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51554
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51559
Bug #: 51559
Summary: decimal128 operates incorrectly compared to decimal32
and decimal64
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16458
--- Comment #5 from Peter Bergner 2011-12-14
22:42:57 UTC ---
Created attachment 26091
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26091
Another partial fix...
Answering Nathan's comment from his patch:
+/* These are unsigned values
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51248
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51248
--- Comment #3 from Jason Merrill 2011-12-14
22:33:42 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Wed Dec 14 22:33:39 2011
New Revision: 182348
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=182348
Log:
PR c++/51248
* decl.c (copy_type_enum): Als
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51554
--- Comment #2 from dnovillo at google dot com
2011-12-14 22:32:33 UTC ---
Wow, that was quick, thanks!
Diego.
On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 17:26, jason at gcc dot gnu.org
wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51554
>
> --- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51558
Bug #: 51558
Summary: Declaration of unspecialized
std::hash<_Tp>::operator()(_Tp) turns compile-time
errors into link-time errors
Classification: Unclassified
Product:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51248
--- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill 2011-12-14
22:26:16 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Wed Dec 14 22:26:13 2011
New Revision: 182345
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=182345
Log:
PR c++/51248
* decl.c (copy_type_enum): Als
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51545
Marc Glisse changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marc.glisse at normalesup
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51554
--- Comment #1 from Jason Merrill 2011-12-14
22:26:27 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Wed Dec 14 22:26:24 2011
New Revision: 182346
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=182346
Log:
PR c++/51554
* semantics.c (cxx_eval_indire
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51542
Marc Glisse changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marc.glisse at normalesup
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51557
Bug #: 51557
Summary: [4.7 Regression] ICE: in maybe_record_trace_start, at
dwarf2cfi.c:2244 with custom flags
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51475
Dodji Seketeli changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51475
--- Comment #8 from Dodji Seketeli 2011-12-14
21:49:57 UTC ---
Author: dodji
Date: Wed Dec 14 21:49:52 2011
New Revision: 182343
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=182343
Log:
PR c++/51475 - ICE with invalid initializer-list
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51556
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50148
Matt Hargett changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||matt at use dot net
--- Comment #4 from Ma
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51544
Matt Hargett changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|uninitialized variable |uninitialized variable
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51505
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51556
--- Comment #2 from Andy Lutomirski 2011-12-14 20:30:01
UTC ---
Created attachment 26088
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26088
Preprocessed test cases
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51536
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51471
--- Comment #10 from Andrew Pinski 2011-12-14
20:28:34 UTC ---
*** Bug 51536 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
1 - 100 of 164 matches
Mail list logo