http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51994
--- Comment #16 from Uros Bizjak 2012-01-26 07:57:10
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #15)
> Can't most of the callers of get_inner_reference cope with negative bitpos
> though? If so, perhaps only the caller or two in the expansion which doesn't
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51999
--- Comment #1 from Steven Schweda 2012-01-26
04:55:36 UTC ---
Finally made it all the way through "gmake bootstrap-lean". Got a
few more interesting complaints:
[...]
rm -f stage_current
gmake[3]: Leaving directory `/usr/local/gnu/gcc/gcc-4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52005
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52005
Bug #: 52005
Summary: tree-ssa-combineif does not work with some cfgs
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32347
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bergner at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38219
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
--- Comment #14
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51942
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52004
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski 2012-01-26
00:50:40 UTC ---
Those functions should be marked as noinline and noclone or better yet use
toplevel inline-asm for those instructions.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52004
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20468
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marbacz at gmail dot com
--- Comment #7 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52004
--- Comment #1 from Marcin Baczynski 2012-01-26
00:37:21 UTC ---
Created attachment 26470
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26470
Reduced test case.
ow.c:2077: Error: symbol `end_amd64_void_call_2_a' is already
defined
~ # gcc -v
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=/usr/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/gcc-bin/4.7.0-svn-183541-20120125/gcc
COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/usr/libexec/gcc/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/4.7.0/lto-wrapper
Target: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
Configured wi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52003
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski 2012-01-26
00:18:15 UTC ---
main has an implicit return 0 if it follows through to the end according to the
C++ standard IIRC.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52003
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-01-26
00:14:40 UTC ---
That's not the right syntax for declaring attributes of functions.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50981
--- Comment #29 from Mikael Morin 2012-01-25
23:38:28 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #27)
> (In reply to comment #22)
> > Created attachment 26386 [details]
> > Updated patch
>
> +gfc_array_spec *
> +symbol_as (gfc_symbol *sym)
> +{
> + if (sym->
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51985
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|*-apple-darwin* |*-apple-darwin*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52003
Bug #: 52003
Summary: warning about (un)existing return statement in the
main function declared 'noreturn'
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.3
St
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51898
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|blocker |normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51985
John David Anglin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||danglin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52002
John David Anglin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50981
Mikael Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #26386|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50981
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #27
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51995
--- Comment #14 from Tobias Burnus 2012-01-25
22:21:19 UTC ---
Author: burnus
Date: Wed Jan 25 22:21:14 2012
New Revision: 183541
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=183541
Log:
2012-01-25 Tobias Burnus
PR fortran/5
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51988
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski 2012-01-25
21:35:01 UTC ---
Here is another testcase (which passes with the patch I posted but does not
with a patch which I created internally to create COND_EXPR's).
int g(int,int);
int h(int)
int f(int t, int
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52002
--- Comment #1 from Dominique d'Humieres 2012-01-25
21:23:31 UTC ---
Likely a duplicate of pr51985. Can you try the patch at
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-01/msg01307.html .
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52002
Bug #: 52002
Summary: [4.7 Regression] Bootstrap fails at revision 183520 in
stage1
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51974
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51698
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51698
--- Comment #2 from Aldy Hernandez 2012-01-25
20:33:02 UTC ---
Author: aldyh
Date: Wed Jan 25 20:32:57 2012
New Revision: 183537
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=183537
Log:
PR lto/51698
* builtin-types.def:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51989
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51986
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51986
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-01-25
20:22:59 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Jan 25 20:22:53 2012
New Revision: 183536
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=183536
Log:
PR middle-end/51986
* sched-deps.c (sched_g
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51995
--- Comment #13 from Dominique d'Humieres
2012-01-25 20:23:02 UTC ---
Reduced test case exhibiting the ICE:
MODULE factory_pattern
TYPE CFactory
PRIVATE
CHARACTER(len=20) :: factory_type !! Descriptive name for database
CL
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51994
--- Comment #15 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-01-25
20:20:12 UTC ---
Can't most of the callers of get_inner_reference cope with negative bitpos
though? If so, perhaps only the caller or two in the expansion which doesn't
should be adjusted.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51994
--- Comment #14 from Uros Bizjak 2012-01-25 19:44:03
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #13)
> Perhpaps the return of get_inner_reference can be adjusted to return
> equivalent
> negative offset expression instead of negative bit position?
Like this
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52001
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|mipsisa64-elf |mipsisa64-elf,
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52001
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski 2012-01-25
19:27:41 UTC ---
Confirmed, I saw this also with my testing.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52001
Bug #: 52001
Summary: [4.7 reegression] Huge compile-time regression with
var-tracking
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52000
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52000
Bug #: 52000
Summary: cross-jumping drops MEM attributes even when it makes
no changes to the code
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51934
John David Anglin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51995
--- Comment #12 from Dominique d'Humieres
2012-01-25 19:06:40 UTC ---
On x86_64-apple-darwin10 and an almost clean tree (i.e., with only the patch
for pr 51985) at revision 183528, compiling
testsuite/gfortran.dg/typebound_proc_25.f90 gives an IC
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51994
--- Comment #13 from Uros Bizjak 2012-01-25 18:39:38
UTC ---
"Fixing" bit position to unsigned in headers is a No-Go. Too many parts of the
compiler depends on unsigned bit positions - we can end with negative subreg
indexes.
Perhpaps the return
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51782
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #26262|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49868
--- Comment #15 from Georg-Johann Lay 2012-01-25
18:17:14 UTC ---
Author: gjl
Date: Wed Jan 25 18:17:07 2012
New Revision: 183529
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=183529
Log:
PR target/49868
Rename __pgm to __flash.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51994
Uros Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #26462|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51950
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51995
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51995
--- Comment #10 from Tobias Burnus 2012-01-25
17:34:48 UTC ---
Author: burnus
Date: Wed Jan 25 17:34:39 2012
New Revision: 183528
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=183528
Log:
2012-01-25 Tobias Burnus
PR fortran/5
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51989
--- Comment #9 from Jason Merrill 2012-01-25
17:32:12 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> Jason, shouldn't deduction fail for ((U*)0)->foo() with U=void instead of
> giving an error?
Yep. Need to pass complain into build_x_arrow.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51992
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51992
--- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill 2012-01-25
17:16:39 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Wed Jan 25 17:16:28 2012
New Revision: 183527
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=183527
Log:
PR c++/51992
* tree.c (find_decls_types_in_
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51641
Dodji Seketeli changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51998
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-01-25
16:38:05 UTC ---
I think remove_attribute would be desirable too. But I wonder if it can't be
detected earlier than here. In any case, I'd like to hear Honza on this.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51934
--- Comment #22 from Jason Merrill 2012-01-25
16:33:56 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Wed Jan 25 16:33:50 2012
New Revision: 183526
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=183526
Log:
PR target/51934
* g++.dg/torture/pr51344.C
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51998
--- Comment #3 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-25 16:33:12 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> I think fatal_error is undesirable, you should error on it somewhere and just
> drop the alias attribute.
Jakub,
like this? :
...
Index: cgraph.h
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51987
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51991
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=51985
--- Comment #6 from Dominique d'Humieres 2012-01-25
16:12:49 UTC ---
> Untested fix. ...
I just finished to bootstrap revision 183518 with the patch. Thanks.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51844
Matthias Klose changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48794
--- Comment #8 from Michael Matz 2012-01-25 15:54:29
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> Well, that is a different testcase for a different bug, better would be not
> to reuse this one for that.
Hmm, perhaps. Too late now.
> Are you working on
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51798
--- Comment #10 from David Edelsohn 2012-01-25
15:43:51 UTC ---
> All that has to be done is replace the two __sync_fetch_and_add(...) with
> __atomic_fetch_add(.., __ATOMIC_ACQ_REL) in atomicity.h isn't it?
In src/libstdc++-v3/include/ext/atom
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51987
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-01-25
15:38:57 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Jan 25 15:38:51 2012
New Revision: 183524
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=183524
Log:
PR tree-optimization/51987
* tree-data-ref.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51798
--- Comment #9 from Andrew Macleod 2012-01-25
15:36:23 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> > At least at this point I'd feel much safer if libstdc++ used just acq_rel
> > semantics for the all atomic_fetch_and_add places, instead of somewhere acq
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48794
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-01-25
15:33:53 UTC ---
Well, that is a different testcase for a different bug, better would be not to
reuse this one for that.
Are you working on it?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51999
Bug #: 51999
Summary: gcc-4.7-20120114 v. AIX 6.1
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51798
--- Comment #8 from David Edelsohn 2012-01-25 15:14:29
UTC ---
> At least at this point I'd feel much safer if libstdc++ used just acq_rel
> semantics for the all atomic_fetch_and_add places, instead of somewhere acq
> and
> somewhere rel semant
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48794
Michael Matz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51981
--- Comment #5 from Marc Glisse 2012-01-25
15:02:55 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> (In reply to comment #2)
> > It looks like it would be equivalent to uninitialized_copy with
> > make_move_iterator, not so useful then.
>
> This makes sense,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51981
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51934
John David Anglin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51994
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #11
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51998
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51994
--- Comment #10 from Uros Bizjak 2012-01-25 14:41:39
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> Testcase that crashes on alpha:
Actually, the test in comment #7 exposed the problem, but was not 100% correct.
This one is:
--cut here--
#include
extern
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51981
--- Comment #3 from Aliaksandr Valialkin 2012-01-25
14:38:50 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> It looks like it would be equivalent to uninitialized_copy with
> make_move_iterator, not so useful then.
This makes sense, but not so obvious for no
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51986
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51994
Uros Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #26459|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51998
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51998
Bug #: 51998
Summary: compiler hangs on self-recursive alias attribute
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51844
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-01-25
14:10:07 UTC ---
Ping?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51992
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51798
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-01-25
14:08:41 UTC ---
At least at this point I'd feel much safer if libstdc++ used just acq_rel
semantics for the all atomic_fetch_and_add places, instead of somewhere acq and
somewhere rel semantics.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51991
--- Comment #8 from Sebastien Bardeau 2012-01-25
13:36:51 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> > ... I do observe the error reported in my first message with gfortran trunk
> > ...
>
> I am quite confused: in order to have 'savej' in the error me
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51994
--- Comment #8 from Uros Bizjak 2012-01-25 13:33:43
UTC ---
And the test in Comment #7 exposed the same problem in extract_bit_field & co.
#19 0x005801f4 in extract_bit_field (str_rtx=0x2e85b760,
bitsize=46912560805760, bitnum=469125
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51995
--- Comment #9 from Prince 2012-01-25 13:32:50 UTC
---
Using five days old gcc version 4.7.0 20120120 (experimental) (GCC),
the problem still persists.
I think the problem has not been fixed for the i686 architecture.
Do you know of any work-ar
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51991
--- Comment #7 from Dominique d'Humieres 2012-01-25
13:32:34 UTC ---
> ... I do observe the error reported in my first message with gfortran trunk
> ...
I am quite confused: in order to have 'savej' in the error message, you must
have it in the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51991
--- Comment #6 from Sebastien Bardeau 2012-01-25
13:29:41 UTC ---
Created attachment 26461
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26461
Correct version this time.
Sorry, previous version had no problem. The symptom is the following:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51995
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48374
--- Comment #3 from Andrey Belevantsev 2012-01-25
13:20:47 UTC ---
Author: abel
Date: Wed Jan 25 13:20:43 2012
New Revision: 183519
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=183519
Log:
gcc:
PR rtl-optimization/48374
* se
GCC=gfortran
COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/home/bardeau/Softs/gcc-4.7.0-20120125/bin/../libexec/gcc/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/4.7.0/lto-wrapper
Target: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
Configured with: ../gcc-trunk-source/gcc/configure
--enable-languages=c,c++,fortran --enable-checking=release --disable-bootstrap
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51994
--- Comment #7 from Uros Bizjak 2012-01-25 13:19:32
UTC ---
Testcase that crashes on alpha:
--cut here--
extern void abort (void);
char __attribute__((noinline))
test (int a)
{
char buf[] = "0123456789";
char *output = buf;
output += a;
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51997
--- Comment #1 from Aldy Hernandez 2012-01-25
13:18:56 UTC ---
The original discussion/motivation on this started here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-01/msg01258.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43311
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51997
Bug #: 51997
Summary: LTO does not inline available builtin implementations
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51985
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51985
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at redhat dot com,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51991
--- Comment #4 from Dominique d'Humieres 2012-01-25
12:59:39 UTC ---
> Well, ok, the 2 tests are just different and should raise different errors.
Your original test gives
pr51991.f90:11.11:
j = a%j
1
Error: 'j' at (1) is not a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43311
--- Comment #5 from Zdenek Sojka 2012-01-25 12:56:30
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
>
> No, s.b2 should be 1.
Thank you for the answer. In that case, the optimisation in comment #0 can't be
done in a general case (unless I have overlooked som
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51995
--- Comment #7 from Tobias Burnus 2012-01-25
12:47:49 UTC ---
The problem seems to be the following:
One properly calls match_typebound_call, which sets "base" (alias "primary") to
the symtree of "db_connect" (which is of type BT_CLASS). Then it
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51994
--- Comment #6 from Richard Guenther 2012-01-25
12:42:14 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> > Negative bitpos is fine - Ada uses that quite extensively and with MEM_REFs
> > this just got more prominent. get_inner_reference is declared to return
1 - 100 of 151 matches
Mail list logo
