http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52018
--- Comment #2 from Daniel Krügler
2012-01-31 07:33:25 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> A simple workaround is to introduce a local typename-specifier:
>
> typedef class string c_t;
> h(c_t(42));
or use a static_cast (which has the additional
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52062
--- Comment #2 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-31 06:16:17 UTC ---
On 4.7.0, I get
laptop:kargl[203] gfc4x -o z foo.f90
laptop:kargl[204] ./z
"rhubarb" is character kind = 1 len = 7
666.0 is real kind = 4
I get the same results
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52062
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51974
--- Comment #4 from Nenad Vukicevic 2012-01-31
05:34:54 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> Please try
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52041#c17
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52041#c18
> patches.
I applied both patch
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40963
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Baldwin 2012-01-31
04:53:40 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> I encountered the same bug in gfortran 4.7.0 20110329 and 4.5.2.
>
> Are there any updates on this bug?
I did not encounted this bug with g++ 4.7.0 20
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52063
--- Comment #8 from Aravind 2012-01-31
03:45:10 UTC ---
Oh i am sorry
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52063
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52059
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aravindvijayan224185 at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52063
--- Comment #6 from Aravind 2012-01-31
03:40:30 UTC ---
Created attachment 26530
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26530
the full build log.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52063
--- Comment #5 from Aravind 2012-01-31
03:39:00 UTC ---
Created attachment 26529
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26529
plf95demolib.f90
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52063
--- Comment #4 from Aravind 2012-01-31
03:38:01 UTC ---
Narrowed down to:
program x09f95
use plf95demolib
integer, parameter :: nptsx=35, xdim=99
real(kind=8) :: xg1(xdim), distort
xg1 = foo (arange(0,nptsx) / dble(nptsx-1), dis
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52063
--- Comment #3 from Aravind 2012-01-31
03:37:18 UTC ---
Compiles fine with 4.6.2-1.fc16
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52063
--- Comment #2 from Aravind 2012-01-31
03:36:41 UTC ---
Created attachment 26528
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26528
plplot.mod
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52063
--- Comment #1 from Aravind 2012-01-31
03:35:48 UTC ---
Created attachment 26527
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26527
plf95demolib.mod
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52063
Bug #: 52063
Summary: internal compiler error: in gfc_conv_variable, at
fortran/trans-expr.c:1080
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNC
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51906
--- Comment #30 from Jack Howarth 2012-01-31
02:25:31 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #29)
> It might be easier if I to get access to a darwin system, which I should have
> in a few days so I can test it myself.
Okay, I was able to get...
#include
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51906
--- Comment #29 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-01-31
01:18:37 UTC ---
It might be easier if I to get access to a darwin system, which I should have
in a few days so I can test it myself.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51906
--- Comment #28 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-01-31
01:15:00 UTC ---
You need to use g++ (not gcc) to compile C++ code, and you need to use
-std=c++0x to compile C++11 code. GCC 4.2 doesn't support -std=c++0x so
there's no point trying that.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51906
--- Comment #27 from Jack Howarth 2012-01-31
01:07:40 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #24)
I've attached the preprocessed source from FSF gcc 4.7 on darwin11 for your
proposed pthread test program, as pthread_test.i which would allow you to
reprodu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51906
--- Comment #26 from Jack Howarth 2012-01-31
01:05:15 UTC ---
Created attachment 26525
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26525
preprocessed source from FSF gcc 4.7 for pthread test code
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51906
--- Comment #25 from Jack Howarth 2012-01-31
01:03:33 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #24)
Here is a trace for
libstdc++-v3/testsuite/30_threads/recursive_mutex/try_lock/1.cc compiled at
-O0 with...
/sw/src/fink.build/gcc47-4.7.0-1/darwin_objdir/
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51906
--- Comment #24 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-01-31
00:01:41 UTC ---
That debug session still doesn't make much sense, are you debugging an
optimised executable? I don't need a more detailed trace, just one that
actually shows what happens! e.g. k
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51483
--- Comment #8 from Mikael Pettersson 2012-01-30
23:56:33 UTC ---
Created attachment 26524
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26524
pass both precision and storage size to Register_Float_Type
Patch I'm testing. Works on i686-li
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52059
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-01-30
23:33:11 UTC ---
Then plplot (see https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785433 ) is buggy.
Anyway, it ICEs even with the same bounds.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52062
Bug #: 52062
Summary: [4.6.2 regression] public generic name, specific
functions of private types
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.2
Status: UNC
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52056
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||irar at gcc dot gnu.org,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52039
--- Comment #6 from Denis Excoffier 2012-01-30
23:16:52 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> Please try
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52041#c17
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52041#c18
> patches.
"Comparison successf
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52060
--- Comment #2 from Stephen Warren 2012-01-30
23:16:11 UTC ---
gcc-4.5.3 appears unaffected.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51500
--- Comment #16 from Uros Bizjak 2012-01-30 23:04:54
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #15)
> #define FFI_INIT_TRAMPOLINE_THISCALL(TRAMP,FUN,CTX,SIZE) \
> { unsigned char *__tramp = (unsigned char*)(TRAMP); \
>unsigned int __fun = (unsigned int)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52059
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52060
--- Comment #1 from Stephen Warren 2012-01-30
22:47:27 UTC ---
gcc-linaro 2012.01 has the same issue, although the code it generated was a
little different.
gcc-4.7 snapshot 20120128 appears to have the same issue.
(I couldn't build the whole 4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52056
--- Comment #1 from gccbug at jamasaru dot com 2012-01-30 22:34:37 UTC ---
While not relevant to gcc itself, it is interesting that clang also has trouble
with consistently identifying this optimization, but in an opposite way to GCC.
For clang, th
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52012
--- Comment #6 from Tobias Burnus 2012-01-30
22:24:21 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> Created attachment 26520 [details]
> a draft patch for the pr
>
> This bootstraps and regtests OK. I'll clean it up and prepare the testcase
> and
> Change
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51500
--- Comment #15 from Kai Tietz 2012-01-30 22:21:16
UTC ---
So this should be better then:
#define FFI_INIT_TRAMPOLINE_THISCALL(TRAMP,FUN,CTX,SIZE) \
{ unsigned char *__tramp = (unsigned char*)(TRAMP); \
unsigned int __fun = (unsigned int)(FU
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51974
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-01-30
22:15:25 UTC ---
Please try
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52041#c17
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52041#c18
patches.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52039
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52041
--- Comment #18 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-01-30
22:13:44 UTC ---
Created attachment 26522
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26522
X450
And ipa-prop doesn't seem to initialize ao.volatile_p. I think it is a bad
idea not to call a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52041
--- Comment #17 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-01-30
22:12:24 UTC ---
Created attachment 26521
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26521
X449
The cross-compiler under valgrind actually shows some errors, I'm attaching
fixes for both of
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52012
--- Comment #5 from Paul Thomas 2012-01-30 22:01:33
UTC ---
Created attachment 26520
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26520
a draft patch for the pr
This bootstraps and regtests OK. I'll clean it up and prepare the testcase a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42149
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51312
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Status|UNCONFIR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2995
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski 2012-01-30
21:35:54 UTC ---
The original wrong code part of this bug report has been fixed but there was
some discussion on the list and decided we should Deprecate them:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2001-11/msg00790
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48501
--- Comment #2 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-30 21:31:45 UTC ---
Author: uros
Date: Mon Jan 30 21:31:38 2012
New Revision: 183741
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=183741
Log:
PR go/48501
* lib/go.exp (go_target_
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51148
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||accepts-invalid
Status|UNCONF
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52041
--- Comment #16 from Iain Sandoe 2012-01-30 21:24:07
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #15)
> Can you please mail me (or upload somewhere) all the RTL logs from
> compilation with -fcompare-debug and -fdump-tree-optimized (both the non-gk
> and
> gk
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52032
--- Comment #4 from Joseph Garvin 2012-01-30
21:13:37 UTC ---
That's why I put the severity as enhancement :)
I thought of a better example.
template
void __attribute__((always_inline(force_inline))) foo()
{
// ...
}
Now you can choose whe
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52060
Bug #: 52060
Summary: Incorrect mask/and (ARM "bic") instruction generated
for shifted expression parameter, triggered by -O2
-finline-functions
Classification: Unclassified
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52041
--- Comment #15 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-01-30
21:07:57 UTC ---
Can you please mail me (or upload somewhere) all the RTL logs from
compilation with -fcompare-debug and -fdump-tree-optimized (both the non-gk and
gk dumps)?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52059
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Known to work|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52059
Bug #: 52059
Summary: [4.7 Regression] ICE in gfc_conv_variable
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52039
--- Comment #4 from Denis Excoffier 2012-01-30
20:54:37 UTC ---
Compared with PR52041, i also have a cltq (or cdqe) missing, but it is missing
in stage2
and present in stage3. After all, i'm perhaps a duplicate of PR52041.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52041
--- Comment #14 from Iain Sandoe 2012-01-30 20:34:08
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #13)
> OK. I've been using the command lines from my build log, with modification to
> the path to account for the stage2/stage3 ... so like
> in stage3-gcc/
> ../
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52041
--- Comment #13 from Iain Sandoe 2012-01-30 20:31:11
UTC ---
OK. I've been using the command lines from my build log, with modification to
the path to account for the stage2/stage3 ... so like
in stage2-gcc/
../stage1-gcc/g++
in stage3-gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52039
--- Comment #3 from Denis Excoffier 2012-01-30
20:29:45 UTC ---
Tried again, using:
- gmp-5.0.2, like last week
- make with no -j option
Same result (ie gcc/gimplify.o differs).
Also, Xcpde 4.2.1 uses:
% /usr/bin/gcc --version
i686-apple-darwin1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52058
Bug #: 52058
Summary: [4.7 regression] bootstrap fails on HAVE_cc0:
combine.c: 'do_SUBST_LINK' defined but not used
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51450
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski 2012-01-30
20:18:31 UTC ---
Looks like there are two different places in configure which test -fno-rtti and
-fno-exceptions:
One around line 28658 (which does not use lt_simple_compile_test_code
And one around li
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52009
--- Comment #2 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-30 20:09:10 UTC ---
Created attachment 26518
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26518
tentative patch
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52057
Bug #: 52057
Summary: dropping "const" in assignment gives only a warning
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51500
--- Comment #14 from Uros Bizjak 2012-01-30 19:58:43
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #13)
> Right the following sequence seems to be better IMHO:
>
> pop %eax
> push %ecx
> push %eax
> mov __ctx, %eax
> call fun
> pop %ecx
> mov %ecx, %(esp)
> ret
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52041
--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-01-30
19:36:33 UTC ---
Can't reproduce the -fcompare-debug failure with a cross from x86_64-linux to
x86_64-darwin on the provided tree-ssa-strlen.i btw., though of course the
configuration of the compiler
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52036
--- Comment #7 from Daniel Krügler
2012-01-30 19:28:05 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> (In reply to comment #3)
> > However compilation still fails if pi is given internal linkage by
> > declaring it > static, i.e.
> >
> > int main()
> > {
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52041
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-01-30
19:26:10 UTC ---
The addition of # DEBUG lines in the dumps as well as some changes in D.
numbers are expected and correct in between the dumps, but the SSA_NAME
versions (_VV parts) as well as th
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52056
Bug #: 52056
Summary: Code optimization sensitive to trivial changes
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Prio
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51500
--- Comment #13 from Kai Tietz 2012-01-30 19:20:16
UTC ---
Right the following sequence seems to be better IMHO:
pop %eax
push %ecx
push %eax
mov __ctx, %eax
call fun
pop %ecx
mov %ecx, %(esp)
ret
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52042
m...@gcc.gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mrs at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52055
Bug #: 52055
Summary: load of 64-bit pointer reads 64 bits even when only 32
are used
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48501
Uros Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51753
--- Comment #2 from Uros Bizjak 2012-01-30 18:47:21
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> > I'm uncertain if this is a code generation issue or a problem on the gdb
> > side.
>
> The problem still occurs unchanged with gdb 7.4. Uros, do you have
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44581
John David Anglin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Component|target
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52041
--- Comment #10 from Iain Sandoe 2012-01-30 18:22:12
UTC ---
the stage3 tree-ssa-strlen.o fails with -fcompare-debug "failure (length)".
An incomplete analysis ... run out of time...
The first mismatched tree dump is 18t.ssa -- with differences
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52042
--- Comment #1 from Jack Howarth 2012-01-30
18:21:09 UTC ---
Note that darwin11 leverages the PIC default on darwin to create pie
executables by defaulting the linker to -pie when targeting 10.7 or later. The
question is whether, like gcc.dg/darw
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51906
--- Comment #23 from Jack Howarth 2012-01-30
18:04:44 UTC ---
The 30_threads/recursive_mutex/try_lock/1.cc execution test on darwin11 built
with gcc trunk against Xcode 4.2.1 shows...
(gdb) break main
Breakpoint 1 at 0x10dcc: file
/sw/src/f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51753
--- Comment #1 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2012-01-30 17:26:47 UTC ---
> I'm uncertain if this is a code generation issue or a problem on the gdb side.
The problem still occurs unchanged with gdb 7.4. Uros, do you have
suggestions ho
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51835
--- Comment #4 from jye2 at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-30 17:22:08 UTC ---
Author: jye2
Date: Mon Jan 30 17:22:04 2012
New Revision: 183734
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=183734
Log:
2012-01-30 Bin Cheng
PR target/51835
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46057
John David Anglin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=7625
--- Comment #7 from dave.anglin at bell dot net 2012-01-30 17:00:45 UTC ---
On 1/29/2012 5:39 PM, steven at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> Perhaps this should be closed as WONTFIX?
This enhancement should be done. It appears both the
32 and 64-bit target
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51835
--- Comment #3 from jye2 at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-30 16:59:21 UTC ---
Author: jye2
Date: Mon Jan 30 16:59:14 2012
New Revision: 183733
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=183733
Log:
2012-01-30 Bin Cheng
PR target/51835
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51500
--- Comment #12 from Uros Bizjak 2012-01-30 16:39:04
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #11)
> + *(unsigned int*) &__tramp[24] = 0x8304244c; /* xchgl 4(%esp),%ecx*/ \
Don't use this insn, it implies lock prefix and costs hundreds of cycles.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51649
--- Comment #9 from Tom Tromey 2012-01-30 16:25:25
UTC ---
Author: tromey
Date: Mon Jan 30 16:25:11 2012
New Revision: 183732
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=183732
Log:
PR libstdc++/51649:
* testsuite/libstdc++-pre
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52041
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #9 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50176
--- Comment #14 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-01-30
16:06:03 UTC ---
Created attachment 26517
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26517
patch
I've tried to implement a hack for this in fwprop (debug insn updating for that
not implement
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50176
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #15
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52028
--- Comment #6 from Richard Guenther 2012-01-30
15:51:34 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Jan 30 15:51:23 2012
New Revision: 183730
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=183730
Log:
2012-01-30 Richard Guenther
PR tree-op
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51795
--- Comment #28 from Paolo Carlini 2012-01-30
15:52:00 UTC ---
As a matter of fact, I'm not able to prove that things can go wrong with the
normal Schrage when x == m - 1, at least given our other conds (eg, a < m). I
guess better not fiddling wi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52028
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
--with-system-zlib
--enable-checking=release --with-cloog=/opt/mp --enable-cloog-backend=isl
--enable-lto
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.7.0 20120130 (experimental) [trunk revision 183725] (GCC)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52041
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52053
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51500
--- Comment #11 from gee 2012-01-30 15:10:48 UTC ---
Comment on attachment 26513
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26513
proposed patch for handling thiscall r3
@@ -505,6 +508,23 @@ ffi_prep_incoming_args_SYSV(char *stack, void
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51641
--- Comment #3 from Dodji Seketeli 2012-01-30
14:55:50 UTC ---
I have inadvertently committed this in trunk (4.7) even though it wasn't a
regression. I have now reverted it, and queuing it for 4.8 when stage 1 opens
again. Sorry.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52053
--- Comment #3 from Tobias Burnus 2012-01-30
14:48:09 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #0)
> REAL(KIND=4) :: a(20,1000,1000)
If you want to reduce problems due to the accumulation of rounds, you should
increase the precision. Try kind=8, 10 or 16 (i
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51906
--- Comment #22 from Jack Howarth 2012-01-30
14:42:48 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #21)
> That gdb session in comment 18 makes no sense, owns_lock can't call trylock.
> Your sources don't match your lib.
>
> I thought this was a problem with WAR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52053
--- Comment #2 from François Willot
2012-01-30 14:41:58 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> This is not a bug: 16777216. == 2.0**24, then you can add 1.0 as much as you
> like without changing the result.
>
> If one want a bug here, it is a misse
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50313
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46801
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.6.0
--- Comment #11 from Richard Gue
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52054
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52054
Bug #: 52054
Summary: Value-numbering does not enter translated expressions
into the hash table
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCON
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50313
--- Comment #6 from Ramana Radhakrishnan 2012-01-30
14:35:10 UTC ---
Author: ramana
Date: Mon Jan 30 14:35:05 2012
New Revision: 183727
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=183727
Log:
Fix PR target/50313
2012-01-30 Ramana R
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52053
--- Comment #1 from Dominique d'Humieres 2012-01-30
14:28:13 UTC ---
This is not a bug: 16777216. == 2.0**24, then you can add 1.0 as much as you
like without changing the result.
If one want a bug here, it is a missed optimization as SUM does n
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51641
--- Comment #2 from Dodji Seketeli 2012-01-30
14:26:19 UTC ---
Author: dodji
Date: Mon Jan 30 14:26:12 2012
New Revision: 183726
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=183726
Log:
PR c++/51641 - Lookup finds enclosing class member
1 - 100 of 153 matches
Mail list logo
