http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52337
Bug #: 52337
Summary: memory hole
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: critical
Priority: P3
Component: c++
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52336
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51716
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||maxim.prohorenko at gmail
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52336
Bug #: 52336
Summary: Change the private field without any warning or error.
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52335
Bug #: 52335
Summary: [4.4/4.5/4.6/4.7 Regression] I/O: -std=f95 rejects
valid DELIM= in OPEN
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFI
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52325
--- Comment #4 from Joost VandeVondele
2012-02-22 06:53:09 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> Submitted patch (pending review):
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2012-02/msg00089.html
and a nitpick... it should be 'non-derived type' instead on '
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52334
--- Comment #2 from haichang417 2012-02-22 06:52:12 UTC
---
(In reply to comment #1)
> First can you provide the preprocessed source? Second can you try with a
> newer
> version of GCC like maybe 4.4.6? Third can you describe why you think the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52325
--- Comment #3 from Joost VandeVondele
2012-02-22 06:49:41 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> Submitted patch (pending review):
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2012-02/msg00089.html
OK ;-)
this would be a significant improvement.
I think it
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52334
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c |middle-end
Severity|critical
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52334
Bug #: 52334
Summary: The user of "zero" register is wrong
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.3.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: critical
Priority: P
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52301
--- Comment #6 from rickyrockrat 2012-02-22
05:05:56 UTC ---
I guess I'm a little confused. How can GCC NOT know it can change?
Any RAM location not only can but usually does change. It seems that volatile
should be the norm.
Whatever. I'll jus
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52333
--- Comment #7 from pablomme 2012-02-22
04:42:30 UTC ---
> What happens with all your compilers if you supply
> an explicit interface for say DSIN.
For DSIN all of them behave like gfortran:
--
$ cat test_dsin.f90
PROGRAM test_dsin
IMPLICIT NO
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52301
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52301
--- Comment #4 from rickyrockrat 2012-02-22
04:31:11 UTC ---
Created attachment 26724
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26724
Assembly generated using script and original source
Resulting assembly from recently supplied files -
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52301
--- Comment #3 from rickyrockrat 2012-02-22
04:29:21 UTC ---
Created attachment 26723
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26723
Script to compile bug52301.c
Script to run avr-gcc on the subject file.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52301
--- Comment #2 from rickyrockrat 2012-02-22
04:27:01 UTC ---
Created attachment 26722
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26722
Intermediate file
Intermediate file, as requested. Changed name to bug52301.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52333
--- Comment #6 from Steve Kargl
2012-02-22 04:16:21 UTC ---
On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 03:40:12AM +, pablomme at googlemail dot com wrote:
>
> So ifort seems to agree with gfortran in its error messages that providing an
> explicit interface to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52333
--- Comment #5 from Steve Kargl
2012-02-22 03:49:15 UTC ---
On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 03:32:14AM +, pablomme at googlemail dot com wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52333
>
> --- Comment #3 from pablomme 2012-02-22
> 03:32
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52333
--- Comment #4 from pablomme 2012-02-22
03:40:12 UTC ---
Adding "EXTERNAL etime" to the program gives:
--
$ gfortran -o t test_etime_iface.f90
test_etime_iface.f90:9.15:
EXTERNAL etime
1
Error: Duplicate EXTERNAL attribute spec
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52333
--- Comment #3 from pablomme 2012-02-22
03:32:14 UTC ---
> Please define fails. What is the error message you get?
Namely:
$ gfortran -o t test_etime_iface.f90
/scratch/pl275/ccyZ7sWC.o: In function `MAIN__':
test_etime_iface.f90:(.text+0x4b)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52333
--- Comment #2 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-02-22 03:29:28 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> Please define fails. What is the error message
> you get? All procedure included in gfortran's
> runtime library are treated as intrinsic
> proced
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52333
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=52333
Bug #: 52333
Summary: Explicit etime interface should work
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50043
--- Comment #3 from Michel Morin 2012-02-22
02:43:30 UTC ---
Created attachment 26721
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26721
A updated testcase
OK, here is a take two!
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52261
--- Comment #5 from Stefan Reichardt 2012-02-22 01:38:52
UTC ---
Its no problem to compile and link it that way but i dont have that device so
cant test it.
I would make a patch myself and post it here and on binutils, if i knew that
this would
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52294
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52323
--- Comment #3 from Jan Seiffert
2012-02-22 00:03:53 UTC ---
My use case are not large floating point math funcs.
While intrinsics are nice (the new Tile ports rock! Every spec. instruction as
intrinsic from day 1, that's how it should be for a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52294
--- Comment #10 from Richard Earnshaw 2012-02-21
23:51:21 UTC ---
Author: rearnsha
Date: Tue Feb 21 23:51:16 2012
New Revision: 184454
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=184454
Log:
PR target/52294
* thumb2.md (thumb2_
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50349
Benjamin Kosnik changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50349
--- Comment #5 from Benjamin Kosnik 2012-02-21
23:46:55 UTC ---
Author: bkoz
Date: Tue Feb 21 23:46:49 2012
New Revision: 184453
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=184453
Log:
2012-02-17 Benjamin Kosnik
PR libstdc++/50
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52294
--- Comment #9 from Richard Earnshaw 2012-02-21
23:46:10 UTC ---
Author: rearnsha
Date: Tue Feb 21 23:46:05 2012
New Revision: 184452
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=184452
Log:
PR target/52294
* thumb2.md (thumb2_s
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52332
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52332
Bug #: 52332
Summary: Internal compiler error in in gfc_get_symbol_decl
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52224
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52317
--- Comment #16 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-02-21 21:30:54 UTC ---
Author: paolo
Date: Tue Feb 21 21:30:44 2012
New Revision: 184449
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=184449
Log:
2012-02-21 Paolo Carlini
PR lib
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52317
--- Comment #17 from Paolo Carlini 2012-02-21
21:31:27 UTC ---
Ah, Ok, should be fixed now.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52317
--- Comment #15 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-02-21 21:30:31 UTC ---
Author: paolo
Date: Tue Feb 21 21:30:26 2012
New Revision: 184448
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=184448
Log:
2012-02-21 Paolo Carlini
PR lib
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50211
--- Comment #3 from Zdenek Sojka 2012-02-21 21:25:56
UTC ---
Created attachment 26719
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26719
even shorter testcase
$ gcc -O -funroll-all-loops --param=case-values-threshold=1 testcase.c
testcas
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52224
--- Comment #5 from Daniel Krügler
2012-02-21 21:17:41 UTC ---
I just found this closed CWG issue:
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/cwg_closed.html#487
It seems that the compiler behaviour is indeed intended by the core language.
Bas
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52317
--- Comment #14 from Alfred Minarik 2012-02-21
20:48:38 UTC ---
ok, only that I see that nearly everywhere else,
just nearby in
/trunk/libstdc++-v3/include/profile/iterator_tracker.h
/trunk/libstdc++-v3/include/profile/forward_list
or any file I
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52283
--- Comment #21 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2012-02-21
20:35:31 UTC ---
BTW, why warn_if_unused_value is in stmt.c?
The comment at the top says: /* Expands front end tree to back end RTL for GCC
*/
And warn_if_unused_value is exclusively used by the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52283
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||37985
--- Comment #20 from Manuel L
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52283
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #26710|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52317
--- Comment #13 from Paolo Carlini 2012-02-21
20:23:47 UTC ---
Nope (and note that we don't have that anywhere else).
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52326
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52317
Alfred Minarik changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||alfred.minarik.1 at aon dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52331
Bug #: 52331
Summary: 20011127-1.c: valgrind problem on invalid asm
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Prior
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52330
Bug #: 52330
Summary: pr50305.c: valgrind problem on invalid asm
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Priority
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50349
Benjamin Kosnik changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52328
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=52329
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-02-21
18:41:01 UTC ---
Richard, so what exactly is not kosher?
We have:
# DEBUG D#7 => &s.c.D.2422
...
MEM[(struct J *)&s].D.2422._vptr.G = &MEM[(void *)&_ZTV1JI1BIwES0_IS1_E1AIS1_EE
+ 16B];
in the optimized
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52218
--- Comment #5 from Ian Lance Taylor 2012-02-21 18:33:14
UTC ---
If ARM GNU/Linux does not support getcontext/setcontext, then this particular
configure test is not particularly relevant, since the library isn't going to
work anyhow. I suppose t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52329
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-02-21
18:24:37 UTC ---
Slightly more reduced testcase for -O2 -g:
template
class A;
template
struct B;
template , typename = A >
class C;
template
class A {};
template
struct D
{
struct E
{
T *e
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52283
--- Comment #18 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2012-02-21 17:56:32 UTC ---
On Tue, 21 Feb 2012, manu at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52283
>
> --- Comment #17 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2012-02-21
> 1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52329
--- Comment #1 from Martin Jambor 2012-02-21
17:51:10 UTC ---
Created attachment 26717
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26717
Delta reduced testcase
This as far as I managed to reduce the testcase with multidelta.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52283
--- Comment #17 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2012-02-21
17:52:12 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #16)
> I think the full set of testcases from the patch originally proposed on
> gcc-patches should be added, but don't see any issues with this new patch
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52329
Bug #: 52329
Summary: Invalid MEM_REF encountered in
set_mem_attributes_minus_bitpos
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52283
--- Comment #16 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2012-02-21 17:40:36 UTC ---
On Tue, 21 Feb 2012, manu at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> Created attachment 26710
> --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26710
> patch reverting PR26632
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52321
--- Comment #4 from Ivan Godard 2012-02-21
17:38:30 UTC ---
Define an enum of reasons with "success" first, flop the sense of the test so
that false means coercion was OK (grep to find all calls and put a "!" in front
of each), and return the rea
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52327
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52327
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-02-21
16:54:45 UTC ---
Virtual bases are constructed by the most-derived class, which is
Initializer in your "templated copy" case, and the ctor-initializer-list
for Initializer doesn't construct the Base
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52328
--- Comment #1 from Rainer Keller 2012-02-21 16:54:39
UTC ---
Created attachment 26715
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26715
test-case showing the wrong location of nonconformant tab-character.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52328
Bug #: 52328
Summary: Wrong line in warning
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compon
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52327
Bug #: 52327
Summary: Virtual inheritance and template copy construction
doesn't call the correct copy constructors
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52325
--- Comment #2 from Tobias Burnus 2012-02-21
15:58:23 UTC ---
Submitted patch (pending review):
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2012-02/msg00089.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52321
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-02-21
15:53:10 UTC ---
Yep, it's build_static_cast_1 in typeck.c
But currently that has no way to store or pass back a message (just a boolean
indicating success or failure and the result of the cast) and
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52294
--- Comment #8 from Richard Earnshaw 2012-02-21
15:38:40 UTC ---
Author: rearnsha
Date: Tue Feb 21 15:38:35 2012
New Revision: 184442
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=184442
Log:
PR target/52294
* thumb2.md (thumb2_s
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52321
--- Comment #2 from Ivan Godard 2012-02-21
15:30:42 UTC ---
Somewhere there's an attept to coerce a to b that sees the source is a class
and the target is a class and tries to see if the source is derived from
target. That check fails because sou
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51967
John David Anglin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52137
--- Comment #1 from Quentin Neill 2012-02-21
15:15:48 UTC ---
Author: qneill
Date: Tue Feb 21 15:15:42 2012
New Revision: 184440
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=184440
Log:
2012-02-21 Quentin Neill
PR target/52137
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52314
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52314
--- Comment #5 from Richard Guenther 2012-02-21
14:10:43 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Feb 21 14:10:31 2012
New Revision: 184436
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=184436
Log:
2012-02-21 Richard Guenther
PR middle-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52218
Matthias Klose changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
--- Comment #4 from Matthias Klose
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52196
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52270
--- Comment #2 from Tobias Burnus 2012-02-21
13:36:30 UTC ---
Submitted patch, pending review:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2012-02/msg00085.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50981
--- Comment #38 from Tobias Burnus 2012-02-21
13:32:38 UTC ---
Pending trunk patches (approved, but not committed; 4.8?):
- http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2012-02/msg00061.html
- http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2012-02/msg00062.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52326
--- Comment #2 from Richard Guenther 2012-02-21
13:27:23 UTC ---
Reduced single-file testcase, fails at -O1:
float fabsf(float x);
void abort (void);
static float minf(float a, float b)
{
return (a < b) ? a: b;
}
static float maxf(float a, f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52326
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-*-*
Status|UNCONFIR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51782
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-p
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52326
Bug #: 52326
Summary: float result incorrect with -O1 and calling external
function.
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52324
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52324
--- Comment #2 from Richard Guenther 2012-02-21
12:37:37 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Feb 21 12:37:33 2012
New Revision: 184435
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=184435
Log:
2012-02-21 Richard Guenther
PR tree-op
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52314
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50043
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-02-21
12:05:40 UTC ---
We don't want front-end testcases that rely on and need to check
what gets printed. A better test would use static_assert, but would also test
cases with both throwing and non-throw
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18141
--- Comment #2 from Dinar Temirbulatov
2012-02-21 11:58:23 UTC ---
proposed fix for this issue posted here
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-09/msg01693.html and the GNU copyright
assignment form available upon request.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48124
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52080
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51782
--- Comment #26 from Georg-Johann Lay 2012-02-21
11:54:36 UTC ---
Author: gjl
Date: Tue Feb 21 11:54:27 2012
New Revision: 184434
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=184434
Log:
PR middle-end/51782
* gcc.target/avr/tort
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50043
--- Comment #1 from Michel Morin 2012-02-21
11:51:14 UTC ---
Created attachment 26711
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26711
A testcase for N3204
Attached a testcase for N3204 ;)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51782
--- Comment #25 from Dominique d'Humieres
2012-02-21 11:16:25 UTC ---
> Unfortunately, with the patch I got following new LTO link failures on
> x86_64-linux:
>
> gcc.dg/lto/trans-mem-1 c_lto_trans-mem-1_0.o-c_lto_trans-mem-1_1.o link, -flto
> -f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52321
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Severity|normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52325
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52317
--- Comment #10 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-02-21 10:56:40 UTC ---
Author: paolo
Date: Tue Feb 21 10:56:34 2012
New Revision: 184431
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=184431
Log:
2012-02-21 Paolo Carlini
PR lib
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52317
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52317
--- Comment #9 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-02-21 10:56:00 UTC ---
Author: paolo
Date: Tue Feb 21 10:55:54 2012
New Revision: 184430
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=184430
Log:
2012-02-21 Paolo Carlini
PR libs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52320
--- Comment #3 from Daniel Krügler
2012-02-21 10:53:59 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
Agreed. It seems that the fix did not solve some array-related corner cases
like this one.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52318
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52320
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51782
--- Comment #24 from Martin Jambor 2012-02-21
10:37:40 UTC ---
Unfortunately, with the patch I got following new LTO link failures on
x86_64-linux:
gcc.dg/lto/trans-mem-1 c_lto_trans-mem-1_0.o-c_lto_trans-mem-1_1.o link, -flto
-fgnu-tm
gcc.dg/lt
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51782
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|tree-optimization |middle-end
--- Comment #23 from Martin Ja
1 - 100 of 112 matches
Mail list logo
