http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44141
Uros Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned at g
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52554
Florian Weimer changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|accepts-invalid, wrong-code |
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52749
Veiokej changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||accepts-invalid
Target|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52749
Bug #: 52749
Summary: Aliasing violation silently accepted
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52748
Bug #: 52748
Summary: [C++11] N3276 changes to decltype
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52705
--- Comment #3 from Veiokej 2012-03-28 03:58:24 UTC
---
-fno-strict-aliasing does indeed fix the problem, so I'm compelled to believe
your assertion that the code contains an aliasing violation.
For the record, would you mind simply indicating w
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52717
--- Comment #7 from Matt Hargett 2012-03-28 03:22:49 UTC
---
Is there any more information I need to provide for this class of issues to be
resolved? Mozilla, WebKit, and others all eventually fail with similar errors.
If there's a proposed fix,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44141
--- Comment #11 from Venkataramanan
2012-03-28 03:02:19 UTC ---
Uros, Can you please assign this bug under my name. I will see what is
hapenning at reload.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52747
Bug #: 52747
Summary: No warning from toolchain with nested function and
--noexecstack
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52746
Bug #: 52746
Summary: [4.7 Regression] Explicit virtual destructor call
replaced by direct call in template function
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52745
Jonathan Rogers changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52745
--- Comment #6 from Paolo Carlini 2012-03-27
23:44:44 UTC ---
Essentially the leeway for the unsafe fallback in the case of Comment #4 is
provided by 23.3.6.5/1: "If an exception is thrown by the move constructor of a
non-CopyInsertable T, the ef
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52272
Michael Meissner changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||meissner at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52745
--- Comment #5 from Paolo Carlini 2012-03-27
23:30:23 UTC ---
That's known, it's a design choice: in that case you are essentially back to
the unsafe 4.6 behavior. Look for 'move_if_noexcept'.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52745
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Rogers
2012-03-27 23:25:45 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> Otherwise, if the move constructor by chance throws, the push_back cannot have
> no effects, as required by 23.2.1/10. Actually the requirement holds for a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52745
--- Comment #3 from Paolo Carlini 2012-03-27
23:21:59 UTC ---
Otherwise, if the move constructor by chance throws, the push_back cannot have
no effects, as required by 23.2.1/10. Actually the requirement holds for all
the containers, but only std
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52727
--- Comment #11 from Richard Henderson 2012-03-27
23:20:39 UTC ---
Created attachment 27019
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27019
proposed patch
Fixes the testcase in the PR. Just starting proper testing now,
what with those
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52745
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Rogers
2012-03-27 23:13:29 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> But Stuff' move-constructor isn't known not to throw...
Okay, so it is a new requirement for move constructors to be marked as nothrow
in order for vector
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52745
--- Comment #1 from Paolo Carlini 2012-03-27
23:06:17 UTC ---
But Stuff' move-constructor isn't known not to throw...
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52745
Bug #: 52745
Summary: GCC4.7 vector uses copy instead of move constructor
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52736
--- Comment #9 from Matthias Kretz 2012-03-27 21:20:49
UTC ---
All good. The error is mine. I don't see any regressions from the use of the
patch.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52607
--- Comment #22 from Marc Glisse 2012-03-27
20:57:16 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #20)
> Lastly for each routine it is desirable to think whether it might be useful
> for
> other vector modes (likely 32-byte only) for TARGET_AVX2.
I am not very
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51893
--- Comment #11 from Eric Botcazou 2012-03-27
20:50:21 UTC ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Tue Mar 27 20:50:16 2012
New Revision: 185897
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=185897
Log:
PR middle-end/51893
* expmed.c (store_
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52744
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-03-27
20:46:46 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> I'm sorry but the bug reporting interface seemed to allow only one attachment.
Only on the initial submission, you can add as many as you like once the PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52744
--- Comment #4 from Lorenzo Pistone 2012-03-27
20:37:22 UTC ---
gcc version 4.4.5 (Debian 4.4.5-8) can build both the test cases.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50751
--- Comment #24 from Oleg Endo 2012-03-27
20:14:57 UTC ---
Author: olegendo
Date: Tue Mar 27 20:14:44 2012
New Revision: 185894
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=185894
Log:
PR target/50751
* config/sh/sh.c (sh_legiti
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52744
--- Comment #3 from Lorenzo Pistone 2012-03-27
20:15:11 UTC ---
I'm sorry but the bug reporting interface seemed to allow only one attachment.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52730
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tromey at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52730
--- Comment #6 from Steven Bosscher 2012-03-27
20:11:44 UTC ---
Created attachment 27018
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27018
Stop using output_constant in class.c
I believe something like this should work, but I don't want
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52744
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52744
--- Comment #1 from Lorenzo Pistone 2012-03-27
19:37:50 UTC ---
Of course it's c++0x. Compile with -std=c++0x.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52744
Bug #: 52744
Summary: bad handling of member (function) pointers in template
parameters
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52743
Bug #: 52743
Summary: g++-4.7.0 seg faults on overload functions.
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priori
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52742
Bug #: 52742
Summary: Initializing an array using brace initializer and
template parameters
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRM
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25672
--- Comment #31 from Pawel Sikora 2012-03-27 18:39:37
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #30)
> Does this bug prevail in GCC 4.6.x, 4.7.x and/or trunk?
i've configured 4.7.0-RC2 for sparc64 target on x86_64 host with:
CFLAGS="-O1 -g0 -march=corei7-av
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52693
--- Comment #8 from Martin Jambor 2012-03-27
18:22:44 UTC ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Tue Mar 27 18:22:39 2012
New Revision: 185891
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=185891
Log:
2012-03-27 Martin Jambor
PR middle-end/52
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52607
--- Comment #21 from Marc Glisse 2012-03-27
18:21:39 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #20)
> I don't like much the calls to ix86_expand_vec_perm_const_1, if you are
> looking
> for exactly two insn permutations,
Actually, it isn't just 2 insn. The
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52741
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52741
Bug #: 52741
Summary: [avr] -mtiny-stack must not make assumptions on upper
8 bits of SP resp. FP
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.3
Status: UNC
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52672
--- Comment #4 from Jason Merrill 2012-03-27
18:08:20 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Tue Mar 27 18:08:13 2012
New Revision: 185890
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=185890
Log:
PR c++/52672
* gcc/cp/semantics.c (cxx_fold
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51002
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P5
Status|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52665
m...@gcc.gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52665
--- Comment #2 from mrs at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-03-27
18:01:13 UTC ---
Author: mrs
Date: Tue Mar 27 18:01:06 2012
New Revision: 185889
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=185889
Log:
PR target/52665
* gcc.target/i386/pr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52727
Richard Henderson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigne
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52607
--- Comment #20 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-03-27
17:10:00 UTC ---
Thanks for working on this.
I don't like much the calls to ix86_expand_vec_perm_const_1, if you are looking
for exactly two insn permutations, then really the two insn permutation
fu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52734
--- Comment #11 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-03-27 17:04:54 UTC ---
> Created attachment 27014 [details]
> Tentative patch
Bootstrapped and reg-tested on x86_64, no issues found.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52736
--- Comment #8 from Matthias Kretz 2012-03-27 17:02:59
UTC ---
I might have been too fast. On the Intel Sandy-Bridge, where I debugged the
problem first things have improved. On an AMD Magny-Cours I get lots of
failures. I need to investigate whe
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44141
Uros Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ra
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52736
--- Comment #7 from Matthias Kretz 2012-03-27 16:58:42
UTC ---
With the patch my unit test passes again with 4.7.0. In my code I don't see any
regressions from the patch.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52607
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |UNCONFIRMED
Ever Confirmed|1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52727
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #9 fro
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52623
--- Comment #14 from David Edelsohn 2012-03-27
16:38:15 UTC ---
> Do you see any technical issue why Import
> Files cannot be used this way for filename-based versioning over the
> traditional onefile-membername-based versioning?
I think that im
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52739
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52740
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-03-27
15:50:48 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #0)
> In order to update libstd++ file to 3.4.9 version,I downloaded gcc-4.4.0.
What do you mean by 3.4.9 version?
GCC 4.4.0 provides libstdc++.so with a symbol
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52740
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52740
Bug #: 52740
Summary: Unable to make gcc-4.x.x after successful
configuration
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52698
--- Comment #8 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-03-27 15:36:41 UTC ---
Author: uros
Date: Tue Mar 27 15:36:34 2012
New Revision: 185883
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=185883
Log:
PR target/52698
* config/i386/i386-p
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52689
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52739
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code
Status|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52736
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-03-27
14:52:13 UTC ---
Created attachment 27015
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27015
gcc48-pr52736.patch
Untested fix.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52736
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52739
Bug #: 52739
Summary: [c++0x] Segfault because of nested lambda member
capture inside member template
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.2
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52738
Bug #: 52738
Summary: libgomp configured with --enable-tls=no crash inside
pthread function
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.1
Status: UNCONFIRM
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51106
--- Comment #18 from Andrey Belevantsev 2012-03-27
14:08:23 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #17)
> Looks reasonable. Though I think that whoever removed the fallthru
> edge should have adjusted the flags on the others.
That's simply delete_basic_bl
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52736
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51106
--- Comment #17 from rguenther at suse dot de
2012-03-27 13:50:57 UTC ---
On Tue, 27 Mar 2012, abel at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51106
>
> --- Comment #16 from Andrey Belevantsev 2012-03-27
> 13:28:0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51106
--- Comment #16 from Andrey Belevantsev 2012-03-27
13:28:03 UTC ---
So, something like the below patch, or even better -- as we want to fold all
RTL-build related pseudo passes into expand, make pass_instantiate_virtual_regs
also the expand part
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52734
--- Comment #10 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-03-27 13:19:12 UTC ---
Created attachment 27014
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27014
Tentative patch
The key element of this patch is:
...
+ if (gvn_used && vuse1 != vuse2)
+
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52727
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52727
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-03-27
13:15:06 UTC ---
// { dg-options "-g -Os -m32" }
int grow (int);
void fn (int);
struct A { int a1, a2; };
template
struct B
{
A *b;
~B () { b3 (b); }
void b1 (int);
void b2 (int);
void b3 (A
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51106
--- Comment #15 from Andrey Belevantsev 2012-03-27
13:06:41 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #14)
> (In reply to comment #13)
> > It's failing not only on sh, but on x86-64 too, started with (no surprise
> > here)
> > r185564: ...
>
> Is it related
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52734
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vries at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52667
--- Comment #2 from Chung-Lin Tang 2012-03-27
13:05:06 UTC ---
Author: cltang
Date: Tue Mar 27 13:05:01 2012
New Revision: 185867
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=185867
Log:
2012-03-27 Chung-Lin Tang
PR target/52667
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51106
--- Comment #14 from Dominique d'Humieres
2012-03-27 13:02:41 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #13)
> It's failing not only on sh, but on x86-64 too, started with (no surprise
> here)
> r185564: ...
Is it related to pr52650?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52720
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Known to work|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52720
--- Comment #7 from Richard Guenther 2012-03-27
12:50:34 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Mar 27 12:50:29 2012
New Revision: 185865
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=185865
Log:
2012-03-27 Richard Guenther
PR middle-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52720
--- Comment #6 from Richard Guenther 2012-03-27
12:49:20 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Mar 27 12:49:10 2012
New Revision: 185864
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=185864
Log:
2012-03-27 Richard Guenther
PR middle-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51106
Andrey Belevantsev changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52727
--- Comment #7 from Florian Fainelli 2012-03-27
11:41:43 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> Reducing.
FYI, I managed to compile a C++ file containing only the function at line 206
without being able to reproduce the ICE.
Building with -O2 inste
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52708
--- Comment #3 from Tijl Coosemans 2012-03-27
11:33:41 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> Hm. We delay evaluating __builtin_constant_p to make it possible for inlining
> to lead to simplifications that result in a constant. We could of course
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52737
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P5
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52737
Bug #: 52737
Summary: [avr]: -mtiny-stack shall not influence multilib
selection
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44141
--- Comment #9 from Venkataramanan
2012-03-27 10:51:06 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> Created attachment 27013 [details]
> Simplied test case form ac.f90
GCC revision : 184502
Command to reproduce: gfortran unoptimal_move.f90 -S -march=bdve
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44141
--- Comment #8 from Venkataramanan
2012-03-27 10:46:53 UTC ---
Created attachment 27013
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27013
Simplied test case form ac.f90
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52733
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-03-27
09:39:49 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #0)
> I downloaded GCC 4.7.0 released [2012-03-22] and was unable to build gcc/g++.
> I used the following configure command:
>
> % ./configure --prefix=`pwd`/i
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52687
--- Comment #3 from Dmitry G. Dyachenko 2012-03-27
09:39:05 UTC ---
Fedora 17 Alpha / x64 has no problems
gcc-4.7.0 20120208 (Red Hat 4.7.0-0.12)
binutils 2.22.52.0.1-4.fc17 20120131
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52734
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tom at codesourcery dot com
C
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52727
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-03-27
08:56:23 UTC ---
Reducing.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33047
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32455
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25672
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
Summary|[4.4?/4.5 r
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52734
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Status|WAITING
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52727
Florian Fainelli changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #27002|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52727
--- Comment #4 from Florian Fainelli 2012-03-27
08:09:58 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> The preprocessed source is useless, because you are using PCH.
> See http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs/#pch
I re-ran the same command without the PCH file, and the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52734
--- Comment #6 from michael at talamasca dot ocis.net 2012-03-27 08:05:06 UTC ---
Created attachment 27011
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27011
Assembly output of Mikael's testcase, from Michael's computer
Here's the assembly
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52736
--- Comment #3 from Matthias Kretz 2012-03-27 08:01:23
UTC ---
Created attachment 27010
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27010
-S output
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52736
--- Comment #2 from Matthias Kretz 2012-03-27 08:00:47
UTC ---
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=/opt/gcc-4.7.0/bin/g++
COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/opt/gcc-4.7.0/libexec/gcc/x86_64-linux-gnu/4.7.0/lto-wrapper
Target: x86_64-linux-gnu
Configured with: ./
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52734
--- Comment #5 from michael at talamasca dot ocis.net 2012-03-27 07:57:02 UTC ---
Created attachment 27009
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27009
Typescript of Michael running Mikael's version of the testcase
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52734
--- Comment #4 from Mikael Pettersson 2012-03-27
07:53:52 UTC ---
Not x86-specific, gcc-4.7 fails on arm-linux-gnueabi and m68k-linux too.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52734
Mikael Pettersson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikpe at it dot uu.se
--- Comment #3
1 - 100 of 107 matches
Mail list logo
