http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53109
Bug #: 53109
Summary: e.E::~E() should compile without error in c++ 2011
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52196
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53086
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #12
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52583
--- Comment #20 from Uros Bizjak 2012-04-25 06:40:13
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #16)
> I think that the problems with the log test should be fixed now.
Yes, my latest libgo testrun on alpha [1] is clean.
[1] http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52196
--- Comment #2 from Tobias Burnus 2012-04-25
06:26:01 UTC ---
Author: burnus
Date: Wed Apr 25 06:25:48 2012
New Revision: 186806
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=186806
Log:
2012-04-25 Tobias Burnus
PR fortran/52
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52428
--- Comment #7 from Janne Blomqvist 2012-04-25 06:11:58
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> I respectfully disagree. The Fortran model is/was developed over many years
> with many knowledgeable people investing time into it of good reasons. Some
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53087
--- Comment #7 from Alan Modra 2012-04-25 05:26:28
UTC ---
Some more data points. The testcase in #1 produces
gcc-4.3.6
cmpldi 7,3,27
mr 9,3
li 3,0
bgtlr 7
lis 0,0xcf8
ori 0,0,63
srd 0,0,9
rldicl 3,0,0,63
blr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52341
Ian Lance Taylor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Version|4.7.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52341
--- Comment #1 from ian at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-04-25
04:41:05 UTC ---
Author: ian
Date: Wed Apr 25 04:40:49 2012
New Revision: 186803
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=186803
Log:
PR go/52341
crypto/rand: Use io.ReadFul
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52341
--- Comment #2 from ian at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-04-25
04:41:23 UTC ---
Author: ian
Date: Wed Apr 25 04:41:13 2012
New Revision: 186804
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=186804
Log:
PR go/52341
crypto/rand: Use io.ReadFul
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52583
Ian Lance Taylor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|4.7.0 |4.7.1
--- Comment #19 from Ian Lance T
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52583
--- Comment #18 from ian at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-04-25
04:26:37 UTC ---
Author: ian
Date: Wed Apr 25 04:26:31 2012
New Revision: 186802
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=186802
Log:
PR go/52583
net: Solaris fixes.
In pa
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52583
--- Comment #17 from ian at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-04-25
04:26:21 UTC ---
Author: ian
Date: Wed Apr 25 04:26:12 2012
New Revision: 186801
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=186801
Log:
PR go/52583
net: Solaris fixes.
In pa
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53108
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski 2012-04-25
02:55:45 UTC ---
And it works on the trunk:
pinskia@server:~/Downloads$ ~/local-gcc/bin/gcc t777.cc -std=c++11 -W
-Wall;./a.out;echo $?
0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53108
--- Comment #1 from Fernando Pelliccioni
2012-04-25 02:36:06 UTC ---
Clang compiles OK.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53108
Bug #: 53108
Summary: Nested template classes and variadic templates
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52447
Benjamin Kosnik changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bkoz at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #7
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52689
--- Comment #20 from Benjamin Kosnik 2012-04-25
02:00:06 UTC ---
Fixed for 4.7.1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51138
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53107
Bug #: 53107
Summary: scheduling fail
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: r
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52689
--- Comment #19 from Benjamin Kosnik 2012-04-25
01:18:02 UTC ---
Author: bkoz
Date: Wed Apr 25 01:17:57 2012
New Revision: 186794
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=186794
Log:
2012-04-24 Benjamin Kosnik
PR libstdc++/5
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52553
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|blocker |normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52428
--- Comment #6 from Jerry DeLisle 2012-04-25
00:29:00 UTC ---
I respectfully disagree. The Fortran model is/was developed over many years
with many knowledgeable people investing time into it of good reasons. Some
may disagree,but it is what it
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52870
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dcb314 at hotmail dot com
--- Comment #5
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52639
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53006
Benjamin Kosnik changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bkoz at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52866
Benjamin Kosnik changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bkoz at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52639
--- Comment #8 from Vincent Lefèvre 2012-04-24
23:58:06 UTC ---
I confirm that rebuilding gcc-snapshot with the patch
http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?view=revision&revision=186272 for PR
tree-optimization/52870 solves the problem.
So, I think that th
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53000
--- Comment #7 from Marc Glisse 2012-04-24
23:23:09 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> which way is the standards committee leaning?
The DR is young, there hasn't been a meeting since. There weren't many
objections to the proposed resolution, al
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53106
--- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu 2012-04-24 23:13:19
UTC ---
Testcase
[hjl@gnu-35 delta]$ cat testcase.cc
#include
template
class FiniteElement
{
public:
FiniteElement ( const std::vector > &nonzero_components);
};
template
class FE_RaviartT
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53106
--- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu 2012-04-24 23:12:19
UTC ---
[hjl@gnu-35 delta]$ /export/gnu/import/git/gcc-test-spec/usr/bin/gcc -mx32 -O3
-S testcase.cc
testcase.cc:31:35: error: caller edge frequency 3943 does not match BB
frequency 390
template c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53019
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski 2012-04-24
23:03:11 UTC ---
This works on the trunk, we get undefined references.
Are you using gold or BFD ld?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53000
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski 2012-04-24
22:45:54 UTC ---
A good question from an semi outsider, which way is the standards committee
leaning? And is there a big disagreement about the defect report? I think if
there is a disagreement, then
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53000
--- Comment #5 from Marc Glisse 2012-04-24
22:35:31 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> it's not obvious to me what the right fix is
> either so I'm not in a rush to change anything.
Actually, I now believe it is a good idea to rush (well, maybe
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53106
--- Comment #1 from H.J. Lu 2012-04-24 21:50:20
UTC ---
On Linux/ia32, 447.dealII failed to build:
g++ -m32 -c -o fe_raviart_thomas.o -DSPEC_CPU -DNDEBUG -Iinclude
-DBOOST_DISABLE_THREADS -Ddeal_II_dimension=3 -O3 -funroll-loops -msse2
-mfpmath
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53106
Bug #: 53106
Summary: [4.8 Regression] Benchmarks in SPEC CPU 2006 failed to
build
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53000
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-04-24
21:48:22 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> Hmm, I guess you can forget this rant and go ahead (I am still posting it
> because there may be real arguments somewhere).
:) Thanks for the comments, i
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53105
Bug #: 53105
Summary: Segmentation fault in is_gimple_min_invariant
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52428
--- Comment #5 from Janne Blomqvist 2012-04-24 21:44:06
UTC ---
See also PR 36515
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52583
--- Comment #16 from Ian Lance Taylor 2012-04-24 20:43:33
UTC ---
I think that the problems with the log test should be fixed now.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52462
Ian Lance Taylor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53104
Bug #: 53104
Summary: convert_move on MODE_PARTIAL_INT does not look for
existing conversion
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53000
Marc Glisse changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marc.glisse at normalesup
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52359
Ian Lance Taylor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53065
--- Comment #7 from webbot at webbot dot org.uk 2012-04-24 18:34:41 UTC ---
Don't profess to understand the thread comments - but MANY THANKS for fixing in
4.7.1. Brilliant turnaround
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52999
--- Comment #10 from dave.anglin at bell dot net 2012-04-24 18:18:07 UTC ---
On 4/24/2012 5:35 AM, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> What happens on this testcase is
> default_elf_select_rtx_section and the PA specific part of that is just that
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52639
--- Comment #7 from dcb 2012-04-24 18:08:53 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> Supposedly fixed by
>
> 2012-04-10 Ulrich Weigand
>
> PR tree-optimization/52870
> * tree-vect-patterns.c (vect_recog_widen_mult_pattern): Verify t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39970
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|gcc-bugs at g
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52641
--- Comment #5 from Georg-Johann Lay 2012-04-24
17:19:03 UTC ---
Author: gjl
Date: Tue Apr 24 17:18:54 2012
New Revision: 186776
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=186776
Log:
PR testsuite/52641
PR tree-optimizations/5
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52891
--- Comment #8 from Georg-Johann Lay 2012-04-24
17:19:03 UTC ---
Author: gjl
Date: Tue Apr 24 17:18:54 2012
New Revision: 186776
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=186776
Log:
PR testsuite/52641
PR tree-optimizations/5
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52641
--- Comment #4 from Georg-Johann Lay 2012-04-24
17:08:28 UTC ---
Author: gjl
Date: Tue Apr 24 17:08:20 2012
New Revision: 186775
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=186775
Log:
PR testsuite/52641
PR tree-optimizations/5
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52891
--- Comment #7 from Georg-Johann Lay 2012-04-24
17:08:28 UTC ---
Author: gjl
Date: Tue Apr 24 17:08:20 2012
New Revision: 186775
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=186775
Log:
PR testsuite/52641
PR tree-optimizations/5
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52633
--- Comment #2 from Ulrich Weigand 2012-04-24
16:52:59 UTC ---
Some more details on what's going on here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-04/msg01486.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51874
--- Comment #16 from Ian Lance Taylor 2012-04-24 16:33:13
UTC ---
At some point, can you update this bug with the current set of test failures
using Go on Irix? No rush.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52363
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52363
--- Comment #12 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-04-24 16:25:33 UTC ---
Author: paolo
Date: Tue Apr 24 16:25:15 2012
New Revision: 186774
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=186774
Log:
/cp
2012-04-24 Paolo Carlini
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53102
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski 2012-04-24
16:19:38 UTC ---
>(N.B. using 'typenme' outside of templates is valid in C++11)
That was a Defect report.
I think my patch to fix PR22154 was not a complete one.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47197
William J. Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47197
--- Comment #4 from William J. Schmidt 2012-04-24
15:52:04 UTC ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Tue Apr 24 15:51:58 2012
New Revision: 186771
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=186771
Log:
gcc:
2012-04-24 Bill Schmidt
PR ta
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53103
Bug #: 53103
Summary: bug locating unsigned type for non-standard precision
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52979
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53065
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Status|NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53065
--- Comment #5 from Georg-Johann Lay 2012-04-24
15:23:51 UTC ---
Author: gjl
Date: Tue Apr 24 15:23:46 2012
New Revision: 186770
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=186770
Log:
Backport from 2012-04-24 mainline r186768.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53065
--- Comment #4 from Georg-Johann Lay 2012-04-24
15:21:36 UTC ---
Author: gjl
Date: Tue Apr 24 15:21:29 2012
New Revision: 186768
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=186768
Log:
PR target/53065
* config/avr/avr.h (HARD_R
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52850
--- Comment #2 from Daniel Richard G. 2012-04-24
15:18:33 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> That sounds like an user problem rather than a GCC issue.
>From the "Installing GCC: Configuration" doc:
--with-system-zlib
Use installed `zlib
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53088
--- Comment #4 from Jan Hubicka 2012-04-24
15:12:36 UTC ---
I guess get_curr_insn_source_location is what I neeed...
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53072
--- Comment #5 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2012-04-24 15:09:34 UTC ---
On Tue, 24 Apr 2012, manu at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53072
>
> --- Comment #4 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2012-04-24
> 14:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53088
--- Comment #3 from Jan Hubicka 2012-04-24
15:07:21 UTC ---
At few places in cgraph code we set location to get those late diagnostics
right. It sort of makes sense for function wide diagnostics, but it is not this
one.
(gdb) bt
#0 inform (loca
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53091
--- Comment #14 from bugs at m8y dot org 2012-04-24 15:00:42 UTC ---
Heh. Thanks, but our current target is clang->llvm, I was just surprised that
gcc did not accept it.
The codebase being converted by unc0rr's haskell-based tokeniser is pascal
act
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53072
--- Comment #4 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2012-04-24
14:49:54 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
>
> Init() should I think ideally be just for the defaults (with _set
> replacing the present uses of -1 or 2 in Init to mean "not set").
Do you think
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53086
--- Comment #11 from Steve Kargl
2012-04-24 14:49:18 UTC ---
On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 07:57:43AM +, rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53086
>
> Richard Guenther changed:
>
>What|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53000
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53085
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Known to work|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53072
--- Comment #3 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2012-04-24 14:43:16 UTC ---
On Tue, 24 Apr 2012, manu at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> Say we have: A enables B enables C. Do we actually need to track that C was
> enabled by B or by A? Sorry I canno
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53085
--- Comment #8 from Richard Guenther 2012-04-24
14:43:01 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Apr 24 14:42:53 2012
New Revision: 186765
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=186765
Log:
2012-04-24 Richard Guenther
PR tree-op
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53085
--- Comment #7 from Richard Guenther 2012-04-24
14:41:59 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Apr 24 14:41:49 2012
New Revision: 186764
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=186764
Log:
2012-04-24 Richard Guenther
PR tree-op
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53091
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53000
--- Comment #1 from İsmail "cartman" Dönmez
2012-04-24 14:32:34 UTC ---
clang people have the following patch proposed as a workaround to this issue:
http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/cfe/trunk/www/libstdc%2B%2B4.7-clang11.patch?revision=154890
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53091
--- Comment #12 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2012-04-24 14:25:06 UTC ---
There is no requirement to accept this static initializer, but the code
does try to be lax about constants in initializers (there is no
requirement to reject it eith
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53072
--- Comment #2 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2012-04-24
14:10:48 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> On Sun, 22 Apr 2012, manu at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> This is explicitly not a detailed design; anyone implementing it would
> need to flesh out the d
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52639
--- Comment #6 from Richard Guenther 2012-04-24
14:04:42 UTC ---
Supposedly fixed by
2012-04-10 Ulrich Weigand
PR tree-optimization/52870
* tree-vect-patterns.c (vect_recog_widen_mult_pattern): Verify that
presumed pa
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53072
--- Comment #1 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2012-04-24 13:59:10 UTC ---
On Sun, 22 Apr 2012, manu at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> The infrastructure to detect whether options have been set explicitly seems to
> be there, but it is not clear ho
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47197
William J. Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot |wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52639
--- Comment #5 from Vincent Lefèvre 2012-04-24
13:22:08 UTC ---
Same problem here under Debian/unstable (x86_64), with:
gcc-snapshot -O3 -march=native -std=gnu99 -c ice-setf.i
and the testcase below, using:
gcc (Debian 20120407-1) 4.8.0 201204
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52983
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40766
--- Comment #23 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2012-04-24 13:13:13 UTC ---
The glibc libm work has mainly been oriented at correctness rather than
performance, and postdates the 2.15 release so will be new in 2.16 (the
2.15 announcement cam
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53085
--- Comment #6 from Richard Guenther 2012-04-24
13:13:26 UTC ---
Patch that applies to all maintained branches (the bug is also in 4.5!)
Index: gcc/tree-ssa-pre.c
===
--- gcc/tree-s
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53089
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #2 from Jan Hubicka 2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53093
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53085
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52979
--- Comment #7 from Richard Guenther 2012-04-24
12:28:24 UTC ---
Btw, get_best_mode for
Breakpoint 6, get_best_mode (bitsize=6, bitpos=31, bitregion_start=0,
bitregion_end=39, align=128, largest_mode=DImode, volatilep=0)
happily returns DI
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53085
--- Comment #4 from brag 2012-04-24 12:27:29 UTC
---
Alexander Monakov, As for me it's ok to treat whole struct as non-volatile even
if it has a volatile members when doing smth like this:
struct ss0 a,b;
a=b;
a=b;
Simple example with class:
cla
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51989
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52979
--- Comment #6 from Richard Guenther 2012-04-24
11:57:53 UTC ---
But it uses TYPE_SIZE_UNIT to constrain it which is 5, and maxbitsize 40.
Which then leads to a representative of BLKmode via
if (mode == VOIDmode)
{
/* We really want
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51033
--- Comment #23 from Marc Glisse 2012-04-24
11:57:22 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #21)
> What does it mean "exercise the backend a lot"? Do you mean it takes a lot of
> time?
I think so.
> I haven't looked at the tests, but I think it is not a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53065
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52891
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52979
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-04-24
11:41:47 UTC ---
This is a kind of dup of PR48124, certainly on the 4.7 branch that doesn't even
try to handle it, and on the trunk (after Honza's changes one needs to swap
struct S a = { 1 };
static s
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53102
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||accepts-invalid
Status|UNCO
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52428
Janne Blomqvist changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #27228|0 |1
is obsolete|
1 - 100 of 138 matches
Mail list logo
