http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53381
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-05-17
06:48:31 UTC ---
Note that e.g. dse.c (scan_insn) handles the AVX mem* just fine, but won't
handle this PA pattern because (set (reg) (call ...)) isn't the first thing in
the parallel. Any reason for
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53381
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #7 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53384
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski 2012-05-17
06:18:32 UTC ---
Are you building in the source directory?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53350
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.6.3
--- Comment #11 from Andrew Pinski
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53387
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski 2012-05-17
06:15:13 UTC ---
Ok, let me ask how does it fail?
Right now I know there are lots of /* */ comments in both GCC and the testsuite
so it would have shown up more than just this bug report.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53350
--- Comment #10 from Marc Glisse 2012-05-17
06:11:43 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #9)
> The main issue is that it doesn't work in 6.4.1, which is the version provided
> in Ubuntu 11.10, which means that anyone running 11.10 won't be able to
> co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53387
--- Comment #2 from quicksort at orange dot fr 2012-05-17 04:20:32 UTC ---
Hi Andrew,
It' s not related to my code.
Everything works fine when /* */ comments are replaced with // comments.
I am a 55-year old Assembly Language/Apl/C/C++ programmer a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53387
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53387
Bug #: 53387
Summary: gcc does not like /* */ comments
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53386
Bug #: 53386
Summary: Bad assembly code produced for m68000
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.4
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: blocker
Priority: P
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53385
David Edelsohn changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53385
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|tree-optimization |target
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53385
Bug #: 53385
Summary: "Error: operand out of range" after changes for
LSHIFT_EXPR in vrp.c
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRME
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53381
--- Comment #6 from dave.anglin at bell dot net 2012-05-17 01:52:03 UTC ---
On 16-May-12, at 7:14 PM, bernds at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> Ok, seriously weird call insns. If you can fix that in the port,
> it'll benefit
> from the optimization. Ot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53350
--- Comment #9 from Ryan Thompson 2012-05-17
00:44:30 UTC ---
The main issue is that it doesn't work in 6.4.1, which is the version provided
in Ubuntu 11.10, which means that anyone running 11.10 won't be able to compile
programs that use this bo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53384
Bug #: 53384
Summary: checksum (comparison) differs wrongly
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53381
--- Comment #5 from dave.anglin at bell dot net 2012-05-17 00:18:46 UTC ---
On 16-May-12, at 7:14 PM, bernds at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> Ok, seriously weird call insns. If you can fix that in the port,
> it'll benefit
> from the optimization. Ot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53383
Bug #: 53383
Summary: Allow -mpreferred-stack-boundary=3 on x86-64
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53220
--- Comment #11 from Paul Pluzhnikov 2012-05-17
00:02:33 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #10)
> C++98 and C++11 define the lifetime of a temporary as lasting until the end of
> the full-expression, unless its lifetime is extended by binding it to a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53380
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski 2012-05-16
23:49:09 UTC ---
Try -fno-asynchronous-unwind-tables .
Also the ABI for x86_64 requires the unwind tables IIRC.
Also i?86 enables the unwinding tables if frame pointers are disable in 4.6 and
above.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53376
--- Comment #3 from Ramana Radhakrishnan 2012-05-16
23:23:43 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> (In reply to comment #0)
> > extern int x;
> > static long long p;
> > static long long *h1 ;
> > static long long *h2 ;
> >
> > void foo (void)
> >
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53376
--- Comment #2 from Richard Earnshaw 2012-05-16
23:18:34 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #0)
> extern int x;
> static long long p;
> static long long *h1 ;
> static long long *h2 ;
>
> void foo (void)
> {
> int i ;
> for( i = 0 ; i < x ; i+
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53350
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski 2012-05-16
23:17:04 UTC ---
Works with:
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=/home/apinski/local-gcc/bin/gcc
COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/home/apinski/local-gcc/libexec/gcc/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/4.8.0/lto-wrapper
Target:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53381
--- Comment #4 from Bernd Schmidt 2012-05-16
23:14:32 UTC ---
Created attachment 27427
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27427
Candidate patch
Ok, seriously weird call insns. If you can fix that in the port, it'll benefit
from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53382
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski 2012-05-16
23:12:02 UTC ---
Basically C does not specify which order of the two operands of + are evaluated
first so both clang and GCC are correct.
>Since the + associativity is left-to-right
Kinda but the ord
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53382
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski 2012-05-16
23:07:46 UTC ---
See also http://c-faq.com/expr/confused.html .
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53350
--- Comment #7 from Ryan Thompson 2012-05-16
23:07:38 UTC ---
Created attachment 27426
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27426
Test case reduced by multidelta
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53382
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53382
Bug #: 53382
Summary: incorrect associativity in expressions
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: critical
Priorit
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53381
--- Comment #3 from dave.anglin at bell dot net 2012-05-16 23:01:00 UTC ---
On 16-May-12, at 6:30 PM, bernds at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53381
>
> --- Comment #2 from Bernd Schmidt
> 2012-05-16 22:30:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53381
--- Comment #2 from Bernd Schmidt 2012-05-16
22:30:53 UTC ---
What's it actually trying to access, and failing? Is dest NULL or something?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53381
John David Anglin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bernds at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53314
--- Comment #1 from Joel Sherrill 2012-05-16 20:38:44
UTC ---
Forgot the ChangeLog entry.
2012-05-16 Joel Sherrill
* config.host (m32r-*-rtems*): Include crtinit.o and crtfinit.o
as extra_parts.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53350
--- Comment #6 from Ryan Thompson 2012-05-16
20:30:29 UTC ---
The problem does not happen with g++ version 4.6.3 as provided in Ubuntu 12.04.
I'm currently using multidelta to reduce the test case on my 11.10 system with
gcc 4.6.1 (the one that
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53379
--- Comment #1 from Harald Anlauf 2012-05-16 20:30:13
UTC ---
Solution: the function gfortran_runtime_error_at() should
call the abort. One might adjust this dependent on options.backtrace
if the core dump is not desired.
Patch: (should be appl
=c,c++,objc,fortran,obj-c++,java,lto
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.8.0 20120516 (experimental) [trunk revision 187604] (GCC)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53377
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52727
Richard Henderson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53380
Bug #: 53380
Summary: .ehframe could be smaller
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52727
--- Comment #17 from Richard Henderson 2012-05-16
17:49:48 UTC ---
Author: rth
Date: Wed May 16 17:49:38 2012
New Revision: 187603
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=187603
Log:
PR debug/52727
* combine-stack-adj.c (prev_a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53366
--- Comment #5 from Uros Bizjak 2012-05-16 17:25:50
UTC ---
This testcase fails with -O3 with plain SSE vectorization:
--cut here--
struct S { float v[3]; };
struct T { struct S r, i; };
struct U { struct T j[2]; };
void __attribute__((noinline
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53366
--- Comment #4 from Uros Bizjak 2012-05-16 17:15:58
UTC ---
foo (struct U * restrict p1, const complex double * restrict x)
{
vector(4) double vect_var_.41;
vector(4) double vect_var_.40;
vector(4) double vect_var_.39;
vector(4) double ve
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53379
Bug #: 53379
Summary: [4.7 Regression] No backtrace generated for array
bounds violation
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53366
Uros Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53378
--- Comment #2 from rbmj at verizon dot net 2012-05-16 16:33:36 UTC ---
No it is not. regs.h is a system header on VxWorks. I can see a big:
/* regs.h - CPU registers */
/* Copyright 1984-2003 Wind River Systems, Inc. */
At the top of /usr/pow
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53378
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski 2012-05-16
16:22:33 UTC ---
This is another one of these target headers including GCC headers which should
not be done.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53378
Bug #: 53378
Summary: gcc/regs.h hides system header regs.h on vxWorks
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53334
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53376
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53316
--- Comment #10 from David Stone 2012-05-16
15:57:13 UTC ---
I did some research to see how often each optimization level is actually used.
Looking solely at the most followed C and C++ repositories on github, I
collected the following data:
C:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53239
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53355
--- Comment #4 from Richard Guenther 2012-05-16
14:46:33 UTC ---
One major remaining issue is that the entry checks for the versioned loops
all base on the number of iterations of said loop instead of on the
feature (in the case of peeling for al
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53217
William J. Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53217
--- Comment #5 from William J. Schmidt 2012-05-16
14:39:40 UTC ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Wed May 16 14:39:32 2012
New Revision: 187595
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=187595
Log:
gcc:
2012-05-16 Bill Schmidt
PR tr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53377
--- Comment #3 from Mike Dalpee 2012-05-16
13:43:33 UTC ---
Please refer to this thread in gcc-help for a lot more information:
GCC 4.6.2 C++ thread cancellation issue
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53377
--- Comment #2 from Mike Dalpee 2012-05-16
13:40:38 UTC ---
Created attachment 27425
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27425
Cancelling a thread while in an exception handler causes abort
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53377
--- Comment #1 from Mike Dalpee 2012-05-16
13:38:57 UTC ---
Created attachment 27424
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27424
Cancelling thread in function with throw() specification causes abort
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53377
Bug #: 53377
Summary: Thread Cancellation causing aborts due to improper
handling of abi::__forced_unwind
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.2
Sta
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53359
--- Comment #4 from Andreas Schwab 2012-05-16 13:25:18
UTC ---
Created attachment 27423
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27423
pass41-frag.cxx.000i.cgraph
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53371
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53364
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53364
--- Comment #9 from Richard Guenther 2012-05-16
13:11:08 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed May 16 13:11:01 2012
New Revision: 187590
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=187590
Log:
2012-05-16 Richard Guenther
PR tree-op
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53364
--- Comment #8 from Richard Guenther 2012-05-16
13:08:38 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed May 16 13:08:33 2012
New Revision: 187589
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=187589
Log:
2012-05-16 Richard Guenther
PR tree-op
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=7263
Dodji Seketeli changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52641
--- Comment #6 from Georg-Johann Lay 2012-05-16
12:46:41 UTC ---
Author: gjl
Date: Wed May 16 12:46:36 2012
New Revision: 187588
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=187588
Log:
PR testsuite/52641
* gcc.dg/pr52549.c: Fix
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53359
--- Comment #2 from Jan Hubicka 2012-05-16
12:34:29 UTC ---
Can you, please get me -fdump-ipa-cgraph and the assembly file? The testcase
seems to work normally and those constants are supposed to be optimized out.
For me hose are usual comdat
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53370
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40821
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||matias.fontanini at gmail
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53376
Bug #: 53376
Summary: Unrecognizable compare insn generated by movsicc in
arm backend.
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53366
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |UNCONFIRMED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53375
--- Comment #1 from Rui Araújo 2012-05-16
11:24:50 UTC ---
When running:
avr-gcc -v -save-temps -Wall -g3 -Os -fpack-struct -fshort-enums -std=gnu99
-funsigned-char -funsigned-bitfields -gdwarf-2 -mmcu=atmega8 -DF_CPU=14745600UL
-c -o schedule
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53375
Bug #: 53375
Summary: [AVR] Internal compiler error when O1 or Os are active
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53364
--- Comment #7 from Richard Guenther 2012-05-16
11:07:46 UTC ---
This is aliasing_component_refs_p returning that *D.2309_15 does not
alias MEM[(struct A *)&D.2249].m_x (This is *(struct B *)&D.2249 vs.
*(struct A *)&D.2249)
This is because this
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53363
--- Comment #3 from Rainer Orth 2012-05-16 10:52:26 UTC
---
Created attachment 27419
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27419
32-bit thunk1.s -dA on i386-pc-solaris2.10 configured to use gas
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53363
--- Comment #4 from Rainer Orth 2012-05-16 10:53:01 UTC
---
Created attachment 27420
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27420
32-bit thunk1.s -dA on i386-apple-darwin11.3.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53363
--- Comment #2 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2012-05-16 10:51:33 UTC ---
> --- Comment #1 from Jason Merrill 2012-05-15
> 19:09:37 UTC ---
> Yes, the test should only run in 32-bit mode.
>
> For me, on i686-unknown-linux-gnu the test p
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=7263
--- Comment #42 from Dodji Seketeli 2012-05-16
10:51:20 UTC ---
Author: dodji
Date: Wed May 16 10:51:15 2012
New Revision: 187587
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=187587
Log:
PR preprocessor/7263 - Avoid pedantic warnings on
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53374
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53373
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||evstupac at gmail dot com
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53364
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53359
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53364
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50147
Dmitry Gorbachev changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
Resolution|FIXED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53373
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53374
Bug #: 53374
Summary: x86_64 bootstrap failed with AVX turned on
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priorit
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50147
--- Comment #2 from Dmitry Gorbachev
2012-05-16 10:04:55 UTC ---
Created attachment 27418
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27418
Bt from GCC 4.7.1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52989
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comm
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53366
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53339
--- Comment #21 from Paolo Carlini 2012-05-16
09:11:06 UTC ---
Jon, I totally agree with everything you found the time to explain, thanks! In
my opinion should even be a FAQ or something!
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53369
--- Comment #4 from Rahul Ramachandran
2012-05-16 09:09:07 UTC ---
So basically char value -128 is represented in integer as
---1000 and +128 as 1000. So taking the
compliment will result in 0X7F and 0XFF7F.
T
e-gold --enable-plugins --prefix=/afs/mpa/data/martin/ugcc
--with-libelf=/afs/mpa/data/martin/numlibs64 --enable-languages=c++,fortran
--enable-target=all --enable-checking=release --enable-build-with-cxx
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.8.0 20120516 (experimental) [trunk revision
a756f44:a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53364
--- Comment #4 from Marc Glisse 2012-05-16 07:11:35
UTC ---
Looking at -fdump-tree-all, 081t.phicprop1 is still the same for -O1 and -O2,
but O82t.dse1 is missing the memory writes for -O2.
92 matches
Mail list logo
