http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45702
--- Comment #22 from rguenther at suse dot de
2010-10-04 08:51:36 UTC ---
On Mon, 4 Oct 2010, danglin at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45702
>
> --- Comment #21 from John David Anglin
> 2010-10-04 00:41:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45873
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||4.4.3, 4.5.1, 4.6.0
--- Comment #1 from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45847
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Stat
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45878
--- Comment #3 from Richard Guenther 2010-10-04
10:12:17 UTC ---
Well, what happens is that ObjC (not necessarily incorrectly) assumes that
an OBJ_TYPE_REF acts as a function type conversion. Folding OTOH simply
replaces the called function with
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45881
Summary: bit offset of bitfields
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Component: c
AssignedTo: unassig...@gcc.gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45572
--- Comment #8 from Martin Jambor 2010-10-04
10:15:16 UTC ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Mon Oct 4 10:15:10 2010
New Revision: 164930
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=164930
Log:
2010-10-04 Martin Jambor
PR tree-optimiza
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45878
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45877
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45880
Summary: Template-Methode in Shared Object not resolved when
compiled with -O2
Product: gcc
Version: 4.3.4
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45871
--- Comment #4 from Jan Hubicka 2010-10-04
11:12:00 UTC ---
Author: hubicka
Date: Mon Oct 4 11:11:57 2010
New Revision: 164931
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=164931
Log:
PR middle-end/45871
* tree-ssa-ccp.c (get_
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45880
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely 2010-10-04
14:21:57 UTC ---
why are you using -shared to produce your executable?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45847
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.6.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45752
--- Comment #5 from Ira Rosen 2010-10-04 12:39:59 UTC
---
Thanks, -m32 did the trick.
I am testing a patch.
Thanks,
Ira
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45622
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45880
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely 2010-10-04
14:48:51 UTC ---
Please also show the error you're getting, as "crashes the application because
of a symbol-not-defined-error" is not very helpful
I don't think this has anything to do with using a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45878
--- Comment #2 from Iain Sandoe 2010-10-04 09:25:18
UTC ---
hm, I made a very simple root object like this [omitting the cruft to declare
the types & routines for both NeXT and GNU runtimes].
@interface myRootObject {
@public
Class isa;
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45876
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45882
Summary: No debug info for vars depending on unused parameter
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: debug
AssignedT
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45876
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek 2010-10-04
15:49:18 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Oct 4 15:49:13 2010
New Revision: 164943
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=164943
Log:
PR middle-end/45876
* fold-const.c (fold_bi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45880
--- Comment #4 from r.menges at nice2cu dot de 2010-10-04 16:14:34 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> Please also show the error you're getting, as "crashes the application because
> of a symbol-not-defined-error" is not very helpful
>
> I don't t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45880
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely 2010-10-04
16:34:21 UTC ---
We need a self-contained testcase that reproduces the problem.
I suspect you just need an explicit instantiation of that template function in
the shared library, if nothing instanti
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45883
Summary: Incorrect store removal when compiling with
-fstrict-aliasing
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45884
Summary: Incorrect removal of check for "less than zero" after
adding value to (signed) long
Product: gcc
Version: 4.4.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prior
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45668
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45884
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45668
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45642
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45884
--- Comment #2 from Anders Jagd 2010-10-04
18:12:16 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> Signed integer overflow is undefined so what GCC is doing is correct. Use
> -fwarpv if you want it to be defined to wrapping.
I acknowledge that ISO/IEC 9899
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45884
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski 2010-10-04
18:13:15 UTC ---
See -fstrict-overflow too.
-long
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.6.0 20101004 (experimental) [trunk revision 164952] (GCC)
$ ./xgcc -B. -c -O3 -mtune=cortex-a8 -mfloat-abi=softfp -mfpu=neon -g ~/ice.i
/home/ryan/ice.i: In function 'OVGTessellateFillPath':
/home/ryan/ice.i:80:16: warning: incompatible implicit d
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45508
--- Comment #7 from Nicolai Stange 2010-10-04
19:05:30 UTC ---
libgomp, libgcc and libssp are the shared libs of gcc.
(actually the correct libstdc++ and libgfortran are also found if the correct
libgcc is found as they never are linked in withou
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42474
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Bachmann
2010-10-04 21:39:34 UTC ---
I have tried again in the 4.4.4 build, and I received the same error. It seems
like this is related to precompiled headers somehow.
So, a workaround is to not use precompiled hea
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45849
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek 2010-10-04
22:02:32 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Oct 4 22:02:28 2010
New Revision: 164962
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=164962
Log:
PR debug/45849
* var-tracking.c (strip_poin
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45886
Summary: [ARM] support for __ARM_PCS_VFP predefined symbol in
gcc 4.5.x would be very nice
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.1
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-07/msg02186.htm
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45849
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45838
John David Anglin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|hppa-unknown-linux-gnu |hppa*-*-*
Host|hppa-unk
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45801
--- Comment #6 from Bernd Schmidt 2010-10-04
22:12:50 UTC ---
Thanks for the testcase.
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-10/msg00059.html
seems to help with the testcase. Does it also fix bootstrap?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45816
--- Comment #10 from Bernd Schmidt 2010-10-04
22:13:12 UTC ---
Does
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-10/msg00059.html
fix it?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45883
--- Comment #1 from Richard Guenther 2010-10-04
22:20:27 UTC ---
Looks related to PR42834 (-fno-builtin-memcpy fixes it)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43725
--- Comment #2 from Siarhei Siamashka
2010-10-04 22:59:56 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> So the compiler is correct not to be using vld1 for this code. The memory
> format of int32x4_t is defined to be the format of a neon register that has
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37734
Siarhei Siamashka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comme
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43725
--- Comment #3 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2010-10-04 23:45:57 UTC ---
On Mon, 4 Oct 2010, siarhei.siamashka at gmail dot com wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43725
>
> --- Comment #2 from Siarhei Siamashka
> 2010-1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45841
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|libstdc++ |testsuite
--- Comment #15 from Hans-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45841
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41874
--- Comment #7 from Ilya Murav'jov 2010-10-05
00:10:20 UTC ---
AFAIK, users of Boost.Function suffer from this PR too.
https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/ticket/4538
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45841
--- Comment #16 from David Krauss 2010-10-05 00:24:35
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #15)
> r164528:
> ...
> read(4, "1", 1) = 1
> lseek(4, 4294967295, SEEK_CUR) = 4294967303
> write(4, "x", 1)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32998
--- Comment #10 from Roland McGrath 2010-10-05
00:41:45 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #9)
> Wouldn't be appropriate to append these flags also/instead to DW_AT_producer?
> This way they get easily associated with the specific CU.
That makes some
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45841
--- Comment #18 from Hans-Peter Nilsson 2010-10-05
01:58:45 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #16)
> What the testcase ends up doing is extending the file and then reading past
> EOF. That's not illegal behavior and the case as written should still pa
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45841
--- Comment #19 from David Krauss 2010-10-05 02:58:04
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #18)
> Um... let me see if I got this right: the simulator with a buggy lseek caught
> a
> bug in your patch not seen in a correctly working environment? (That c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45841
--- Comment #20 from Hans-Peter Nilsson 2010-10-05
04:02:00 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #19)
> Apparently
> reading after a write at EOF is not in the tests.
Good you noticed.
> Yeah lol, I don't know if the regression case is really necessary
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41874
Florian Weimer changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fw at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #8 fro
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45888
Summary: tm.texi generation is not portable, rule is broken
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: bootstrap
Assigne
52 matches
Mail list logo
