http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46651
--- Comment #7 from saellaven at gmail dot com 2010-11-29 08:13:31 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> This crash was not in the 20101104 weekly snapshot, but has been in all
> snapshots since, including 20101125.
Based on this, I just did some man
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45354
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[4.6 regression] ICE: |[4.6 regression] ICE with
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45354
--- Comment #8 from Eric Botcazou 2010-11-29
08:26:47 UTC ---
Created attachment 22560
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22560
Reduced testcase
Compile with -O -fschedule-insns -fselective-scheduling
-freorder-blocks-and-partit
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45354
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
AssignedTo|ebotcazou at gcc d
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46675
Zdenek Dvorak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #28 from Zdenek Dvor
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46703
Summary: Wrong I/O output (only) when running under valgrind
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: wrong-code
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Comp
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39213
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tromey at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #13
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46337
--- Comment #4 from Eric Botcazou 2010-11-29
08:57:56 UTC ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Mon Nov 29 08:57:53 2010
New Revision: 167235
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=167235
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/46337
Backport from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46337
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46655
--- Comment #6 from Michael Haubenwallner 2010-11-29 09:05:53 UTC ---
I'm in contact with IBM vi a customer's support channel - initially for another
problem, and have added this 64k-line-limit recently.
Although no reply yet, I'll add updates her
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46704
Summary: ada bootstrap failure on arm-linux-gnueabi
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: ada
AssignedTo: unassig..
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46655
--- Comment #7 from Eric Botcazou 2010-11-29
09:09:21 UTC ---
The compiler needs to be prevented from emitting .line 0 in any case since BFD
also chokes on that.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46655
--- Comment #8 from hainque at adacore dot com
2010-11-29 09:17:03 UTC ---
dje at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> Has anyone reported this AIX assembler behavior to IBM? It would be
> much more effective coming from an external customer than from me.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46675
--- Comment #29 from Zdenek Dvorak 2010-11-29
09:16:56 UTC ---
Created attachment 22561
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22561
patch to fix overflow in # of iterations analysi
Fixes overflow in # of iterations analysis -- when
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46705
Summary: Spurious "Missing '&' in continued character constant"
warning occurs twice
Product: gcc
Version: fortran-dev
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priorit
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46669
Summary: [C++0x] ICE in TBB's header
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: WAITING
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
AssignedTo: unassig...@gcc.gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46702
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46674
--- Comment #3 from Jie Zhang 2010-11-29 10:56:37 UTC
---
If I revert this change, this bug will disappear.
@@ -416,7 +415,7 @@ cgraph_remove_unreachable_nodes (bool be
found = true;
/* If so, we need to keep node in the callg
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46488
Joe Orton changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jorton at redhat dot com
--- Comment #19 from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46337
--- Comment #6 from Eric Botcazou 2010-11-29
11:03:07 UTC ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Mon Nov 29 11:03:03 2010
New Revision: 167238
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=167238
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/46337
Backport from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46669
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46670
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely 2010-11-29
11:05:09 UTC ---
*** Bug 46669 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46482
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely 2010-11-29
11:06:39 UTC ---
bugzilla did not sending out emails for some new bugs until someone
replies to them. See
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/2010-11/msg03512.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/2010-11/m
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46482
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely 2010-11-29
11:08:50 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> bugzilla did not sending out emails for some new bugs until someone
> replies to them.
Should read "Bugzilla *is* not sending out ..."
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46482
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely 2010-11-29
11:12:09 UTC ---
For PR 46669 THREE DAYS passed without an email being sent for the initial bug,
then finally a "New:" email was sent when Paolo responded to it.
If bugs are not sent to the gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46488
--- Comment #20 from Eric Botcazou 2010-11-29
11:15:58 UTC ---
> We changed the macro from that to the current definition to avoid strict
> aliasing warnings from gcc:
>
> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=662299
Bummer. :-)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46488
--- Comment #21 from Joe Orton 2010-11-29 11:38:44
UTC ---
Thanks for the explanation.
(In reply to comment #20)
> > Why specifically does this result in an C99 aliasing violation anyway? The
> > pointers to which this macro evaluates are never
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46685
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46685
--- Comment #6 from Eric Botcazou 2010-11-29
11:58:56 UTC ---
> What is the assembly difference on SPARC Linux? The only difference I see
> with
> a cross compiler to sparc64-linux, both for -O1 -m32 -mptr32 and -O1 -m64 is
> .section.text.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46488
--- Comment #22 from Eric Botcazou 2010-11-29
12:09:30 UTC ---
> The pointers are constructed explicitly to never be dereferenced, only
> compared for equality; if a dereference exists it would be a bug, but
> I don't see one.
APR_RING_SPLICE_HE
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46671
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|hppa2.0w-hp-hpux11.11 |hppa2.0w-hp-hpux11.11,
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46653
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46653
--- Comment #2 from Patrick Marlier
2010-11-29 13:34:36 UTC ---
Created attachment 22563
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22563
testcase ICE with volatile int in transactional constructor using -O1
Sorry, I don't why it was no
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46488
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46488
--- Comment #24 from Richard Guenther 2010-11-29
13:39:02 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #18)
> Using
>
> #define APR_RING_SENTINEL(hp, elem, link)\
> (struct elem *)((char *)(hp) - APR_OFFSETOF(struct elem, link))
>
> should
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45354
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigne
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46488
--- Comment #25 from Joe Orton 2010-11-29 14:03:40
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #22)
> APR_RING_SPLICE_HEAD does such a dereference as far I can see:
You are right, sorry, I had forgotten exactly how this code works.
(In reply to comment #24)
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46675
--- Comment #30 from Uros Bizjak 2010-11-29 14:07:19
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #29)
> Fixes overflow in # of iterations analysis -- when splitting var - INT_MIN to
> a
> sum of a variable part and a constant offset, we performed the negation
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46488
--- Comment #26 from rguenther at suse dot de
2010-11-29 14:20:45 UTC ---
On Mon, 29 Nov 2010, jorton at redhat dot com wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46488
>
> --- Comment #25 from Joe Orton 2010-11-29 14:03:40
> UTC --
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46706
Summary: global constructors does not work properly since
changes from bug 29141
Product: gcc
Version: 4.4.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: critical
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46651
--- Comment #8 from H.J. Lu 2010-11-29 14:37:24
UTC ---
Please try the unmodified GCC 4.5.1.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46653
--- Comment #3 from Aldy Hernandez 2010-11-29
14:41:20 UTC ---
Fixed here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-11/msg02793.html
Pending approval.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46675
--- Comment #31 from Richard Guenther 2010-11-29
14:54:26 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #30)
> (In reply to comment #29)
>
> > Fixes overflow in # of iterations analysis -- when splitting var - INT_MIN
> > to a
> > sum of a variable part and a c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46701
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46706
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45263
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mschulze at ivs dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26427
--- Comment #21 from Iain Sandoe 2010-11-29 14:58:23
UTC ---
Author: iains
Date: Mon Nov 29 14:58:16 2010
New Revision: 167242
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=167242
Log:
PR target/26427
PR target/33120
PR test
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35710
--- Comment #8 from Iain Sandoe 2010-11-29 14:58:25
UTC ---
Author: iains
Date: Mon Nov 29 14:58:16 2010
New Revision: 167242
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=167242
Log:
PR target/26427
PR target/33120
PR tests
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33120
--- Comment #18 from Iain Sandoe 2010-11-29 14:58:24
UTC ---
Author: iains
Date: Mon Nov 29 14:58:16 2010
New Revision: 167242
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=167242
Log:
PR target/26427
PR target/33120
PR test
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46685
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek 2010-11-29
15:17:30 UTC ---
I guess we could do something like:
--- varasm.c.jj2010-11-29 12:39:07.0 +0100
+++ varasm.c2010-11-29 15:15:53.0 +0100
@@ -534,6 +534,15 @@ section *
default_f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45940
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|WAITING
--- Comment #8 from Aldy Hernand
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44986
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45084
--- Comment #8 from norak.van at gmail dot com 2010-11-29 15:43:20 UTC ---
Created attachment 22564
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22564
config
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45084
norak.van at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||norak.van at gmail dot com
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45940
--- Comment #9 from Aldy Hernandez 2010-11-29
16:04:18 UTC ---
The -O1 ICE is due to the fact that we have an inline function that has been
marked as transaction_pure, but contains an inline asm. The following code
sets the 'saw_unsafe' bit, reg
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45640
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46653
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45949
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46101
--- Comment #4 from Dodji Seketeli 2010-11-29
16:29:11 UTC ---
Author: dodji
Date: Mon Nov 29 16:29:05 2010
New Revision: 167246
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=167246
Log:
Fix PR debug/46101
gcc/
* dwarf2out.c (lookup
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45383
--- Comment #5 from Dodji Seketeli 2010-11-29
16:31:07 UTC ---
Author: dodji
Date: Mon Nov 29 16:30:54 2010
New Revision: 167248
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=167248
Log:
Fix PR c++/45383
Reverting the fix for PR c++/422
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42260
--- Comment #4 from Dodji Seketeli 2010-11-29
16:31:10 UTC ---
Author: dodji
Date: Mon Nov 29 16:30:54 2010
New Revision: 167248
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=167248
Log:
Fix PR c++/45383
Reverting the fix for PR c++/422
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45383
--- Comment #6 from Dodji Seketeli 2010-11-29
16:31:54 UTC ---
Author: dodji
Date: Mon Nov 29 16:31:40 2010
New Revision: 167250
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=167250
Log:
Fix PR c++/42260 and ensure PR c++/45383 is fixed
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42260
--- Comment #5 from Dodji Seketeli 2010-11-29
16:31:53 UTC ---
Author: dodji
Date: Mon Nov 29 16:31:40 2010
New Revision: 167250
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=167250
Log:
Fix PR c++/42260 and ensure PR c++/45383 is fixed
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46651
--- Comment #9 from saellaven at gmail dot com 2010-11-29 16:53:31 UTC ---
fails with the unmodified 20101125 snapshot. I'm going to revert the patch I
found above and will report back in a little while on whether or not it solves
it in vanillla gc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46707
Summary: Storage_Error in GNAT with anonymous "not null"
subtype
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Priority: P3
Component: a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46675
--- Comment #32 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-11-29 17:08:20 UTC ---
Author: uros
Date: Mon Nov 29 17:08:16 2010
New Revision: 167256
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=167256
Log:
2010-11-29 Zdenek Dvorak
PR tree-op
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46708
Summary: SFU 3.5 SDK on Windows XP Professional, segmentation
fault with gcc (program cc1) is
Product: gcc
Version: 3.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: blocker
Prior
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46675
Uros Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
URL|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46708
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Component|c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46651
--- Comment #10 from saellaven at gmail dot com 2010-11-29 17:50:32 UTC ---
success after reverting the patch from http://gcc.gnu.org/PR45314
/usr/src/build-revert/./gcc/xgcc -v
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=/usr/src/build-revert/./gcc/xgcc
Ta
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46078
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28575
Przemysław Pawełczyk changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||przemoc at gmail dot com
--- Comme
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45475
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45475
--- Comment #7 from Eric Botcazou 2010-11-29
18:18:33 UTC ---
Created attachment 22565
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22565
Reduced testcase for x86
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44392
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Known to wo
api=unicode
--enable-tls --disable-bootstrap --enable-shared --disable-sjlj-exceptions
--enable-gomp
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.6.0 20101129 (experimental) (GCC)
COLLECT_GCC_OPTIONS='-v' '-mtune=generic' '-march=pentiumpro'
/usr/libexec/gcc/i686-pc-cygwin/4.6.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42894
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #14
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46710
Summary: fast enumeration tests failing on ia64-suse-linux-gnu
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
Priority: P3
Component: objc
AssignedTo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45475
Andi Kleen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|NEW
Resolution|FIXED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46651
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
--- Comment #11 from H.J. Lu 2010-11-29 18
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46709
gee changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[4.6 regression] internal |[4.6 regression] internal
|compil
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46709
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.6.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46651
--- Comment #12 from Brad Jackson 2010-11-29
19:08:53 UTC ---
Can the fix be applied to the branch before the 4.5.2 release? Seems like it's
low risk since probably not too many people are using Graphite options.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46651
--- Comment #13 from H.J. Lu 2010-11-29 19:10:15
UTC ---
Created attachment 22567
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22567
A patch backported from trunk
Please try this.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46651
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|tree-optimization |middle-end
Target Milestone|---
.gentoo.org/ --with-pkgversion='Gentoo SVN'
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.5.2-pre 20101129 (prerelease) rev. 167257 (Gentoo SVN)
COLLECT_GCC_OPTIONS='-DHAVE_CONFIG_H' '-I..' '-I/usr/include/pixman-1'
'-Wno-unused-parameter' '-Wno-attributes
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46690
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14258
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ilpoilves at hotmail dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46651
Ryan Hill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dirtyepic at gentoo dot org
--- Comment #15 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46338
--- Comment #7 from Alexandre Oliva 2010-11-29
19:18:27 UTC ---
Author: aoliva
Date: Mon Nov 29 19:18:24 2010
New Revision: 167263
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=167263
Log:
PR debug/46338
* g++.dg/debug/pr46338.C: New.
A
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46258
--- Comment #4 from Alexandre Oliva 2010-11-29
19:20:52 UTC ---
Author: aoliva
Date: Mon Nov 29 19:20:48 2010
New Revision: 167264
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=167264
Log:
PR debug/46258
* tree-cfg.c (replace_uses_by): D
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46703
Mikael Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikael at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46711
Summary: __builtin_choose_expr checks not chosen expression
Product: gcc
Version: 4.4.5
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
AssignedTo: una
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46711
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19449
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||przemoc at gmail dot com
--- Comment #3 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46711
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski 2010-11-29
19:40:04 UTC ---
Try:
static inline unsigned long *
_param(struct pt_regs *regs, const int num) __attribute__((always_inline));
static inline unsigned long *
_param(struct pt_regs *regs, const int num)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42536
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46711
--- Comment #3 from Przemysław Pawełczyk 2010-11-29
20:07:20 UTC ---
Andrew, thanks for the always_inline hint.
But weren't you too fast with marking PR 46711 as duplicate of PR 19449?
Check which lines are marked with errors. 8th line is not me
-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=/export/build/gnu/tools-lto/build-x86_64-linux/gcc/xgcc
Target: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
Configured with: /export/gnu/src/tools-lto/tools/configure --enable-languages=c
--disable-bootstrap --prefix=/usr/gcc-4.6-lto --with-local-prefix=/usr/local
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.6.0 20101129 (experimental) (GCC)
[...@gnu-6 pr12245-1]$
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46651
saellaven at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|middle-end |tree-optimization
--- Comment
1 - 100 of 143 matches
Mail list logo