http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47000
--- Comment #24 from Jakub Jelinek 2010-12-20
08:32:10 UTC ---
VCE is often very expensive though (often a memory store followed by memory
load into a different register, etc.), so 0 unconditionally is IMHO wrong.
Perhaps for some TYPE_MODE combi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47007
Janne Blomqvist changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jb at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #13 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46720
--- Comment #7 from Tobias Burnus 2010-12-20
08:52:08 UTC ---
* PING *
Can you still reproduce it -- with the correct version of automake installed?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44334
--- Comment #16 from Dominique d'Humieres
2010-12-20 08:57:32 UTC ---
The patch in comment #14 fixed the problem on x86_64-apple-darwin10, but causes
the following regressions:
FAIL: gcc.dg/autopar/outer-2.c scan-tree-dump-times parloops "parall
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47023
Summary: C_Sizeof: Rejects valid code
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: rejects-valid
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47001
Ira Rosen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
--- Comment #97 from Dominique d'Humieres
2010-12-20 09:05:05 UTC ---
The patch in attachment 22787 fixes also a "Stage 3 ada bootstrap error on
i686-apple-darwin9", see comment #3 of pr46950.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47013
--- Comment #1 from revital eres 2010-12-20 09:07:53
UTC ---
In some of the testcases additional flags are needed to make SMS apply: (though
it does not mean it succeeds)
sms-5.c: add -mno-update -fno-auto-inc-dec
sms-4.c: -funsafe-loop-optimiza
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45261
Guan Xin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||guanx.bac at gmail dot com
--- Comment #10 fro
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47013
--- Comment #2 from revital eres 2010-12-20 09:26:21
UTC ---
The testcases fail (even when adding the flags mentioned before) due to the
decision to apply SMS when stage_count greater than 1.
If stage_count is 1 it means the new SMSed kernel incl
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47018
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47024
Summary: [OOP] STORAGE_SIZE (for polymorphic types): Segfault
at run time
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: wrong-code
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33558
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wake
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47025
Summary: Dead stores in varadic functions not eliminated
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
AssignedTo: u
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47024
--- Comment #1 from Tobias Burnus 2010-12-20
09:47:11 UTC ---
IR 10-171 (http://j3-fortran.org/doc/year/10/10-171.txt) adds the text in the
bracket (which does not apply here):
"If it [is unlimited polymorphic or] has any deferred type parameter
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46904
--- Comment #2 from Iain Sandoe 2010-12-20 10:01:06
UTC ---
Author: iains
Date: Mon Dec 20 10:01:02 2010
New Revision: 168083
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=168083
Log:
PR c++/46904
PR middle-end/46916
PR targ
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46950
--- Comment #4 from Iain Sandoe 2010-12-20 10:01:07
UTC ---
Author: iains
Date: Mon Dec 20 10:01:02 2010
New Revision: 168083
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=168083
Log:
PR c++/46904
PR middle-end/46916
PR targ
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
--- Comment #98 from Iain Sandoe 2010-12-20 10:01:07
UTC ---
Author: iains
Date: Mon Dec 20 10:01:02 2010
New Revision: 168083
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=168083
Log:
PR c++/46904
PR middle-end/46916
PR tar
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
--- Comment #99 from Iain Sandoe 2010-12-20 10:14:39
UTC ---
Author: iains
Date: Mon Dec 20 10:14:36 2010
New Revision: 168084
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=168084
Log:
PR middle-end/46916
* opts.c (finish_option
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47013
--- Comment #3 from Dominique d'Humieres 2010-12-20
10:21:37 UTC ---
Thanks for looking at the problem. Do you understand why the tests pass on
*86*-*-* and not on powerpc*-*-*?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45965
--- Comment #7 from Dominique d'Humieres 2010-12-20
10:25:46 UTC ---
These failures have disappeared between revisions 168021 and 168044 (see
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2010-12/msg01606.html and
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47008
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=45965
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at redhat dot com
--- Commen
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47013
--- Comment #4 from revital eres 2010-12-20 10:55:40
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> Thanks for looking at the problem. Do you understand why the tests pass on
> *86*-*-* and not on powerpc*-*-*?
Yes, the dump file is checked only for powerpc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47013
--- Comment #5 from Dominique d'Humieres 2010-12-20
10:59:26 UTC ---
> Yes, the dump file is checked only for powerpc*-*-* and spu-*-*:
>
> /* { dg-final { scan-rtl-dump-times "SMS succeeded" 1 "sms" { target
> powerpc*-*-* spu-*-* } } } */
In
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36437
--- Comment #6 from Tobias Burnus 2010-12-20
11:02:27 UTC ---
Created attachment 22829
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22829
Draft patch
A different draft patch (I forgot about attachment 15721 - maybe one can move
something
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36437
--- Comment #7 from Tobias Burnus 2010-12-20
11:05:36 UTC ---
(Ignore the match.c and resolve.c part - those are for PR PR46371.)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47008
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at gcc dot gnu.org,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45965
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46972
--- Comment #7 from Paulius Zaleckas
2010-12-20 11:28:14 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> I think enumtls has been fixed on the trunk with respect of fsection-anchors.
> Can you try the trunk?
Yes, looks like this bug is fixed in trunk. Assem
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
--- Comment #100 from Iain Sandoe 2010-12-20
11:28:44 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #39)
> The patch I had in mind
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-12/msg01129.html
BTW: When the BB reordering is applied
(together with http://gcc.gnu.org
The following fragment prints "wrong" for me:
#if 2 > 1 ? 0 : 0 ? 1 : 1
wrong
#endif
when run through the preprocessor (either gcc -E or cpp).
This occurs with Debian stable's gcc:
Using built-in specs.
Target: x86_64-linux-gnu
Configured with: ../src/configure -v --with-pkgve
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47026
Summary: invalid temporary is being assigned to a
const-reference
Product: gcc
Version: 4.4.5
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Priority: P3
Component:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47026
Terry changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tmoschou at gmail dot com
--- Comment #1 from Ter
On Mon, 20 Dec 2010, David Holland wrote:
> as well as with the gcc 4.1 used by CentOS and NetBSD. The Debian one
> is unfortunately the latest gcc I have ready access to. However, this
> is obscure enough that I'm assuming nobody else is likely to have
> noticed it in the meantime.
This no longe
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47026
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
The correct way to report bugs is via bugzilla, as described at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs/
The gcc-bugs list consists almost entirely of auto-generated mail from
bugzilla so mails sent there can be missed and they don't get tracked
in bugzilla.
GCC 4.4 and later have the right result, but I don't k
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43810
Wolfgang Denk changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||wd at denx dot de
--- Comment #15 from Wo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47008
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek 2010-12-20
13:03:56 UTC ---
--- reload1.c.jj 2010-11-25 18:50:45.0 +0100
+++ reload1.c 2010-12-20 12:54:34.924901692 +0100
@@ -3597,9 +3597,20 @@ eliminate_regs_in_insn (rtx insn, int re
of
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47027
Summary: a-stwiun.ads:441:80: (style) this line is too long
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: bootstrap
Assigne
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46489
--- Comment #3 from Jorn Wolfgang Rennecke
2010-12-20 13:59:41 UTC ---
When using gcc, using -dD, I can auto-generate a headerfile tm-poison.h which
poisons all macros that including tm.h defines, which are not defined
by frontend-premissible hea
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47007
--- Comment #14 from Alexander Varnin 2010-12-20
14:04:08 UTC ---
There is internal variants of strtof/strtod/strtold/etc functions in glibc,
that allow explicitly set locale of convertion. These functions are base for
user variants of strto*. If
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46352
--- Comment #1 from Zdenek Sojka 2010-12-20 14:12:19
UTC ---
Backtrace for r165699:
The offending line is:
fprintf (dump_file, "Duplicated %i insns (%i%%)\n", nduplicated,
nduplicated * 100 / ninsns);
Program received signal SIGFP
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47007
--- Comment #15 from Steve Kargl
2010-12-20 14:48:03 UTC ---
On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 02:04:14PM +, fenixk19 at mail dot ru wrote:
> There is internal variants of strtof/strtod/strtold/etc functions in glibc,
> that allow explicitly set locale
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47024
--- Comment #2 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-12-20 15:16:44 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #0)
> STORAGE_SIZE does not work for unallocated polymorphic types. However, the
> Fortran 2008 standard allows them:
>
> "Ashall be a scalar or arra
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46489
--- Comment #4 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2010-12-20 15:43:37 UTC ---
On Mon, 20 Dec 2010, amylaar at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> When using gcc, using -dD, I can auto-generate a headerfile tm-poison.h which
> poisons all macros that includ
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46677
--- Comment #16 from Jorn Wolfgang Rennecke
2010-12-20 16:47:50 UTC ---
Author: amylaar
Date: Mon Dec 20 16:47:45 2010
New Revision: 168086
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=168086
Log:
PR other/46677
http://gcc.gnu.o
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47024
--- Comment #3 from Tobias Burnus 2010-12-20
16:47:56 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> I don't really understand this. Why should one allow it for unallocated
> allocatables, but not for undefined pointers?
Well, the situation for an unassocia
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46972
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski 2010-12-20
16:51:29 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> (In reply to comment #6)
> > I think enumtls has been fixed on the trunk with respect of
> > fsection-anchors.
> > Can you try the trunk?
>
> Yes, looks l
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46489
--- Comment #5 from Jorn Wolfgang Rennecke
2010-12-20 17:04:39 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> This sounds like a nice approach for making sure it is safe to remove a
> tm.h include from a particular source file - if combined with generating
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47027
Ralf Wildenhues changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rwild at gcc dot gnu.org
Assign
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47027
--- Comment #2 from Ralf Wildenhues 2010-12-20
17:32:17 UTC ---
Author: rwild
Date: Mon Dec 20 17:32:06 2010
New Revision: 168089
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=168089
Log:
Fix PR bootstrap/47027.
gcc/ada/:
PR bootstr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47027
Ralf Wildenhues changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46489
--- Comment #6 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2010-12-20 17:42:46 UTC ---
On Mon, 20 Dec 2010, amylaar at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46489
>
> --- Comment #5 from Jorn Wolfgang Rennecke
> 2010-12-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44776
--- Comment #12 from Zdenek Sojka 2010-12-20 18:00:15
UTC ---
Created attachment 22831
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22831
simpler testcase
Crashes on x86_64-linux, r168061
$ gcc -O -fipa-matrix-reorg -fwhole-program pr447
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44776
--- Comment #13 from Zdenek Sojka 2010-12-20 18:01:46
UTC ---
It crashes with -m32 too, so it isn't specific to target x86_64-apple-darwin10,
nor x86_64 in general
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46774
--- Comment #3 from gandalf at gcc dot gnu.org
2010-12-20 18:19:57 UTC ---
Author: gandalf
Date: Mon Dec 20 18:19:52 2010
New Revision: 168092
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=168092
Log:
PR libgcj/46774: Create dynamic Prot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46650
Jack Howarth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46654
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46774
Andrew John Hughes changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Version|4.6.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46987
--- Comment #4 from Martin Jambor 2010-12-20
18:35:51 UTC ---
OK, it's not later, the folding is called from within ccp which I
guess is not happy that there is a new ssa name or some such nuisance.
Which means that the best fix is probably to g
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46935
Maxim Kuvyrkov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mkuvyrkov at gcc dot
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47028
Summary: [4.6 Regression] gcc.dg/tree-ssa/tailrecursion-[57].c
FAIL with -foptimize-sibling-calls
-fno-forward-propagate -fno-tree-copy-prop
-fno-tree-dominator-opts
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40060
Sean McGovern changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gseanmcg at gmail dot com
--- Comment #10
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47028
--- Comment #1 from Zdenek Sojka 2010-12-20 19:20:12
UTC ---
Created attachment 22833
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22833
another testcase (reduced from gcc.dg/tree-ssa/tailrecursion-7.c)
I hope this is the same problem as
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46974
--- Comment #11 from Tobias Burnus 2010-12-20
21:44:02 UTC ---
Author: burnus
Date: Mon Dec 20 21:43:58 2010
New Revision: 168095
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=168095
Log:
2010-12-20 Tobias Burnus
PR fortran/4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46978
--- Comment #7 from Mikael Morin 2010-12-20
23:24:54 UTC ---
This seems to fix it, though I find it somewhat suspicious.
Index: trans-array.c
===
--- trans-array.c(révision 16
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46978
--- Comment #8 from Mikael Morin 2010-12-20
23:29:34 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> This seems to be the problem :
> the front-end generates a transposed descriptor for a non-intrinsic function.
> If the function is an intrinsic, the descrip
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44290
--- Comment #31 from Jie Zhang 2010-12-21 04:16:19
UTC ---
Patch for 4.5 was posted:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-12/msg01351.html
Waiting for approval.
69 matches
Mail list logo
