http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49820
--- Comment #10 from Agner Fog 2011-07-25 07:43:58 UTC
---
I still think that a compiler should be predictable and consistent. It is
inconsistent that a+5
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49820
--- Comment #11 from Eric Botcazou 2011-07-25
07:45:36 UTC ---
> -Wall produces the warning "assuming signed overflow does not occur when
> assuming that (X + c) < X is always false" in the above example, but there is
> no warning when it assumes
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49715
--- Comment #5 from Richard Guenther 2011-07-25
08:30:50 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Jul 25 08:30:46 2011
New Revision: 176735
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=176735
Log:
2011-07-25 Richard Guenther
PR tree-op
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49715
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49799
Carrot changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|target |rtl-optimization
--- Comment #4 from Carrot 201
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49487
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jh.gcc-bugzilla at plonk
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47509
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Status|U
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49799
--- Comment #5 from Richard Earnshaw 2011-07-25
09:03:30 UTC ---
We should never generate a shift of -1. Instead the code that does that should
return (clobber const_int 0).
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49831
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49835
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49829
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49827
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49799
--- Comment #6 from Carrot 2011-07-25 09:25:22 UTC
---
(In reply to comment #5)
> We should never generate a shift of -1. Instead the code that does that
> should
> return (clobber const_int 0).
I'm afraid this method may impact gcc too much.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49821
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.6.2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49809
rsand...@gcc.gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49799
--- Comment #7 from Richard Earnshaw 2011-07-25
09:45:51 UTC ---
No, you miss the point.
Internally we must not generate (ashift (reg) (const_int)) where the const is
negative.
Note that your testcasegenerates a reg shift.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49043
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-07-25
09:54:13 UTC ---
*** Bug 49100 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49100
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49836
Summary: vector::push_back() should not require T to be
(move-)assignable
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49100
--- Comment #3 from Joel Yliluoma 2011-07-25 10:01:08
UTC ---
While it's true that one should not reference the original variable within the
loop, question is, why does the inner function reference the original variable
rather than the inloop var
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49100
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-07-25
10:10:04 UTC ---
You are outside of the scope of OpenMP standard and C99 language. GNU nested
functions and OpenMP simply don't play nicely together if the containing
function has #pragma omp parallel
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49822
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49813
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Component|c++
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49837
Summary: File with UTF-8 BOM, included from pch, caused
compilation error
Product: gcc
Version: 4.4.5
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
Priority: P3
Com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49813
--- Comment #28 from Paolo Carlini 2011-07-25
10:21:57 UTC ---
(I meant to say -some- C90 functions, like std::abs, in most of the cases only
the overloads for float and long double require work)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49764
--- Comment #17 from Georg-Johann Lay 2011-07-25
10:23:07 UTC ---
Eric, would you confirm that all works fine with the
current 4.6 and 4.7 sources and close the PR?
This has already been fixed:
4_6-branch:
http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?view=revisi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49837
--- Comment #1 from Danil Ilinykh 2011-07-25
10:23:30 UTC ---
Created attachment 24824
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24824
Main file
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49100
--- Comment #5 from Joel Yliluoma 2011-07-25 10:24:20
UTC ---
Obviously :) All right, thanks.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49837
--- Comment #2 from Danil Ilinykh 2011-07-25
10:23:51 UTC ---
Created attachment 24825
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24825
Precompiled header
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49836
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot |paolo.carlini at oracle dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49836
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49813
--- Comment #29 from Richard Guenther 2011-07-25
10:45:59 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #28)
> (I meant to say -some- C90 functions, like std::abs, in most of the cases only
> the overloads for float and long double require work)
You have to be c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49813
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|libstdc++ |c++
--- Comment #30 from Paolo Carlini 2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49813
--- Comment #31 from Paolo Carlini 2011-07-25
10:54:24 UTC ---
Richard, as far as I can see, if we don't fold, we don't fold, that line of
user code with, eg constexpr data, will simply not compile. I don't think this
is a major issue...
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49813
--- Comment #32 from rguenther at suse dot de
2011-07-25 10:59:30 UTC ---
On Mon, 25 Jul 2011, paolo.carlini at oracle dot com wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49813
>
> --- Comment #31 from Paolo Carlini
> 2011-07-25 10:5
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49813
--- Comment #33 from vincenzo Innocente
2011-07-25 11:02:26 UTC ---
indeed
as noted in comment 8
20 static constexpr float nan1 = std::asin(1.45);
21 static constexpr float nan2 = std::sqrt(-1.45);
produces the quite confusion
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49828
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=49813
--- Comment #34 from Paolo Carlini 2011-07-25
11:17:24 UTC ---
Better diagnostic would be always welcome, but probably we should deal with
that elsewhere (we *do* have PRs about constexpr vs diagnostics), because it's
a generic problem, isn't spe
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33255
--- Comment #21 from dodji at seketeli dot org
2011-07-25 11:17:11 UTC ---
> --- Comment #18 from Paolo Carlini
> 2011-07-24 22:37:39 UTC ---
> By the way, an obvious positive additional testcase, involving templates,
> would
> be one inspired
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49813
--- Comment #36 from Paolo Carlini 2011-07-25
11:43:02 UTC ---
Or, more correctly:
constexpr float na = __builtin_nextafterf(0.0f, 0.0f);
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33255
--- Comment #22 from Paolo Carlini 2011-07-25
11:43:47 UTC ---
Excellent.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49813
--- Comment #38 from Paolo Carlini 2011-07-25
11:46:00 UTC ---
Ah Ok, maybe I will be able to work on that. Just wanted to make sure we
understand where the problem is.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49813
--- Comment #37 from rguenther at suse dot de
2011-07-25 11:44:12 UTC ---
On Mon, 25 Jul 2011, paolo.carlini at oracle dot com wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49813
>
> --- Comment #35 from Paolo Carlini
> 2011-07-25 11:4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49813
--- Comment #35 from Paolo Carlini 2011-07-25
11:41:57 UTC ---
Also, something seems wrong with nextafter, but for the intrinsic too this
time, thus maybe is a middle-end issue (eg, not optimized at all?). Try:
constexpr float na = __builtin_n
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49813
--- Comment #39 from Paolo Carlini 2011-07-25
11:49:33 UTC ---
(however, the issue in Comment #30, isinf vs long double, seems a real glitch
somewhere, the intrinsic works fine)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49813
--- Comment #40 from Paolo Carlini 2011-07-25
11:57:58 UTC ---
Created attachment 24826
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24826
Library bits, passes testing, the isinf overload for long double cannot be
marked constexpr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49838
Summary: [C++0x] ICE in cp_parser_perform_range_for_lookup, at
cp/parser.c:8796
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49838
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49838
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.7.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29560
--- Comment #9 from Georg-Johann Lay 2011-07-25
12:48:29 UTC ---
Created attachment 24827
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24827
Fix PR29560 by adding peephole2 pattern.
PR target/29560
* config/avr/avr.md: Add peepho
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49836
--- Comment #2 from Paolo Carlini 2011-07-25
13:08:12 UTC ---
Ah good, std::deque seems already Ok, push_back doesn't share code with insert.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49839
Summary: Use constants in registers preferably to inline
constants (-Os)
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Priority: P3
Comp
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49471
razya at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|cactusADM build with|cactusADM/dealII build with
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49833
--- Comment #1 from H.J. Lu 2011-07-25 13:59:10
UTC ---
X32 dynamic linker is miscompiled:
Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault.
0x00114821 in elf_machine_rela_relative (reloc_addr_arg=,
l_addr=1114112, reloc=)
at ../sysd
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49840
Summary: [4.7 Regression] New test failures
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
AssignedTo: unassig...
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49822
--- Comment #2 from Richard Guenther 2011-07-25
14:15:06 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Jul 25 14:15:02 2011
New Revision: 176745
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=176745
Log:
2011-07-25 Richard Guenther
PR tree-op
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49840
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||i?86-*-*
Target Milestone|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48830
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
AssignedTo|ebotcazou at gcc d
...@gcc.gnu.org
ReportedBy: d...@gcc.gnu.org
/tmp/20110725/./gcc/xgcc -B/tmp/20110725/./gcc/
-B/farm/dje/install/powerpc-ibm-aix5.3.0.0-20110725/powerpc-ibm-aix5.3.0.0/bin/
-B/farm/dje/install/powerpc-ibm-aix5.3.0.0-20110725/powerpc-ibm-aix5.3.0.0/lib/
-isystem
/farm/dje/install/powerpc-ibm
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48840
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
AssignedTo|ebotcazou at gcc d
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49820
--- Comment #12 from Agner Fog 2011-07-25 14:21:52 UTC
---
No the behavior is not predictable when it sometimes warns about ignoring
overflow, and sometimes not. Please add a warning when it optimizes away an
overflow check after the abs function
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49841
David Edelsohn changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47947
David Edelsohn changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49840
--- Comment #2 from Richard Guenther 2011-07-25
14:27:50 UTC ---
Does
Index: gcc/tree-vrp.c
===
--- gcc/tree-vrp.c (revision 176745)
+++ gcc/tree-vrp.c (working copy)
@@ -
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33255
--- Comment #23 from dodji at seketeli dot org
2011-07-25 14:29:15 UTC ---
> --- Comment #19 from Paolo Carlini
> 2011-07-24 22:49:32 UTC ---
> Just as a note, wanted also to add that if I understand correctly the
> (temporary?!?) small issue w
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49840
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.7.0 |---
--- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu 2011-07-25 14:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49833
--- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu 2011-07-25 14:36:23
UTC ---
The miscompiled function is
auto inline void
__attribute ((always_inline))
elf_machine_rela_relative (ElfW(Addr) l_addr, const ElfW(Rela) *reloc,
void *const relo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49404
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comm
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49833
--- Comment #3 from Uros Bizjak 2011-07-25 14:52:12
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> The miscompiled function is
Er, not a testcase ...
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49809
--- Comment #1 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-07-25 14:51:50 UTC ---
Author: rsandifo
Date: Mon Jul 25 14:51:47 2011
New Revision: 176750
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=176750
Log:
gcc/
PR tree-optimization/4980
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49809
rsand...@gcc.gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47124
--- Comment #1 from Rainer Orth 2011-07-25 14:58:22 UTC
---
Author: ro
Date: Mon Jul 25 14:58:18 2011
New Revision: 176751
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=176751
Log:
PR target/47124
* config.gcc: Reject *-*-solaris
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47124
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
URL|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49841
Richard Henderson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigne
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41849
--- Comment #2 from Georg-Johann Lay 2011-07-25
15:19:28 UTC ---
Created attachment 24828
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24828
C test case
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49833
--- Comment #4 from Uros Bizjak 2011-07-25 15:20:42
UTC ---
A shot-in-the-dark change:
(define_insn "*add_1"
[(set (match_operand:SWI48 0 "nonimmediate_operand" "=r,rm,r,r")
(plus:SWI48
(match_operand:SWI48 1 "nonimmediate_operand" "
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49347
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
URL|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41849
--- Comment #3 from Georg-Johann Lay 2011-07-25
15:21:54 UTC ---
Created attachment 24829
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24829
Test case from attachment 24828 as compiled with avr-gcc 4.4.2
For compiler options, see the atta
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41849
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Known to work|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49309
--- Comment #10 from Rainer Orth 2011-07-25 15:25:37
UTC ---
Author: ro
Date: Mon Jul 25 15:25:32 2011
New Revision: 176752
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=176752
Log:
gcc/testsuite:
PR testsuite/49753
* g++.dg/
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49753
--- Comment #6 from Rainer Orth 2011-07-25 15:25:37 UTC
---
Author: ro
Date: Mon Jul 25 15:25:32 2011
New Revision: 176752
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=176752
Log:
gcc/testsuite:
PR testsuite/49753
* g++.dg/t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49753
--- Comment #7 from Rainer Orth 2011-07-25 15:28:30 UTC
---
Author: ro
Date: Mon Jul 25 15:28:27 2011
New Revision: 176753
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=176753
Log:
gcc/testsuite:
PR testsuite/49753
* g++.dg/t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49309
--- Comment #11 from Rainer Orth 2011-07-25 15:28:30
UTC ---
Author: ro
Date: Mon Jul 25 15:28:27 2011
New Revision: 176753
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=176753
Log:
gcc/testsuite:
PR testsuite/49753
* g++.dg/
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49838
--- Comment #2 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-07-25 15:29:16 UTC ---
Author: paolo
Date: Mon Jul 25 15:29:13 2011
New Revision: 176754
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=176754
Log:
/cp
2011-07-25 Paolo Carlini
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49838
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49842
Summary: sparc64-portbld-freebsd9.0 internal compiler error:
in connect_traces, at dwarf2cfi.c:2632
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49842
--- Comment #1 from Anton Shterenlikht 2011-07-25
15:33:50 UTC ---
Created attachment 24830
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24830
/usr/ports/lang/gcc47/work/build/sparc64-portbld-freebsd9.0/libgcc/config.log
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49843
Summary: 64-bit libmudflap.c++/pass55-frag.cxx FAILs at -O
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libmudflap
Assigne
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45351
--- Comment #13 from Rainer Orth 2011-07-25 15:39:58
UTC ---
Author: ro
Date: Mon Jul 25 15:39:52 2011
New Revision: 176755
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=176755
Log:
PR libgomp/45351
* config/osf/sem.h: New file.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39386
--- Comment #12 from Georg-Johann Lay 2011-07-25
15:42:00 UTC ---
Author: gjl
Date: Mon Jul 25 15:41:55 2011
New Revision: 176756
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=176756
Log:
PR target/39386
* config/avr/avr.c (out_
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31067
--- Comment #42 from Richard Guenther 2011-07-25
15:39:54 UTC ---
With gas_dyn changed to use MINLOC (DTEMP, 1) we now inline the intrinsic
(but not with MINLOC (DTEMP), even though we know it'll be a single-element
array result ...).
We complet
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45351
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
URL|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39386
--- Comment #13 from Georg-Johann Lay 2011-07-25
15:45:51 UTC ---
Author: gjl
Date: Mon Jul 25 15:45:47 2011
New Revision: 176757
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=176757
Log:
PR target/39386
Backport from mainline r
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49404
--- Comment #2 from Akos PASZTORY 2011-07-25
15:51:06 UTC ---
Does that also apply to _Unwind_Backtrace? Unfortunately the specification I
found [1] doesn't elaborate on the return values. Would anything bad happen if
it just returned the error
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49347
--- Comment #6 from Rainer Orth 2011-07-25 15:56:31 UTC
---
Author: ro
Date: Mon Jul 25 15:56:27 2011
New Revision: 176758
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=176758
Log:
PR c++/49347
* inclhack.def (solaris_posix_spawn
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49347
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49844
Summary: Building CodeBlocks on Windows using mingw gcc 4.6.1
"-flto -fuse-linker-plugin" results in many linker
stage errors
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.1
Status: U
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39386
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49827
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mexas at bristol dot ac.uk
--- Comment #8
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49842
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
1 - 100 of 153 matches
Mail list logo
