http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49687
--- Comment #8 from Georg-Johann Lay 2011-08-11
07:50:42 UTC ---
Author: gjl
Date: Thu Aug 11 07:50:37 2011
New Revision: 177648
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=177648
Log:
PR target/49687
* config/avr/avr.md (smul
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49801
Paulo J. Matos changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |major
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49992
--- Comment #39 from Iain Sandoe 2011-08-11 08:52:24
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #37)
> This issue is not fixed.
concur.
Mike; there are two problems.
a. the link line for gcc/gengtype (recently introduced) includes both errors.o
and libcomm
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50018
--- Comment #6 from Mikael Pettersson 2011-08-11
09:04:52 UTC ---
The proposed patch in #c5 allows me to build a C-only cross to m68k-linux
again. Thanks.
It will take me several days to do a c,c++ native bootstrap + regtest however,
I'll follo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50043
Bug #: 50043
Summary: [C++0x] Implement core/1123
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49242
Gerald Pfeifer changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
Last reconfirmed|2011-08-08 09:59:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50042
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50041
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28859
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50040
--- Comment #1 from Richard Guenther 2011-08-11
10:04:06 UTC ---
We should have never accepted the aggregate warning code in 4.4 and earlier
in it's current awkward form that only works for "testcases". It was removed.
This is a dup of PR.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50039
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50040
--- Comment #2 from Jan Kratochvil
2011-08-11 10:41:30 UTC ---
I was searching for duplicates but I haven't found a close enough one without
knowing GCC internals.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50038
Igor Zamyatin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||izamyatin at gmail dot com
--- Comment #1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50040
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50040
--- Comment #4 from Jan Kratochvil
2011-08-11 11:22:41 UTC ---
Thanks for a fix, FYI this is a reduced real world problem.
During backporting of
[patch] Implement core file's PID for s390* and ppc*
http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2011-04/ms
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50037
--- Comment #5 from Richard Guenther 2011-08-11
11:21:34 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> (In reply to comment #3)
> > Using
> >
> > int foo (int n, int *addr)
> > {
> > int count, sum;
> > for ( count = n & 0x3; count >= 0; count--, addr+
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50037
--- Comment #6 from Richard Guenther 2011-08-11
11:39:44 UTC ---
It probably doesn't help that tree IVOPTs replaces the nice induction variable
with a pointer one:
# BLOCK 2 freq:900
# PRED: ENTRY [100.0%] (fallthru,exec)
count_5 = n_4(D)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49987
rsand...@gcc.gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50037
--- Comment #7 from Richard Guenther 2011-08-11
12:12:56 UTC ---
The following patch makes us handle the canonical testcase on the tree level,
but not yet the original testcase (because of the * 2).
We should really preserve value-range informat
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49987
--- Comment #3 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-08-11 12:13:02 UTC ---
Created attachment 24975
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24975
Proposed patch
I think the PowerPC backend needs the same fix as i386 and spu
did for
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49987
--- Comment #4 from Iain Sandoe 2011-08-11 12:23:41
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> Created attachment 24975 [details]
> Proposed patch
>
> I think the PowerPC backend needs the same fix as i386 and spu
> did for #34856. Could you try the at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49911
--- Comment #13 from Martin Jambor 2011-08-11
12:33:44 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> Still SRA should probably not produce enum kind replacements but always
> integer kind ones.
>
I see, what would be the best way of obtaining the proper p
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49992
--- Comment #40 from Jack Howarth 2011-08-11
12:47:02 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #39)
> ... unless you can produce a patch (or identify a plan for such a patch) that
> would obviate the need for common symbols in the darwin port, it doesn't se
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49781
--- Comment #46 from H.J. Lu 2011-08-11 12:55:11
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #45)
> (In reply to comment #44)
> > Created attachment 24973 [details]
> > Patch that recognizes addresses, zero-extended with AND, v2.
> >
> > (In reply to comment #
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49992
--- Comment #41 from Jack Howarth 2011-08-11
13:22:46 UTC ---
Note that I can also confirm the failure from Comment 4 on darwin11. Using
unpatched gcc trunk svn at r177665 when building with clang on darwin11
using...
../gcc-4.7-20110811
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49992
--- Comment #42 from Mike Stump 2011-08-11
13:26:18 UTC ---
Ick. Oh well. Ok, how about outright removing for all darwin releases the -c
setting? I think the only thing this could break was fortran. I have no clue
about what to do for Ada. :
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50044
Bug #: 50044
Summary: Attributes for explicit template instantiation are
ignored after an implicit template instantiation
occurred.
Classification: Unclassified
Product:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49911
--- Comment #14 from Richard Guenther 2011-08-11
13:37:00 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #13)
> (In reply to comment #6)
> > Still SRA should probably not produce enum kind replacements but always
> > integer kind ones.
> >
>
> I see, what would
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50044
--- Comment #1 from Martin Lederhilger 2011-08-11
13:37:15 UTC ---
Created attachment 24977
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24977
A.cpp - goes into the DLL
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50044
--- Comment #2 from Martin Lederhilger 2011-08-11
13:38:02 UTC ---
Created attachment 24978
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24978
A.h - Header which is used by the DLL and the application
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50044
--- Comment #3 from Martin Lederhilger 2011-08-11
13:38:47 UTC ---
Created attachment 24979
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24979
A_imp.h - Implementation of the template. This file is included in A.cpp
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50044
--- Comment #4 from Martin Lederhilger 2011-08-11
13:39:31 UTC ---
Created attachment 24980
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24980
Interface.h - defines macros for the dllexport/import attributes
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50044
--- Comment #5 from Martin Lederhilger 2011-08-11
13:40:07 UTC ---
Created attachment 24981
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24981
main.cpp - the application
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50044
--- Comment #6 from Martin Lederhilger 2011-08-11
13:40:40 UTC ---
Created attachment 24982
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24982
Makefile to build the DLL and the application.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49911
--- Comment #15 from Richard Guenther 2011-08-11
13:41:24 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #11)
> > So, Eric - are you still objecting to make VRP and the middle-end aligned
> > by ignoring TYPE_MIN/MAX_VALUE in VRP?
>
> Just to give a bit of contex
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47653
Michael Matz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49992
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|lto |target
--- Comment #43 from Iain Sandoe 20
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50042
--- Comment #4 from Sri 2011-08-11 14:07:15 UTC ---
Hi Andrew and Richard:
Thank you for the response. I will trying building GCC 4.4.6 under the same
environment and see if things go smooth.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50040
--- Comment #5 from Richard Guenther 2011-08-11
14:28:39 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu Aug 11 14:28:36 2011
New Revision: 177667
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=177667
Log:
2011-08-11 Richard Guenther
PR middle-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50040
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.7.0
Summary|[4.5/4.6/4.7
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49992
--- Comment #44 from Jack Howarth 2011-08-11
14:28:31 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #42)
> Ick. Oh well. Ok, how about outright removing for all darwin releases the -c
> setting? I think the only thing this could break was fortran. I have no c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50018
--- Comment #7 from Richard Henderson 2011-08-11
15:09:35 UTC ---
Author: rth
Date: Thu Aug 11 15:09:30 2011
New Revision: 177669
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=177669
Log:
PR bootstrap/50018
* expr.c (fixup_args_s
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49740
--- Comment #3 from Douglas Mencken 2011-08-11
15:21:40 UTC ---
As for snapshot gcc-v4.7-20110806, I got
"../../gcc-v4.7-20110806.sourcedir/gcc/haifa-sched.c:5971:1: internal compiler
error: in check_cfg, at haifa-sched.c:6074" on stage2, so I ca
w32 --enable-languages=c,c++,java,lto --no-create
--no-recursion
Thread model: win32
gcc version 4.7.0 20110811 (experimental) (GCC)
COLLECT_GCC_OPTIONS='-g' '-fdump-tree-all' '-v' '-fbootclasspath=.;C/:\Program
Files\java\jdk1.7.0\jre\lib\ext\QTJava.zip;E/:\IBM\SQLLI
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49992
--- Comment #45 from Mike Stump 2011-08-11
16:32:50 UTC ---
On Aug 11, 2011, at 6:48 AM, iains at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> It's on my TODO to bootstrap a version of ADA - I guess that means doing a
> canadian from linux - likely to be a bundle of
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50046
Bug #: 50046
Summary: Hexidecimal Constants
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.3.4
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Priority: P3
Compone
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49992
--- Comment #46 from Jack Howarth 2011-08-11
17:19:14 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #45)
> Jack or the Ada folks might have a pointer. google turns up
> http://aadl.enst.fr/ocarina/releases/, if you have ppc or rosetta.
I've never added ada to t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50046
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49813
--- Comment #57 from Paolo Carlini 2011-08-11
17:33:01 UTC ---
Any objections to adding to the Wiki a list of the intrinsics not yet folded by
the middle-end as an open project? Or we do already have such a list somewhere
(beyond inspecting built
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49903
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49903
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
Target Milestone|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50047
Bug #: 50047
Summary: [4.7 Regression] Revision 177670 failed to bootstrap
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47346
--- Comment #2 from Dodji Seketeli 2011-08-11
18:41:53 UTC ---
Another variation of the same theme is:
class C
{
struct Private { };
};
template
struct exploit3
{
template
struct E {};
};
void
bar()
{
exploit3::E<> e;
}
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47346
--- Comment #3 from Dodji Seketeli 2011-08-11
18:52:54 UTC ---
Created attachment 24985
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24985
Work in progress patch
I am currently testing this patch.
The problem I see is twofold.
First, th
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50048
Bug #: 50048
Summary: "cc1: note: obsolete option -I- used, please use
-iquote instead" during bootstrap
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.1
Stat
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50049
Bug #: 50049
Summary: bootstrap fails if libcloog in unusual spot, even with
--with-cloog= set
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.1
Status: UNCONF
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50049
--- Comment #1 from robert somerville
2011-08-11 19:25:31 UTC ---
Created attachment 24986
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24986
sorry, lost attachment first time
config.log
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50049
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50049
--- Comment #3 from robert somerville
2011-08-11 19:29:48 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> >i seem to have to have LD_LIBRARY_PATH set to point to libcloog library
>
> That is a standard non issue really as you are support to have the shared
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50049
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski 2011-08-11
19:39:04 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> "" In both cases --with-cloog configure option should be used if CLooG is not
> installed in your default library search path. ""
That is for built time lib
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50049
--- Comment #5 from robert somerville
2011-08-11 19:42:37 UTC ---
i have a static cloog library in there .. is there a compiler/configure
option i was supposed to use ???
On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 1:39 PM, pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org <
gcc-bugzi...
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50049
--- Comment #6 from robert somerville
2011-08-11 19:56:06 UTC ---
i believe that the build should use the static libcloog that exists, after all
the build has no problems with MPC,MPFR,GMP, and PPL needing an LD_LIBRARY_PATH
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50049
--- Comment #7 from robert somerville
2011-08-11 19:57:18 UTC ---
i believe that the build should use the static libcloog that exists, after all
the build has no problems with MPC,MPFR,GMP, and PPL needing an LD_LIBRARY_PATH
, which are also in a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50046
Mikael Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikael at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49781
--- Comment #47 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-08-11 20:03:34 UTC ---
Author: uros
Date: Thu Aug 11 20:03:29 2011
New Revision: 177683
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=177683
Log:
PR target/49781
* config/i386/i386.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49987
--- Comment #5 from Iain Sandoe 2011-08-11 20:07:00
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> (In reply to comment #3)
> > Created attachment 24975 [details]
> > Proposed patch
> >
> > I think the PowerPC backend needs the same fix as i386 and spu
> >
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50046
--- Comment #3 from Steve Kargl
2011-08-11 20:18:29 UTC ---
On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 07:57:39PM +, mikael at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> (In reply to comment #0)
> > ''X had be changed to -65536 to successfully compile.
> >
> Accordi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49987
rsand...@gcc.gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #24975|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49987
--- Comment #7 from Iain Sandoe 2011-08-11 20:59:51
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> Created attachment 24987 [details]
> Revised patch
>
> Sorry, seems there are two copies of the logic. Please try this instead.
yes, works for me off a stag
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49687
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hennebry at web dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39250
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
CC|
The attached minimal program triggers an internal compiler bug in all versions
of gfortran I have encountered. That includes
GNU Fortran (GCC) 4.7.0 20110811 (experimental) - linux 2.6.32-33 - ubuntu
GNU Fortran (GCC) 4.7.0 20110713 (experimental) - linux 2.6.18-238 - red hat 5
GNU Fortran (GCC) 4.6.0 -
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50051
Bug #: 50051
Summary: MIPS libffi does not compile for
mips64octeon-linux-gnu
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
S
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50051
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||build
Target|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50051
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski 2011-08-11
22:59:28 UTC ---
Simple fix which works for me:
Index: src/mips/n32.S
===
--- src/mips/n32.S(revision 177681)
+++ src/mips/n32.S(
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49992
--- Comment #47 from Jack Howarth 2011-08-11
23:06:45 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #43)
> Changing the topic to target - although there's a latent issue with the two
> diagnostic implemenations, (and I will post comment 6, when the reg-tests are
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50052
Bug #: 50052
Summary: [4.6 Regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/ipa/ipa-sra-2.c
scan-tree-dump eipa_sra
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.2
Status: UNCONFIRM
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50018
Richard Henderson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49994
--- Comment #5 from Richard Henderson 2011-08-11
23:54:57 UTC ---
Tricky stuff, this.
The ICE is, for the most part, valid. The transformation that
is being done in -fsched2-use-superblocks is invalid, from the
point of view of the unwind infor
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50010
Nenad Vukicevic changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nenad at intrepid dot com
--- Comment #
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49992
--- Comment #48 from Jack Howarth 2011-08-12
00:51:20 UTC ---
Patch posted at http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-08/msg01083.html.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50052
--- Comment #1 from John David Anglin 2011-08-12
01:02:11 UTC ---
Same fail on trunk.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50034
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Keywords|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49781
Uros Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x32
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50010
--- Comment #2 from Uros Bizjak 2011-08-12 06:57:35
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #0)
> x86_64-unknown-freebsd seems to work, and with nobody seeing this on GNU/Linux
> I am wondering whether this may be due to i386 (vs i586)?
Can you trigger thi
85 matches
Mail list logo
