http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50303
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||markus at trippelsdorf dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50400
Bug #: 50400
Summary: compiler accepts invalid
&X::Impl::Impl::Impl::.::foo
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50401
Bug #: 50401
Summary: SIGSEGV in resolve_transfer
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50402
Bug #: 50402
Summary: ICE in gfc_conv_expr_descriptor
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50403
Bug #: 50403
Summary: SIGSEGV in gfc_use_derived
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
C
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50404
Bug #: 50404
Summary: SIGSEGV in gfc_resolve_close
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50405
Bug #: 50405
Summary: allocation LOOP or SIGSEGV
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
C
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50406
Bug #: 50406
Summary: ld undefined reference to __MOD_str
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46072
vladimir penev changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vovata at gmail dot com
--- Comment #32
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50407
Bug #: 50407
Summary: compiler confused by .operator.
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50408
Bug #: 50408
Summary: ICE in transfer_expr
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50409
Bug #: 50409
Summary: SIGSEGV in gfc_simplify_expr
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50410
Bug #: 50410
Summary: ICE in record_reference
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Comp
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50411
Bug #: 50411
Summary: gfortran -Ofast SIGSEGV in vect_recog_dot_prod_pattern
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46072
--- Comment #33 from vladimir penev 2011-09-15
08:44:04 UTC ---
An update on this subject at my side.
After some interactions with IBM AIX support there is a fix
https://www-304.ibm.com/support/docview.wss?uid=isg1IV06344 and after that the
assem
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50412
Bug #: 50412
Summary: gfortran -Ofast ICE in vect_do_peeling_for_loop_bound
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50413
--- Comment #1 from Anatoly 2011-09-15 08:44:57
UTC ---
Created attachment 25289
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25289
C++ source code
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50415
Bug #: 50415
Summary: gfortran -Ofast SIGSEGV in find_uses_to_rename_use
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50413
Bug #: 50413
Summary: Incorrect instruction is used to shift value of 128
bit xmm0 registrer
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50414
Bug #: 50414
Summary: gfortran -Ofast SIGSEGV in store_constructor
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prior
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50416
Bug #: 50416
Summary: gfortran -O1 ICE MPFR assertion failed: 0
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50417
Bug #: 50417
Summary: regression: memcpy with known alignment
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50418
Bug #: 50418
Summary: nested class typedef with same name and pointing to
parent class typedef
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.1
Status: UNCONF
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50413
--- Comment #2 from Anatoly 2011-09-15 09:05:03
UTC ---
Forgot to mention: Intel(R) Core(TM) i5 CPU 760 @ 2.80GHz LGA1156
And there's no such bug in GCC 4.3.4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41816
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||markus at trippelsdorf dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50399
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-09-15
09:21:30 UTC ---
I think G++ is correct, see [basic.lookup.qual]
In C++03 a nested-name-specifier can only refer to a class or namespace, in
C++11 it can also refer to an enumeration.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50399
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50400
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-09-15
09:34:52 UTC ---
EDG accepts it too, are you suggesting MSVC is right and all the others wrong?
That would be a first ;)
See http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/cwg_defects.html#318
Because
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50414
Joost VandeVondele changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|fortran |tree-optimization
--- Comment #1 fro
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50415
Joost VandeVondele changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50414
Joost VandeVondele changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41816
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-09-15
10:04:18 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> Why don't we just install this file in
> /usr/share/gdb/auto-load/usr/lib64/gcc/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/4.7.0/ instead of
> $(DESTDIR)$(toolexeclibdir)/ by def
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50412
Joost VandeVondele changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50344
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-09-15
10:06:31 UTC ---
Thanks Paolo - I forgot to add a follow-up comment to say I'd tested it
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50414
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|gfortran -Ofast SIGSEGV in |[4.7 Regression] gfortran
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50415
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|gfortran -Ofast SIGSEGV in |[4.7 Regression] gfortran
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50416
--- Comment #1 from Dominique d'Humieres 2011-09-15
10:39:12 UTC ---
It works for me with -O1, -Ofast, and -m32 -Ofast. I used x86_64-apple-darwin10
with
GMP version 5.0.2, MPFR version 3.0.1, MPC version 0.9
Likely a MPFR (or its use) bug. I s
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41816
--- Comment #8 from Markus Trippelsdorf
2011-09-15 10:50:37 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> (In reply to comment #6)
> > Why don't we just install this file in
> > /usr/share/gdb/auto-load/usr/lib64/gcc/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/4.7.0/ instead of
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50411
--- Comment #1 from Dominique d'Humieres 2011-09-15
10:55:19 UTC ---
Likely a duplicate of pr50343 fixed by revision 178775.
I use this pr for some general comments:
(1) follow the Mikael Morin's advice in pr50375 comment #4:
> Please paste t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50409
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50410
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50076
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||iains at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comme
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50401
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Keywords|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50315
--- Comment #7 from Sergey Ostanevich 2011-09-15
11:24:27 UTC ---
Richard, I believe your test should be reading as
> So you can go from (a +no b) +no c to a + no (b + c), dropping overflow
knowledge on re-association.
And let me re-phrase wha
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50414
--- Comment #3 from Dominique d'Humieres 2011-09-15
11:27:35 UTC ---
> This is a regression that occurred between revisions 173852 (OK) and 175707
> (ICE). If needed, I'll be able to narrow the range later today.
173817 is OK
173917 gives the IC
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50415
--- Comment #3 from Dominique d'Humieres 2011-09-15
11:30:14 UTC ---
> This is a regression that occurred in the same range as pr50414 (between
> revisions 173852 (OK) and 175707 (ICE)).
r174030 is OK
r174283 gives the ICE.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50415
--- Comment #4 from Dominique d'Humieres 2011-09-15
11:33:16 UTC ---
'-O2 -ftree-vectorize' is OK, '-O3' gives the ICE.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41816
--- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-09-15
11:33:50 UTC ---
Hmm yes, this is only really an issue for people who install libstdc++ into a
directory that ldconfig searches, which for most people means it only affects
the system compiler, which
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50412
Ira Rosen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50403
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Keywords|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50418
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-09-15
12:17:48 UTC ---
[basic.scope.class]
A name N used in a class S shall refer to the same declaration
in its context and when re-evaluated in the completed scope of
S. No diagnostic is required for a v
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50418
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-09-15
12:29:38 UTC ---
you can use -fpermissive to make G++ accept the code
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50414
Ira Rosen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50413
Uros Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50411
Joost VandeVondele changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50343
Joost VandeVondele changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zeccav at gmail dot com
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50408
Joost VandeVondele changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50413
Anatoly changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
Resolution|INVALID
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50406
Joost VandeVondele changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50405
Joost VandeVondele changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50404
Joost VandeVondele changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50402
Joost VandeVondele changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46072
--- Comment #34 from Daniel Richard G. 2011-09-15
14:01:36 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #33)
Vladimir, this [GCC] bug report has nothing to do with the assembler
segfaulting. The problem is that the linker can't link what the assembler is
produc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50418
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50365
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50419
Bug #: 50419
Summary: Bad interaction between data-ref and disambiguation
with restrict pointers
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCO
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46072
--- Comment #35 from vladimir penev 2011-09-15
14:14:16 UTC ---
Yes, it's true. And using the mentioned efix for AIX the problem doesn't exist
any more, the assembler generates correct code and the linker links it as well.
Nothing to do at GCC si
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50419
--- Comment #1 from Michael Matz 2011-09-15 14:16:54
UTC ---
Created attachment 25293
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25293
(untested) patch
Potential fix for this. As yet untested.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50413
--- Comment #5 from Uros Bizjak 2011-09-15 14:17:34
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> We have V.bitmap.b63 = V.bitmap.b64; to shift a lower bit of the upper
> quadword
> but GCC has decided not to do this.
Ah, I didn't see the purpose of this
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50413
Uros Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50361
--- Comment #6 from Jason Merrill 2011-09-15
14:33:29 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Thu Sep 15 14:33:24 2011
New Revision: 178882
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=178882
Log:
PR c++/50361
* expr.c (count_type_elements)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50365
--- Comment #8 from Jason Merrill 2011-09-15
14:33:42 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Thu Sep 15 14:33:37 2011
New Revision: 178883
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=178883
Log:
PR c++/50365
* parser.c (cp_parser_late_ret
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50365
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50361
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50394
--- Comment #3 from Jan Hubicka 2011-09-15
15:39:18 UTC ---
Thanks a lot! is there any chance to get those fixes into official git so we
don't need to cummulate local patches? :)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50404
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=50394
--- Comment #4 from Markus Trippelsdorf
2011-09-15 16:48:37 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> Thanks a lot! is there any chance to get those fixes into official git so we
> don't need to cummulate local patches? :)
It looks like some libreoffic
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50182
--- Comment #13 from oleg at smolsky dot net 2011-09-15 16:53:26 UTC ---
David, it looks like we are seeing different things with v4.7... See my
comment 11 - I am still observing the slowdown. Do you have access to
v4.1 and v4.6? Could you try re
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50407
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=2316
--- Comment #34 from Marc Glisse 2011-09-15
16:53:33 UTC ---
I posted a related demangler patch on gcc-patches a couple weeks ago, let me
just link it from here so it doesn't get lost:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-09/msg00231.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50420
Bug #: 50420
Summary: [Coarray] lcobound doesn't accept coarray
subcomponents
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
S
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50421
Bug #: 50421
Summary: [4.7 Regression] GC Warning: Out of Memory! Returning
NIL!
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50182
--- Comment #14 from davidxl 2011-09-15 17:28:10
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #13)
> David, it looks like we are seeing different things with v4.7... See my
> comment 11 - I am still observing the slowdown. Do you have access to
> v4.1 and v4.6
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50422
Bug #: 50422
Summary: -Wswitch warns about unhandled cases in nested
switches
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
S
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50401
--- Comment #2 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-15 17:48:36 UTC ---
Author: janus
Date: Thu Sep 15 17:48:27 2011
New Revision: 178889
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=178889
Log:
2011-09-15 Janus Weil
PR fortran/5
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50403
--- Comment #2 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-15 17:48:36 UTC ---
Author: janus
Date: Thu Sep 15 17:48:27 2011
New Revision: 178889
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=178889
Log:
2011-09-15 Janus Weil
PR fortran/5
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50401
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50403
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50423
Bug #: 50423
Summary: error: ‘getpid’ was not declared in this scope
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50423
--- Comment #1 from Jack Howarth 2011-09-15
17:57:08 UTC ---
Attached bzip2 compressed preprocessed source for common/semaphore.cc
reproduces this issue...
[MacPro:~/xplor-nih-2.27/common/bin.Darwin_11_x86_64] howarth% g++-fsf-4.7 -c
semaphore.i
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50423
--- Comment #2 from Jack Howarth 2011-09-15
17:57:45 UTC ---
Note that -fpermissive doesn't eliminate the regression.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50424
Bug #: 50424
Summary: G++ doesn't notice possible throw from default
argument
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
K
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50423
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50409
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=50425
Bug #: 50425
Summary: precedence rule for pre/post increamet/decreament and
effect of white spaces
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UN
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50425
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50341
Michael Meissner changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||meissner at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50341
--- Comment #4 from Michael Meissner 2011-09-15
18:34:11 UTC ---
Created attachment 25295
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25295
Patch for GCC 4.6 that disables the split of the load of the new TOC
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50341
--- Comment #5 from Michael Meissner 2011-09-15
18:34:44 UTC ---
Created attachment 25296
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25296
Patch for GCC 4.7 that disables the split of the load of the new TOC
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45348
--- Comment #2 from eraman at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-15 19:18:30 UTC ---
Author: eraman
Date: Thu Sep 15 19:18:26 2011
New Revision: 178892
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=178892
Log:
Backport r176741 from trunk.
2011-09-15
1 - 100 of 130 matches
Mail list logo
