http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50134
--- Comment #4 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2011-09-30
07:00:40 UTC ---
So Joseph, Jason, what is the difference between Wmissing-prototypes and
Wmissing-declarations?
Can't you just make one a synonym for the other and make one of them the
canonica
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38980
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50134
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-09-30
08:04:38 UTC ---
C++ doesn't have prototypes, it has declarations and definitions, so the
different names makes sense.
I'm not sure what "Do so even if the definition itself provides a prototype."
m
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50572
Bug #: 50572
Summary: unstable performance on Atom due to loop alignment
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50573
Bug #: 50573
Summary: configure lists --with-gnu-ld twice
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50573
--- Comment #1 from Bernhard Reutner-Fischer
2011-09-30 09:02:18 UTC ---
btw.. same thing with java configury and three(!) times in gcc/configure:
$ grep -c "^[[:space:]]*\-\-with-gnu-ld" */configure | egrep -v "(0|1)$"
gcc/configure:3
libjava/
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50564
--- Comment #3 from Tobias Burnus 2011-09-30
09:11:38 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> I'll have a look in the next few days.
One way could be to move the "EXPR_ASSIGN:" part of trans-stmt.c's
gfc_trans_forall_1 into a separate function and ad
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50573
--- Comment #2 from Andreas Schwab 2011-09-30 09:23:09
UTC ---
The first one is coming from libtool.m4 (LT_PATH_LD), the second one from
config/lib-ld.m4 (AC_LIB_PROG_LD, imported from gettext, with some quoting
problems). The third occurrence i
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50574
Bug #: 50574
Summary: gcc.c-torture/execute/vector-compare-1.c FAILs on
SPARC
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
S
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50574
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.7.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50575
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.7.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50575
Bug #: 50575
Summary: gcc.c-torture/execute/vector-compare-2.c FAILs on
Solaris 8/9 x86
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49662
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ro at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5 from R
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50099
--- Comment #10 from Ramana Radhakrishnan
2011-09-30 09:36:47 UTC ---
Author: ramana
Date: Fri Sep 30 09:36:43 2011
New Revision: 179378
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=179378
Log:
Fix PR target/50099
Added:
trunk/gc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50574
--- Comment #1 from Dominique d'Humieres 2011-09-30
09:37:51 UTC ---
It also fails on powerpc-apple-darwin9 (see
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2011-09/msg03110.html) and
s390x-ibm-linux-* (see
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2011-09
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50052
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|hppa*-*-* |hppa*-*-*, alpha-dec-osf*,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49965
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44473
--- Comment #13 from Paolo Carlini 2011-09-30
09:44:50 UTC ---
By the way, the patch is approved thus we don't need further feedback to commi
it and fix this annoying issue. I'll just do it later today, if nobody beats
me!
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49662
--- Comment #6 from rguenther at suse dot de
2011-09-30 09:53:26 UTC ---
On Fri, 30 Sep 2011, ro at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49662
>
> Rainer Orth changed:
>
>What|Removed
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19599
--- Comment #7 from Ramana Radhakrishnan 2011-09-30
09:57:06 UTC ---
The patch as applied today causes some bootstrap failures and I'm investigating
that.
Ramana
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50573
--- Comment #3 from Paolo Carlini 2011-09-30
09:58:50 UTC ---
Thus doesn'l look like a library proper issue, right? Build system? Please add
somebody in CC
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50574
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50575
--- Comment #1 from Richard Guenther 2011-09-30
10:06:48 UTC ---
Please add proper options/prune for your target to avoid these ABI messages.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49965
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47346
--- Comment #6 from dodji at seketeli dot org
2011-09-30 10:26:29 UTC ---
"paolo.carlini at oracle dot com" a écrit:
> Out of curiosity, does the posted patch fix at once *all* the issues mentioned
> in the Description?
Yes it does, AFAICT.
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50573
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bonzini at gnu dot org
--- Comment #4 fro
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47346
--- Comment #7 from Paolo Carlini 2011-09-30
10:33:15 UTC ---
Great. By the way, I think I didn't see any comment, that's why I asked ;)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50573
--- Comment #5 from Paolo Bonzini 2011-09-30 10:41:32
UTC ---
I'd just close it as wontfix. Perhaps we can fix the quoting problems, and
hope that autoconf removes duplicates another day.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50576
Bug #: 50576
Summary: Recent vector comparison changes cause an ICE
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50576
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50573
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Component|libstdc++
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50576
--- Comment #2 from Matthew Gretton-Dann
2011-09-30 10:58:03 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> is sizeof(long long) == sizeof (double)?
Yes - sizeof(long long) and sizeof(double) are both 8.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50577
Bug #: 50577
Summary: IPA-PTA context insensitivity confuses pure-const
analysis
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47346
--- Comment #8 from dodji at seketeli dot org
2011-09-30 11:41:14 UTC ---
The comment was posted in another month:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-09/msg00536.html
Another hint at why we need a better patch/comments tracker :)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50578
Bug #: 50578
Summary: Rethrow core dump if static link to libstdc++
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.2.4
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50578
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50574
--- Comment #3 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-09-30 12:25:53 UTC ---
I find the following trees when error is hit for the first time:
(gdb) p type
$1 = (tree) 0xfba11140
(gdb) pt
unit size
align 32 symtab 0 alias
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50574
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50574
--- Comment #5 from Richard Guenther 2011-09-30
12:47:32 UTC ---
FYI
Index: tree-cfg.c
===
--- tree-cfg.c (revision 179378)
+++ tree-cfg.c (working copy)
@@ -3229,8 +3302,8 @@ ver
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50574
--- Comment #6 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-09-30 12:52:09 UTC ---
> --- Comment #4 from Richard Guenther 2011-09-30
> 12:46:06 UTC ---
[...]
> Ok, that makes sense. I'll test a patch.
Great, thanks.
Rainer
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50574
--- Comment #7 from Richard Guenther 2011-09-30
13:33:18 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri Sep 30 13:33:14 2011
New Revision: 179382
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=179382
Log:
2011-09-30 Richard Guenther
PR middle-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50579
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.7.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50574
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
CC|richard.gu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50579
Bug #: 50579
Summary: [4.7 regression] gcc.target/mips/20020620-1.c FAILs on
IRIX 6.5
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50580
Bug #: 50580
Summary: gcc.target/mips/interrupt_handler-[23].c FAIL on IRIX
6.5
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50580
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.7.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50134
--- Comment #6 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2011-09-30 14:16:40 UTC ---
On Fri, 30 Sep 2011, redi at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> I'm not sure what "Do so even if the definition itself provides a prototype."
> means in the context of C++.
Tha
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50134
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-09-30
14:29:18 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> On Fri, 30 Sep 2011, redi at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> > I'm not sure what "Do so even if the definition itself provides a
> > prototype."
> > means in
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50557
--- Comment #5 from William J. Schmidt 2011-09-30
14:30:56 UTC ---
Reassociation isn't doing anything untoward here that raises register pressure.
The problem must be occurring downstream. Likely the scheduler is making a
different decision tha
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50575
--- Comment #2 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-09-30 14:39:28 UTC ---
> --- Comment #1 from Richard Guenther 2011-09-30
> 10:06:48 UTC ---
> Please add proper options/prune for your target to avoid these ABI messages.
I just notice
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50038
tocarip.intel at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tocarip.intel at gmail dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46309
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-09-30
15:00:18 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Sep 30 15:00:12 2011
New Revision: 179388
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=179388
Log:
PR tree-optimization/46309
* fold-const.c (
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50571
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-09-30
15:01:31 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Sep 30 15:01:27 2011
New Revision: 179389
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=179389
Log:
PR inline-asm/50571
* gimple-fold.c (fold_s
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50566
--- Comment #4 from Georg-Johann Lay 2011-09-30
15:15:32 UTC ---
Author: gjl
Date: Fri Sep 30 15:15:23 2011
New Revision: 179391
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=179391
Log:
PR target/50566
* config/avr/avr-protos.h
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50581
Bug #: 50581
Summary: stdarg doesn't support array types
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50582
Bug #: 50582
Summary: Instruct GCC that added_clobbers_hard_reg_p shouldn't
consider a specific register
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.1
Stat
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50568
--- Comment #32 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-30
15:48:56 UTC ---
Author: hjl
Date: Fri Sep 30 15:48:51 2011
New Revision: 179395
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=179395
Log:
Use 64bit integer for LTO symbol ID.
gcc/l
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50582
--- Comment #1 from Paulo J. Matos 2011-09-30
15:54:25 UTC ---
I have implemented a fix to this using a new macro: NOT_REALLY_HARD_REGS which
is an array of FIRST_PSEUDO_REGISTER length, with a 1 in position x if register
x should not be consider
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50582
--- Comment #2 from Paulo J. Matos 2011-09-30
15:57:21 UTC ---
Created attachment 25389
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25389
Patch for GCC 4.6.1 implementing suggested enhancement
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49949
--- Comment #13 from Jan Hubicka 2011-09-30 16:26:46
UTC ---
> Maybe Honza has ideas about this...
That patch affect inlining decisions, but should not affect correctness. So it
seems that the bug whatever it is just gone latent.
Honza
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50583
Bug #: 50583
Summary: Many __sync_XXX builtin functions are incorrect
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50583
--- Comment #1 from H.J. Lu 2011-09-30 16:57:14
UTC ---
We have 2 choices:
1. Update document of
`TYPE __sync_fetch_and_add (TYPE *ptr, TYPE value, ...)'
`TYPE __sync_fetch_and_sub (TYPE *ptr, TYPE value, ...)'
`TYPE __sync_fetch_and_or (TYPE *
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50584
Bug #: 50584
Summary: No warning for passing small array to C99 static array
declarator
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44473
--- Comment #14 from Janis Johnson 2011-09-30
17:33:48 UTC ---
Author: janis
Date: Fri Sep 30 17:33:41 2011
New Revision: 179399
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=179399
Log:
gcc/cp
PR c++/44473
* mangle.c (write_type
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50571
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-09-30
18:14:38 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Sep 30 18:14:33 2011
New Revision: 179402
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=179402
Log:
PR inline-asm/50571
* gimple-fold.c (fold_s
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50583
Andrew Macleod changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amacleod at redhat dot com
--- Comment #
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50583
--- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu 2011-09-30 18:37:42
UTC ---
The same problem with
`TYPE __sync_add_and_fetch (TYPE *ptr, TYPE value, ...)'
`TYPE __sync_sub_and_fetch (TYPE *ptr, TYPE value, ...)'
`TYPE __sync_or_and_fetch (TYPE *ptr, TYPE value, ...
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50583
--- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu 2011-09-30 18:47:21
UTC ---
I guess it is OK.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50583
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50571
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50581
--- Comment #1 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2011-09-30 19:41:17 UTC ---
There is no possible valid use of passing arrays to va_arg.
In C99, it is never possible for an array to be passed by value to a
function because it will have decayed
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46309
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44473
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46309
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-09-30
20:18:59 UTC ---
Well, the original issue isn't fully fixed. If the gimplifier decides to split
the conditions into multiple basic blocks, i.e. if it isn't
tmp1 = a == 1;
tmp2 = a == 3;
tmp3 = a == 4;
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46309
--- Comment #8 from Paolo Carlini 2011-09-30
20:25:14 UTC ---
I see... thanks.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49949
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50529
--- Comment #6 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-09-30 20:47:17 UTC ---
Author: paolo
Date: Fri Sep 30 20:47:12 2011
New Revision: 179403
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=179403
Log:
2011-09-30 François Dumont
* inc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50529
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.7.0 |4.6.2
--- Comment #7 from Paolo Carlini
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38980
--- Comment #3 from Paolo Carlini 2011-09-30
21:15:16 UTC ---
Thanks a lot for the analysis Jakub, seems easy to fix now.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50583
--- Comment #6 from Andi Kleen 2011-09-30
23:35:29 UTC ---
Can't say I'm a fan of adding such a heavy weight sequence into
an intrinsic. Maybe better to simply leave out the intrinsics that
cannot be implemented with loops? If someone wants a lo
80 matches
Mail list logo
