http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14792
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14541
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52205
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52213
Bug #: 52213
Summary: Add chunk of memory if array is size is divisable with
8
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52214
Bug #: 52214
Summary: [4.7 Regression] FAIL: g++.dg/tree-ssa/pr44706.C
-std=gnu++* scan-tree-dump-not fnsplit "Splitting
function"
Classification: Unclassified
Product:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52215
Bug #: 52215
Summary: [4.7 Regression] FAIL:
ext/profile/mutex_extensions_neg.cc (test for excess
errors)
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52212
Daniel Krügler changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||daniel.kruegler at
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52213
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-02-12
13:44:17 UTC ---
Please provide *complete* testcases, this code is missing and
, since you already wrote it so it compiles why should we have to add
headers again to test it?
(In reply to comment #
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52215
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-02-12
13:57:32 UTC ---
It makes no sense unless the signature of __atomic_compare_exchange_n is
different when -m32 is used!
Looking into it ...
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52190
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-02-12
14:02:42 UTC ---
The docs for __atomic_compare_exchange_n say:
"True is returned if *desired is written into *ptr"
but desired is not a pointer, that asterisk should go, right?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52213
--- Comment #2 from Jovica 2012-02-12 14:03:33
UTC ---
I know this should be undefined behaviour but i drew attention to it only
happens when there is a length divided by 8. That's why I wrote this bug, to
pay attention to this.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52215
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52213
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-02-12
14:19:13 UTC ---
You ask for some memory, you get some memory of at least that size, you look at
bytes after the allocated memory and get weird behaviour. That's a bug in your
program not G++.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52213
Jovica changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52215
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
CC|jwakel
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52216
Bug #: 52216
Summary: [C++11][noexcept] Wrong exception deduction for some
forms of placement new
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNC
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52217
Bug #: 52217
Summary: [boehm-gc] revision 184100 causes segmentation fault
in mingw32
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48094
--- Comment #15 from Iain Sandoe 2012-02-12 14:43:49
UTC ---
this var is a two element array consisting of two integer constants.
the var is marked 'preserve' (because it is read by the OBJC runtime, but not
referenced from the code).
we get on
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52212
--- Comment #3 from Daniel Krügler
2012-02-12 15:02:22 UTC ---
My quoted phrase doesn't actually say that (nominated refers to the befriended
name). But 11 p4 can be applied here:
"Access control is applied uniformly to all names, whether the na
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52212
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52212
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-02-12
15:08:14 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #0)
> Note that the same function was earlier made a friend of class E, and so can
> see F. If you leave out the second friending, you get:
> foo.cc: In functio
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50076
--- Comment #6 from Iain Sandoe 2012-02-12 15:20:50
UTC ---
Author: iains
Date: Sun Feb 12 15:20:46 2012
New Revision: 184140
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=184140
Log:
gcc/testsuite:
PR testsuite/50076
* c-c++-c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50076
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52205
--- Comment #5 from Eric Botcazou 2012-02-12
15:33:17 UTC ---
Created attachment 26643
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26643
Tentative fix
Would you mind giving it a try on the Solaris 11 machine? TIA.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50981
--- Comment #37 from Mikael Morin 2012-02-12
15:46:18 UTC ---
Author: mikael
Date: Sun Feb 12 15:46:14 2012
New Revision: 184142
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=184142
Log:
gcc/fortran/
PR fortran/50981
* trans-stmt
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52217
Kai Tietz changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52218
Bug #: 52218
Summary: [4.7 Regression] libgo ftbfs on arm-linux-gnueabi
(unknown case for SETCONTEXT_CLOBBERS_TLS)
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52219
Bug #: 52219
Summary: [4.7 Regression] FAIL: cxg2001
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52212
--- Comment #6 from Ivan Godard 2012-02-12
17:14:34 UTC ---
I'll put in a report to clang. One of you guys is right- are you well enough
connected to jointly figure out who it is?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52219
--- Comment #1 from Iain Sandoe 2012-02-12 17:16:53
UTC ---
OK on x86_64-darwin10 and i686-darwin9 @ 184085 ...
... test is running @184140 on i686-darwin9.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52212
--- Comment #7 from Daniel Krügler
2012-02-12 17:18:38 UTC ---
I'd say that comment 3 and comment 5 are equivalent. Jonathan additionally
provided a way to fix the code.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52220
Bug #: 52220
Summary: FAIL: libitm.c++/eh-1.C execution test due to Xcode 4
weakref linker bug
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONF
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52221
Bug #: 52221
Summary: [libffi] r184021 needs to be fixed.
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52212
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-02-12
17:47:47 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> I'd say that comment 3 and comment 5 are equivalent.
Agreed.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52221
Kai Tietz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52218
--- Comment #1 from Ian Lance Taylor 2012-02-12 19:34:43
UTC ---
Please look at the test case for SETCONTEXT_CLOBBERS_TLS in libgo/configure.ac
and figure out why it fails on arm-linux-gnueabi. That test case should not
fail on any GNU/Linux sys
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52205
--- Comment #6 from Ian Lance Taylor 2012-02-12 19:52:02
UTC ---
The patch fixes the test case and also passes some relevant Go tests.
Rainer, if OK, I'd like to leave it to you to comment on the patch and do a
full testsuite run.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52126
fabien at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|un
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52219
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52205
--- Comment #7 from Eric Botcazou 2012-02-12
20:24:56 UTC ---
> The patch fixes the test case and also passes some relevant Go tests.
Great. For the records, it was also tested on 5 different versions of Solaris
8, 9 and 10, covering all the ca
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52214
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52215
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hp at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52219
--- Comment #3 from Iain Sandoe 2012-02-12 21:05:11
UTC ---
acats & gnat is clean on x86_64-darwin10 @184143 (and, I think, 184127).
perhaps a temporary glitch?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52219
--- Comment #4 from Dominique d'Humieres 2012-02-12
21:16:10 UTC ---
> What's in the log file?
splitting /opt/gcc/build_w/gcc/testsuite/ada/acats/tests/cxg/cxg2001.a into:
cxg2001.adb
BUILD cxg2001.adb
gnatmake --GCC="/opt/gcc/build_w/gcc/xgc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52219
--- Comment #5 from Dominique d'Humieres 2012-02-12
21:49:46 UTC ---
> acats & gnat is clean on x86_64-darwin10 @184143 (and, I think, 184127).
> perhaps a temporary glitch?
Apparently!-(the tests pass without failure @184143 when run with check
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14792
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2962
--- Comment #13 from owner at bugs dot debian.org 2012-02-12 22:09:22 UTC ---
Thank you for the additional information you have supplied regarding
this Bug report.
This is an automatically generated reply to let you know your message
has been recei
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2962
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2962
--- Comment #15 from owner at bugs dot debian.org 2012-02-12 22:24:21 UTC ---
Thank you for the additional information you have supplied regarding
this Bug report.
This is an automatically generated reply to let you know your message
has been recei
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31531
--- Comment #9 from Andrew Pinski 2012-02-12
22:58:41 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> forwprop already handles:
> int f(int a)
> {
> int b = ~a;
> return b<0;
> }
>
> It just needs to handle:
> int f(unsigned a)
> {
> int b = ~a;
> re
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50076
Jack Howarth changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||howarth at nitro dot
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52120
nicolas.boulenguez at free dot fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nicolas.boulenguez at f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5
Bug #: 5
Summary: 4.6.2 (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Assert_Failure
sinfo.adb:2947
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52223
Bug #: 52223
Summary: [4.5,4.6,4.7 regression] libffi's man page install
breaks with multilibs and overridden mandir
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52224
Bug #: 52224
Summary: [C++0x] Generic operator gets pulled into compile-time
expression
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31531
--- Comment #10 from Andrew Pinski 2012-02-13
00:44:11 UTC ---
I have a patch which adds this optimization to fold. And a partial patch which
adds some of it to forwprop but that fails because we have to create a temp
variable.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44783
Gabriel Redner changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gredner at gmail dot com
--- Comment #4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52214
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned at g
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31531
--- Comment #11 from Andrew Pinski 2012-02-13
06:30:29 UTC ---
I have a full patch now which also handles PR 14792 once that folding is
included in fold.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14792
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|ASSIGNED
Depends on|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2962
--- Comment #16 from owner at bugs dot debian.org 2012-02-13 06:36:24 UTC ---
Thank you for the additional information you have supplied regarding
this Bug report.
This is an automatically generated reply to let you know your message
has been recei
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52210
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31531
--- Comment #12 from Andrew Pinski 2012-02-13
07:46:45 UTC ---
Created attachment 26645
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26645
Patch which fixes the problem (well the fold-const.c is really only needed for
the original testcase
63 matches
Mail list logo
