hello
i found some bug gcc 4.6.2 when i build asterisk 1.8
All started when i want build ipsec-0.8.0
http://sourceforge.net/projects/ipsec-tools/files/ipsec-tools/0.8.0/
I had a simple linux PC with installed OS Linux CentOS 6.2
CentOS 6.2 have a rpm installed gcc version 4.4.6-3
with configure
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52410
Bug #: 52410
Summary: BUG gcc 4.6.2 Illegal Instruction (core dumped)
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52411
Bug #: 52411
Summary: BUG gcc 4.6.2 Illegal Instruction (core dumped)
asterisk
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49468
--- Comment #8 from Oleg Endo 2012-02-28 08:41:28
UTC ---
Created attachment 26768
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26768
Patch to add DImode abs
The attached patch adds DImode abs and did not introduce new failures when
teste
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49868
--- Comment #16 from Georg-Johann Lay 2012-02-28
08:44:14 UTC ---
Author: gjl
Date: Tue Feb 28 08:44:08 2012
New Revision: 184614
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=184614
Log:
PR target/49868
PR target/52261
* doc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52261
--- Comment #8 from Georg-Johann Lay 2012-02-28
08:44:15 UTC ---
Author: gjl
Date: Tue Feb 28 08:44:08 2012
New Revision: 184614
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=184614
Log:
PR target/49868
PR target/52261
* doc/
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52148
--- Comment #3 from Georg-Johann Lay 2012-02-28
08:51:42 UTC ---
Author: gjl
Date: Tue Feb 28 08:51:39 2012
New Revision: 184615
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=184615
Log:
PR target/52148
* config/avr/avr.md (movme
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52412
Bug #: 52412
Summary: another unnecessary register move on arm
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52391
--- Comment #10 from Steven Bosscher 2012-02-28
09:00:21 UTC ---
F, that backtrace was due to an error in the patch I had to look at what
simplify_and_tree was doing.
genattrtab is trying to simplify huge and-trees, mostly for m68k_sched_* symbo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52395
--- Comment #12 from rguenther at suse dot de
2012-02-28 09:02:04 UTC ---
On Mon, 27 Feb 2012, jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52395
>
> --- Comment #10 from Martin Jambor 2012-02-27
> 16:25:15
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52148
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52250
Andrey Belevantsev changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comm
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52278
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52261
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52400
--- Comment #4 from Richard Guenther 2012-02-28
09:13:44 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Feb 28 09:13:40 2012
New Revision: 184618
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=184618
Log:
2012-02-28 Richard Guenther
PR lto/524
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52400
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Known to work|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52402
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.7.0
Known to fail|4.7.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52402
--- Comment #3 from Richard Guenther 2012-02-28
09:15:54 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Feb 28 09:15:49 2012
New Revision: 184619
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=184619
Log:
2012-02-28 Richard Guenther
PR tree-op
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52395
--- Comment #13 from Richard Guenther 2012-02-28
09:18:38 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Feb 28 09:18:35 2012
New Revision: 184620
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=184620
Log:
2012-02-28 Richard Guenther
PR tree-o
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52395
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52413
Bug #: 52413
Summary: Incorrect behavior of FRACTION when applied to a
constant
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52410
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52411
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-02-28
09:39:21 UTC ---
*** Bug 52410 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52414
Bug #: 52414
Summary: [4.7 Regression] syntax error in VERSION script
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52414
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.7.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52414
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52414
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52406
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-02-28
09:54:01 UTC ---
Strangely,
/* PR tree-optimization/52406 */
extern void abort (void);
struct { int f1; } a[2];
int *b, *const k = &a[1].f1;
static int **c = &b;
int e, f, d;
int
main ()
{
int **
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52387
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|I/O wrong output with |I/O output of write after
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52406
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-02-28
10:14:57 UTC ---
Indeed, it is pcom that breaks it.
Before pcom we have:
MEM[(int *)&a + 4B] = 1;
D.1723_6 = a[1].f1;
but pcom doesn't consider the first store to be possibly affecting the load:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52414
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-02-28
10:21:10 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Feb 28 10:21:03 2012
New Revision: 184624
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=184624
Log:
PR bootstrap/52414
* src/Makefile.am (libst
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52250
--- Comment #8 from Alexander Monakov 2012-02-28
10:20:58 UTC ---
Like Andrey said, we verify that x86_64-linux bootstraps with sel-sched when
submitting patches, but I do not remember any specific figures from the times
when I did benchmarking.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52415
Bug #: 52415
Summary: memcpy to local variable generates unnecessary stack
frame for armv7
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52407
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Status|UNCONFIR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52406
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52405
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52404
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52406
--- Comment #5 from Richard Guenther 2012-02-28
11:06:16 UTC ---
We have
Creating dr for MEM[(int *)&a + 4B]
base_address: &a
offset from base address: 0
constant offset from base address: 4
step: 0
aligne
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52407
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-*-*
--- Comment #3 from Richard
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52407
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52407
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.6.2
Target Milestone|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52415
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52415
--- Comment #2 from Jay Foad 2012-02-28 11:51:00
UTC ---
> On the tree level nothing guarantees that 'p' is properly aligned.
This is a digression, but what about C99 (Committee Draft -- April 12, 2011)
6.3.2.3p7:
"A pointer to an object type m
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52407
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-02-28
12:02:18 UTC ---
Triggered by http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=184435
Testcase:
/* PR target/52407 */
extern void abort (void);
typedef long long V __attribute__ ((vector_size (16)));
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52415
--- Comment #3 from Richard Guenther 2012-02-28
12:15:53 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> > On the tree level nothing guarantees that 'p' is properly aligned.
>
> This is a digression, but what about C99 (Committee Draft -- April 12, 2011)
> 6
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52416
Bug #: 52416
Summary: Branch coverage differences between 4.4 and 4.5
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.4
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52415
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4 f
version 4.7.0 20120228 (experimental) (GCC)
GNU C (GCC) version 4.7.0 20120228 (experimental) (avr)
compiled by GNU C version 4.3.2 [gcc-4_3-branch revision 141291], GMP
version 4.3.2, MPFR version 2.4.2, MPC version 0.8.2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52417
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52417
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52410
--- Comment #2 from evrinoma at gmail dot com 2012-02-28 12:51:05 UTC ---
gcc-4.7-20120225/configure
--disable-cloog-version-check --enable-cloog-backend=isl --enable-lto
--mandir=/usr/share/man --infodir=/usr/share/info
--with-bugurl=http://bugz
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52411
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52415
--- Comment #5 from Jay Foad 2012-02-28 13:03:50
UTC ---
> But to answer your question, how you can assert it is properly aligned, in gcc
> 4.7.0 you can write:
> __builtin_memcpy (&i, __builtin_assume_aligned (p, sizeof *p), sizeof i);
Thanks
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52411
--- Comment #3 from evrinoma at gmail dot com 2012-02-28 13:07:14 UTC ---
gcc-4.7-20120225/configure
--disable-cloog-version-check --enable-cloog-backend=isl --enable-lto
--mandir=/usr/share/man --infodir=/usr/share/info
--with-bugurl=http://bugz
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52405
Matthias Klose changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
--- Comment #2 from Matthias Klose
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52411
--- Comment #4 from evrinoma at gmail dot com 2012-02-28 13:38:29 UTC ---
(gdb) r -vvvc
Starting program:
/home/nikolns/bld/aster/gcc-4.7/asterisk-1.8.9.2/main/asterisk -vvvc
[Thread debugging using libthread_db enabled]
[New Thread 0x77fd9700
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52411
--- Comment #5 from evrinoma at gmail dot com 2012-02-28 13:45:16 UTC ---
cat /proc/cpuinfo
processor : 0
vendor_id : GenuineIntel
cpu family : 15
model : 4
model name : Intel(R) Celeron(R) CPU 3.06GHz
stepping
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52406
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||50067
--- Comment #6 from Richard Guen
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52405
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
--- Comment #3 from Richard Gu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52411
--- Comment #6 from Richard Guenther 2012-02-28
14:41:29 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> (gdb) r -vvvc
> Starting program:
> /home/nikolns/bld/aster/gcc-4.7/asterisk-1.8.9.2/main/asterisk -vvvc
> [Thread debugging using libthread_db enabled]
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51785
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48820
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50181
--- Comment #1 from Peter Bergner 2012-02-28
14:53:57 UTC ---
Created attachment 26769
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26769
Smaller C test case
Here is a smaller C test case that doesn't require -fprofile-generate to ICE:
b
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51785
--- Comment #10 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2012-02-28 15:23:38 UTC ---
If the libstdc++ people are going to do something for 4.7, it really needs
to be done very soon.
Let's assume glibc should at least get a further change for the sake
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49448
--- Comment #3 from Richard Earnshaw 2012-02-28
15:26:13 UTC ---
Author: rearnsha
Date: Tue Feb 28 15:26:02 2012
New Revision: 184626
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=184626
Log:
PR target/49448
* config.gcc (arm*-*-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52407
--- Comment #6 from Richard Guenther 2012-02-28
15:28:39 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Feb 28 15:28:32 2012
New Revision: 184627
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=184627
Log:
2012-02-28 Richard Guenther
PR target/
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52407
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.7.0
Target Milestone|4.7.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51785
--- Comment #11 from Paolo Carlini 2012-02-28
15:35:59 UTC ---
If the release managers agree, I would be in favor of a quick fix per Comment
3, with a huge comment in the code explaining the issue. But I can't test it
right now.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48299
--- Comment #22 from pmarlier at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-02-28 15:37:57 UTC ---
Author: pmarlier
Date: Tue Feb 28 15:37:41 2012
New Revision: 184628
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=184628
Log:
2012-02-27 Jack Howarth
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52397
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-02-28
15:40:40 UTC ---
Ok, with additional -fno-inline -gnatpg I can reproduce even with the commands
I tried.
The dead_debug* stuff doesn't handle this probably because the hard reg isn't
ever becoming REG
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51785
--- Comment #12 from Marc Glisse 2012-02-28
15:47:04 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #10)
> If the libstdc++ people are going to do something for 4.7, it really needs
> to be done very soon.
The question is: what do the glibc people want? By remov
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51785
--- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-02-28
15:49:26 UTC ---
I'm ok with #c3 patch + comment if it works, using special configure macro
instead of __GLIBC_PREREQ is IMHO undesirable, because then if you build gcc
against glibc 2.14 and afterwar
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48058
--- Comment #4 from Robert Hayward 2012-02-28
15:53:05 UTC ---
Created attachment 26770
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26770
test program to reproduce bug
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52418
Bug #: 52418
Summary: (unnecessary) automatic reallocation of lhs causes
segfault
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52413
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Status|UNCONFIRM
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48058
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51785
--- Comment #14 from Ramana Radhakrishnan
2012-02-28 16:09:52 UTC ---
I can confirm that a build for arm-linux-gnueabi completes and do some
cross-testing on qemu if that's deemed to be enough.
Any other ideas for testing.
Ramana
Here's a sug
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51534
--- Comment #3 from mgretton at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-02-28 16:14:03 UTC ---
Author: mgretton
Date: Tue Feb 28 16:13:52 2012
New Revision: 184629
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=184629
Log:
PR target/51534
* gcc/config
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52397
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51534
--- Comment #4 from mgretton at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-02-28 16:17:44 UTC ---
Author: mgretton
Date: Tue Feb 28 16:17:36 2012
New Revision: 184630
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=184630
Log:
PR target/51534
Add testcase
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51785
--- Comment #15 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-02-28
16:18:30 UTC ---
Ideally, when using
#define _GNU_SOURCE
#include
in a C++ program ::gets wouldn't be available (the _GNU_SOURCE requests GNU
namespace rather than standard C++ one), but when using
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52151
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||therobbot at gmail dot com
--- Comment #7
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52418
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52397
--- Comment #9 from Eric Botcazou 2012-02-28
16:33:42 UTC ---
> I wonder if df_reg_chain_unlink/df_install_ref shouldn't just ignore
> DEBUG_INSN
> refs when updating df->hard_regs_live_count array, do we care at all when
> testing regs_ever_liv
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48058
--- Comment #6 from Robert Hayward 2012-02-28
16:36:52 UTC ---
48058(In reply to comment #4)
> Created attachment 26770 [details]
> test program to reproduce bug
Sorry about that, attached to the wrong bug. It was meant for 52151.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52397
--- Comment #10 from Eric Botcazou 2012-02-28
16:41:04 UTC ---
> Untested fix. Not sure if that is the way we want to solve this though.
You might want to adjust the comment in df.h because it will be totally off.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51785
--- Comment #16 from Paolo Carlini 2012-02-28
16:42:55 UTC ---
I suppose that post 4.7.0 we have to revisit this issue anyway, because C++11
definitely wants to declare std::gets, irrespective of C11. I'm wondering if it
would be possible to just
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51785
--- Comment #17 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2012-02-28 17:05:50 UTC ---
2.15 has the gets prototype. It's 2.16 where it has been removed (but the
version in the headers only changes from 2.15 to 2.16 when the final 2.16
release is made
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52419
Bug #: 52419
Summary: Wrong expansion of misaligned vector store
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priorit
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52407
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #8
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52419
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51785
--- Comment #18 from Paolo Carlini 2012-02-28
18:25:54 UTC ---
Ah, thanks Joseph. Thus, to repeat, anything we do in terms of macros has to be
for *2.16* and later.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52420
Bug #: 52420
Summary: ada build failure with -gdwarf-4
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52421
Bug #: 52421
Summary: SH Target: -fnon-call-exceptions prevents delay slot
filling
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52422
Bug #: 52422
Summary: [C++11][SFINAE] Hard errors with void or arithmetic
expressions
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51752
--- Comment #7 from Aldy Hernandez 2012-02-28
20:08:44 UTC ---
Author: aldyh
Date: Tue Feb 28 20:08:39 2012
New Revision: 184638
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=184638
Log:
PR middle-end/51752
* gimple.h (gi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50946
Matthias Klose changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51214
fabien at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[C++11] name lookup issue |[4.7 Regression] [C++11]
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52191
--- Comment #2 from Benjamin Kosnik 2012-02-28
20:21:13 UTC ---
Created attachment 26774
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26774
patch to check new symbols are in new version names
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52191
Benjamin Kosnik changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
--- Comment #3 from Benjamin Ko
1 - 100 of 118 matches
Mail list logo
