http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50346
--- Comment #9 from rguenther at suse dot de
2012-03-12 08:56:40 UTC ---
On Wed, 7 Mar 2012, scovich at gmail dot com wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50346
>
> --- Comment #8 from Ryan Johnson 2012-03-07
> 14:28:29 UTC --
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52542
--- Comment #2 from Tobias Burnus 2012-03-12
09:03:57 UTC ---
Author: burnus
Date: Mon Mar 12 09:03:49 2012
New Revision: 185215
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=185215
Log:
2012-03-12 Tobias Burnus
PR fortran/52
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52548
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|alias |missed-optimization
Component
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52450
--- Comment #7 from rguenther at suse dot de
2012-03-12 09:55:54 UTC ---
On Sun, 11 Mar 2012, danglin at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52450
>
> John David Anglin changed:
>
>What|Removed
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52450
--- Comment #8 from rguenther at suse dot de
2012-03-12 09:58:02 UTC ---
On Mon, 12 Mar 2012, rguenther at suse dot de wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52450
>
> --- Comment #7 from rguenther at suse dot de
> 2012-03-12 09
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52533
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-03-12
10:04:41 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Mar 12 10:04:34 2012
New Revision: 185219
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=185219
Log:
PR tree-optimization/52533
* tree-vrp.c (re
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45586
--- Comment #67 from Dominique d'Humieres
2012-03-12 10:15:39 UTC ---
The patch in comment #64 fixes the failures reported in pr52516 but introduces
many regressions:
=== gfortran Summary for unix/-m64 ===
# of expected passes41
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52533
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52558
Bug #: 52558
Summary: write introduction incorrect wrt the C++11 memory
model
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
S
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52559
Bug #: 52559
Summary: [4.8 Regression] Spurious \x00 in error messages
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: diagnostic
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52488
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Priority|P
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51721
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-03-12
11:12:55 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Mar 12 11:12:49 2012
New Revision: 185222
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=185222
Log:
PR tree-optimization/51721
* tree-vrp.c (re
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52560
Bug #: 52560
Summary: if (r == -1) causes 'assuming signed overflow does not
occur when simplifying conditional to constant'
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52552
--- Comment #2 from Tobias Burnus 2012-03-12
11:24:23 UTC ---
More details: For gfc_match_allocate (match.c), one has:
3538 if (!gfc_type_compatible (&tail->expr->ts, &ts))
and then in gfc_type_compatible:
(gdb) p ts1->type
$6 = BT_
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52552
--- Comment #3 from Tobias Burnus 2012-03-12
11:29:25 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> Due to the lacking ALLOCATE,
> tail->expr->ts.u.derived->attr.is_class == 1
I wanted to say that "is_class" is not set (i.e. the expression above is
fals
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52561
Bug #: 52561
Summary: GCC is not throwing error if only one character '#' is
written in a line.
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.4.3
Status: UNCON
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52561
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c++ |preprocessor
--- Comment #1 from Jonath
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52562
Bug #: 52562
Summary: [C++11] Most type_info functions not noexcept
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52562
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52560
--- Comment #1 from jim at meyering dot net 2012-03-12 12:30:20 UTC ---
Created attachment 26877
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26877
50-line reproducer
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46728
--- Comment #16 from William J. Schmidt
2012-03-12 12:37:11 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #15)
> I see this test failing on powerpc-apple-darwin8 (32b G4, ppc7400):
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2012-03/msg01296.html
> Is this specific t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52488
--- Comment #4 from Georg-Johann Lay 2012-03-12
12:37:24 UTC ---
Created attachment 26878
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26878
pr52488.diff
Does this patch fix the ICE for you?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52555
--- Comment #1 from Roman Kononov 2012-03-12
12:51:20 UTC ---
It broke in r165823.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52562
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52488
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52499
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gjl at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52561
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52562
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.7.1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52499
--- Comment #2 from Georg-Johann Lay 2012-03-12
13:21:25 UTC ---
Created attachment 26879
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26879
pr52499.diff: tentative patch
Does this patch work for you?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52560
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Status
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52559
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52555
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.6.4
Summary|[4.6/4.7 Regr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52499
--- Comment #3 from Jorn Wolfgang Rennecke
2012-03-12 13:25:38 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> Why are there two incompatible representations of register classes in the
> first
> place, i.e. enum reg_class and reg_class_t?
enum reg_class is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52554
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||accepts-invalid
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52562
--- Comment #3 from Paolo Carlini 2012-03-12
13:43:35 UTC ---
Do I understand correctly that in N3291 the destructor lost the explicit
noexcept simply because of core/1123? In that case I think that in GCC we
should mark it temporarily noexcept a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52562
--- Comment #4 from Paolo Carlini 2012-03-12
13:50:05 UTC ---
Uhm, too much has to be tweaked elsewhere if the destructor is marked noexcept.
Let's leave it alone for now (c++/50043 will reconsider the issue).
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52553
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52563
Bug #: 52563
Summary: FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/scev-[3,4].c
scan-tree-dump-times optimized "&a" 1
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: tree-ssa
Status: UNC
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52563
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu|x86_64-*-*
Status|UNCO
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52549
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52548
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52562
--- Comment #5 from Daniel Krügler
2012-03-12 14:06:51 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> Do I understand correctly that in N3291 the destructor lost the explicit
> noexcept simply because of core/1123?
I don't know for the reason in the stdlib
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52547
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52536
--- Comment #3 from Richard Guenther 2012-03-12
14:08:42 UTC ---
Please try with at least GC 4.4.6.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52534
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||accepts-invalid
Status|UNC
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52530
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52528
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52527
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52488
--- Comment #6 from Georg-Johann Lay 2012-03-12
14:15:48 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> + size_max = (1 << GET_MODE_BITSIZE (GET_MODE (my_fp))) - 1;
> + if (size >= size_max)
> Do you have a guarantee that GET_MODE_BITSIZE h
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52525
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52563
--- Comment #2 from Richard Guenther 2012-03-12
14:19:58 UTC ---
We now perform store motion for the address computation as expected. The
question is what the testcase was for (I suppose final-value-replacement
non-optimization) and eventually d
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52554
--- Comment #2 from Andreas Schwab 2012-03-12 14:22:00
UTC ---
6.4.2.1 says that an identifier may contain "other implementation-defined
characters".
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49484
--- Comment #14 from Richard Guenther 2012-03-12
14:23:32 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Mar 12 14:23:27 2012
New Revision: 185231
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=185231
Log:
2012-03-12 Richard Guenther
* gthr.h
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49484
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52564
Bug #: 52564
Summary: Accepts invalid: Missing I/O list after comma
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52564
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||accepts-invalid, diagnostic
S
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52558
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49484
--- Comment #16 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-03-12
15:00:46 UTC ---
If a target defines _GTHREAD_USE_MUTEX_INIT_FUNC in
lisbtdc++-v3/config/os/.../os_defines.h then following this patch line 80 in
gthr-posix.h will redefine __GTHREAD_MUTEX_INIT_FUNC
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52558
--- Comment #2 from Richard Guenther 2012-03-12
15:01:36 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> Richi, is this something that should also be fixed for 4.7 as well? There is
> a
> write to g_2 that is introduced on paths that did not have it. So th
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52562
--- Comment #6 from Paolo Carlini 2012-03-12
15:02:51 UTC ---
To clarify, nothing ever changed in libstdc++ as far as the type_info
destructor is concerned. That said, I'm not sure to fully understand why we
have the as-if in p4, or, in other ter
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52565
Bug #: 52565
Summary: __builtin_va_arg(va, double); may fall on cortex-m3
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49484
--- Comment #17 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-03-12
15:06:52 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #16)
> If a target defines _GTHREAD_USE_MUTEX_INIT_FUNC in
e.g. this will break Tru64 (until Rainer removes support for it)
http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs/trunk/l
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49484
--- Comment #18 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-03-12
15:10:29 UTC ---
Also, gthr.h says the signature should be:
void __GTHREAD_MUTEX_INIT_FUNCTION (__gthread_mutex_t *)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52562
--- Comment #7 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-03-12 15:12:47 UTC ---
Author: paolo
Date: Mon Mar 12 15:12:40 2012
New Revision: 185235
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=185235
Log:
2012-03-12 Paolo Carlini
PR libs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52558
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Macleod 2012-03-12
15:24:35 UTC ---
Created attachment 26881
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26881
Testcase for simulate-threads
I've modified the testcase so that it runs in gcc.dg/simulate-thread
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49484
--- Comment #19 from Richard Guenther 2012-03-12
15:27:46 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #18)
> Also, gthr.h says the signature should be:
> void __GTHREAD_MUTEX_INIT_FUNCTION (__gthread_mutex_t *)
I don't understand this?
The current define is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52558
--- Comment #4 from Aldy Hernandez 2012-03-12
15:29:06 UTC ---
> No, we don't want to fix this for 4.7 as this is not a regression.
>
> Yes, LIM only avoids introducing traps, not data-races. This was discussed
> in the past already, btw, and
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52558
--- Comment #5 from rguenther at suse dot de
2012-03-12 15:32:48 UTC ---
On Mon, 12 Mar 2012, aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52558
>
> --- Comment #4 from Aldy Hernandez 2012-03-12
> 15:29:06 UTC
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52450
--- Comment #9 from John David Anglin 2012-03-12
15:33:38 UTC ---
Author: danglin
Date: Mon Mar 12 15:33:32 2012
New Revision: 185239
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=185239
Log:
PR target/52450
* gcc.dg/torture/pr52
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52558
--- Comment #6 from Aldy Hernandez 2012-03-12
15:42:45 UTC ---
On 03/12/12 10:32, rguenther at suse dot de wrote:
es, but still cared about introducing write
>> data races. This test case has both. I don't understand why we would allow
>> intro
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52558
--- Comment #7 from rguenther at suse dot de
2012-03-12 15:45:39 UTC ---
On Mon, 12 Mar 2012, aldyh at redhat dot com wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52558
>
> --- Comment #6 from Aldy Hernandez 2012-03-12
> 15:42:45 UTC
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52562
--- Comment #8 from Daniel Krügler
2012-03-12 15:46:42 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
There exists a compiler problem with noexcept and non-trivial destructor
declarations as described in bug 50043 and in bug 51295. This fix should
automagicall
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52558
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Macleod 2012-03-12
15:50:13 UTC ---
We can still perform store motion out of a loop, we just can't put the store on
a path which is executed if the loop isn't executed.
In this case, we actually made the code *slower*.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49484
--- Comment #20 from Richard Guenther 2012-03-12
15:52:34 UTC ---
I suppose
Index: libgcc/gthr-posix.h
===
--- libgcc/gthr-posix.h (revision 185232)
+++ libgcc/gthr-posix.h (working
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49484
--- Comment #21 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-03-12
15:54:46 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #19)
> (In reply to comment #18)
> > Also, gthr.h says the signature should be:
> > void __GTHREAD_MUTEX_INIT_FUNCTION (__gthread_mutex_t *)
>
> I don't unde
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52558
--- Comment #10 from Aldy Hernandez 2012-03-12
15:56:30 UTC ---
On 03/12/12 10:45, rguenther at suse dot de wrote:
>> Just to get this straight, am I to assume that the default code
>> generation for GCC is a single threaded environment? I just
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52558
--- Comment #9 from rguenther at suse dot de
2012-03-12 15:55:27 UTC ---
On Mon, 12 Mar 2012, amacleod at redhat dot com wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52558
>
> --- Comment #8 from Andrew Macleod 2012-03-12
> 15:50:13 U
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49484
--- Comment #22 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-03-12
15:56:07 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #20)
> I suppose
>
> Index: libgcc/gthr-posix.h
> ===
> --- libgcc/gthr-posix.h (revision 18523
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49484
--- Comment #23 from rguenther at suse dot de
2012-03-12 16:02:34 UTC ---
On Mon, 12 Mar 2012, redi at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49484
>
> --- Comment #22 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-03-12
> 15:56:07 U
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52562
--- Comment #9 from Paolo Carlini 2012-03-12
16:09:25 UTC ---
Ok, ok, so everything boils down to 50043, as I thought.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52566
Bug #: 52566
Summary: #include in c++ namespace scope doesn't work properly
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.4.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52560
--- Comment #3 from Richard W.M. Jones 2012-03-12
16:30:45 UTC ---
I see that this is actually a bug in our code. I pushed
the following fix to libguestfs:
https://github.com/libguestfs/libguestfs/commit/d66dd2260c724bdfe57a8595aac37c8e9173cee5
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52566
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-03-12
16:30:32 UTC ---
this has nothing to do with namespace scope, it's #pragma once confusing two
separate files as one
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50594
David Fang changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fang at csl dot cornell.edu
--- Comment #25
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52299
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51871
--- Comment #8 from John David Anglin 2012-03-12
17:00:18 UTC ---
Author: danglin
Date: Mon Mar 12 17:00:01 2012
New Revision: 185251
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=185251
Log:
Backport for mainline
2012-01-28 Joh
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50232
--- Comment #9 from John David Anglin 2012-03-12
17:08:28 UTC ---
Author: danglin
Date: Mon Mar 12 17:08:20 2012
New Revision: 185252
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=185252
Log:
Backport from mainline
2011-09-03 Jo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52566
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52555
Uros Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jsm28 at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 fro
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52148
--- Comment #5 from Georg-Johann Lay 2012-03-12
17:35:48 UTC ---
Author: gjl
Date: Mon Mar 12 17:35:43 2012
New Revision: 185253
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=185253
Log:
PR target/52148
* config/avr/avr.c (avr_ou
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52567
Bug #: 52567
Summary: constant expression not recognized as being constant
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49868
--- Comment #17 from Georg-Johann Lay 2012-03-12
17:55:36 UTC ---
Author: gjl
Date: Mon Mar 12 17:55:30 2012
New Revision: 185255
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=185255
Log:
PR target/49868
* gcc.target/avr/torture/
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52499
--- Comment #4 from Georg-Johann Lay 2012-03-12
18:05:15 UTC ---
Author: gjl
Date: Mon Mar 12 18:05:11 2012
New Revision: 185256
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=185256
Log:
PR target/52499
* config/avr/avr.c (avr_mo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52567
--- Comment #1 from Marc Glisse 2012-03-12
18:10:16 UTC ---
1<<31 overflows and is thus not a constant. Try maybe 1LL<<31 ?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52545
--- Comment #6 from Georg-Johann Lay 2012-03-12
18:22:08 UTC ---
Author: gjl
Date: Mon Mar 12 18:22:01 2012
New Revision: 185259
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=185259
Log:
PR other/52545
* output.h (SECTION_EXCLUDE
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46728
--- Comment #17 from William J. Schmidt
2012-03-12 18:26:52 UTC ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Mon Mar 12 18:26:48 2012
New Revision: 185260
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=185260
Log:
2012-03-12 Bill Schmidt
PR tree-op
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52567
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52568
Bug #: 52568
Summary: suboptimal __builtin_shuffle on cycles with AVX
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52299
--- Comment #11 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-03-12 19:29:42 UTC ---
Author: paolo
Date: Mon Mar 12 19:29:38 2012
New Revision: 185264
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=185264
Log:
/cp
2012-03-12 Paolo Carlini
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52299
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
1 - 100 of 125 matches
Mail list logo
