http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52840
--- Comment #4 from Bernhard Reutner-Fischer
2012-04-05 07:00:41 UTC ---
Author: aldot
Date: Thu Apr 5 07:00:30 2012
New Revision: 186156
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=186156
Log:
PR bootstrap/52840: libstdc++: let debug
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52840
Bernhard Reutner-Fischer changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52839
--- Comment #15 from Alan Modra 2012-04-05 08:06:30
UTC ---
Many hours later one of my 32-bit tests failed, but I'm relieved to say it was
only the pthread_once bug.
#0 0x0fbd839c in raise () from /lib/power7/libc.so.6
#1 0x0fbda034 in abort (
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52839
--- Comment #16 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-04-05
08:09:53 UTC ---
I think we want a macro saying atomics are available for 'int' (which libstdc++
needs for its own uses) and a separate macro saying atomics are available for
everything (which is ne
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52415
--- Comment #6 from Michal Hlavinka 2012-04-05
08:12:54 UTC ---
We can see this bug on avr target too.
Following code does not work:
DirEnttmp = eeFs.files[i_fileId1];
eeFs.files[i_fileId1] = eeFs.files[i_fileId2];
eeFs.files[i_file
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52876
Bug #: 52876
Summary: [x32] - Sign extend 32 to 64bit then clear upper
32bits fails O1 or higher
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCO
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52876
--- Comment #1 from Steffen Schmidt
2012-04-05 08:19:24 UTC ---
Created attachment 27097
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27097
Example code v2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52876
--- Comment #2 from Steffen Schmidt
2012-04-05 08:19:49 UTC ---
Created attachment 27098
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27098
Example code v3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52876
--- Comment #3 from Steffen Schmidt
2012-04-05 08:20:23 UTC ---
Created attachment 27099
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27099
Assembly -O0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52876
--- Comment #4 from Steffen Schmidt
2012-04-05 08:21:03 UTC ---
Created attachment 27100
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27100
Assembly -O1 -mx32 gcc 4.7.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52876
--- Comment #5 from Steffen Schmidt
2012-04-05 08:21:38 UTC ---
Created attachment 27101
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27101
Assembly -O1 -mx32 gcc 4.6.3 x32 branch
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52860
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52874
--- Comment #3 from Andreas Schwab 2012-04-05 09:13:36
UTC ---
gcc-h...@gcc.gnu.org and libc-h...@sourceware.org are the mailings list where
this kind of question is on-topic.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52867
--- Comment #3 from Richard Guenther 2012-04-05
10:03:10 UTC ---
Btw, as the ICE happens in the _host_ compiler which is 4.2.x this is even
longer unsupported.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52868
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||52272
Target Milestone|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52645
--- Comment #13 from Rainer Orth 2012-04-05 10:04:50
UTC ---
Author: ro
Date: Thu Apr 5 10:04:40 2012
New Revision: 186161
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=186161
Log:
Restore HAVE_INET6 tests (PR libgcj/52645)
PR libg
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52645
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52876
Uros Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||52854
--- Comment #6 from Uros Bizjak 2012
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52876
Uros Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on|52854 |52838
--- Comment #7 from Uros Bizjak 2012
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52866
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52664
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52621
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-*-*
Status|NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52465
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.7.1
Summary|[4.7 regressi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52123
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.7.1
Summary|[4.7 Regressi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51214
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.7.1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50946
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.6.4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52122
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.6.4
Summary|[4.6.x/4.7 Re
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52621
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||spop at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52839
--- Comment #17 from Alan Modra 2012-04-05 12:05:01
UTC ---
I spent quite a bit of time today looking at libpthread and can't spot a
problem in pthread_mutex_lock and pthread_mutex_unlock.
I wonder if the problem is that libstdc++ is using both
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52614
--- Comment #10 from William J. Schmidt
2012-04-05 12:11:58 UTC ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Thu Apr 5 12:11:50 2012
New Revision: 186163
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=186163
Log:
gcc/testsuite:
2012-04-05 Bill Schmidt
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24985
--- Comment #22 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2012-04-05
12:13:01 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #21)
> Created attachment 27093 [details]
> Patch to prune caret diagnostics from gcc output
>
> Actually, this seems like a better approach: rather than d
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52614
William J. Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52838
Uros Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ubizjak at gmail dot com
--- Comment #4 fro
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52614
--- Comment #12 from William J. Schmidt
2012-04-05 12:46:12 UTC ---
Forget that last comment. As Richard pointed out on gcc-patches: "That's
probably more a C language question - you would get valid C rejected with
-fno-common. But maybe -ftre
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52839
--- Comment #18 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-04-05
13:02:53 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #17)
> I wonder if the problem is that libstdc++ is using both atomics and
> pthread_mutex protected manipulation of the same variable? That of course
> would
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52876
--- Comment #8 from H.J. Lu 2012-04-05 13:42:30
UTC ---
The reason why GCC 4.6 works is it uses SImode for Pmode.
On trunk, I got
[hjl@gnu-6 pr52876]$ cat x.i
long long li;
long long testfunc(void* addr) __attribute__ ((noinline));
long long te
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52876
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ubizjak at gmail dot com
--- Comment #9 from H.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52876
--- Comment #10 from H.J. Lu 2012-04-05 14:30:40
UTC ---
simplify_binary_operation (code=AND, mode=DImode, op0=0x71ac0900,
op1=0x71a8ffb0) at /export/gnu/import/git/gcc/gcc/simplify-rtx.c:1893
1893 gcc_assert (GET_RTX_CLASS (cod
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52796
Benjamin Kosnik changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bkoz at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #7
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52877
Bug #: 52877
Summary: ARC cross-compiler cc1 fails on "x=-1;"
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
Priority: P
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52876
Uros Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52877
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Target|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52876
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |UNCONFIRMED
Component|rtl-optimization
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52878
Bug #: 52878
Summary: sparc64 bootstrap failure: "MASK_LONG_DOUBLE_128"
redefined
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52876
--- Comment #13 from H.J. Lu 2012-04-05 15:46:02
UTC ---
We shouldn't copy REG_POINTER from SIGN_EXTEND on target with
POINTERS_EXTEND_UNSIGNED > 0. This patch works for me:
diff --git a/gcc/reginfo.c b/gcc/reginfo.c
index 6353126..77a7e66 1006
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52879
Bug #: 52879
Summary: Pathological reseeding of PRNG generator genernates
poor sequence
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52878
--- Comment #1 from H.J. Lu 2012-04-05 16:10:41
UTC ---
Created attachment 27102
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27102
A patch
This patch works for Linux/sparc. But it may not work
for all sparc targets which don't include lo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52122
--- Comment #2 from Daniel Starke
2012-04-05 16:14:19 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> Please update this bug with respect to the mailing list discussion that took
> place.
Can you please add a link to the mailing list discussion you are refer
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52838
--- Comment #5 from Eric Botcazou 2012-04-05
16:16:41 UTC ---
> Can we somehow keep the knowledge that it is a zero-extended 32-bit value?
> It is useful for encoding purpose.
After combine has run, this seems hard. So the easiest approach migh
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50439
--- Comment #1 from William J. Schmidt 2012-04-05
16:47:32 UTC ---
I verified that the looping occurs inside the PPL library, on a call to
ppl_PIP_Problem_is_satisfiable. I used ppl_PIP_Problem_ascii_dump to examine
the "pip" variable passed int
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24985
--- Comment #23 from Jason Merrill 2012-04-05
17:00:59 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #22)
> * DejaGNU trims leading whitespace before passing the text to prune.
So it does. Bizarre.
set comp_output [string trimleft $comp_output]
I
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50439
--- Comment #2 from William J. Schmidt 2012-04-05
17:06:47 UTC ---
Opened a bug report as https://www.cs.unipr.it/mantis/view.php?id=353 against
PPL.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48496
--- Comment #15 from Leif Leonhardy 2012-04-05
18:03:31 UTC ---
Just for the record:
Also MPIR 2.1.3, MPIR 2.4.0 and NTL 5.5.2 fail to build, with the same error
message ("error: ‘asm’ operand requires impossible reload").
Work-around for MPIR:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50751
--- Comment #25 from Oleg Endo 2012-04-05
18:43:50 UTC ---
Author: olegendo
Date: Thu Apr 5 18:43:45 2012
New Revision: 186169
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=186169
Log:
PR target/50751
* config/sh/sh.c (sh_find_m
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52880
Bug #: 52880
Summary: -Woverride-init emitts unexpected error
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52880
eparis at redhat dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |trivial
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16612
j.scheid changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||julians37 at googlemail dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52654
--- Comment #9 from Ed Smith-Rowland <3dw4rd at verizon dot net> 2012-04-05
19:30:41 UTC ---
Created attachment 27103
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27103
Patch including testcases - warn and only when necessary on literal ove
--prefix=/home/regehr/z/compiler-install/gcc-r186167-install
--program-prefix=r186167- --enable-languages=c,c++
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.8.0 20120405 (experimental) (GCC)
nknown-linux-gnu
Configured with: ../configure --with-libelf=/usr/local --enable-lto
--prefix=/home/regehr/z/compiler-install/gcc-r186167-install
--program-prefix=r186167- --enable-languages=c,c++
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.8.0 20120405 (experimental) (GCC)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52881
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Component|c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52882
Uros Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
ll/gcc-r186167-install
--program-prefix=r186167- --enable-languages=c,c++
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.8.0 20120405 (experimental) (GCC)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52882
--- Comment #2 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-04-05 21:47:19 UTC ---
Author: uros
Date: Thu Apr 5 21:47:16 2012
New Revision: 186170
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=186170
Log:
PR target/52882
* config/i386/i386.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52884
Bug #: 52884
Summary: double precision constants promoted to 16 byte by
-fdefault-real-8
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52882
Uros Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24985
--- Comment #24 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2012-04-05
22:05:15 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #23)
> (In reply to comment #22)
> > * DejaGNU trims leading whitespace before passing the text to prune.
>
> So it does. Bizarre.
>
> set co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24985
--- Comment #25 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2012-04-05
22:09:30 UTC ---
> Another problem with c99-vla-jump-3.c and similar testcases is that it seems
> as
> if DejaGNU limits the output (or has a limited size buffer for text) and
> decides to stop
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52885
Bug #: 52885
Summary: Request: Add -aslr switch that invokes -fPIE/-pie or
-fPIC/-shared as appropriate
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.1
Statu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52885
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski 2012-04-05
23:34:21 UTC ---
I think this is wrong approach to things. Basically you should have instead
have an option to automake and friends the support for adding only some flags
for non shared libraries.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52857
--- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu 2012-04-06 00:50:50
UTC ---
A small testcase:
[hjl@gnu-6 delta]$ cat testcase.c
extern void get_BID128 (int *);
void
__bid128_div (long long bid_y)
{
int res;
get_BID128 (&res);
}
[hjl@gnu-6 delta]$ gcc -mx32 -ma
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52654
--- Comment #10 from Ed Smith-Rowland <3dw4rd at verizon dot net> 2012-04-06
04:52:13 UTC ---
I made the warnings on by default. Any opinion on whether I should have made
them depend on OPT_Woverflow instead?
I guess I thought the warning is sli
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52878
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48496
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[4.7/4.8 Regression] 'asm' |[4.7/4.8 Regression] 'asm'
74 matches
Mail list logo
