http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56023
Uros Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bernds at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55742
--- Comment #39 from Jakub Jelinek 2013-01-19
10:14:04 UTC ---
Then to fix that perhaps we want to change ix86_valid_target_attribute_tree and
its caller.
Currently ix86_valid_target_attribute_tree returns NULL_TREE both when the
target s
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56023
--- Comment #8 from Uros Bizjak 2013-01-19 10:17:43
UTC ---
The scheduler passes block boundary here and schedules insns from the next
block. This is the difference to the compilation w/o -g and to gcc-4_7 branch.
;; ==
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55742
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #29207|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56044
Bug #: 56044
Summary: Add dialect option to gobjc to prevent instance
variables from posing as local variables inside
methods.
Classification: Unclassified
Prod
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37522
ph dunski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||koala01 at free dot fr
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37522
Kai Tietz changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comme
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37522
--- Comment #12 from ph dunski 2013-01-19 11:47:08 UTC
---
(In reply to comment #11)
> Don't open an new bug, don't reopen this bug. I assume you are using
> none-trunk version of mingw-w64, are you? If so, please switch to
> trunk-ve
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37522
--- Comment #13 from Kai Tietz 2013-01-19 11:53:08
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #12)
> (In reply to comment #11)
>
> > Don't open an new bug, don't reopen this bug. I assume you are using
> > none-trunk version of mingw-w64, are you?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56039
Daniel Krügler changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||daniel.kruegler at
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56028
--- Comment #8 from Paul E. McKenney
2013-01-19 12:35:12 UTC ---
Indeed, different hardware implementations can cause all sorts of mischief.
Nevertheless, the compiler should not also provide mischief in these cases.
In addition, as not
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56045
Bug #: 56045
Summary: include file `marvell-pj4.md' not found
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56046
Bug #: 56046
Summary: the buffer overflow can escape from the stack
protection in 64-bit linux system
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56046
--- Comment #1 from CocooWang 2013-01-19 13:54:22 UTC ---
My freinds tests my code in CentOS!
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27403
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56041
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Stat
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56037
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Stat
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55960
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56047
Bug #: 56047
Summary: [4.6 Regression] ICE in in gfc_conv_expr_op
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prior
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56008
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot |pault at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56047
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56046
--- Comment #2 from Andreas Schwab 2013-01-19 16:16:08
UTC ---
The stack protection code cannot guarantee to detect every error.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56039
--- Comment #2 from Hubert Tong 2013-01-19 16:38:31
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
re: 5.19 p2 b8
5.19 p2 (before the referenced bullet list) reads:
..., but subexpressions of logical AND (5.14), logical OR (5.15) and
conditional (5.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55693
--- Comment #18 from Jack Howarth 2013-01-19
17:11:23 UTC ---
Opened radar://13048248 in case these failing test cases represent an unwinder
bug on darwin.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55742
--- Comment #41 from Sriraman Tallam 2013-01-19
17:18:02 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #40)
> Created attachment 29217 [details]
> gcc48-pr55742-2.patch
>
> The following I mean (incremental patch). No test coverage for that, of
> cour
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56039
--- Comment #3 from Daniel Krügler
2013-01-19 17:20:21 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
You make a good point, but my remaining argument would focus on the fact that
the expression
false && [](){}
is always invalid because it attempts to combi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56048
Bug #: 56048
Summary: -Werror=format=2 does not work
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56023
--- Comment #9 from Uros Bizjak 2013-01-19 19:46:12
UTC ---
Following patch fixes bootstrap comparison failure:
--cut here--
Index: haifa-sched.c
===
--- haifa-sched.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56044
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski 2013-01-19
20:07:30 UTC ---
Did you try -Wshadow ?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56044
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56039
--- Comment #4 from Hubert Tong 2013-01-19 20:10:59
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
I seem to find that the expression in question
>
> false && [](){}
>
is valid because there is a implicit conversion sequence consisting of a
user-d
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56039
--- Comment #5 from Daniel Krügler
2013-01-19 20:20:43 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> (In reply to comment #3)
> I seem to find that the expression in question
> >
> > false && [](){}
> >
> is valid because there is a implicit conversion s
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50025
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51875
--- Comment #4 from Tilo Schwarz 2013-01-19 20:44:46 UTC
---
Also seen on platform
Linux 3.2.0-4-686-pae #1 SMP Debian 3.2.35-2 i686 GNU/Linux
using
% gfortran -v
Using built-in specs.
COLLE
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56023
Uros Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-p
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55806
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42371
--- Comment #15 from Jan Hubicka 2013-01-19 21:48:12
UTC ---
> Clearing of address-taken does not work:
>
> two/1 (two) @0x7fafc0e29818
> Type: function
> Visibility: prevailing_def_ironly
> Address is taken.
> References:
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56044
--- Comment #3 from Dimitris Papavasiliou
2013-01-19 22:27:30 UTC ---
Created attachment 29224
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29224
Testcase
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56044
--- Comment #4 from Dimitris Papavasiliou
2013-01-19 22:29:10 UTC ---
I have considered -Wshadow and this is the way I think I'll go for now because
thinking up of variable names is hard enough without having to think of
synonyms on top.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54107
--- Comment #9 from Mikael Morin 2013-01-19
22:54:06 UTC ---
Maybe we could remove gfc_copy_formal_args{,_ppc} completely. After all, we
keep a pointer to the interface, so the dummy arguments remain available
through sym->ts.interface->f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56047
Mikael Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikael at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55861
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely 2013-01-19
23:43:01 UTC ---
Author: redi
Date: Sat Jan 19 23:42:55 2013
New Revision: 195314
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=195314
Log:
PR libstdc++/55861
* include/s
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55861
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56042
--- Comment #2 from lailavrazda1979 at gmail dot com 2013-01-20 02:13:29 UTC ---
Strange, it seems to work with the last release of mingw-w64. I configured the
headers with:
./configure --build=$CROSS_HOST --host=$CROSS_TGT --prefix=$CROSS
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52631
--- Comment #10 from Jeffrey A. Law 2013-01-20
05:01:04 UTC ---
Author: law
Date: Sun Jan 20 05:00:56 2013
New Revision: 195318
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=195318
Log:
PR tree-optimization/52631
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52631
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50176
--- Comment #22 from Jeffrey A. Law 2013-01-20 06:16:21
UTC ---
I must have been looking at something else; the 4.6 and trunk loops are
effectively the same, so this is no longer a regression.
We might will want the fwprop patch, so I've
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53135
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Duplicate cause size|Duplicates cause size
48 matches
Mail list logo
