[Bug c/47376] New: Duplicate member through anonymous unions not reported

2011-01-20 Thread jengelh at medozas dot de
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47376 Summary: Duplicate member through anonymous unions not reported Product: gcc Version: 4.5.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c AssignedTo:

[Bug c/54088] New: ICE at dwarf2out.c:20632 with -O1 and sparc

2012-07-24 Thread jengelh at medozas dot de
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54088 Bug #: 54088 Summary: ICE at dwarf2out.c:20632 with -O1 and sparc Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.7.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priori

[Bug c/54088] ICE at dwarf2out.c:20632 with -O1 -g

2012-07-28 Thread jengelh at medozas dot de
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54088 --- Comment #2 from Jan Engelhardt 2012-07-28 12:09:24 UTC --- Created attachment 27883 --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27883 Full preprocessed output Thanks for reminding me about the standard procedure :) The minimal comma

[Bug c/54088] ICE at dwarf2out.c:20632 with -O1 -g

2012-07-28 Thread jengelh at medozas dot de
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54088 --- Comment #4 from Jan Engelhardt 2012-07-28 19:42:50 UTC --- Created attachment 27884 --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27884 somewhat reduced testcase it's not a minimal one, but still lost a good deal of lines.

[Bug gcov-profile/54121] New: ICE at extract_insn, at recog.c:2123 sparc64

2012-07-29 Thread jengelh at medozas dot de
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54121 Bug #: 54121 Summary: ICE at extract_insn, at recog.c:2123 sparc64 Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.7.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Prior

[Bug c/52127] New: pedantic-errors is inconsistent in its behavior

2012-02-05 Thread jengelh at medozas dot de
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52127 Bug #: 52127 Summary: pedantic-errors is inconsistent in its behavior Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug c/52827] New: -mx32 is not recognized

2012-04-01 Thread jengelh at medozas dot de
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52827 Bug #: 52827 Summary: -mx32 is not recognized Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.7.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Comp

[Bug c/52827] -mx32 is not recognized

2012-04-01 Thread jengelh at medozas dot de
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52827 Jan Engelhardt changed: What|Removed |Added CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com Sev

[Bug c/52827] Document requirements for -mx32

2012-04-01 Thread jengelh at medozas dot de
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52827 Jan Engelhardt changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|-mx32 is not recognized |Document requirements for

[Bug driver/42994] New: Status of using both -m32 and -m64 on the same command line

2010-02-07 Thread jengelh at medozas dot de
ignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org ReportedBy: jengelh at medozas dot de GCC build triplet: sparc64-suse-linux-gnu GCC host triplet: sparc64-suse-linux-gnu GCC target triplet: sparc64-suse-linux-gnu http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42994

[Bug target/43350] New: sparcv9 mode does not seem to produce LDX/STX insns

2010-03-12 Thread jengelh at medozas dot de
ority: P3 Component: target AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org ReportedBy: jengelh at medozas dot de GCC build triplet: sparc64-suse-linux-gnu GCC host triplet: sparc64-suse-linux-gnu GCC target triplet: sparc64-suse-linux-gnu http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43350

[Bug c/43637] New: [4.4/4.5 regression] miscompilation in strict-aliasing optimization

2010-04-03 Thread jengelh at medozas dot de
ONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org ReportedBy: jengelh at medozas dot de GCC build triplet: i586-suse-linux-gnu GCC host triplet: i586-suse-linux-gnu GCC target triplet: i586-suse-linux-gnu http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43637

[Bug c/43637] [4.4/4.5 regression] miscompilation in strict-aliasing optimization

2010-04-03 Thread jengelh at medozas dot de
--- Comment #1 from jengelh at medozas dot de 2010-04-03 15:13 --- Created an attachment (id=20302) --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=20302&action=view) testcase Hopefully short enough to be a testcase. Left unprocessed to not prematurely clutter it. --

[Bug c/43664] New: init from incompatible pointer type: verbosity

2010-04-06 Thread jengelh at medozas dot de
Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: enhancement Priority: P3 Component: c AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org ReportedBy: jengelh at medozas dot de GCC build triplet: any GCC host triplet: any GCC target triplet: any http://gcc.gnu.org

[Bug c++/43880] New: internal compiler error: in make_decl_rtl

2010-04-24 Thread jengelh at medozas dot de
gcc dot gnu dot org ReportedBy: jengelh at medozas dot de GCC build triplet: i586-suse-linux-gnu GCC host triplet: i586-suse-linux-gnu GCC target triplet: i586-suse-linux-gnu http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43880

[Bug c++/43880] internal compiler error: in make_decl_rtl

2010-04-24 Thread jengelh at medozas dot de
--- Comment #1 from jengelh at medozas dot de 2010-04-24 20:40 --- Created an attachment (id=20478) --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=20478&action=view) testcase -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43880

[Bug inline-asm/45718] New: unresolved reference to __builtin_ia32_loadaps

2010-09-18 Thread jengelh at medozas dot de
ReportedBy: jengelh at medozas dot de GCC build triplet: x86_64-suse-linux-gnu GCC host triplet: x86_64-suse-linux-gnu GCC target triplet: x86_64-suse-linux-gnu http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45718

[Bug c/43637] [4.4/4.5 regression] miscompilation in strict-aliasing optimization

2010-05-26 Thread jengelh at medozas dot de
--- Comment #3 from jengelh at medozas dot de 2010-05-26 21:44 --- >You are accessing {lh,clh}.{next,prev} through a pointer to type struct item. Thank you for your time. I do have a few questions. I wonder where exactly I am doing that access. In the first part of the for cla