[Bug fortran/45828] [4.6 Regression] No default initialization of derived type members?

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45828 --- Comment #4 from jpr at csc dot fi 2010-09-30 05:12:10 UTC --- This is the patch introducing the call to gfc_has_default_initializer() from resolve_allocate_expr(): http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?view=revision&revision=164305 2010-09-15 Janus Weil

[Bug libstdc++/45841] New: [4.6 Regression]: r164529 cris-elf libstdc++ 27_io/basic_filebuf/seekoff/char/2-io.cc

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45841 Summary: [4.6 Regression]: r164529 cris-elf libstdc++ 27_io/basic_filebuf/seekoff/char/2-io.cc Product: gcc Version: 4.6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Pri

[Bug fortran/45828] [4.6 Regression] No default initialization of derived type members?

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45828 --- Comment #3 from jpr at csc dot fi 2010-09-30 04:50:05 UTC --- Hi, the problem seems to be in expr.c (called from resolve.c: resolve_allocate_expr()) bool gfc_has_default_initializer (gfc_symbol *der) { gfc_component *c; gcc_assert (der->

[Bug c/45840] New: Enhance __builtin_object_size to return useful result when applied to T (*p)[N]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45840 Summary: Enhance __builtin_object_size to return useful result when applied to T (*p)[N] Product: gcc Version: 4.5.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: enhancement Prio

[Bug libfortran/45839] Provide reasonable handling of I/O to/from FIFO file objects

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45839 Jerry DeLisle changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot |jvdelisle at gcc dot |g

[Bug libfortran/45839] New: Provide reasonable handling of I/O to/from FIFO file objects

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45839 Summary: Provide reasonable handling of I/O to/from FIFO file objects Product: gcc Version: 4.6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Compon

[Bug middle-end/45819] [4.5 Regression] unexpected unaligned access to volatile int

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45819 --- Comment #3 from Atsushi Nemoto 2010-09-30 02:06:18 UTC --- (In reply to comment #1) > As a matter of clean implementation I suggest to do > > struct st { > int ptr; > } __attribute__ ((packed,aligned(__alignof__(int; I confirmed thi

[Bug libgomp/45838] New: FAIL: libgomp.c/pr34513.c execution test

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45838 Summary: FAIL: libgomp.c/pr34513.c execution test Product: gcc Version: 4.6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: libgomp AssignedTo: unassig

[Bug bootstrap/45612] [4.6 regression] Reference to undefined label building libada on Solaris 2/SPARC

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45612 --- Comment #15 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia.nrc.ca 2010-09-30 01:26:27 UTC --- On Thu, 30 Sep 2010, dave at hiauly1 dot hia.nrc.ca wrote: For reference, I have also attached the hppa2.0w-hp-hpux11.11 .s file. The problem is the reference to L$037

[Bug bootstrap/45612] [4.6 regression] Reference to undefined label building libada on Solaris 2/SPARC

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45612 --- Comment #13 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia.nrc.ca 2010-09-30 01:18:27 UTC --- On Tue, 28 Sep 2010, hubicka at ucw dot cz wrote: > Hi, > I would really apprechiate the answer to comment #6. Since the patch should > only > introduce more (valid)

[Bug target/44575] [4.5 Regression] __builtin_va_arg overwrites into adjacent stack location

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44575 --- Comment #7 from Easwaran Raman 2010-09-30 00:21:17 UTC --- This is a variation of the same problem where __builtin_va_arg overwrites into adjacent stack location [Not sure if I should reopen this bug or file a new one]: $ cat vararg.cc #inc

[Bug c++/45829] Unary minus on static const class variable triggering linker error

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45829 --- Comment #8 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2010-09-29 23:22:59 UTC --- (In reply to comment #7) > (In reply to comment #6) > > > > What is the point of allowing to initialize it then? > > Static const members declared with initializers can be used

[Bug target/32523] disastrous scheduling for POWER5

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32523 --- Comment #13 from Andrew Pinski 2010-09-29 23:20:29 UTC --- (In reply to comment #12) > Andrew, > > I'm certainly unsurprised that you disagree with me, since I don't think we > have ever agreed on anything in something like 5 years. To get

[Bug tree-optimization/45830] [4.4/4.5/4.6 Regression] Code+rodata increase with -ftree-switch-conversion

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45830 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |4.4.5

[Bug target/32523] disastrous scheduling for POWER5

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32523 --- Comment #12 from R. Clint Whaley 2010-09-29 23:10:50 UTC --- Andrew, I'm certainly unsurprised that you disagree with me, since I don't think we have ever agreed on anything in something like 5 years. To get an idea of what I'm talking abou

[Bug c++/45829] Unary minus on static const class variable triggering linker error

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45829 --- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely 2010-09-29 22:59:39 UTC --- (In reply to comment #6) > > What is the point of allowing to initialize it then? Static const members declared with initializers can be used in constant expressions, see 9.4.2p4

[Bug target/32523] disastrous scheduling for POWER5

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32523 --- Comment #11 from Andrew Pinski 2010-09-29 22:39:14 UTC --- (In reply to comment #10) > which is typically reported as invalid by Pinski right up until it is fixed. I just looked into the bugs which you have filed and saw a different patter

[Bug target/32523] disastrous scheduling for POWER5

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32523 --- Comment #10 from R. Clint Whaley 2010-09-29 22:22:22 UTC --- >Out of curiosity, any benchmark updates on more recent releases? Nope, after several rough experiences I've stopped reporting gcc bugs and problems. It usually takes weeks of my

[Bug target/45837] New: Global options changes on Sept. 29th, breaks powerpc linux64 build

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45837 Summary: Global options changes on Sept. 29th, breaks powerpc linux64 build Product: gcc Version: 4.6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: critical Priority: P3

[Bug bootstrap/45816] [4.6 Regression] --enable-checking=release causes a comparison failure on powerpc-darwin

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45816 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |4.6.0 Summary|[4.6 Regression]

[Bug tree-optimization/45833] Unnecessary runtime versioning for aliasing

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45833 --- Comment #2 from Sebastian Pop 2010-09-29 22:05:35 UTC --- (In reply to comment #1) > Maybe data-dependency needs to be extended for this (two references either > identical, or non-overlapping). Correct. Data dep analysis should not return a

[Bug c++/45822] [4.6-regression] Qt 4.7.0 build fails

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45822 --- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski 2010-09-29 22:02:32 UTC --- This issue looks more likely QT issues than a GCC one. The attached file is not unzipping for me though.

[Bug c++/45822] [4.6-regression] Qt 4.7.0 build fails

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45822 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |4.6.0

[Bug target/32523] disastrous scheduling for POWER5

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32523 --- Comment #9 from David Fang 2010-09-29 21:36:02 UTC --- Out of curiosity, any benchmark updates on more recent releases?

[Bug c/45054] [4.6 Regression] struct-by-value-1.c fail.

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45054 --- Comment #2 from Bernd Schmidt 2010-09-29 21:12:52 UTC --- Author: bernds Date: Wed Sep 29 21:12:48 2010 New Revision: 164733 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=164733 Log: PR c/45054 * reload1.c (replace_pseudos_in

[Bug rtl-optimization/45813] alias analysis problem ?

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45813 --- Comment #10 from Mikael Pettersson 2010-09-29 20:59:17 UTC --- This was fixed for 4.6 by r160260: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?view=revision&revision=160260 Applying that to 4.5 changes 4.5's output to: ReadLE16U: push{r7, lr}

[Bug bootstrap/45796] [4.6 regression] make targets info-gcc, dvi-gcc etc. should work from unbuilt configured tree

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45796 --- Comment #2 from Ralf Wildenhues 2010-09-29 20:50:16 UTC --- Patches posted: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-09/msg02312.html http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-09/msg02313.html I don't see where this would be a recent regression t

[Bug bootstrap/45816] [4.6 Regression] Bootstrap comparison failure! for powerpc-apple-darwin9 with --enable-checking=release

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45816 --- Comment #3 from Dominique d'Humieres 2010-09-29 20:43:45 UTC --- The failing comparison is [karma] gcc/rel_build% ../_gcc_clean/contrib/compare-debug stage2-gcc/cfghooks.o stage3-gcc/cfghooks.o stage2-gcc/cfghooks.o.stripped stage3-gcc/cfgho

[Bug lto/45810] 40% slowdown when using LTO for a single-file program

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45810 --- Comment #9 from Dominique d'Humieres 2010-09-29 20:27:36 UTC --- (In reply to comment #8) > Using -fno-inline-functions, the program recovers the speed of the no-LTO > version. This is weird!-( I have done the following profiling and it show

[Bug fortran/45836] [OOP] Fortran 2003 - Type Bound Procedure Error - Type Mismatch

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45836 --- Comment #2 from ortp21 at gmail dot com 2010-09-29 20:24:24 UTC --- Tobias, Thank you for the workaround variants. I have used them instead of what I was trying to do, with success. I hope the bug report was worthwhile/accurate.

[Bug tree-optimization/45833] Unnecessary runtime versioning for aliasing

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45833 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||spop at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #1 fr

[Bug target/40457] use stm and ldm to access consecutive memory words

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40457 --- Comment #13 from Bernd Schmidt 2010-09-29 20:06:58 UTC --- Author: bernds Date: Wed Sep 29 20:06:55 2010 New Revision: 164732 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=164732 Log: PR target/40457 * postreload.c (move2add_

[Bug rtl-optimization/45813] alias analysis problem ?

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45813 --- Comment #9 from Mikael Pettersson 2010-09-29 19:41:08 UTC --- I can reproduce it with crosses to arm-elf and arm-linux-gnueabi. The combination of -mthumb (1 not 2) and -fno-omit-frame-pointer is the trigger. GCC 4.3.5 works, 4.4 and 4.5 gen

[Bug libmudflap/38339] libtool: compile: not configured to build any kind of library

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38339 --- Comment #15 from Ralf Wildenhues 2010-09-29 19:33:50 UTC --- Please attach i686-pc-linux-gnu/libmudflap/config.log Please post the output of the following commands (modifying the configure script to post verbose output, and rerunning it): s

[Bug target/45790] [4.6 Regression] rs6000 builtin vs LTO

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45790 Jack Howarth changed: What|Removed |Added CC||howarth at nitro dot |

[Bug rtl-optimization/45352] ICE: in reset_sched_cycles_in_current_ebb, at sel-sched.c:7058

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45352 --- Comment #9 from Zdenek Sojka 2010-09-29 19:02:45 UTC --- Sorry, forgot to mention command line: $ gcc -O1 -freorder-blocks -fschedule-insns2 -funswitch-loops -fselective-scheduling2 -fsel-sched-pipelining -funroll-all-loops pr45352-8.c pr45

[Bug rtl-optimization/45788] [4.6 Regression] -fwhole-program causes ICE error: BB 3 can not throw but has an EH edge

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45788 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug preprocessor/45362] [4.6 Regression] Dangling reference about saved cpp_macro for push/pop macro

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45362 Kai Tietz changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|

[Bug preprocessor/45362] [4.6 Regression] Dangling reference about saved cpp_macro for push/pop macro

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45362 --- Comment #18 from Kai Tietz 2010-09-29 18:18:42 UTC --- Author: ktietz Date: Wed Sep 29 18:18:38 2010 New Revision: 164729 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=164729 Log: 2010-09-29 Kai Tietz PR preprocessor/45362

[Bug bootstrap/45796] [4.6 regression] make targets info-gcc, dvi-gcc etc. should work from unbuilt configured tree

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45796 Ralf Wildenhues changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug lto/45729] -flto conflicts with -mthumb

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45729 Rafaël Carré changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|

[Bug target/45790] [4.6 Regression] rs6000 builtin vs LTO

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45790 --- Comment #6 from Iain Sandoe 2010-09-29 17:26:51 UTC --- (In reply to comment #5) > rs6000_builtin_decl should be working correctly. Indeed, I suspect it is because we patch the builtin names to append $LDBL128 for the case that we have 128b

[Bug target/45790] [4.6 Regression] rs6000 builtin vs LTO

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45790 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Target|powerpc-apple-darwin9 |powerpc*-*-* Target Milestone|---

[Bug target/45790] 1308 new GCC h...@164592 regressions

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45790 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Component|lto |target Host|powerpc-apple-d

[Bug web/45769] Bugzilla help doesn't match actual fields

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45769 --- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski 2010-09-29 17:04:41 UTC --- Related to PR 36739 (I think some of the custom fields are mentioned there too).

[Bug target/45761] [4.6 regression] ICE: segmentation fault at gcc/expr.c:9863

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45761 gee changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |RESOLVED Resolution|

[Bug bootstrap/45796] [4.6 regression] make targets info-gcc, dvi-gcc etc. should work from unbuilt configured tree

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45796 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |4.6.0 Summary|make targets inf

[Bug target/45761] [4.6 regression] ICE: segmentation fault at gcc/expr.c:9863

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45761 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING Last reconfirmed|

[Bug treelang/45761] [4.6 regression] ICE: segmentation fault at gcc/expr.c:9863

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45761 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |4.6.0

[Bug target/43725] Poor instructions selection, scheduling and registers allocation for ARM NEON intrinsics

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43725 Richard Earnshaw changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed|2010-05-11 07:35:23 |2010-09-29 7:35:23 date|

[Bug fortran/45836] [OOP] Fortran 2003 - Type Bound Procedure Error - Type Mismatch

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45836 Tobias Burnus changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||rejects-valid CC|

[Bug fortran/45836] New: Fortran 2003 - Type Bound Procedure Error - Type Mismatch

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45836 Summary: Fortran 2003 - Type Bound Procedure Error - Type Mismatch Product: gcc Version: 4.6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component

[Bug lto/45736] [4.6 Regression] ICE: in cgraph_remove_unreachable_nodes, at ipa.c:245 with -flto and attribute((constructor))

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45736 Richard Guenther changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P1

[Bug tree-optimization/45733] [4.6 Regression] ICE: verify_stmts failed: invalid conversion in gimple call with -fstrict-overflow -ftree-vectorize

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45733 Richard Guenther changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P1

[Bug middle-end/45722] [4.6 Regression] FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/20040709-2.c execution at -O1 and -Os

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45722 Richard Guenther changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||wrong-code Priority|P3

[Bug c/45831] 0 = 10 (with -O0, 0 = 0 with -O1, but 10 = 10 expected)

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45831 --- Comment #9 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2010-09-29 15:43:02 UTC --- On Wed, 29 Sep 2010, manu at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > Why don't we just not compile programs with evident undefined behaviour? I > think the standard allows us to do s

[Bug middle-end/45720] [4.6 regression] Revision 164367 miscompiled SPEC CPU 2K

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45720 Richard Guenther changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P1

[Bug middle-end/45712] [4.6 Regression] Segmentation violation when compiling spec source on either x86 or ppc with debugging

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45712 Richard Guenther changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|

[Bug lto/45702] [4.6 Regression] New LTO test failures

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45702 Richard Guenther changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|unassigned

[Bug middle-end/45699] [4.6 Regression] Incorrect copy constructor generated with -O

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45699 Richard Guenther changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||wrong-code Priority|P3

[Bug rtl-optimization/45685] [4.6 Regression] GCC optimizer for Intel x64 generates inefficient code

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45685 Richard Guenther changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||missed-optimization Priority

[Bug target/45670] [4.6 Regression] Less efficient x86 addressing mode selection on 4.6, causes -Os size regression from 4.5

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45670 Richard Guenther changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P2

[Bug c++/45829] Unary minus on static const class variable triggering linker error

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45829 Manuel López-Ibáñez changed: What|Removed |Added CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug middle-end/45662] [4.6 regression] New x86 test failures

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45662 Richard Guenther changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|

[Bug rtl-optimization/45652] [4.6 Regression] gcc.dg/compat/scalar-by-value-3 FAILs with -O2 -fselective-scheduling2

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45652 Richard Guenther changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P1

[Bug rtl-optimization/45621] [4.6 Regression] ICE: verify_cgraph_node failed: inlined_to pointer is set but no predecessors found with -fipa-cp-clone -flto

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45621 Richard Guenther changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P1 --- Comment #5 from Richard Guenthe

[Bug c/45831] 0 = 10 (with -O0, 0 = 0 with -O1, but 10 = 10 expected)

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45831 --- Comment #8 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2010-09-29 15:28:11 UTC --- Why don't we just not compile programs with evident undefined behaviour? I think the standard allows us to do so.

[Bug c/45831] 0 = 10 (with -O0, 0 = 0 with -O1, but 10 = 10 expected)

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45831 Manuel López-Ibáñez changed: What|Removed |Added CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug c++/44092] Undefined Symbol: std::basic_string

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44092 Stefan Winter changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |RESOLVED Resolution|

[Bug c/45831] 0 = 10 (with -O0, 0 = 0 with -O1, but 10 = 10 expected)

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45831 --- Comment #6 from Michiel 2010-09-29 15:19:11 UTC --- If undefined behavior only depends on the machine (most times compiling machine and target machine are the same), then there will be less bias here.

[Bug bootstrap/45832] Build on AIX5.3-PowerPC failed

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45832 Stefan Winter changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|

[Bug bootstrap/45832] Build on AIX5.3-PowerPC failed

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45832 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Component|c |bootstrap --- Comment #2 from Andrew Pins

[Bug c/45831] 0 = 10 (with -O0, 0 = 0 with -O1, but 10 = 10 expected)

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45831 --- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski 2010-09-29 14:59:22 UTC --- (In reply to comment #4) > In case you are missing the point, most non-bug posters compile on their > target > machine. In C/C++, shifting by a negative number is undefined. So what

[Bug preprocessor/45386] [4.6 Regression] valgrind reports out-of-bounds read in search_line_sse2

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45386 Tom Tromey changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug target/45835] New: Consider push simm8;pop reg for -Os

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45835 Summary: Consider push simm8;pop reg for -Os Product: gcc Version: 4.6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: target AssignedTo: unassig...@gc

[Bug c/45834] New: Redundant inter-loop edges in DDG

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45834 Summary: Redundant inter-loop edges in DDG Product: gcc Version: 4.6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c AssignedTo: unassig...@gcc.gnu.o

[Bug c/45831] 0 = 10 (with -O0, 0 = 0 with -O1, but 10 = 10 expected)

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45831 --- Comment #4 from Michiel 2010-09-29 14:29:54 UTC --- In case you are missing the point, most non-bug posters compile on their target machine.

[Bug c/45831] 0 = 10 (with -O0, 0 = 0 with -O1, but 10 = 10 expected)

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45831 --- Comment #3 from Michiel 2010-09-29 14:22:39 UTC --- Still it is a very bad idea to use another library for precomputation.

[Bug c/45831] 0 = 10 (with -O0, 0 = 0 with -O1, but 10 = 10 expected)

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45831 --- Comment #2 from Michiel 2010-09-29 14:20:29 UTC --- That does not mean that it is a very bad idea to use another library for precomputation.

[Bug tree-optimization/45833] New: Unnecessary runtime versioning for aliasing

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45833 Summary: Unnecessary runtime versioning for aliasing Product: gcc Version: 4.6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: missed-optimization Severity: normal Priority: P3 Com

[Bug c/45832] New: Build on AIX5.3-PowerPC failed

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45832 Summary: Build on AIX5.3-PowerPC failed Product: gcc Version: 4.4.4 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c AssignedTo: unassig...@gcc.gnu.org

[Bug bootstrap/37888] make install fails attempting to build gcc/intl.c

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37888 --- Comment #3 from Craig Powers 2010-09-29 13:43:02 UTC --- I'll try to find time to try again. I'm no longer at school as I was when I reported the bug originally; I still have access to the systems I was using then, but I have to do it remote

[Bug bootstrap/37888] make install fails attempting to build gcc/intl.c

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37888 --- Comment #2 from Craig Powers 2010-09-29 13:42:58 UTC --- I'll try to find time to try again. I'm no longer at school as I was when I reported the bug originally; I still have access to the systems I was using then, but I have to do it remote

[Bug bootstrap/37888] make install fails attempting to build gcc/intl.c

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37888 --- Comment #2 from Craig Powers 2010-09-29 13:42:58 UTC --- I'll try to find time to try again. I'm no longer at school as I was when I reported the bug originally; I still have access to the systems I was using then, but I have to do it remote

[Bug c/45831] 0 = 10 (with -O0, 0 = 0 with -O1, but 10 = 10 expected)

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45831 Andreas Schwab changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|

[Bug c/45831] New: 0 = 10 (with -O0, 0 = 0 with -O1, but 10 = 10 expected)

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45831 Summary: 0 = 10 (with -O0, 0 = 0 with -O1, but 10 = 10 expected) Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component

[Bug tree-optimization/45830] [4.4/4.5/4.6 Regression] Code+rodata increase with -ftree-switch-conversion

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45830 Richard Guenther changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug ada/45830] New: [4.4/4.5/4.6 Regression] Code+rodata increase with -ftree-switch-conversion

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45830 Summary: [4.4/4.5/4.6 Regression] Code+rodata increase with -ftree-switch-conversion Product: gcc Version: 4.6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug c++/45829] Unary minus on static const class variable triggering linker error

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45829 Paolo Carlini changed: What|Removed |Added CC||paolo.carlini at oracle dot

[Bug c++/45829] Unary minus on static const class variable triggering linker error

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45829 --- Comment #4 from Sander Land 2010-09-29 13:05:45 UTC --- (In reply to comment #3) > You didn't. A definition would be > > const double x::a; > > at file-scope. Your "definition" is a declaration. Fair enough, I thought it was both. Still

[Bug fortran/45828] [4.6 Regression] No default initialization of derived type members?

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45828 Tobias Burnus changed: What|Removed |Added CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org,

[Bug c++/45829] Unary minus on static const class variable triggering linker error

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45829 --- Comment #3 from Richard Guenther 2010-09-29 12:53:52 UTC --- You didn't. A definition would be const double x::a; at file-scope. Your "definition" is a declaration.

[Bug c++/45829] Unary minus on static const class variable triggering linker error

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45829 --- Comment #2 from Sander Land 2010-09-29 12:49:23 UTC --- I did define the constant, though now see the attachment apparently failed? Full text below: struct x { static const double a = 3.14; double f() { double b = -a;// undefined ref

[Bug fortran/25708] Module loading is not good at all

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25708 Tobias Burnus changed: What|Removed |Added CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #9

[Bug c++/45829] Unary minus on static const class variable triggering linker error

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45829 Richard Guenther changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|

[Bug fortran/45827] mio_component_ref(): Component not found when mixing f90 and f03 in large projects

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45827 --- Comment #10 from Mikael Morin 2010-09-29 12:44:03 UTC --- (In reply to comment #9) > The result: > > gfortran -ffree-form -ffree-line-length-0 -I. -L. -c kinds.f90 -o kinds.o > gfortran -ffree-form -ffree-line-length-0 -I. -L. -c arguments

[Bug c++/45829] New: Unary minus on static const class variable triggering linker error

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45829 Summary: Unary minus on static const class variable triggering linker error Product: gcc Version: 4.4.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug libstdc++/43554] profile-mode version of forward_list missing

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43554 --- Comment #6 from Paolo Carlini 2010-09-29 12:01:16 UTC --- The debug-mode bits are now in. It would be nice to have the profile-mode bits too for 4.6.0...

[Bug fortran/45827] mio_component_ref(): Component not found when mixing f90 and f03 in large projects

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45827 --- Comment #9 from Hans-Werner Boschmann 2010-09-29 11:49:11 UTC --- My makefile is now: FC=gfortran FFLAGS=-ffree-form -ffree-line-length-0 -I. -L. all: common.o common_module.mod arguments.o arguments_module.mod kinds.o kinds.mod kinds.o kind

[Bug fortran/45827] mio_component_ref(): Component not found when mixing f90 and f03 in large projects

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45827 Mikael Morin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|REOPENED|WAITING --- Comment #8 from Mikael Morin

  1   2   >