http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45827
--- Comment #15 from Hans-Werner Boschmann 2010-10-01 06:52:14 UTC ---
Thank you, now I understand the difference. The correct invocation does not
supply any new information.
Revision 20100928 compiles my code, so it's fine for me now. But I have
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45853
Summary: Segfault while experimenting with c++-0x initializer
lists
Product: gcc
Version: 4.4.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Componen
from Tobias Burnus 2010-10-01
05:37:29 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> I do not see the error on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu at r164767. Can anyone
> confirm that?
Ditto for my 4.6.0 20100930 built also on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu; I tried it
using valgrind.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45852
--- Comment #1 from John Regehr 2010-10-01 03:40:43
UTC ---
This problem has been there for some time: none of 3.0.0, 3.1.0, 3.2.0, 3.3.0,
3.4.0, 4.0.0, 4.1.0, 4.2.0, 4.3.0, 4.4.0, or 4.5.0 for x86 generates the right
code.
MMXIntrinsics, uint = unsigned int]':
qdrawhelper_mmx.ii:45806:41: internal compiler error: in rename_uses, at
sese.c:534
Please submit a full bug report,
with preprocessed source if appropriate.
See <http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs.html> for instructions.
gcc version 4.6.0 20100930 (experimental)
(x86_64-w64-mingw32-sjlj-x86_64-slackware-linux [164819] (3685))
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45230
--- Comment #17 from t7 at gmail dot com
2010-10-01 03:24:52 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #16)
> Fixed.
sorry you only introduced the problem into another error.
this maybe multiple problems.
what did you fix, which revision?
should i un-mar
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45807
--- Comment #6 from Alan Modra 2010-10-01 03:23:50
UTC ---
Author: amodra
Date: Fri Oct 1 03:23:46 2010
New Revision: 164825
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=164825
Log:
PR target/45807
* config/rs6000/rs6000.c (rs6
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45841
--- Comment #11 from Hans-Peter Nilsson 2010-10-01
03:15:40 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #9)
> I somewhat doubt this will fix it, but if it's not more effort, then please
> use
> the patch for an additional test run.
That patch made no differen
20100930 (experimental) (GCC)
reg...@john-home:~$ current-gcc -S -o - -O1 small.c
.file "small.c"
.text
.globl func_1
.type func_1, @function
func_1:
.LFB0:
.cfi_startproc
rep
ret
.cfi_endproc
.LFE0:
.siz
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45807
--- Comment #5 from Michael Meissner 2010-10-01
01:51:43 UTC ---
This patch fixes the problem with linux ppc64 builds when the compiler is
defaulting to 64-bit cpus.
This patch is ok to check in.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45851
Dave Korn changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45851
Summary: FAIL: gcc.dg/lto/20090210 link test with WHOPR owing
to bad -pthread option.
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45645
Jack Howarth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45196
Jack Howarth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43959
John David Anglin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43959
--- Comment #21 from John David Anglin 2010-10-01
00:47:13 UTC ---
Author: danglin
Date: Fri Oct 1 00:47:09 2010
New Revision: 164824
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=164824
Log:
PR tree-optimization/43959
* functio
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45787
Jack Howarth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45850
Summary: support color diagnostics
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Component: c
AssignedTo: unassig...@gcc.gnu.or
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45490
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|x86_64-suse-linux |
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45807
--- Comment #4 from Alan Modra 2010-09-30 23:52:29
UTC ---
Caught out by sign extension rules.
Index: gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.c
===
--- gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.c(revision 1648
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45849
Summary: [4.6 Regression] ICE: in emit_note_insn_var_location,
at var-tracking.c:7336 with -O -g
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45486
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski 2010-09-30
23:22:31 UTC ---
Works on linux, so I am thinking this is a target specific bug.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45464
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38185
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40979
Sebastian Pop changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45471
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45841
--- Comment #10 from Hans-Peter Nilsson 2010-09-30
22:55:20 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #9)
> I somewhat doubt this will fix it, but if it's not more effort, then please
> use
> the patch for an additional test run.
Thank you, testing in progr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45676
--- Comment #3 from Thomas Koenig 2010-09-30
21:28:22 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> We can't hoist invariant control flow.
Is this not possible, not desirable, or both?
In C, you could (in principle) also hoist
for (i=0; i<10; i++) {
fo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45843
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.5.2, 4.6.0
Summary|[4.3/4.4/
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45758
Sebastian Pop changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45230
Sebastian Pop changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45758
--- Comment #8 from Sebastian Pop 2010-09-30 21:22:13
UTC ---
Author: spop
Date: Thu Sep 30 21:22:07 2010
New Revision: 164813
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=164813
Log:
Fix PR45758: reset scevs before Graphite.
2010-09-2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45758
--- Comment #7 from Sebastian Pop 2010-09-30 21:21:52
UTC ---
Author: spop
Date: Thu Sep 30 21:21:46 2010
New Revision: 164811
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=164811
Log:
Add testcase for PR45758.
2010-09-23 Sebastian Pop
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42954
Francois-Xavier Coudert changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45229
Sebastian Pop changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45230
--- Comment #15 from Sebastian Pop 2010-09-30
21:19:05 UTC ---
Author: spop
Date: Thu Sep 30 21:18:59 2010
New Revision: 164791
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=164791
Log:
Add testcase for PR45230.
2010-08-20 Sebastian Po
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45229
--- Comment #4 from Sebastian Pop 2010-09-30 21:18:06
UTC ---
Author: spop
Date: Thu Sep 30 21:18:01 2010
New Revision: 164785
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=164785
Log:
Fix PR45229: gcc.c-torture/execute/2412-4.c ICEs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45768
Frédéric Buclin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45746
--- Comment #3 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-09-30 21:01:13 UTC ---
I do not see the error on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu at r164767. Can anyone
confirm that?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45846
Frédéric Buclin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31261
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45843
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek 2010-09-30
20:21:33 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Sep 30 20:21:28 2010
New Revision: 164766
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=164766
Log:
PR target/45843
* config/i386/i386.c (ix86_
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45846
Frédéric Buclin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45848
Summary: [OOP] ICE on invalid code in fortran/symbol.c:2410
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
AssignedT
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45801
--- Comment #3 from Mikael Pettersson 2010-09-30
20:01:49 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> Please try with current trunk.
No joy. Trunk as of a few hours ago, r164755, still fails with the same
bootstrap comparison failure I showed earlier.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45828
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45828
--- Comment #8 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-09-30 19:54:11 UTC ---
Author: janus
Date: Thu Sep 30 19:54:08 2010
New Revision: 164765
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=164765
Log:
2010-09-30 Janus Weil
PR fortran/4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45837
--- Comment #2 from Michael Meissner 2010-09-30
19:53:01 UTC ---
Author: meissner
Date: Thu Sep 30 19:52:57 2010
New Revision: 164764
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=164764
Log:
PR target/45837: Make powerpc build again
Mo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45831
--- Comment #16 from Michiel 2010-09-30 19:38:55
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #15)
> (In reply to comment #14)
> >
> > Is that really too hard?
>
> You are ignoring everything everybody is saying. If you think it is trivial,
> just take one singl
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45828
--- Comment #7 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-09-30 19:36:48 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> Here is a better patch, which avoids the use of
> 'gfc_has_default_initializer':
Forgot to mention: This one regtests cleanly. Will commit as obvio
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45796
Ralf Wildenhues changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45828
--- Comment #6 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-09-30 19:23:11 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> To fix it I propose the following patch (not regtested yet):
Regtesting showed that the patch in comment #5 fails on common_10.f90 (due to
the fact
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31261
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek 2010-09-30
19:21:44 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Sep 30 19:21:34 2010
New Revision: 164761
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=164761
Log:
PR tree-optimization/31261
* fold-const.c (
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45847
Summary: ICE in supportable_widening_operation
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
AssignedTo: unassig..
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45796
--- Comment #5 from Ralf Wildenhues 2010-09-30
19:16:43 UTC ---
Author: rwild
Date: Thu Sep 30 19:16:34 2010
New Revision: 164760
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=164760
Log:
build: info-gcc, dvi-gcc etc work from unbuilt co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45796
--- Comment #4 from Ralf Wildenhues 2010-09-30
19:16:25 UTC ---
Author: rwild
Date: Thu Sep 30 19:16:14 2010
New Revision: 164759
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=164759
Log:
build: more correct build rules for build/gen% pr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45807
Michael Meissner changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||meissner at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45831
--- Comment #15 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2010-09-30
18:51:33 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #14)
>
> Is that really too hard?
You are ignoring everything everybody is saying. If you think it is trivial,
just take one single little case of the ones
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42954
--- Comment #8 from nightstrike 2010-09-30
18:47:04 UTC ---
This bug is listed as NEW, not ASSIGNED, but it's set to be assigned to FX.
Can the status be updated to ASSIGNED?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45760
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45831
--- Comment #14 from Michiel 2010-09-30 18:30:16
UTC ---
Remove signed/unsigned warnings, or even overflow warnings, for constants that
are used in an expression with the following operations only:
casts to integral type of smaller or equal size
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45781
--- Comment #6 from Jan Hubicka 2010-09-30
18:21:29 UTC ---
I think I am hitting instance of PR45846. I get just part of the testcase:
typedef union tree_node *tree;
struct tree_exp { tree operands[1]; };
union tree_node { struct tree_exp exp; }
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45658
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45781
--- Comment #4 from Jan Hubicka 2010-09-30 17:47:39 UTC
---
Hi, please, can you add the testcase to PR? I guess problem might be that as
the function is split and then
inlined back together the profile gets confused...
Honza
Hi, please, can you add the testcase to PR? I guess problem might be that as
the function is split and then
inlined back together the profile gets confused...
Honza
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45700
--- Comment #1 from Aldy Hernandez 2010-09-30
17:47:19 UTC ---
If we call build[1-5] just to call protected_set_expr_location next, then by
all means, use build[1-5]_loc and be done with it.
Ideally we should strive to set location information i
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45781
--- Comment #3 from Steve Ellcey 2010-09-30 17:41:36
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> The decision is reasonable (I suppose partial inlining will inline the
> if (!init) case) as the function is called exactly once then and thus
> should be opt
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45846
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45846
Summary: Partial attachments in bugzilla
Product: gcc
Version: 4.3.6
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: web
AssignedTo: unassig...@gcc.gnu.o
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45810
--- Comment #10 from Dominique d'Humieres
2010-09-30 17:28:19 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> Using -fno-inline-functions, the program recovers the speed of the no-LTO
> version.
This does not work on powerpc-apple-darwin9:
[karma] lin/test%
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45801
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||45837
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45837
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.6.0
Summary|Global options c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45845
--- Comment #4 from Jack Howarth 2010-09-30
17:02:29 UTC ---
The failing testcase was introduced with the proposed patch...
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-11/msg00438.html
that added the ability to generate the DWARF pubtypes section on
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45781
--- Comment #2 from Jan Hubicka 2010-09-30
16:44:17 UTC ---
IA-64 seems to be fine with unlikely section at least at our periodic tester
setup, otherwise SPEC2000 FDO testing would break. So it might be specific for
ia64 HP-UX and in that case in
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42628
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #11
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42628
Artem Anisimov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aanisimov at inbox dot ru
--- Comment #1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32511
--- Comment #11 from Jason Merrill 2010-09-30
16:01:01 UTC ---
I don't see it as different at all; I am arguing that the initial bug report
was not actually a bug, and that the patch should be reverted.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39427
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #20
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38644
--- Comment #32 from Sebastian Huber
2010-09-30 15:36:02 UTC ---
Which target milestone do you intend for a fix? It is still present in 4.6.0
20100925.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45828
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|una
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45704
--- Comment #9 from rguenther at suse dot de
2010-09-30 14:14:13 UTC ---
On Thu, 30 Sep 2010, anemo at mba dot ocn.ne.jp wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45704
>
> --- Comment #8 from Atsushi Nemoto 2010-09-30
> 13:59:34 U
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45704
--- Comment #8 from Atsushi Nemoto 2010-09-30
13:59:34 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #0)
> The PR 42956 bugzilla shows same fix was applied to both 4.5.0 and 4.4.4,
> but they behave differently on this test case.
>
> Comparing patches for 4.4 br
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45827
--- Comment #14 from Tobias Burnus 2010-09-30
13:48:15 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #13)
> But I have run valgrind now. It was the first time, so I don't understand the
> result. Is it somehow the fault of my hardware/OS? Here is the output:
> v
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45845
--- Comment #3 from Jack Howarth 2010-09-30
13:47:26 UTC ---
Caused by...
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Sep 29 13:59:08 2010
New Revision: 164719
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=164719
Log:
2010-09-29 Richard Guenther
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45845
Summary: g++.dg/ext/visibility/anon6.C scan-assembler 1BIiE1cE
regressed on darwin
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43959
--- Comment #20 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia.nrc.ca 2010-09-30 13:13:05 UTC ---
> > > Ah. The following fixes it for me on a cross. Can you bootstrap &
> > > regtest and
> > > install it? It's pre-approved if it works for you.
> >
> > Will tes
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45827
--- Comment #13 from Hans-Werner Boschmann 2010-09-30 13:03:09 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #12)
> Actually, I am confused: From that comment it sounds as if 20100921 does not
> have the bug 45746 - but it has been reported using 20100921 and a co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45394
--- Comment #7 from Eric Botcazou 2010-09-30
13:00:38 UTC ---
For the records, I have a reduced testcase and a patch. ETA is next week.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45702
--- Comment #20 from Richard Guenther 2010-09-30
12:22:41 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu Sep 30 12:22:33 2010
New Revision: 164749
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=164749
Log:
2010-09-30 Richard Guenther
PR testsu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45841
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45743
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-checking
Priority|P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45732
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45721
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45831
--- Comment #13 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2010-09-30
12:12:17 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #10)
> To get to know what a formula does, I usually compute some examples. When
> doing
> so, I was warned, but ignored them and that was stupid.
>
> The
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45701
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45693
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45667
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-checking
AssignedTo|unassi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45831
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #12
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45844
Summary: FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/pr45714-b.f -O (internal
compiler error)
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
C
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45658
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
--- Comment #7 from Richard Gu
1 - 100 of 161 matches
Mail list logo
