http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45870
--- Comment #3 from Gary Funck 2010-10-03 04:10:32
UTC ---
This bug can also be reproduced in the 4.6 snapshot, gcc-4.6-20100925 (svn
revision 164623).
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45870
--- Comment #2 from Gary Funck 2010-10-03 04:04:48
UTC ---
reghunt on the 4.5 branch indicates that the following update produces the
notes described above (-O1 -g, checks enabled):
r161414 | aoliva | 2010-06-25 21:11:56 + (Fri, 25 Jun 2010)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45870
Summary: note: non-delegitimized UNSPEC 5 found (-O1 -g)
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: debug
AssignedTo: un
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45863
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45863
--- Comment #7 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-10-03
00:31:09 UTC ---
Author: hjl
Date: Sun Oct 3 00:31:06 2010
New Revision: 164913
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=164913
Log:
Revert the pvs change.
2010-10-02 H.J. Lu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45865
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.6.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45869
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45869
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com
Target Milestone|-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45816
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com
--- Comment #9 from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45850
--- Comment #10 from Gabriel Dos Reis
2010-10-02 22:35:12 UTC ---
On Sat, Oct 2, 2010 at 2:46 PM, manu at gcc dot gnu.org
>> > And you say that you have colored output but you don't want FSF GCC to
>> > have it?
>> > Am I misunderstanding you?
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45856
--- Comment #4 from John David Anglin 2010-10-02
22:10:20 UTC ---
On hppa, fails on flt (x=0, y=1). flt returns `T', but result is `F'.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45856
John David Anglin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||danglin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45816
--- Comment #8 from Dominique d'Humieres 2010-10-02
21:03:38 UTC ---
> The process isn't that lengthy, it's a binary search and shouldn't take more
> than half an hour maximum to identify the file that's being miscompiled. In
> my
> experience
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45740
--- Comment #9 from Tobias Burnus 2010-10-02
19:52:17 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> Ok, I think the only way this half-sentence and the interpretation on the J3
> mailing list make sense, is via the following interpretation.
I disagree and
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36150
--- Comment #14 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2010-10-02
19:51:34 UTC ---
For future reference, more examples of color diagnostics in clang can be found
here:
http://llvm.org/devmtg/2009-10/StateOfClang.pdf
but that is quite old, recent clang versio
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45850
--- Comment #9 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2010-10-02
19:46:31 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> On Sat, Oct 2, 2010 at 1:04 PM, manu at gcc dot gnu.org he
> environment. How far should we go to emulate an IDE?
> >
> > So how does it work in openS
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45869
--- Comment #2 from Gary Funck 2010-10-02 18:55:10
UTC ---
Running reghunt against the 4.5 branch indicates that the following update
causes the failure:
r161951 | rguenth | 2010-07-08 11:56:08 + (Thu, 08 Jul 2010) | 46 lines
2010-07-08 Ri
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45740
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|una
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45869
Summary: type mismatch in shift expression produces ice with
-O3 and -m32
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45850
--- Comment #8 from Gabriel Dos Reis 2010-10-02
18:41:28 UTC ---
On Sat, Oct 2, 2010 at 1:30 PM, manu at gcc dot gnu.org
wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45850
>
> --- Comment #6 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2010-10-02
> 18:30:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45850
--- Comment #7 from Gabriel Dos Reis 2010-10-02
18:35:26 UTC ---
On Sat, Oct 2, 2010 at 1:04 PM, manu at gcc dot gnu.org he
environment. How far should we go to emulate an IDE?
>
> So how does it work in openSUSE? Do they have patches that FSF G
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45850
--- Comment #6 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2010-10-02
18:30:45 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> On Sat, Oct 2, 2010 at 11:59 AM, manu at gcc dot gnu.org
>
> IDEs let users get the colors they want -if they ever wanted.
The output of GCC is not d
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45850
--- Comment #5 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2010-10-02
18:04:00 UTC ---
> my copy of GCC (under openSUSE) colors the output and let me
> customize the colors. That is quite system dependent. Getting
> the same stuff under non-Unix like system requi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36150
--- Comment #13 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2010-10-02
17:52:39 UTC ---
Somehow I missed this bug when searching. For those here in favour of color,
clang has it and people love it [*]. Luckily, this is one of those clang things
that can be done in
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42854
Jack Howarth changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||howarth at nitro dot
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45820
--- Comment #2 from John David Anglin 2010-10-02
17:38:38 UTC ---
Author: danglin
Date: Sat Oct 2 17:38:35 2010
New Revision: 164905
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=164905
Log:
PR target/45820
* config/pa/pa.c (pa_
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45850
--- Comment #4 from Gabriel Dos Reis 2010-10-02
17:32:08 UTC ---
On Sat, Oct 2, 2010 at 11:59 AM, manu at gcc dot gnu.org
> Since gcc doesn't have caret or fix-it hints, my proposal is quite modest,
> just
> color the diagnostic markers:
>
> er
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45850
--- Comment #3 from Gabriel Dos Reis 2010-10-02
17:30:05 UTC ---
On Sat, Oct 2, 2010 at 11:59 AM, manu at gcc dot gnu.org
wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45850
>
> Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
>
> What |Removed
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45820
--- Comment #1 from John David Anglin 2010-10-02
17:20:26 UTC ---
Actually, the insn doesn't satisfy its constraints because %r31 should
be %r1. Have a patch. This is an old regression caused by a change to
pa_secondary_reload.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36150
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #12 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45850
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45850
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||g...@integrable-solutions.ne
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45649
--- Comment #1 from Dmitry G. Dyachenko 2010-10-02
16:38:02 UTC ---
gcc version 4.6.0 20101002 (experimental) [trunk revision 164903] (GCC)
FAIL too
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45816
--- Comment #7 from Bernd Schmidt 2010-10-02
16:35:28 UTC ---
The files between stage1 and stage2 are supposed to differ. What isn't
supposed to differ (after stripping optional debug information) is stage2 and
stage3, which are produced by stag
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42176
--- Comment #3 from gcc-bugzilla at gehrels dot info 2010-10-02 16:22:48 UTC ---
Oh, and, btw: The Version i was trying to compile was gcc-4.4.3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42176
--- Comment #2 from gcc-bugzilla at gehrels dot info 2010-10-02 16:20:01 UTC ---
I can confirm this bug using gentoo linux:
uname -a
Linux vadmin631 2.6.26-2-xen-amd64 #1 SMP Tue Aug 31 11:17:26 UTC 2010 x86_64
Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Quad CPU Q6600
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45816
--- Comment #6 from Dominique d'Humieres 2010-10-02
16:07:53 UTC ---
> We'll need to find out why stage1 gcc and stage2 gcc produce different
> output.
> To do that, the easiest thing to do is to copy object files from stage1 to
> stage2, rebui
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32998
--- Comment #9 from Jan Kratochvil
2010-10-02 16:06:39 UTC ---
Wouldn't be appropriate to append these flags also/instead to DW_AT_producer?
This way they get easily associated with the specific CU.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45740
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|INV
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45868
--- Comment #1 from Gabor Z. Papp 2010-10-02 15:03:55 UTC
---
BTW somewhere I read, that shared libstdc++ needs shared libgcc_s.so,
probably thats the problem, since this configuration build static libgcc_s
only.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45868
Summary: --disable-shared --enable-static
--enable-shared=libstdc++ doesn't build shared
libstdc++
Product: gcc
Version: 4.4.6
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45326
--- Comment #2 from Ralf Wildenhues 2010-10-02
14:52:12 UTC ---
Author: rwild
Date: Sat Oct 2 14:52:07 2010
New Revision: 164904
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=164904
Log:
Allow to pass separate configure arguments for bu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45174
--- Comment #25 from Ralf Wildenhues 2010-10-02
14:52:12 UTC ---
Author: rwild
Date: Sat Oct 2 14:52:07 2010
New Revision: 164904
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=164904
Log:
Allow to pass separate configure arguments for b
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45746
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45740
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45740
--- Comment #5 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-10-02 14:19:18 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> Note: The problem not only applies to procedure pointers, but also to data
> pointers, as the following example shows:
Well, at least this example
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45816
--- Comment #5 from Bernd Schmidt 2010-10-02
14:18:07 UTC ---
We'll need to find out why stage1 gcc and stage2 gcc produce different output.
To do that, the easiest thing to do is to copy object files from stage1 to
stage2, rebuild cc1, and then
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45089
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2010-07-27 09:17:50 |2010-10-02 9:17:50
--- Comment #7 from Jan
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44897
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2010-07-18 20:21:12 |2010-10-02 20:21:12
--- Comment #6 from Jan
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44871
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2010-07-08 14:47:48 |2010-10-02 14:47:48
--- Comment #10 from Ja
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45867
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||sparc64-elf
Status|UNCONFIRME
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45740
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45865
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bernds at codesourcery dot
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45866
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||45114
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wake
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45866
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45867
Summary: Sparc64: bogus %g4 reference in libgcc __udivti3()
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
AssignedTo: una
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45864
--- Comment #1 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2010-10-02 12:10:46 UTC ---
On Sat, 2 Oct 2010, jay.krell at cornell dot edu wrote:
> I recently found a compiler that didn't like spaces
> after the # in preprocessor directives.
The requiremen
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45866
Summary: std::ratio_add, ratio_sub, ratio_multiply,
ratio_divide do not have num and den members.
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45865
Summary: [4.6 regression] Failed to build 403.gcc in SPEC CPU
2006
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45794
--- Comment #2 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-10-02 11:57:49 UTC ---
I think this regression is due to r153793, which was Tobias' fix for PR41850.
The reason for the ICE is that the formal argument "mask" of
"_gfortran_mmaxloc0_4_r4" has "as =
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34315
Kai Tietz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36126
Kai Tietz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44621
Ralf Wildenhues changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44621
--- Comment #7 from Ralf Wildenhues 2010-10-02
11:40:35 UTC ---
Author: rwild
Date: Sat Oct 2 11:40:32 2010
New Revision: 164903
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=164903
Log:
Fix unportable shell quoting.
/:
PR bootstra
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44621
--- Comment #6 from Ralf Wildenhues 2010-10-02
11:39:45 UTC ---
Author: rwild
Date: Sat Oct 2 11:39:41 2010
New Revision: 164902
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=164902
Log:
Fix unportable shell quoting.
/:
PR bootstra
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45740
--- Comment #3 from Tobias Burnus 2010-10-02
11:33:43 UTC ---
Summary as far I understand it. Cf.
http://j3-fortran.org/pipermail/j3/2010-September/003852.html :
module m
procedure(), pointer :: p, p2
protected :: p
end module m
subroutine
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38339
Ralf Wildenhues changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Component|libmudflap
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45322
Ralf Wildenhues changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45748
--- Comment #6 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-10-02 10:38:45 UTC ---
Author: janus
Date: Sat Oct 2 10:38:42 2010
New Revision: 164901
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=164901
Log:
2010-10-02 Janus Weil
PR fortran/4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45322
--- Comment #7 from Jay 2010-10-02 10:29:06 UTC
---
It looks like the machine I was using might not be available any longer. Sorry.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44984
--- Comment #3 from Jay 2010-10-02 10:27:53 UTC
---
> which compiler produces this
I'm afraid I'm not sure and can't quickly/easily make it happen again. Sorry.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45864
Summary: system.h is crufty maybe? Raise the level fo ANSI C89?
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: other
Assigne
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38920
Kai Tietz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30409
--- Comment #5 from Thomas Koenig 2010-10-02
08:10:51 UTC ---
Related to PR 45777.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45748
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42831
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42831
--- Comment #4 from Thomas Koenig 2010-10-02
08:00:55 UTC ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Sat Oct 2 08:00:50 2010
New Revision: 164900
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=164900
Log:
2010-10-02 Thomas Koenig
PR fortran/42831
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38339
--- Comment #24 from Gabor Z. Papp 2010-10-02 07:17:33 UTC
---
(In reply to comment #23)
> The 'make configure-target-libmudflap' log you just sent does not show the
> 'expr syntax error' failures from the log.make in comment 1 any more. Can you
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38339
--- Comment #23 from Ralf Wildenhues 2010-10-02
07:13:39 UTC ---
The 'make configure-target-libmudflap' log you just sent does not show the
'expr syntax error' failures from the log.make in comment 1 any more. Can you
please verify that your bui
79 matches
Mail list logo
