http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46076
--- Comment #8 from Jan Hubicka 2010-10-19 05:47:31 UTC
---
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46076
>
> --- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski 2010-10-19
> 04:42:40 UTC ---
> (In reply to comment #6)
> > I think both indirect inlining a
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46076
>
> --- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski 2010-10-19
> 04:42:40 UTC ---
> (In reply to comment #6)
> > I think both indirect inlining and constant propagation should be able to
> > get
> > past the cast especially when there is no type mismatch in
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46076
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski 2010-10-19
04:42:40 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> I think both indirect inlining and constant propagation should be able to get
> past the cast especially when there is no type mismatch in the testcase.
Eit
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46076
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenther at suse dot de
--- Comment #6 fro
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46076
--- Comment #5 from Jan Hubicka 2010-10-19
03:25:37 UTC ---
Also renaming main() to main2() so GCC no longer can track the runtime
behaviour leads to:
0: 53 push %rbx
1: bb 00 00 00 00 mov$0x0,%ebx
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46076
--- Comment #4 from Jan Hubicka 2010-10-19
03:20:48 UTC ---
It is caused by fact that the main() function is optimized for size except for
code in loops because we know it will be executed once.
Inliner thinks that it is not good idea to inline p
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46079
--- Comment #1 from Jerry DeLisle 2010-10-19
02:46:16 UTC ---
Patch submitted:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2010-10/msg00193.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45962
--- Comment #15 from Hans-Peter Nilsson 2010-10-19
02:37:49 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #14)
> I haven't yet figured out which function's stack-frame is borked / where
> exactly the saved value of r7 is clobbered. Tomorrow.
Ookay, so... With r1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46079
Summary: ABI for empty stop statement broken
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
AssignedTo: unassig...@g
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36084
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46027
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski 2010-10-19
00:29:18 UTC ---
Here is a full testcase:
typedef unsigned type1;
typedef unsigned char type2;
type1 t;
void f(type1 tt)
{
type2 t1 = t;
type1 t2 = t1;
t = t2 & 0xFF;
}
void f2(type1 tt)
{
type
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45966
--- Comment #3 from Bernd Schmidt 2010-10-19
00:24:39 UTC ---
Author: bernds
Date: Tue Oct 19 00:24:36 2010
New Revision: 165674
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=165674
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/45966
* combine.c (try
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46076
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30461
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski 2010-10-19
00:08:06 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> Andrew, can you clarify ? :-)
Since the class methods can never be called directly, the DECL_VISIBILITY of
that decl could be marked as VISIBILITY_HIDDEN.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42628
--- Comment #12 from Matt Hargett 2010-10-18 22:44:19 UTC
---
If someone resolves this bug as a duplicate of PR45700 (or vice versa), I'll
verify.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42577
Matt Hargett changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42561
Matt Hargett changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|4.5.0 |4.6.0
--- Comment #7 from Matt Hargett 20
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46041
--- Comment #9 from Michael Meissner 2010-10-18
22:37:36 UTC ---
Author: meissner
Date: Mon Oct 18 22:37:32 2010
New Revision: 165666
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=165666
Log:
Fix PR 46041
Modified:
trunk/gcc/ChangeL
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46078
Summary: [4.6 regression] new valgrind warnings when compiling
an optimization test case
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46077
Summary: [4.6 regression] ICE in tree vectorization when
compiling towns_audio.cpp from scummvm
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36898
Steve Ellcey changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43760
Steve Ellcey changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46076
--- Comment #2 from Matt Hargett 2010-10-18 21:36:23 UTC
---
This is a reduction from proprietary (and complex) code, and the optimization
has regressed there as well. Any diagnosis on why it would have regressed and
not triggered a testsuite fai
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36898
--- Comment #3 from Steve Ellcey 2010-10-18 21:34:51
UTC ---
Author: sje
Date: Mon Oct 18 21:34:46 2010
New Revision: 165664
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=165664
Log:
2010-10-18 Steve Ellcey
PR target/36898
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43760
--- Comment #8 from Steve Ellcey 2010-10-18 21:34:51
UTC ---
Author: sje
Date: Mon Oct 18 21:34:46 2010
New Revision: 165664
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=165664
Log:
2010-10-18 Steve Ellcey
PR target/36898
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46067
--- Comment #4 from Dominique d'Humieres 2010-10-18
21:31:54 UTC ---
Beware the INVALID recursive IOs: they hang on darwin!-(see pr 30617).
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46067
--- Comment #3 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-10-18 21:29:31 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> > potential problem 2: if the error message is correct and if the type of the
> > passed-object dummy argument in the sample code is changed from a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46018
--- Comment #9 from Art Haas 2010-10-18 21:27:59 UTC
---
Once the patch discussed in the following mail was applied:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-10/msg01538.html
I can confirm that the bootstrap failure I've been seeing has returned:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46076
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski 2010-10-18
21:15:16 UTC ---
This is a micro benchmark really; we would inline it as far as I can tell if we
have other things going on.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46076
Summary: [4.6 regression] constant propogation and compile-time
math no longer happening versus 4.4 and 4.5
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46075
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski 2010-10-18
20:49:03 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> (In reply to comment #2)
> You mean "standard is buggy and gcc refuses to implement ill behaviour",
> right?
> Or behaviour is not specified by standard in
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46060
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|una
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45375
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[meta-bug] Mozilla does not |[meta-bug] Issues with
|b
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46075
--- Comment #4 from Sergei Trofimovich 2010-10-18
20:43:24 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> Actually there is an open question if clang or gcc is correct according to the
> C++ standards committee. There is a defect report about foundational t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225
--- Comment #4 from Antony King 2010-10-18 20:29:01
UTC ---
I am out of the office until 25th October 2010 and am unable to respond to your
email until then. If you have any enquiries concerning the ST40 Micro Toolset
then please send them to st40.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29131
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||slyfox at inbox dot ru
--- Comment #14 fr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46075
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46075
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski 2010-10-18
20:24:25 UTC ---
Actually there is an open question if clang or gcc is correct according to the
C++ standards committee. There is a defect report about foundational types.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46075
--- Comment #1 from Sergei Trofimovich 2010-10-18
20:23:10 UTC ---
Created attachment 22084
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22084
test example. compilation should fail
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46075
Summary: g++ wrongly lookups builtin types in ADL (compiles
wrong code)
Product: gcc
Version: 4.4.5
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Comp
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46067
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||accepts-invalid
Summ
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46041
--- Comment #8 from Michael Meissner 2010-10-18
20:01:24 UTC ---
Created attachment 22083
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22083
Patch that redefines mode_has_fma so that it works with -save-temps
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46073
--- Comment #3 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2010-10-18 19:55:25 UTC ---
On Mon, 18 Oct 2010, pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> checking on the two arguments. Not to mention __builtin_choose_expr was
> added
> only to support Altivec i
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44970
--- Comment #86 from Steve Ellcey 2010-10-18 19:52:39
UTC ---
I was able to bootstrap the 32 bit PA compiler using the latest patch. I
haven't done a full test run yet but I will do that overnight.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46073
--- Comment #2 from kevin.waugh at gmail dot com 2010-10-18 19:17:17 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> I think this is correct as __builtin_choose_expr still does semantically
> checking on the two arguments. Not to mention __builtin_choose_exp
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45999
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Known to work|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46073
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski 2010-10-18
19:00:51 UTC ---
I think this is correct as __builtin_choose_expr still does semantically
checking on the two arguments. Not to mention __builtin_choose_expr was added
only to support Altivec intrin
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46073
Summary: __builtin_choose_expr outputs warnings for unused
expression
Product: gcc
Version: 4.0.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Priority: P3
Compone
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46068
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46072
Summary: AIX linker chokes on debug info for uninitialized
static variables
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
Priority: P3
C
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46068
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|lto |
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46040
--- Comment #3 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia.nrc.ca 2010-10-18 18:28:07 UTC ---
On Fri, 15 Oct 2010, pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46040
>
> --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski 2010-10-15
> 22:07:3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46071
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code
Status|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46071
Summary: ill-formed use of decltype and auto (c++0x) causes
segfault
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42169
--- Comment #20 from Steve Ellcey 2010-10-18 17:54:42
UTC ---
Not really, there are about 300 lines of new code (mostly in a new routine).
It might be that only the change in can_reassociate_p is needed to fix this
bug.
That would be a pretty eas
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46067
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||janus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45866
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45866
--- Comment #4 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org
2010-10-18 17:28:21 UTC ---
Author: paolo
Date: Mon Oct 18 17:28:15 2010
New Revision: 165649
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=165649
Log:
2010-10-18 Paolo Carlini
PR libs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42169
--- Comment #19 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia.nrc.ca 2010-10-18 17:27:04 UTC ---
> It looks like this was fixed (for hppa at least) in r163190.
>
> 2010-08-12 Richard Guenther
>
> PR tree-optimization/45232
> * tree-ssa-reassoc.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44970
Paolo Bonzini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #21699|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45472
--- Comment #12 from Paolo Bonzini 2010-10-18 17:12:59
UTC ---
It would be nice if for
struct a {
char a,b,c,d;
volatile int e;
};
struct a v1, v2;
...
v1 = v2;
the compiler emitted only _two_ memory accesse
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44776
Dave Korn changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||davek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #10 from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42169
--- Comment #18 from Steve Ellcey 2010-10-18 16:55:32
UTC ---
It looks like this was fixed (for hppa at least) in r163190.
2010-08-12 Richard Guenther
PR tree-optimization/45232
* tree-ssa-reassoc.c (can_reassociate_p): Disab
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45472
--- Comment #11 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2010-10-18 16:41:03 UTC ---
On Mon, 18 Oct 2010, rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> Also consider memcpy (&vv1, &vv2) and eventually the compiler optimizing
> that to vv1 = vv2 (note the lack o
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45866
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45866
--- Comment #3 from Paolo Carlini 2010-10-18
16:35:45 UTC ---
I don't see c++/45114 resolved very soon, thus, for 4.6.0, let's provide anyway
those constants, seems simple.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46041
--- Comment #7 from Michael Meissner 2010-10-18
16:21:31 UTC ---
Yes, though the issue originally came up in terms of the pragma and not the
attribute, because people wanted to include the various include files that had
#ifdef's to guard against
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46015
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43804
Thorsten Glaser changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tg at mirbsd dot org
--- Comment #18 fr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46041
--- Comment #6 from Richard Henderson 2010-10-18
16:12:21 UTC ---
Does anyone honestly expect a pre-processor macro to change due to
attributes on a function? I sure don't -- that would seem to be a
clear translation phase ordering violation.
S
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46064
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45472
--- Comment #10 from Michael Matz 2010-10-18 15:58:26
UTC ---
One idea we had was that this is all frontends business anyway, and hence
it should (if it so desires) simply create volatile MEM_REFs for references
to half-volatile objects. That al
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46064
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski 2010-10-18
15:56:11 UTC ---
I think this is the right thing to do. when bugs are marked as dups the
majority of the time, we want an explication. Because if there was none; the
reporter might open it back up (
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46015
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek 2010-10-18
15:55:31 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Oct 18 15:55:25 2010
New Revision: 165643
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=165643
Log:
PR c/46015
* c-parser.c (c_parser_statement
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45785
--- Comment #4 from Zdenek Sojka 2010-10-18 15:54:45
UTC ---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/buglist.cgi?cf_known_to_fail_type=allwords&cf_known_to_work_type=allwords&query_format=advanced&bug_status=UNCONFIRMED&bug_status=NEW&bug_status=ASSIGNED&bug
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42169
--- Comment #17 from Steve Ellcey 2010-10-18 15:51:52
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #16)
> Based on my posted test results for hppa2.0-hp-hpux11.11, this PR was
> fixed on the trunk between r163182 and r163254.
>
> Need to find the change.
My ni
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46055
--- Comment #11 from Jan Hubicka 2010-10-18 15:47:24
UTC ---
Hi,
the plugin seems to give bit funny resolutions in side cases, so I will revert
the accident commit now, will commit the cleanup part of change incrementally
and then we can hopefull
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45983
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[4.5/4.6 Regression] ICE: |[4.5 Regression] ICE: tree
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45472
--- Comment #9 from Richard Guenther 2010-10-18
15:42:44 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> Would it make sense to make the statement volatile even if only some
> subcomponents (or all subcomponents) are volatile?
>
> I like (2); if I understand
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46068
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.6.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46066
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.6.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46065
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.6.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46018
--- Comment #8 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2010-10-18 15:37:04 UTC ---
On Sun, 17 Oct 2010, ahaas at airmail dot net wrote:
> Running 'git bisect' but interpreting a failed build as 'good' and a
> successful
> build as 'bad' leads to thi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45967
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||alias, wrong-code
Known to work|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45967
--- Comment #3 from Richard Guenther 2010-10-18
15:32:03 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Oct 18 15:32:00 2010
New Revision: 165641
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=165641
Log:
2010-10-18 Richard Guenther
PR tree-op
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46041
Michael Meissner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2010-10-18 15:11:54 |
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45638
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek 2010-10-18
15:16:11 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Oct 18 15:16:07 2010
New Revision: 165638
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=165638
Log:
PR lto/45638
* Make-lang.in (check-lto): Ne
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46041
Michael Meissner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46055
--- Comment #10 from Jan Hubicka 2010-10-18 15:11:52
UTC ---
Hi,
I found what is causing the problem. I accidentally comitted also the
following cleanup of visibility code. The difference is that we now trust
linker's LDPR_PREVAILING_DEF_IRONLY
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46018
--- Comment #7 from Art Haas 2010-10-18 15:03:56 UTC
---
My bootstrap build succeeded for the this morning again, so I suggest closing
this ticket.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46068
Summary: [4.6 Regression] ICE: in consider_split, at
ipa-split.c:313 with -flto/-fwhopr and asm goto
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46067
Summary: hang or spurious compiler message using procedure
pointer with pass
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46066
Summary: [4.6 Regression] ICE: in create_parallel_loop, at
tree-parloops.c:1455 with -ftree-parallelize-loops -g
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: no
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45834
--- Comment #6 from richard.guenther at gmail dot com 2010-10-18 13:57:19 UTC ---
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 3:53 PM, bmei at broadcom dot com
wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45834
>
> --- Comment #5 from Bingfeng Mei 2010-10-1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42987
Zdenek Sojka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zsojka at seznam dot cz
--- Comment #4 fro
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45834
--- Comment #5 from Bingfeng Mei 2010-10-18 13:53:37
UTC ---
>
> Sure, but we have other means of dealing with that (MEM_ALIAS_SET == 0).
Do you mean this check is redundant here ? I dig out the ancient code (from
1997)
/* If both references
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45834
--- Comment #4 from richard.guenther at gmail dot com 2010-10-18 13:42:33 UTC ---
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 2:17 PM, bmei at broadcom dot com
wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45834
>
> --- Comment #3 from Bingfeng Mei 2010-10-1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46065
Summary: [4.6 Regression] ICE: tree check: expected tree that
contains 'decl minimal' structure, have 'tree_list' in
poplevel_named_label_1, at cp/decl.c:477
Product: gcc
Vers
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46055
--- Comment #9 from H.J. Lu 2010-10-18 12:23:36
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> Hmm, does -fuse-linker-plugin have the same side-effects as -fwhole-program?
> That will break symbol use by dlopened objects and we have to avoid that.
>
[...@g
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45472
--- Comment #8 from Paolo Bonzini 2010-10-18 12:20:39
UTC ---
Would it make sense to make the statement volatile even if only some
subcomponents (or all subcomponents) are volatile?
I like (2); if I understand it correctly, in this case vv1 and
1 - 100 of 121 matches
Mail list logo
