http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46080
--- Comment #11 from Paul Zimmermann 2010-10-22
06:56:20 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #10)
> You can use -fno-errno-math if you don't want errno to be set, then there will
> be no calls to sqrtf and all 3 calls should at least when optimizing eva
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46116
--- Comment #2 from Rob Staudinger
2010-10-22 06:04:04 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> Did you see the first warning message:
[...]
Yes and I did not like it much either, because in my book the idea of an
anonymous declaration is that it's on
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46097
--- Comment #25 from Jeffrey Walton 2010-10-22
05:52:07 UTC ---
Created attachment 22112
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22112
Test for Load/Unload Crash
Attached is a test program similar to the program posted on
http://gcc.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45946
--- Comment #4 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-10-22 04:56:45 UTC ---
Author: uros
Date: Fri Oct 22 04:56:41 2010
New Revision: 165801
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=165801
Log:
PR target/45946
* config/i386/i386.m
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45720
--- Comment #6 from Vladimir Kharchenko 2010-10-22 04:28:46 UTC ---
Quick investigation of 450.soplex failure shows that Segmentation fault is in
line 966 (file factor.cc). When I recompiled this file without the option
"-ffast=math", test passed.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46126
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.6.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46126
--- Comment #1 from H.J. Lu 2010-10-22 04:07:09
UTC ---
[...@gnu-35 delta]$ cat pr46126.c
typedef struct TypHeader {
struct TypHeader * * ptr;
unsigned char type;
} * TypHandle;
extern TypHandle (* EvTab[81]) ( TypHandle hd );
TypHa
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46126
Summary: [4.6 Regression] Revision 165777 failed to build
254.gap in SPEC CPU 2K
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46123
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46097
--- Comment #24 from Jeffrey Walton 2010-10-22
01:59:34 UTC ---
Hi Jonathan,
(In reply to comment #16)
> (In reply to comment #13)
> >
> > [SNIP]
>
> There are a number of options for making sure the global is private to the
> library, thus av
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46125
Summary: -mcmodel=large doesn't work
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: critical
Priority: P3
Component: other
AssignedTo: unassig...@gcc.gnu.o
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45720
--- Comment #5 from H.J. Lu 2010-10-22 00:28:51
UTC ---
With SPEC CPU 2006, revision 165771 gave me:
1. 64bit using-O3 -funroll-loops -ffast-math:
Running 450.soplex ref peak lnx32e-gcc default
450.soplex: copy 0 non-zero return code (exit c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46114
--- Comment #6 from Bernd Schmidt 2010-10-21
23:33:47 UTC ---
I'm assuming you run the testcase on Solaris? Can you provide good/bad assembly
output?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46123
Zdenek Sojka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|ICE: in output_aranges, at |ICE: in output_aranges, at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42169
John David Anglin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46059
--- Comment #2 from Witold Baryluk 2010-10-21
23:06:00 UTC ---
gcc 4.5.1 with the same options compiled on this machine without problems.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46124
Summary: ICE: tree check: expected var_decl or function_decl,
have error_mark in cp_parser_lambda_declarator_opt, at
cp/parser.c:7817 on invalid lambda function
Product: gcc
V
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46123
Summary: ICE: in output_aranges, at dwarf2out.c:11531 with
-feliminate-dwarf2-dups -g and lambda function
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46117
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46117
--- Comment #3 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org
2010-10-21 21:51:56 UTC ---
Author: paolo
Date: Thu Oct 21 21:51:50 2010
New Revision: 165794
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=165794
Log:
/cp
2010-10-21 Paolo Carlini
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46122
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||domob at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46110
--- Comment #2 from Aleksey Covacevice
2010-10-21 21:31:14 UTC ---
Richard, thanks for the reply.
Actually the documentation states that other preprocessor directives (such as
"#define"s) can appear before the include line that would include the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46104
Mark Mitchell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46122
Summary: PROTECTED check too strict
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: rejects-valid
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46114
--- Comment #5 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2010-10-21 20:57:42 UTC ---
> --- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu 2010-10-21 20:41:06
> UTC ---
> Can you try
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-10/msg01858.html
Doesn't make a difference u
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46080
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek 2010-10-21
20:55:58 UTC ---
fsqrt insn is always used, and if the result is NaN, it calls library sqrtf
function so that errno is set correctly. The (conditional) call causes (some
of) the values to be forced i
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45946
--- Comment #3 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-10-21 20:42:13 UTC ---
Author: uros
Date: Thu Oct 21 20:42:09 2010
New Revision: 165787
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=165787
Log:
PR target/45946
* config/i386/i386.m
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46114
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com
--- Comment #4 from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46114
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46114
--- Comment #2 from Rainer Orth 2010-10-21 20:32:47 UTC
---
Created attachment 22110
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22110
miscompiled part of the test
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46114
--- Comment #1 from Rainer Orth 2010-10-21 20:31:57 UTC
---
Created attachment 22109
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22109
main program of testcase
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46097
--- Comment #23 from Jeffrey Walton 2010-10-21
19:52:12 UTC ---
Hi Jonathan,
[Sorry about the top post].
I'm going to wrap up my request, and hope you and the GCC team will find that
-Wglobal-variable would be useful under some circumstances.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45966
Bernd Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46121
Summary: [4.6 regression] LTO bootstrap failed
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: bootstrap
AssignedTo: unassig.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46080
--- Comment #9 from Paul Zimmermann 2010-10-21
19:26:11 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> You really should use hex float to see the diferences. I bet it is just the
> final digit of the hex float that is different and only by one. This is
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46097
--- Comment #22 from Andrew Pinski 2010-10-21
18:54:26 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #20)
> I'd forgotten the search was even there - I might suggest removing it, since
> it's apparently not indexed anything this month, and probably much longer
T
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46097
--- Comment #21 from Jeffrey Walton 2010-10-21
18:49:49 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #19)
> Oh, I never use the search, it's always been useless
>
> just click on the first month in the list,
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-help/2010-10/ shows the m
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46097
--- Comment #20 from Jonathan Wakely 2010-10-21
18:47:03 UTC ---
I'd forgotten the search was even there - I might suggest removing it, since
it's apparently not indexed anything this month, and probably much longer
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46018
--- Comment #10 from H.J. Lu 2010-10-21 18:42:22
UTC ---
Can you try
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-10/msg01858.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46097
--- Comment #19 from Jonathan Wakely 2010-10-21
18:41:20 UTC ---
Oh, I never use the search, it's always been useless
just click on the first month in the list,
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-help/2010-10/ shows the messages in date order, they
appea
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46113
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45749
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ben.combrink at gmail dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46115
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski 2010-10-21
18:38:31 UTC ---
This sounds like C++ lambda functions.
Second, I think this is a bad idea for C.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46116
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|minor |enhancement
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46120
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|mjambor at suse dot cz |jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
Assign
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46120
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mjambor at suse dot cz
Target Milestone|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45865
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-p
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46097
--- Comment #18 from Jeffrey Walton 2010-10-21
17:37:15 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #13)
> Hi Jonathon,
>
> (In reply to comment #10)
> > you realise you can wait and it will show up?
> > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-help/2010-10/msg00248.html
> I
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46024
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Known to work|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46024
--- Comment #4 from Rainer Orth 2010-10-21 17:23:29 UTC
---
Author: ro
Date: Thu Oct 21 17:23:24 2010
New Revision: 165783
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=165783
Log:
fixincludes:
Backport from mainline:
2010-10
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46024
--- Comment #3 from Rainer Orth 2010-10-21 17:13:34 UTC
---
Author: ro
Date: Thu Oct 21 17:13:25 2010
New Revision: 165782
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=165782
Log:
fixincludes:
Backport from mainline:
2010-10
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46097
--- Comment #17 from Jeffrey Walton 2010-10-21
16:59:55 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #16)
> (In reply to comment #13)
> >
> > Good point: here's what I would recommend: common sense. Myself, Alexey, a
> > number of packagers across the globe, an
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46117
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|paolo.carlini
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46120
Summary: [4.6 regression] g++.dg/ipa/ivinline-?.C
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
AssignedTo: unas
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45720
--- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu 2010-10-21 16:28:24
UTC ---
As of revision 165771, I still got
With runspec -c lnx-i686-gcc.cfg -n 1 -l -o asc -I all -T peak
*** Miscompare of ref.out, see
/export/gnu/import/svn/gcc-test/spec/2000/i686/spec/benchsp
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46097
--- Comment #16 from Jonathan Wakely 2010-10-21
16:24:18 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #13)
>
> Good point: here's what I would recommend: common sense. Myself, Alexey, a
> number of packagers across the globe, and untold others have performed th
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46097
--- Comment #15 from Jeffrey Walton 2010-10-21
16:15:38 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #11)
> also, I'm not "the GCC team" and I don't speak for anyone else
My apologies. I made the leap that you were part of the team due to your email
address.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46097
--- Comment #14 from Jeffrey Walton 2010-10-21
16:13:36 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> (In reply to comment #6)
> > Hi Johnathon,
> > (In reply to comment #5)
> > > oh, and I only see one process invovled there ... I'm still confused
> > > a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46097
--- Comment #13 from Jeffrey Walton 2010-10-21
16:10:41 UTC ---
Hi Jonathon,
(In reply to comment #10)
> you realise you can wait and it will show up?
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-help/2010-10/msg00248.html
I've been known to be impatient at time
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46119
Summary: -fsplit-stack -fstack-protector-all - code crashes
when passing large struct via stack
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45319
John David Anglin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46097
--- Comment #12 from Jonathan Wakely 2010-10-21
15:28:05 UTC ---
I'm not on gcc-help, but I assume Alexey's looking at this report now ...
> I would expect that TWO different instances of the global variable would
> be created in TWO different s
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45586
--- Comment #8 from Richard Guenther 2010-10-21
15:28:01 UTC ---
Created attachment 22107
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22107
patch
Bootstrapped, tested and SPEC CPU 2006 tested.
I don't like it too much (it's really a FE
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46097
--- Comment #11 from Jonathan Wakely 2010-10-21
15:22:03 UTC ---
also, I'm not "the GCC team" and I don't speak for anyone else
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46097
--- Comment #10 from Jonathan Wakely 2010-10-21
15:16:48 UTC ---
you realise you can wait and it will show up?
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-help/2010-10/msg00248.html
That, like your case, is an ODR violation, and like your example static.cpp was
no
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45834
--- Comment #8 from meibf at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-10-21 15:16:05 UTC ---
Author: meibf
Date: Thu Oct 21 15:16:01 2010
New Revision: 165781
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=165781
Log:
2010-10-21 Bingfeng Mei
PR c/45834
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46097
--- Comment #9 from Jeffrey Walton 2010-10-21
15:04:44 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> I had a look at Cryptopp-SO-Test-1.zip
>
> building on 32-bit I can reproduce a segfault
>
> it doesn't build on 64-bit at all:
>
> 1) you can insert a p
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45875
--- Comment #14 from Martin Jambor 2010-10-21
14:35:05 UTC ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Thu Oct 21 14:34:58 2010
New Revision: 165780
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=165780
Log:
2010-10-21 Martin Jambor
PR tree-optimiz
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46098
Michael Matz changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45827
--- Comment #21 from Tobias Burnus 2010-10-21
14:04:12 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #20)
> I fail to reproduce the ICE with today's r165769. Hans, are you still getting
> this error?
Frankly, I already got lost in comment 12 with regards to whic
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46118
Summary: g++.dg/torture/pr46111.C: -fcompare-debug failure
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: debug
AssignedTo:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46117
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||paolo.carlini at oracle dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46052
Ira Rosen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46049
Ira Rosen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46117
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46052
--- Comment #2 from irar at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-10-21 13:37:05 UTC ---
Author: irar
Date: Thu Oct 21 13:36:56 2010
New Revision: 165777
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=165777
Log:
PR tree-optimization/46049
PR tree-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46049
--- Comment #2 from irar at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-10-21 13:37:07 UTC ---
Author: irar
Date: Thu Oct 21 13:36:56 2010
New Revision: 165777
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=165777
Log:
PR tree-optimization/46049
PR tree-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45875
--- Comment #13 from Martin Jambor 2010-10-21
13:06:20 UTC ---
I have just posted a patch fixing the original issue reported in this
bug to the mailing list:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-10/msg01822.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46007
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46007
--- Comment #4 from Thomas Koenig 2010-10-21
13:02:15 UTC ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Thu Oct 21 13:02:09 2010
New Revision: 165773
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=165773
Log:
2010-10-21 Thomas Koenig
PR fortran/46007
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45319
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46117
Summary: [4.6 Regression] ICE: SIGSEGV in
add_function_candidate (call.c:1630) on invalid
typename usage
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46116
Summary: Allow passing of anonymous aggregates when signature
matches
Product: gcc
Version: 4.4.5
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Priority: P3
Compone
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46115
Summary: Feature request: anonymous functions (complementing
anon aggregates)
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45827
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=45834
Zdenek Sojka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zsojka at seznam dot cz
--- Comment #7 fro
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46007
--- Comment #3 from Thomas Koenig 2010-10-21
12:25:23 UTC ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Thu Oct 21 12:25:12 2010
New Revision: 165770
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=165770
Log:
2010-10-21 Thomas Koenig
PR fortran/46007
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46114
Summary: [4.6 regression] g++ SEGV when built with gld on
Solaris 10+/x86
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: wrong-code
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46060
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46060
--- Comment #6 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-10-21 11:31:58 UTC ---
Author: janus
Date: Thu Oct 21 11:31:55 2010
New Revision: 165769
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=165769
Log:
2010-10-21 Janus Weil
PR fortran/4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45764
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45764
--- Comment #10 from Richard Guenther 2010-10-21
11:10:45 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu Oct 21 11:10:41 2010
New Revision: 165768
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=165768
Log:
2010-10-21 Richard Guenther
Michael Ma
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46111
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46111
--- Comment #2 from Richard Guenther 2010-10-21
10:38:55 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu Oct 21 10:38:51 2010
New Revision: 165765
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=165765
Log:
2010-10-21 Richard Guenther
PR tree-op
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46113
Summary: collect2.exe not passing through @FILE response
argument to linker
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45720
--- Comment #2 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-10-03
05:41:44 UTC ---
Author: hjl
Date: Sun Oct 3 05:39:32 2010
New Revision: 164914
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=164914
Log:
Disallow negative steps in vectorizer.
gcc/
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45764
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46112
Mikael Pettersson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikpe at it dot uu.se
--- Comment #1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46111
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46103
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5 f
1 - 100 of 109 matches
Mail list logo
