http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46152
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #17 from k
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46247
Summary: bug with loading constant to neon quad register
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
AssignedTo: u
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46193
--- Comment #2 from Uros Bizjak 2010-10-30 21:18:05
UTC ---
We have pointer type that triggers assert:
#1 0x00708873 in omp_reduction_init (clause=,
type=0x72054930) at ../../gcc-svn/trunk/gcc/omp-low.c:2212
2212 gcc_a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46193
Uros Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44569
Uros Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|linux-gnu |x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
Status|ASSI
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44569
--- Comment #10 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-10-30 20:55:07 UTC ---
Author: uros
Date: Sat Oct 30 20:55:03 2010
New Revision: 166096
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=166096
Log:
PR middle-end/44569
* lower-suberg.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44569
--- Comment #9 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-10-30 20:50:16 UTC ---
Author: uros
Date: Sat Oct 30 20:50:12 2010
New Revision: 166095
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=166095
Log:
PR middle-end/44569
* lower-suberg.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44569
--- Comment #8 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-10-30 20:37:57 UTC ---
Author: uros
Date: Sat Oct 30 20:37:54 2010
New Revision: 166094
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=166094
Log:
PR middle-end/44569
* lower-suberg.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46153
Uros Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46153
--- Comment #5 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-10-30 20:32:15 UTC ---
Author: uros
Date: Sat Oct 30 20:32:11 2010
New Revision: 166093
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=166093
Log:
PR target/46153
* config/i386/sse.md
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46228
--- Comment #9 from Zeev Tarantov 2010-10-30
20:05:57 UTC ---
Using -fwhole-program I got sane code. But almost all programs that are not
trivial cannot be compiled with -fwhole-program without LTO. At least on 4.5
branch LTO is not quite stable.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44569
--- Comment #7 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-10-30 19:55:18 UTC ---
Author: uros
Date: Sat Oct 30 19:55:16 2010
New Revision: 166092
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=166092
Log:
PR middle-end/44569
* lower-suberg.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46235
--- Comment #1 from Richard Guenther 2010-10-30
18:21:48 UTC ---
We canonicalize a & (1 << x) to (a >> x) & 1 very early.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46236
--- Comment #1 from Richard Guenther 2010-10-30
18:20:48 UTC ---
This is a dup of the PR that says we don't do aggregate copyprop.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46241
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46018
--- Comment #13 from Art Haas 2010-10-30 17:55:24
UTC ---
The patch listed here did not help:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-10/msg02569.html
The boostrap build still fails:
/home/ahaas/gnu/gcc.git/gcc/lto/lto-lang.c: In function 'lto_
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46246
--- Comment #2 from Alessandro Pignotti 2010-10-30
16:31:27 UTC ---
The secondo attachment compiles, but the move constructor seems not really
used. The output is:
default bar
foo called
Moreover i was expecting a call to the copy constructor b
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46246
--- Comment #1 from Alessandro Pignotti 2010-10-30
16:28:49 UTC ---
Created attachment 22209
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22209
test case that shows that the move constructor is not actually used
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46246
Summary: [C++0x] Move constructor required when passing a
temporary by copy, but not actually used
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37272
Paolo Bonzini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bonzini at gnu dot org
Target Milestone
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46244
--- Comment #6 from Mikael Morin 2010-10-30
16:03:58 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> (In reply to comment #3)
> > The test case in comment #1 can be fixed by:
>
> Or better:
>
Pre-approved.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46244
Mikael Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikael at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46228
--- Comment #8 from Jan Hubicka 2010-10-30
16:00:12 UTC ---
and BTW -Os also reason why -finline-limits has no effect. As long as we
predict code size to grow, we won't inline at -Os. We tend to regress at -Os
C++ for this reason.
I wonder what
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46243
Paolo Bonzini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.6.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46245
Summary: rejects function with late-specified return type as a
non-type template parameter
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priorit
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46228
--- Comment #7 from Jan Hubicka 2010-10-30
15:41:11 UTC ---
We predict main() as executed once, not cold, so code inside loop is inlined
for speed at -O1/-O2/-O3, but this testcase is compiled with -Os.
This seems like usual problem with comdat
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46244
--- Comment #4 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-10-30 15:11:19 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> The test case in comment #1 can be fixed by:
Or better:
Index: gcc/fortran/interface.c
===
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46244
--- Comment #3 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-10-30 15:04:29 UTC ---
The test case in comment #1 can be fixed by:
Index: gcc/fortran/interface.c
===
--- gcc/fortran/interface.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46244
--- Comment #2 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-10-30 14:54:49 UTC ---
The buggy code in comment #0 is due to:
http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?view=revision&revision=131238
http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?view=revision&revision=131239
When looking for a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46196
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46244
--- Comment #1 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-10-30 14:30:27 UTC ---
Related test case by Mikael, resulting in a segfault (PR 46196 comment #11):
module type_a
type a
sequence
end type a
end module type_a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46244
Summary: gfc_compare_derived_types is buggy
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
AssignedTo: unassig...@gc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46240
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46241
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46018
--- Comment #12 from H.J. Lu 2010-10-30 13:59:08
UTC ---
Please try:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-10/msg02569.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44926
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44917
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44926
--- Comment #2 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-10-30 13:52:44 UTC ---
Author: janus
Date: Sat Oct 30 13:52:39 2010
New Revision: 166089
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=166089
Log:
2010-10-30 Janus Weil
PR fortran/4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46196
--- Comment #12 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-10-30 13:52:44 UTC ---
Author: janus
Date: Sat Oct 30 13:52:39 2010
New Revision: 166089
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=166089
Log:
2010-10-30 Janus Weil
PR fortran/
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44917
--- Comment #3 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-10-30 13:52:44 UTC ---
Author: janus
Date: Sat Oct 30 13:52:39 2010
New Revision: 166089
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=166089
Log:
2010-10-30 Janus Weil
PR fortran/4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46242
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46195
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46195
--- Comment #23 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-10-30
13:17:20 UTC ---
Author: hjl
Date: Sat Oct 30 13:17:15 2010
New Revision: 166088
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=166088
Log:
Align long double parameters on stack to 4b
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46243
Paolo Bonzini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46243
Summary: [4.6 Regression] expected tree that contains ‘decl
minimal’ structure, have ‘tree_list’ in start_decl, at
c-decl.c:4049
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Stat
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46242
Summary: Segmentation fault in ipcp_driver
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
AssignedTo: unassig...@gcc.gnu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46196
--- Comment #11 from Mikael Morin 2010-10-30
12:51:54 UTC ---
Another bug, we don't check that components are non-null before entering the
loop.
module type_a
type a
sequence
end type a
end module type_a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44569
Uros Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|steven at gcc dot gnu.org |ubizjak at gmail dot com
--- Comment #6 fro
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46241
Summary: ice in dwarf2out.c
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: debug
AssignedTo: unassig...@gcc.gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46196
--- Comment #10 from Dominique d'Humieres
2010-10-30 11:52:46 UTC ---
> Can we find any test case which is sensitive to this change?
I di not find one in store!-(
Am I correct to expect that such test will be of the "reject valid" kind?
Clearly
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32402
--- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely 2010-10-30
11:46:47 UTC ---
As an extra data point, this compiles with -std=c++0x
struct pure;
void f()
{
pure (*arr[3]);
pure** p = new (decltype(arr));
delete[] p;
}
This shows that allocating
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46240
--- Comment #1 from dcb 2010-10-30 11:43:35 UTC ---
Created attachment 22204
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22204
gzipped C++ source code
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46240
Summary: ice in maybe_register_def
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
AssignedTo: unassig...@gcc.gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46239
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43453
--- Comment #3 from Johannes Schaub 2010-10-30
09:41:36 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> (In reply to comment #1)
> > (In reply to comment #0)
> > > Fails to compile, but should work:
> > >
> > > struct A {
> > > char x[4];
> > > A():x("
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46196
--- Comment #9 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-10-30 09:33:12 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> I have successfully regtested the following patch
Thanks.
> I also noticed that the
> fix for pr46067 use the asymmetry of gfc_compare_interfaces
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46239
Summary: Shouldn't this be a compile time error?
Product: gcc
Version: 4.4.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Priority: P3
Component: c++
AssignedTo: unassig...@gc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46221
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6 fr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46238
Andreas Krebbel changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||s390x-ibm-linux
Priority|P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46238
Summary: s390x bootstrap problem: wrong code generated due to
crossjumping
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: critical
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46237
Andreas Krebbel changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Target|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46237
Summary: SPECint2006 403.gcc fails with -mzarch -m31
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: critical
Priority: P3
Component: rtl-optimization
Assig
62 matches
Mail list logo
