http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46339
--- Comment #16 from Jerry DeLisle 2010-11-16
07:42:34 UTC ---
dump shows:
ipn->dtype = 265;
ipn->dim[0].lbound = 1;
ipn->dim[0].ubound = 4;
ipn->dim[0].stride = 1;
ipn->data = (void *) &sorb->i[0].j;
ipn->offset = -1;
span.9 = 8;
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46339
--- Comment #15 from Jerry DeLisle 2010-11-16
06:42:08 UTC ---
With a slight modification to the patch in Comment #10, gfortran now gives:
@@ -1041,7 +1041,7 @@
tree
gfc_get_symbol_decl (gfc_symbol * sym)
{
- tree decl;
+ tree decl = NULL;
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46339
--- Comment #14 from Jerry DeLisle 2010-11-16
05:42:26 UTC ---
With ifort:
$ ifort test2.f90
$ ./a.out
***
myA = 1 a 2 b 3 c 4 d
---
ipn%i%j = 1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46495
Summary: target.h and function.h require tm.h
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
AssignedTo: unassig.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46489
--- Comment #1 from Jorn Wolfgang Rennecke
2010-11-16 04:59:35 UTC ---
Created attachment 22418
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22418
This is a list of the files that use tm.h, broken up into different categories.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46339
--- Comment #13 from Jerry DeLisle 2010-11-16
03:45:17 UTC ---
Created attachment 22417
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22417
Test case example. what is the correct interpretation?
This attachment shows the point I am trying
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46339
--- Comment #12 from Jerry DeLisle 2010-11-16
02:14:06 UTC ---
The test case in http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=16885 I believe
is wrong.
The structure type(b) has two components, j and c, where c is a single
character not initiali
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45538
--- Comment #4 from Jack Howarth 2010-11-16
01:59:40 UTC ---
This issue is fixed by the proposed patch...
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-11/msg01323.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46494
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46165
--- Comment #12 from Zdenek Sojka 2010-11-16 01:19:00
UTC ---
Opened PR46493 for the 4.4 problem (comment #9) and PR46494 for the other
problem (comment #10). Sorry for the mess, the ICE looks very similiar to me (I
thought the check is just exec
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46494
Summary: [4.3/4.4/4.5/4.6 Regression] ICE: verify_flow_info
failed when casting-out attribute noreturn with
-fno-tree-ccp -fno-tree-fre -ftree-vrp
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46493
Summary: [4.3/4.4 Regression] ICE: verify_flow_info failed when
casting-out attribute noreturn
Product: gcc
Version: 4.4.6
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46130
--- Comment #6 from Zdenek Sojka 2010-11-16 00:52:52
UTC ---
Created attachment 22414
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22414
another simple testcase
This one needs -flto too:
$ gcc -O2 -flto -fno-tree-dce testcase.c
==9353==
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46455
--- Comment #16 from Jonathan Wakely 2010-11-16
00:48:52 UTC ---
Created attachment 22413
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22413
add destructors in
could you try applying this patch to ext/concurrence.h and let me know if it
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46378
--- Comment #3 from Michael Meissner 2010-11-16
00:41:32 UTC ---
Author: meissner
Date: Tue Nov 16 00:41:29 2010
New Revision: 166787
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=166787
Log:
Backport PR 46378, 45585 changes, and import
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46315
--- Comment #8 from Eric Botcazou 2010-11-15
23:44:08 UTC ---
Created attachment 22412
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22412
fix for the 4.5 branch
Not fully testes yet.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46461
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46483
--- Comment #7 from Richard Guenther 2010-11-15
22:49:21 UTC ---
Sounds like the very old bad alignment issues for string-alignment targets,
should be fixed (conservatively) in 4.6.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46492
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46297
--- Comment #9 from Richard Guenther 2010-11-15
22:44:32 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> >>
> >> Waiting for review...
> > You don't need explicit approval for this middle-end patch.
> Noted. More than happy to consider postreload.c part of t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46492
Summary: Several C++ LTO testcases fail to link on IRIX 6.5
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: link-failure, lto
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46165
--- Comment #11 from Richard Guenther 2010-11-15
22:47:34 UTC ---
Can you possibly open a new bug for this?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46492
--- Comment #2 from Rainer Orth 2010-11-15 22:45:46 UTC
---
Created attachment 22411
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22411
wrong lto1 assembler output
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46492
--- Comment #1 from Rainer Orth 2010-11-15 22:44:58 UTC
---
Created attachment 22410
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22410
input object file
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46491
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.5.2
Summary|[4.3/4.4/4.5 Reg
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46491
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek 2010-11-15
22:31:52 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Nov 15 22:31:47 2010
New Revision: 166777
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=166777
Log:
PR tree-optimization/46491
* gcc.target/i38
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46461
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek 2010-11-15
22:30:24 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Nov 15 22:30:15 2010
New Revision: 166776
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=166776
Log:
PR tree-optimization/46461
* tree-ssa-forwp
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46491
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek 2010-11-15
22:27:29 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Nov 15 22:27:24 2010
New Revision: 166774
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=166774
Log:
PR tree-optimization/46491
Backport from ma
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46455
--- Comment #15 from Jonathan Wakely 2010-11-15
21:54:40 UTC ---
Butenhof's book says you don't need to destroy a mutex/condvar that was
statically initialized, so given the FreeBSD bug I will only define the
destructor when the __GTHREAD_XXX_INI
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45711
--- Comment #16 from Ralf Wildenhues 2010-11-15
21:39:15 UTC ---
Author: rwild
Date: Mon Nov 15 21:39:09 2010
New Revision: 166772
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=166772
Log:
PR libstdc++/45711 cleanup.
libstdc++-v3/:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46483
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski 2010-11-15
21:32:45 UTC ---
I think the biggest issue is what is the type of &p->number ? is it an pointer
to an int or a pointer to an int with an alignment of 1.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46165
--- Comment #10 from Zdenek Sojka 2010-11-15 21:29:21
UTC ---
Actually, it crashes in trunk r166763 as well, it needs -ftree-vrp:
$ gcc -O -fno-tree-ccp -fno-tree-fre -ftree-vrp pr46165.i
/mnt/svn/gcc-trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr46165.c: In fu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46483
Mikael Pettersson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikpe at it dot uu.se
--- Comment #5
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46483
--- Comment #4 from Mikael Pettersson 2010-11-15
21:04:11 UTC ---
Created attachment 22409
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22409
gcc-4.5.2 output for pr46483.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46483
--- Comment #3 from Mikael Pettersson 2010-11-15
21:02:56 UTC ---
Created attachment 22408
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22408
test case showing how __builtin_memcpy ignores known mis-alignment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46484
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46484
--- Comment #5 from Tobias Burnus 2010-11-15
20:44:29 UTC ---
Author: burnus
Date: Mon Nov 15 20:44:26 2010
New Revision: 166769
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=166769
Log:
2010-11-15 Tobias Burnus
PR fortran/46
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46095
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46387
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46095
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek 2010-11-15
20:09:34 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Nov 15 20:09:24 2010
New Revision: 166767
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=166767
Log:
PR debug/46095
* config/i386/i386.c (pro_ep
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46387
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek 2010-11-15
20:07:50 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Nov 15 20:07:39 2010
New Revision: 166766
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=166766
Log:
PR debug/46387
* rtl.h (vt_equate_reg_base_
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46490
--- Comment #3 from John Marino 2010-11-15 19:56:33
UTC ---
Created attachment 22407
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22407
SlimC46007 program (3 of 3)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46491
Summary: [4.3/4.4/4.5 Regression] ipa-pure-const.c
miscompilation
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: wrong-code
Severity: normal
P
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46491
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46479
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[4.4/4.5/4.6 Regression]|"+m" (*regs) : "a" (regs)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41528
--- Comment #3 from Diego Novillo 2010-11-15
19:55:33 UTC ---
Author: dnovillo
Date: Mon Nov 15 19:55:27 2010
New Revision: 166765
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=166765
Log:
2010-11-15 Jan Hubicka
Diego Novillo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46490
--- Comment #2 from John Marino 2010-11-15 19:55:34
UTC ---
Created attachment 22406
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22406
SlimC46007 program (2 of 3)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46490
--- Comment #1 from John Marino 2010-11-15 19:53:38
UTC ---
Created attachment 22405
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22405
SlimC46007 program (1 of 3)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46490
Summary: For four major i386 BSDs, GNAT fails FP to static
integer conversion with -O2,-O3 optimization
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
URL: http://www.dragonlace.net
Statu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46489
Summary: tree optimizer and frontend files use target macros
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: other
AssignedTo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46095
--- Comment #3 from Richard Henderson 2010-11-15
19:30:09 UTC ---
The patch looks good. Ok after testing.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46363
Frédéric Buclin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46361
--- Comment #1 from Frédéric Buclin 2010-11-15
18:55:05 UTC ---
You should never go back after submitting changes to a form. Overriding someone
else's changes is expected in that case, especially because you ignored the
midair collision message a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46455
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46488
Summary: server/core_filters.c from apache httpd 2.2.17 does
not produce good code with optimizations (-O) used on
Solaris Sparc 64-bit
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46482
--- Comment #3 from Frédéric Buclin 2010-11-15
18:50:34 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> a problem with emails on sourceware.org ?
No idea. You would have to ask fche, I think.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46486
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46474
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||doko at ubuntu dot com
--- Comment #10 fr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46455
--- Comment #13 from Paolo Carlini 2010-11-15
18:32:23 UTC ---
Thanks a lot Jon for tracking this down! Do you think we can fix it in time for
4.6.0?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46479
--- Comment #3 from Jeffrey A. Law 2010-11-15 18:17:26
UTC ---
On 11/15/10 08:07, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46479
>
> --- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek 2010-11-15
> 15:00:37 UTC ---
> Perhaps
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46455
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|shared_ptr consuming too|resource leaks due to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46297
--- Comment #8 from Jeffrey A. Law 2010-11-15 18:05:11
UTC ---
On 11/15/10 08:14, rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46297
>
> --- Comment #7 from Richard Guenther 2010-11-15
> 15:10:12 UTC ---
> (In
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46486
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski 2010-11-15
18:07:18 UTC ---
This has been reported for ppc-darwin also but I cannot find the bug.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46484
--- Comment #4 from Tobias Burnus 2010-11-15
17:41:19 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> I think you may have trimmed too much of the condition.
> || (e->expr_type == EXPR_FUNCTION
> && e->symtree->n.sym->result == e->symtree->n.sym))
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46095
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46484
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46349
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46349
--- Comment #5 from Martin Jambor 2010-11-15
16:32:23 UTC ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Mon Nov 15 16:32:18 2010
New Revision: 166759
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=166759
Log:
2010-11-15 Martin Jambor
PR tree-optimiza
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44782
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bkoz at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46455
--- Comment #11 from Zouzou 2010-11-15 16:30:21
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #10)
> That's because my simpler test ignores the default_lock_policy, it always uses
> a mutex, which is what shared_ptr does when __default_lock_policy=1
> I've just l
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20201
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20385
--- Comment #8 from Paolo Bonzini 2010-11-15 16:24:52
UTC ---
That works.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46401
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40054
--- Comment #3 from Tobias Burnus 2010-11-15
16:17:54 UTC ---
Remember also to update check.c's variable_check.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20385
--- Comment #7 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2010-11-15
16:10:31 UTC ---
And what about the undefined return type?
unknowntype f() { return 0; }
unknowntype *f() { return 0; }
If you fix this bug once and for all, please mention it in
gcc-4.6/chang
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44989
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-debug
Priority|P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44989
--- Comment #9 from Richard Guenther 2010-11-15
15:52:48 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Nov 15 15:52:42 2010
New Revision: 166757
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=166757
Log:
2010-11-15 Richard Guenther
PR lto/449
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46487
Summary: allocatable scalars leak memory
(allocatable_scalar_5.f90)
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: wrong-code
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45888
--- Comment #8 from Jorn Wolfgang Rennecke
2010-11-15 15:41:33 UTC ---
Created attachment 22400
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22400
Proposed patch
Does this patch work for you on Cygwin?
It doesn't address MacOS 9 Issues,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46367
--- Comment #6 from Jan Hubicka 2010-11-15 15:37:12 UTC
---
> doesn't terminate but endlessly recurses. I can't see how it should work
> in a cgraph cycle:
It recurse only on edges that are already inlined and inlined edges should
never form a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46484
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Target Milestone|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46367
--- Comment #5 from Richard Guenther 2010-11-15
15:28:44 UTC ---
The loop
#88 0x00f9218f in cgraph_clone_inlined_nodes (e=0x7315c750,
duplicate=1 '\001', update_original=0 '\000')
at /space/rguenther/src/svn/trunk/gcc/ipa-in
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44334
--- Comment #13 from Jan Hubicka 2010-11-15 15:22:19
UTC ---
Static profile estimation problem, to be exact. LTO is just triggering it by
bringing in enough of context ;)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45038
Nathan Froyd changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45038
--- Comment #2 from Nathan Froyd 2010-11-15
15:24:38 UTC ---
Author: froydnj
Date: Mon Nov 15 15:24:31 2010
New Revision: 166756
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=166756
Log:
gcc/c-family/
PR preprocessor/45038
* c-cp
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20385
Paolo Bonzini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bonzini at gnu dot org
--- Comment #6 fro
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46297
--- Comment #7 from Richard Guenther 2010-11-15
15:10:12 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> On 11/15/10 05:40, bernds at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46297
> >
> > Bernd Schmidt changed:
> >
> >
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46483
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||arm-elf
Component|c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46223
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46479
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek 2010-11-15
15:00:37 UTC ---
Perhaps you're right, if
asm ("movl $0, %0; movl $1, %1" : "=g" (x), "=g" (y))
would be allowed to use register for x and memory for y and use the register
chosen for x as address of m
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46486
Summary: bootstrap comparision error (libcpp/symtab.o) on
powerpc-linux-gnu
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46483
--- Comment #1 from Fredrik Hederstierna
2010-11-15 14:42:48 UTC ---
Created attachment 22399
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22399
Script to build arm-elf toolchain
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45888
--- Comment #7 from Jorn Wolfgang Rennecke
2010-11-15 14:43:13 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> Good point. Let's kill \r then. It should be possible to use
> tr -d '\015'
Do we still have to worry about old mac-style line ends, i.e. a sol
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46482
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely 2010-11-15
14:39:14 UTC ---
and the emails for this bug arrived out of order:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/2010-11/msg01913.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/2010-11/msg01915.html
a problem with emails on
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46484
--- Comment #1 from Tobias Burnus 2010-11-15
14:46:53 UTC ---
Longer test case is gfortran.dg/allocatable_scalar_5.f90 (cf. 46485).
This can be seen if one uses valgrind on the file: No error and 3*4 bytes = 12
bytes are losts:
4 bytes in 1 blo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46483
Summary: Built-in memcpy() does not handle unaligned int for
ARM
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
-testresults/2010-11/msg01185.html
Results for 4.6.0 20101115 (experimental) (GCC) testsuite on
s390-ibm-linux-gnu:
=== gfortran tests ===
Running target unix
FAIL: gfortran.dg/allocatable_scalar_5.f90 -O0 execution test
* * *
The test case also mentioned in PR 43179 comment 7. The test case
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46484
Summary: Should reject ALLOCATED(non-variable expression )
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: accepts-invalid
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
C
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45172
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46479
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot com
--- Comment #1 fro
1 - 100 of 172 matches
Mail list logo
