http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46842
--- Comment #17 from Tobias Burnus 2010-12-10
07:26:11 UTC ---
With the function call - there is no transpose at all:
// Temporary descriptor
atmp.10.dim[0].stride = 1; // Normal bounds: OK
atmp.10.dim[0].lbound = 0;
atmp.10.dim
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46883
Summary: GCC ICE with error: unrecognizable insn
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
AssignedTo: unassig.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43157
Dave Korn changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||davek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #7 from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46882
Summary: Wrong code generated for arm with -O2
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
AssignedTo: unassig...@
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46881
--- Comment #1 from Jorn Wolfgang Rennecke
2010-12-10 03:58:33 UTC ---
Author: amylaar
Date: Fri Dec 10 03:58:30 2010
New Revision: 167678
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=167678
Log:
PR target/46881
* doc/tm.texi: R
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46881
Summary: arm_preferred_rename_class uses keyword class as
parameter name
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: build
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46740
Jorn Wolfgang Rennecke changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46739
Jorn Wolfgang Rennecke changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46737
Jorn Wolfgang Rennecke changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46735
Jorn Wolfgang Rennecke changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46878
--- Comment #3 from Masaki MURANAKA 2010-12-10
02:35:53 UTC ---
This issue will depends -m and -O option.
cc1 -mv850 -O2 testcase-min6.i
cc1 -mv850e1 -O2 testcase-min6.i
cc1 -mv850e testcase-min6.i
cc1 -mv850e2 testcase-min6.i
cc1 -mv
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46880
Summary: [4.6 Regression] g++.dg/other/pr40446.C FAILs with
custom flags
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45888
--- Comment #30 from Jorn Wolfgang Rennecke
2010-12-10 02:04:26 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #29)
> gcc/tm.texi and gcc/tmp3-tm.texi did not have same same line ending. In fact,
> gcc/tm.texi contains 'ASCII English text, with very long lines' wh
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46878
--- Comment #2 from Masaki MURANAKA 2010-12-10
01:47:35 UTC ---
Created attachment 22701
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22701
simplified source
Additional info : the result of xgcc is
gcc version 4.6.0 20101207 (experimenta
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18501
--- Comment #49 from Jonathan Wakely 2010-12-10
01:24:19 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #46)
>
> If fixing known bugs is not a priority then of what value is this project
> other
> than being free? I thought the whole point was to also be correc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46879
Summary: [4.6 Regression] ICE: in
separate_decls_in_region_debug_bind, at
tree-parloops.c:778 with -flto
-ftree-parallelize-loops -gdwarf-3
Product: gcc
Ve
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46878
--- Comment #1 from Masaki MURANAKA 2010-12-10
00:52:55 UTC ---
Created attachment 22699
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22699
Pre-processed source.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46878
Summary: V850 ICE in in maybe_add_or_update_dep_1, at
sched-deps.c:854
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: blocker
Priority: P3
Comp
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46348
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18501
--- Comment #48 from Hans-Peter Nilsson 2010-12-10
00:08:40 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #47)
> WONTFIX means GCC devs don't want a fix.
Not quite, and saying it that way, sends the wrong message. It's more like
"are not going to put resources
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43023
--- Comment #3 from Sebastian Pop 2010-12-09 23:54:20
UTC ---
Patch here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-12/msg00831.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46856
--- Comment #3 from Mikael Pettersson 2010-12-09
23:48:36 UTC ---
A bisection identified r166371 as the trigger for this bug:
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Nov 5 19:00:27 2010
New Revision: 166371
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&re
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46842
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Summary|[4.6 Regres
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46701
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|DUPLICATE
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46812
Ian Lance Taylor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46812
--- Comment #5 from ian at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-12-09
22:17:33 UTC ---
Author: ian
Date: Thu Dec 9 22:17:25 2010
New Revision: 167668
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=167668
Log:
PR bootstrap/46812
Add explicit -I . whe
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46057
--- Comment #2 from John David Anglin 2010-12-09
22:15:41 UTC ---
Author: danglin
Date: Thu Dec 9 22:15:32 2010
New Revision: 167667
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=167667
Log:
PR target/46057
* gcc.dg/torture/stac
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46863
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski 2010-12-09
22:14:48 UTC ---
This really does look like a glibc bug rather than a GCC one. The Restrict
usage there I really think is an invalid use of it.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46701
--- Comment #11 from Andreas Beckmann 2010-12-09
21:50:26 UTC ---
I just retried with trunk r167662 and could still reproduce this bug for both
miles' code and my minimized test case
So it was *not* fixed by 46348. (But the testcase from 46348 no
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46874
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||openmp
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46859
--- Comment #6 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2010-12-09 21:23:53 UTC ---
On Thu, 9 Dec 2010, hjl.tools at gmail dot com wrote:
> For
>
> int *
> __attribute__((aligned(4096)))
> foo2 ()
> {
> return 0;
> }
>
> parser applies attribute
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46859
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski 2010-12-09
21:07:15 UTC ---
This is also why it is almost always better to put the attribute on the
declaration rather than the definition.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46859
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski 2010-12-09
21:06:38 UTC ---
I think this is the correct behavior which is also documented this way too.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46659
--- Comment #9 from François Dumont 2010-12-09
21:05:22 UTC ---
testsuite performance suite already show very good results but this test is
rather explicit too. What will perhaps surprise you is that the only
optimization that can explain this di
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45084
--- Comment #10 from Ralf Wildenhues 2010-12-09
20:58:00 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #9)
> ../gcc-4.5.0/configure --target=powerpc-ibm-eabi --with-newlib --disable-nls
> --disable-multilib i686-ibm-cygwin
>
> ...
> checking stdbool.h usability.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46859
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jsm28 at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3 from H.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46859
Dave Korn changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||davek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46864
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46875
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46829
Changpeng Fang changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vmakarov at redhat dot com
--- Comment #
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46865
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek 2010-12-09
19:11:08 UTC ---
Created attachment 22698
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22698
gcc46-pr46865.patch
The problem is that we do not guarantee the rtl locators are unique, locator_eq
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46021
--- Comment #2 from John David Anglin 2010-12-09
19:01:45 UTC ---
Author: danglin
Date: Thu Dec 9 19:01:42 2010
New Revision: 167661
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=167661
Log:
PR tree-optimization/46021
gcc.dg/tre
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46873
Zdenek Sojka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|ice-on-valid-code |
--- Comment #4 from Zdenek Sojka 2010-12
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46877
Summary: [C++0x] ICE: in build_data_member_initialization, at
cp/semantics.c:5502
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46862
--- Comment #4 from Janis Johnson 2010-12-09
18:50:13 UTC ---
This doesn't have anything to do with libdecnumber, it's about how
std::decimal::decimalxx are defined in libstdc++.
Instead of an ICE with a nice message it would be more appropriate
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46865
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46862
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek 2010-12-09
18:46:28 UTC ---
This got reported to us in https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=657606
but no details about whether it was pristine or modified libdecnumber and which
version thereof.
GCC shou
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46862
--- Comment #2 from Janis Johnson 2010-12-09
18:42:13 UTC ---
TYPE_TRANSPARENT_AGGR is set in begin_class_definition in semantics.c for the
classes std::decimal::decimal{32|64|128}. It assumes that they are defined as
in the GNU Standard C++ Libr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46854
--- Comment #4 from joakim.tjernlund at transmode dot se 2010-12-09 18:23:59 UTC ---
Here is the copy an an earlier mail I sent to the list in November:
Using gcc 4.4.4 -Os on
loop(long *to, long *from, long len)
{
for (; len; --len)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46872
Christoph Hertzberg changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|WORKSFORME |FIXED
--- Comment #3 from Christoph
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46854
--- Comment #3 from joakim.tjernlund at transmode dot se 2010-12-09 18:21:50 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> Note, -O2 generates mostly the code you want, except that it looks the address
> of the string twice:
>
> Here is the code generated w
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45448
--- Comment #8 from Jack Howarth 2010-12-09
18:15:20 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> See also http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2010-12/msg00696.html for
> powerpc64-unknown-linux-gnu.
My mistake.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45573
--- Comment #1 from Jack Howarth 2010-12-09
18:12:48 UTC ---
This problem no longer exists on x86_64 Fedora10 with gcc trunk at r167647,
however building with...
../gcc/configure --with-gmp=/usr --with-mpfr=/usr --with-mpc=/usr
--prefix=/home/ho
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46876
Summary: libgo fails to compile on libtemplate.so
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: bootstrap
AssignedTo: unass
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18501
--- Comment #47 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2010-12-09
18:06:05 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #46)
> It still adds work to the project as a whole and serves as a distraction for
> new people who have the time to contribute.
>
The same could be said
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46873
--- Comment #3 from Paolo Carlini 2010-12-09
18:04:26 UTC ---
Yes, reducing it and filing a separate PR seems a good idea: for sure in
and there are no bitfields.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46875
Summary: [4.6 Regression] ICE: verify_flow_info failed: too
many outgoing branch edges from bb 3 with -Os
-fselective-scheduling2
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Statu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46872
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Known to work|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46854
Michael Meissner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38788
Sean McGovern changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gseanmcg at gmail dot com
--- Comment #10
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46770
--- Comment #6 from H.J. Lu 2010-12-09 17:55:41
UTC ---
Another test:
[...@gnu-6 pr46770]$ cat foo.c
#include
int
main ()
{
printf ("main\n");
return 0;
}
[...@gnu-6 pr46770]$ cat foo1.c
#include
static void
init ()
{
printf ("init_arra
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46873
--- Comment #2 from Zdenek Sojka 2010-12-09 17:47:50
UTC ---
Now I noticed the line numbers of ICE differ, so it might be different problem.
Let me know if you need to reduce original.C.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46873
--- Comment #1 from Zdenek Sojka 2010-12-09 17:44:39
UTC ---
- original.C -
#include
#include
void foo()
{
const std::string s;
std::map::value_type(s, s);
}
--
Original testcase, it should be valid.
$ g++
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46874
--- Comment #1 from Dominique d'Humieres 2010-12-09
17:42:21 UTC ---
Confirmed on 4.4.4, 4.5.0, and trunk r167642.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46874
Summary: internal compiler error: in
gfc_conv_descriptor_data_get, at
fortran/trans-array.c:147
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46873
Summary: [C++0x] ICE: in build_data_member_initialization, at
cp/semantics.c:5489
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46872
--- Comment #1 from Christoph Hertzberg
2010-12-09 17:21:37 UTC ---
Created attachment 22694
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22694
code that should fail to compile
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46872
Summary: 'using' in templated inheritance makes protected
member public
Product: gcc
Version: 4.3.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Comp
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46812
Andi Kleen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
Resolution|FIXED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18501
--- Comment #46 from Tom St Denis 2010-12-09
17:03:37 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #44)
> (In reply to comment #43)
> > Maybe it's high time someone address this shortcoming as opposed to adding
> > additional language front ends. If you can't e
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46871
Summary: [C++0x] ICE: in cxx_eval_constant_expression, at
cp/semantics.c:6686 on invalid code (+rejects valid)
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norm
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46866
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46844
--- Comment #4 from Richard Guenther 2010-12-09
17:00:32 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu Dec 9 17:00:19 2010
New Revision: 167649
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=167649
Log:
2010-12-09 Richard Guenther
PR middle-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46870
Summary: [C++0x] ICE: SIGSEGV (too deep recursion) on invalid
code
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46868
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.6.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45448
--- Comment #7 from Dominique d'Humieres 2010-12-09
16:47:29 UTC ---
See also http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2010-12/msg00696.html for
powerpc64-unknown-linux-gnu.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46869
--- Comment #1 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia.nrc.ca 2010-12-09 16:46:50 UTC ---
Attached .ii.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46869
Summary: FAIL:
20_util/enable_shared_from_this/cons/constexpr.cc
scan-assembler-not
_ZNSt23enable_shared_from_thisIiEC2Ev
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42083
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code
--- Comment #4 from P
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45448
--- Comment #6 from Dominique d'Humieres 2010-12-09
16:42:49 UTC ---
On powerpc-apple-darwin9 at revision 167626 with -m64, I still see:
FAIL: gcc.dg/lto/20090116 c_lto_20090116_0.o-c_lto_20090116_0.o link, -O1 -flto
-flto-partition=1to1 -fPIC (
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46842
--- Comment #15 from Tobias Burnus 2010-12-09
16:40:56 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #14)
> crystal.fppized.f90 is micompiled.
If I compare 4.6.0 20100909 with today's GCC build for Tonto 2.3.1's
crystal.F90, one sees in the original dump that th
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46867
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.6.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46868
Summary: [4.6 Regression] ICE: SIGSEGV splay_tree_splay
(splay-tree.c:149) on invalid code
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Priority
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45448
--- Comment #5 from Jack Howarth 2010-12-09
16:36:38 UTC ---
Fixed after r165163 but before r165193.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18501
--- Comment #45 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2010-12-09
16:34:46 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #44)
> (In reply to comment #43)
> > Maybe it's high time someone address this shortcoming as opposed to adding
> > additional language front ends. If you
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46867
--- Comment #1 from Zdenek Sojka 2010-12-09 16:26:46
UTC ---
RTL checking is needed to reproduce this:
#ifdef ENABLE_RTL_CHECKING
...
old_vl = simplify_replace_fn_rtx (old_vl, NULL_RTX,
strip_pointer_flags, NULL
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46867
Summary: [4.6 Regression] ICE: in emit_note_insn_var_location,
at var-tracking.c:7325 with -O -g
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18501
--- Comment #44 from Jonathan Wakely 2010-12-09
16:06:28 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #43)
> Maybe it's high time someone address this shortcoming as opposed to adding
> additional language front ends. If you can't even get the core ones right..
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46794
--- Comment #6 from Daniel Kraft 2010-12-09 15:55:16
UTC ---
Author: domob
Date: Thu Dec 9 15:55:13 2010
New Revision: 167644
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=167644
Log:
2010-12-09 Daniel Kraft
PR fortran/46794
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46859
--- Comment #1 from H.J. Lu 2010-12-09 15:44:49
UTC ---
Shouldn't foo1/foo2 have the same alignment?
[...@gnu-6 pages-1]$ cat x.c
typedef int * ptr_t;
ptr_t
__attribute__((aligned(4096)))
foo1 ()
{
return 0;
}
int *
__attribute__((aligned
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18501
--- Comment #43 from Tom St Denis 2010-12-09
15:25:25 UTC ---
Maybe it's high time someone address this shortcoming as opposed to adding
additional language front ends. If you can't even get the core ones right...
Just saying...
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45068
--- Comment #3 from John David Anglin 2010-12-09
15:15:30 UTC ---
Author: danglin
Date: Thu Dec 9 15:15:26 2010
New Revision: 167640
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=167640
Log:
PR testsuite/45068
* g++.dg/debug/dwa
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46734
--- Comment #7 from Martin Jambor 2010-12-09
15:11:30 UTC ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Thu Dec 9 15:11:26 2010
New Revision: 167639
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=167639
Log:
2010-12-09 Martin Jambor
PR middle-end/46
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44240
--- Comment #1 from Jack Howarth 2010-12-09
15:01:12 UTC ---
This regression disappeared after r166839 but before r166929.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45646
--- Comment #7 from Jack Howarth 2010-12-09
14:56:45 UTC ---
This regression disappeared after r166079 but before r166156 on
x86_64-apple-darwin10.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46864
--- Comment #3 from Richard Guenther 2010-12-09
14:51:59 UTC ---
Yep, that sounds sensible to me.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44641
--- Comment #22 from John David Anglin 2010-12-09
14:51:41 UTC ---
Test case fixed on hppa*-*-*.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46865
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Known to work
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46842
--- Comment #14 from H.J. Lu 2010-12-09 14:48:46
UTC ---
crystal.fppized.f90 is micompiled.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46747
Jack Howarth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
1 - 100 of 142 matches
Mail list logo
