http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47144
Summary: Doesn't reject attempt to define type in template
argument; results in weird parse
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priori
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47143
Summary: warning about const multidimensional array as function
parameter
Product: gcc
Version: 4.4.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Priority: P3
Com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47142
Summary: incorrect libgcc_s_sjlj-1.dll install
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
AssignedTo: unassig...@gcc.g
/4.6.0/lto-wrapper
Target: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
Configured with: ../configure --with-libelf=/usr/local --enable-lto
--prefix=/home/regehr/z/compiler-install/gcc-r168380-install
--program-prefix=r168380- --enable-languages=c,c++
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.6.0 20101231 (experimental) (
_64-unknown-linux-gnu
Configured with: ../configure --with-libelf=/usr/local --enable-lto
--prefix=/home/regehr/z/compiler-install/gcc-r168380-install
--program-prefix=r168380- --enable-languages=c,c++
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.6.0 20101231 (experimental) (GCC)
[reg...@gamow tmp434]$ cat small
64-unknown-linux-gnu/4.6.0/lto-wrapper
Target: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
Configured with: ../configure --with-libelf=/usr/local --enable-lto
--prefix=/home/regehr/z/compiler-install/gcc-r168380-install
--program-prefix=r168380- --enable-languages=c,c++
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.6.0 201012
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47068
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47138
Summary: backport r158175: replace dominated uses in
loop-invariant
Product: gcc
Version: 4.4.5
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Componen
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46448
--- Comment #3 from Salvatore Filippone
2010-12-31 22:52:03 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> I think you should check whether the symbol is already there using the "gsym"
> (assuming that -fwhole-file is used - but I think that can be assumed ;
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47119
--- Comment #4 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2010-12-31 21:17:40 UTC ---
On Fri, 31 Dec 2010, amylaar at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> C and C++ frontends each have their own, different versions of these
> functions, but then these functions are
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47119
--- Comment #3 from Jorn Wolfgang Rennecke
2010-12-31 20:35:15 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> I objected to a previous patch version using the weak attribute and
> thought that a way was found at that point to do without it. There's no
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47137
--- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu 2010-12-31 20:26:43
UTC ---
The proposed patch is at
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2010-12/msg00517.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47137
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47137
Summary: [4.6 Regression] gcc incorrectly combines assembly
inputs
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47119
--- Comment #2 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2010-12-31 20:03:27 UTC ---
On Fri, 31 Dec 2010, amylaar at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> There are a lot more problems with this port. Here is a patch that makes
> the port sort-of build when using
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47136
Summary: [OOP] possible name resolution problems between MODULE
and INTERFACE?
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47119
--- Comment #1 from Jorn Wolfgang Rennecke
2010-12-31 19:51:25 UTC ---
Created attachment 22875
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22875
tentative patch
There are a lot more problems with this port. Here is a patch that makes
t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45235
--- Comment #6 from Peter A. Bigot 2010-12-31 17:57:14
UTC ---
I've been running with this since my last comment with no problems. Could this
be integrated into as many of trunk, gcc-4_4-branch, and gcc-4_5-branch as
possible, please? Thanks.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47131
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|ebotcazou at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47131
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Status|UNCO
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38662
Kai Tietz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47009
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47109
Jorn Wolfgang Rennecke changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #3 from Jorn W
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47020
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47109
--- Comment #2 from Jorn Wolfgang Rennecke
2010-12-31 15:26:28 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> My preferred fix for this would be to eliminate the TARGET_VERSION macro
> completely. I really don't think it's useful for targets to have this
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47132
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Status|UNCONF
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47084
Jorn Wolfgang Rennecke changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47084
--- Comment #1 from Jorn Wolfgang Rennecke
2010-12-31 14:34:30 UTC ---
Author: amylaar
Date: Fri Dec 31 14:34:26 2010
New Revision: 168378
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=168378
Log:
PR target/47084
* config/mn10300
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47114
Jorn Wolfgang Rennecke changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47002
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47114
--- Comment #1 from Jorn Wolfgang Rennecke
2010-12-31 14:07:36 UTC ---
Author: amylaar
Date: Fri Dec 31 14:07:32 2010
New Revision: 168377
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=168377
Log:
PR target/47114
* config/rs6000/
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47135
Jorn Wolfgang Rennecke changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47135
--- Comment #1 from Jorn Wolfgang Rennecke
2010-12-31 13:42:24 UTC ---
Author: amylaar
Date: Fri Dec 31 13:42:20 2010
New Revision: 168376
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=168376
Log:
PR target/47135
* config/pdp11/p
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47135
Summary: pdp11.c: incompatible type for
TARGET_PRINT_OPERAND_PUNCT_VALID_P
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: build
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47134
Jorn Wolfgang Rennecke changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46194
--- Comment #4 from Zdenek Sojka 2010-12-31 13:09:08
UTC ---
When -fcheck-data-deps is added, the testcase doesn't fail (r168358,
x86_64-linux):
$ gcc -O -ftree-parallelize-loops=2 block-0.c -fcheck-data-deps
$ ./a.out
$ echo $?
0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47002
--- Comment #7 from dcb 2010-12-31 12:43:27 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> Can't reproduce with neither 20101217 trunk nor current trunk on x86_64-linux
> either, can the reporter and/or hjl double check current trunk?
> Thanks.
I rechecked,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47113
Jorn Wolfgang Rennecke changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47113
--- Comment #1 from Jorn Wolfgang Rennecke
2010-12-31 12:24:15 UTC ---
Author: amylaar
Date: Fri Dec 31 12:24:12 2010
New Revision: 168373
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=168373
Log:
PR go/47113
* go-backend.c: (go_
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46194
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47112
Jorn Wolfgang Rennecke changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47112
--- Comment #1 from Jorn Wolfgang Rennecke
2010-12-31 11:48:06 UTC ---
Author: amylaar
Date: Fri Dec 31 11:48:03 2010
New Revision: 168369
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=168369
Log:
PR target/47112
* config/mips/r3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47065
--- Comment #3 from Thomas Koenig 2010-12-31
11:38:03 UTC ---
The most common cases are handled now.
Still to do:
- Handle substring references, for example trim(a(3:5)). Here, we have
to watch out for trim(a(function(x):5)), not to evaluate
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45338
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.6.0
Known to fail|4.6.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47065
--- Comment #2 from Thomas Koenig 2010-12-31
11:32:20 UTC ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Fri Dec 31 11:32:16 2010
New Revision: 168367
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=168367
Log:
2010-12-31 Thomas Koenig
PR fortran/47065
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45827
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45338
--- Comment #3 from Thomas Koenig 2010-12-31
11:20:26 UTC ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Fri Dec 31 11:20:22 2010
New Revision: 168366
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=168366
Log:
2010-12-31 Thomas Koenig
PR fortran/45338
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47002
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47022
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek 2010-12-31
11:01:05 UTC ---
Created attachment 22874
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22874
gcc46-pr47022.patch
I think we can either handle the bunch of missing types in tsubst_copy as done
i
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47134
Summary: pdp11_asm_output_var: unused parameter ‘global’
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: build
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: ta
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47111
Jorn Wolfgang Rennecke changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47111
--- Comment #1 from Jorn Wolfgang Rennecke
2010-12-31 10:29:32 UTC ---
Author: amylaar
Date: Fri Dec 31 10:29:30 2010
New Revision: 168365
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=168365
Log:
PR target/47111
* config/rtems.h
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46971
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46971
--- Comment #5 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-12-31 10:08:22 UTC ---
Author: janus
Date: Fri Dec 31 10:08:17 2010
New Revision: 168363
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=168363
Log:
2010-12-31 Janus Weil
PR fortran/4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47133
Summary: code size opportunity for boolean expression
evaluation
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
55 matches
Mail list logo