http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44392
--- Comment #14 from Ramana Radhakrishnan
2011-01-25 07:18:09 UTC ---
Author: ramana
Date: Tue Jan 25 07:18:05 2011
New Revision: 169221
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=169221
Log:
2011-01-21 Ramana Radhakrishnan
Ba
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46607
--- Comment #7 from Ralf Wildenhues 2011-01-25
06:40:20 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> I would note incidentally a suggestion (comment #3) to work around the
> general libtool bug on MinGW by stopping it relinking on MinGW. I don't
> belie
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47442
Ian Lance Taylor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ian at airs dot com
--- Comment #4 fro
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47452
Ian Lance Taylor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47452
--- Comment #1 from ian at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-01-25
05:45:23 UTC ---
Author: ian
Date: Tue Jan 25 05:45:21 2011
New Revision: 169192
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=169192
Log:
PR go/47452
Pick up local .gox files for
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38292
--- Comment #15 from Matthias Klose 2011-01-25
05:21:24 UTC ---
hmm, can't set the status back to NEW, just to RESOLVED. ...
a normal build of 3.2rc1 succeeds with trunk r169142 and the proposed fix for
PR47271.
the profiled build still fails w
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43527
--- Comment #4 from Joel Sherrill 2011-01-25 04:16:31
UTC ---
The libgcc issue also occurs with lm32-rtems. Can that much be applied to the
trunk?
4.6.0 20110123 (experimental) [trunk revision 169143]
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46898
Masaki MURANAKA changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #22720|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37440
--- Comment #11 from Joel Sherrill 2011-01-25
04:12:35 UTC ---
Still present.
+===GNAT BUG DETECTED==+
| 4.6.0 20110124 (experimental) [trunk revision 169182] (arm-unknown-rtems4.11)
GCC error
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47453
--- Comment #2 from Johannes Schaub
2011-01-25 03:37:01 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #0)
> In short, the intent seems to be that a "({ ... })" initializer is only
> allowed
> for class types, where it will hit 8.5.16p6.
>
I'm sorry. I meant 8.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47453
Johannes Schaub changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44334
--- Comment #44 from Jack Howarth 2011-01-25
03:13:39 UTC ---
Testing...
Index: gcc/params.def
===
--- gcc/params.def(revision 169185)
+++ gcc/params.def(working copy)
@@ -1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47453
Summary: Various non-conforming behaviors with braced-init-list
initialization
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47449
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-p
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47449
--- Comment #10 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-01-25
02:13:17 UTC ---
Author: hjl
Date: Tue Jan 25 02:13:14 2011
New Revision: 169191
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=169191
Log:
Don't propagate zero/sign extended hard reg
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47452
Summary: Bootstrap fails in libgo (argument has incompatible
type)
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
mespaces", which I believe to be a bug.
Compiling the attached as so:
$bin/H-x86_64-gcc-trunk.20110124/bin/g++ -c -g -O2 -std=gnu++0x
inline_ns_trouble.cc
ok, great.
adding an inlined namespace however gives error:
%$bin/H-x86_64-gcc-trunk.20110124/bin/g++ -DBUG -c -g -O2 -std=gnu++0x
inline_
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47409
--- Comment #5 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2011-01-25 00:00:37 UTC ---
I think we should respect volatile on fields, and not use memcpy/memmove
for assignment of volatile structs or structs with volatile fields (at
least not for the part
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47449
--- Comment #9 from H.J. Lu 2011-01-24 23:50:05
UTC ---
PR 47379 is another fwprop issue with subreg.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47449
--- Comment #8 from Paolo Bonzini 2011-01-24 23:47:10
UTC ---
Ah, [32] means 32-bit x86_64...
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47400
--- Comment #1 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2011-01-24 23:45:31 UTC ---
This would be a testsuite issue; the tests require a locale using the
ASCII character set. Where (in several .exp files) the code does
# Many hosts now default to a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47449
--- Comment #7 from Paolo Bonzini 2011-01-24 23:45:01
UTC ---
Is this a regression?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47390
--- Comment #2 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2011-01-24 23:37:39 UTC ---
On Fri, 21 Jan 2011, rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> Joseph - 4.5 handled -export-dynamic by passing it through to the linker
> (not exactly sure why). Can we res
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26854
Ian Lance Taylor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ian at airs dot com
--- Comment #127 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47449
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski 2011-01-24
23:31:30 UTC ---
ok, first off the issue is proping over the asm that might clobber EDI.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46607
--- Comment #6 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2011-01-24 23:29:27 UTC ---
That would not be an appropriate use of WONTFIX; WONTFIX is for cases such
as bugs in a target that has been removed. It's a clear bug in libtool;
SUSPENDED might be
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47449
--- Comment #5 from H.J. Lu 2011-01-24 23:27:48
UTC ---
Before fwprop1:
---
;; Pred edge ENTRY [100.0%] (fallthru)
(note 4 0 2 2 [bb 2] NOTE_INSN_BASIC_BLOCK)
(insn 2 4 3 2 (set (reg/v/f:DI 61 [ trans ])
(zero_extend:DI (reg:SI 5 di [
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47449
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski 2011-01-24
23:21:48 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> fwprop can't handle subreg properly.
Huh? You don't show where the subreg of 61 is being used. As far as I can
tell what fwprop is doing is correct. I th
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47449
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bonzini at gnu dot org
--- Comment #3 from H.J.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47449
--- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu 2011-01-24 23:16:57
UTC ---
fwprop1 turns:
(insn 2 4 3 2 (set (reg/v/f:DI 61 [ trans ])
(zero_extend:DI (reg:SI 5 di [ trans ]))) x.c:4 115
{*zero_extendsidi2_r
ex64}
(nil))
(note 3 2 6 2 NOTE_INSN_FUNCT
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21659
--- Comment #11 from Jan Hubicka 2011-01-24
23:07:29 UTC ---
Author: hubicka
Date: Mon Jan 24 23:07:25 2011
New Revision: 169184
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=169184
Log:
PR c/21659
* doc/extend.texi (weak pragma
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45261
Lars Immisch changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||lars at ibp dot de
--- Comment #14 from La
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37773
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||navin.kumar at gmail dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47429
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47449
--- Comment #1 from H.J. Lu 2011-01-24 23:01:31
UTC ---
RDI is used to pass the first argument.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47450
Summary: Anonymous top-level classes assigned to static members
fail.
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compon
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26854
Joseph S. Myers changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||iant at google dot com
--- Comment #126
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47449
Summary: [32] can’t find a register in class ‘DIREG’ while
reloading ‘asm’
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
C
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47444
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
--- Comment #3 from Manu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47442
--- Comment #3 from Joel Sherrill 2011-01-24 21:53:28
UTC ---
I didn't intend to disable them permanently. Just identify them to implement
alternatives.
If the sysv abi cannot be used on 68000, 680x0 w/o HW FP, or at least some
Coldfire, then w
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47225
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #15
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47444
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 fr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47363
asharif at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #23112|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47442
--- Comment #2 from Andreas Schwab 2011-01-24 21:36:52
UTC ---
This is the wrong way to fix that. The m68k SYSV ABI requires 68020+ w/
68881/2. If you use a different ABI you should write a proper implementation.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47363
asharif at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #23111|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47448
Summary: Accepts invalid ASSIGNMENT(=) which overrides
intrinsic assignment
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: accepts-invalid, diagnostic
S
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47363
asharif at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #23109|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47438
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|critical|normal
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47444
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski 2011-01-24
21:17:15 UTC ---
if ( i>=SIZE && f1() )
throw 1;
bool v[SIZE] = { 1, 1 };
return v[i];
If f1 returns false, then you have above array bounds access.
>because constructor of struc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47447
Summary: "Unable to coalesce ssa_names and " ICE in
tree-ssa-coalesce.c when -O3 is used
Product: gcc
Version: 4.4.6
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47363
asharif at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #23032|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47446
--- Comment #1 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-01-24
21:07:49 UTC ---
Author: hjl
Date: Mon Jan 24 21:07:47 2011
New Revision: 169182
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=169182
Log:
heck TARGET_LP64 instead of TARGET_64BIT for
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47442
--- Comment #1 from Joel Sherrill 2011-01-24 21:06:15
UTC ---
Created attachment 23108
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=23108
Hacks to disable problem areas
This patch is a hack to conditionally disable the parts of the code w
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47446
Summary: [x32] .quad instead of .long is used for address
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
AssignedTo:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47271
--- Comment #15 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-01-24
20:20:40 UTC ---
One more nit, perhaps the bb_postdominates_preds is too expensive for release
checking? It might be just gcc_checking_assert...
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47271
--- Comment #14 from Sebastian Pop 2011-01-24
20:14:55 UTC ---
Right, thanks for catching that:
I handled it only in the first place and not in the second:
gcc_assert (bb == bb->loop_father->header
|| bb_postdominates_preds (bb))
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47445
Summary: testsuite/gfortran.dg/impure_1.f08 FAILs with -O
-fno-omit-frame-pointer -fpeel-loops
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47271
--- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-01-24
20:04:08 UTC ---
Can't loop->header have more than 2 predecessors without causing any problems?
Other than that it might work fine.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47271
--- Comment #12 from Sebastian Pop 2011-01-24
19:57:40 UTC ---
Created attachment 23106
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=23106
proposed fix
Thanks Jakub for thinking out a counter example, what about this fix?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47387
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47387
--- Comment #5 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-01-24 19:53:38 UTC ---
Author: paolo
Date: Mon Jan 24 19:53:35 2011
New Revision: 169178
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=169178
Log:
2011-01-24 Graham Reed
PR libstd
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43154
Michael Meissner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47271
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-01-24
19:24:57 UTC ---
The
# iftmp.0_6 = PHI <3(5), 1(6)>
PHI node certainly wouldn't trigger that assert, as it has non-SSA_NAMEs in
arguments, yet there is the same problem with building that condition.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47430
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-01-24
19:19:44 UTC ---
Created attachment 23105
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=23105
gcc46-pr47430-workaround.patch
This patch shows a sample implementation of 4) which seems to work ju
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47271
--- Comment #10 from Sebastian Pop 2011-01-24
18:55:48 UTC ---
The BB of the phi node to be rewritten should post-dominate the BBs in which
the arguments of the phi node are defined. The following gcc_assert will ICE
when the translation done in
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47430
--- Comment #2 from Benjamin Kosnik 2011-01-24
18:53:14 UTC ---
4) is not possible, as stdc++.h is included in precompiled/stdtr1c++.h and the
extension PCH. (ie, chained pches.) We don't want to re-order this, and build
stdtr1c++.h without stdc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47271
--- Comment #9 from Sebastian Pop 2011-01-24 18:38:13
UTC ---
Sorry, (!a and !b) should not modify the value of x.
per
Target: i686-pc-linux-gnu
Configured with: ../configure --prefix=/home/eid-letni/opt/gcc
--enable-languages=c,c++ : (reconfigured) ../configure
--prefix=/home/eid-letni/opt/gcc --enable-languages=c,c++,lto --no-create
--no-recursion
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.6.0 20110124 (experimental) (
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47443
--- Comment #1 from Zdenek Sojka 2011-01-24 18:35:47
UTC ---
Created attachment 23103
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=23103
different crash
$ gcc -O -fstack-check=generic testcase2.c
testcase2.c: In function 'foo':
testcase2.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47271
--- Comment #8 from Sebastian Pop 2011-01-24 18:34:38
UTC ---
The translation in predicate_all_scalar_phis assumes that the incoming
edges OR up to true: it translates a phi node
x = phi (y, z)
into
x = a ? y : z;
In the testcase of this PR,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47443
Summary: [4.6 Regression] ICE: SSA name in freelist but still
referenced or SIGSEGV with -fstack-check=generic
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norm
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45810
--- Comment #24 from Dominique d'Humieres
2011-01-24 18:16:47 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #22)
> That FRE pass should be after pass_sra_early (certainly after
> pass_build_ealias).
Moving pass_fre after pass_sra_early does not fix the failures
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47429
--- Comment #6 from froydnj at codesourcery dot com 2011-01-24 18:09:12 UTC ---
On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 06:07:50PM +, navin.kumar at gmail dot com wrote:
> Instead of -Wfatal-errors that bombs on the first error, perhaps
> -Wfatal-errors=5 tha
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47429
--- Comment #5 from Navin Kumar 2011-01-24
18:07:45 UTC ---
Hmm. I only need -Wfatal-errors because otherwise a small typo can cause
heavily templated code to go berserk and output 10,000 lines of errors.
Perhaps a compromise is to have the abi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47441
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47271
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #7 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45810
Jack Howarth changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||howarth at nitro dot
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47442
Summary: does not build multilib on m68k
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libffi
AssignedTo: unassig...@gcc.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47429
--- Comment #4 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2011-01-24
17:55:29 UTC ---
It is common in the C/C++ front-ends that error() is followed by one or more
notes() providing context, suggestions or more information. (That is, "error:
within this context" sh
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47429
--- Comment #3 from Navin Kumar 2011-01-24
17:42:03 UTC ---
Wouldn't the simple fix be to make it a note() that 'int Blah::test' is private
and the error() be the caller's attempt to use it?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47441
Summary: g++ Introduces Internal Compiler Error: Bus error
during compilation
Product: gcc
Version: 4.4.5
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46519
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46519
--- Comment #8 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-01-24
17:30:00 UTC ---
Author: hjl
Date: Mon Jan 24 17:29:58 2011
New Revision: 169173
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=169173
Log:
Visit basic blocks using the work-list based
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47440
Summary: Use LCM for vzeroupper optimization
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
AssignedTo: unassig...@gc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47433
Johannes Singler changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47433
--- Comment #12 from singler at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-01-24 17:07:40 UTC ---
Author: singler
Date: Mon Jan 24 17:07:35 2011
New Revision: 169171
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=169171
Log:
2011-01-24 Johannes Singler
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47439
Summary: Fun with scratch files on Windows MKTEMP only allows
for 26 files
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47438
--- Comment #1 from doh-hyun koh 2011-01-24
17:02:45 UTC ---
hi I am developing big application with old large source in linux ..
even though I could manage some of bug, eventually the will be big troubles..
so I here I like to report the bugs an
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47411
--- Comment #4 from Richard Guenther 2011-01-24
16:53:07 UTC ---
I think a backport of
2010-06-30 Michael Matz
PR bootstrap/44699
* tree-vrp.c (vrp_finalize): Deal with changing num_ssa_names.
* gimple-fold.c (gimplif
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47438
Summary: function arguments memory alignment problem.
Product: gcc
Version: 4.1.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: critical
Priority: P3
Component: c
AssignedTo: unassig
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47408
--- Comment #3 from Michael Meissner 2011-01-24
16:57:07 UTC ---
Author: meissner
Date: Mon Jan 24 16:57:04 2011
New Revision: 169168
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=169168
Log:
Fix PR 47408 and 47385
Modified:
branche
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45685
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot com
--- Comment #15 fr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47437
Johannes Singler changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47409
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-01-24
16:49:17 UTC ---
This is related to PR45472 and is solely about volatile fields in aggregates.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47408
--- Comment #2 from Michael Meissner 2011-01-24
16:47:20 UTC ---
Author: meissner
Date: Mon Jan 24 16:47:16 2011
New Revision: 169167
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=169167
Log:
Fix PR 47408 and 47385
Modified:
trunk/g
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47437
--- Comment #3 from singler at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-01-24 16:44:36 UTC ---
Author: singler
Date: Mon Jan 24 16:44:30 2011
New Revision: 169166
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=169166
Log:
2011-01-24 Johannes Singler
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47409
--- Comment #3 from John Regehr 2011-01-24 16:43:58
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> Not sure if this is a bug at all, structure assignment should be implementable
> using memcpy or memmove and thus the side effects that will happen on it are
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47414
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47409
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47414
--- Comment #4 from rguenther at suse dot de
2011-01-24 16:08:44 UTC ---
On Mon, 24 Jan 2011, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47414
>
> --- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-01-24
> 15:21:32 UTC
1 - 100 of 155 matches
Mail list logo
