http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47324
--- Comment #47 from Dominique d'Humieres
2011-02-11 07:47:52 UTC ---
> Created attachment 23303 [details]
> tri-state output_loc_sequence V2
I have updated revisions 170022 on x86_64-apple-darwin10.6.0 and
powerpc-apple-darwin9 with the patch a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47172
--- Comment #4 from Dodji Seketeli 2011-02-11
07:33:57 UTC ---
Author: dodji
Date: Fri Feb 11 07:33:53 2011
New Revision: 170045
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=170045
Log:
Fix PR c++/47172
gcc/cp/
PR c++/47172
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47694
Summary: Fortran read from named pipe fails to read all
available data
Product: gcc
Version: fortran-dev
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47667
--- Comment #4 from Jerry DeLisle 2011-02-11
06:20:15 UTC ---
Probable patch:
Index: list_read.c
===
--- list_read.c(revision 170042)
+++ list_read.c(working copy)
@@ -1726,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34544
--- Comment #24 from John David Anglin 2011-02-11
03:00:57 UTC ---
Author: danglin
Date: Fri Feb 11 03:00:53 2011
New Revision: 170042
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=170042
Log:
Backport from mainline:
2011-02-07
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47241
Dongsheng Song changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dongsheng.song at gmail dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47692
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=47693
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47693
Summary: warning flag for emission of vague linkage bits
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Component: c++
AssignedTo:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47692
--- Comment #3 from John T 2011-02-11 00:42:13 UTC
---
I must be tired. Gotta work tonight. The GCC 4.6 is the 20110205 snapshot.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47662
--- Comment #9 from Paolo Carlini 2011-02-11
00:34:57 UTC ---
By the way, lately we have available { dg-add-options no_pch }
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47692
--- Comment #2 from John T 2011-02-11 00:33:39 UTC
---
I should have included that this bug applies to a Mandriva 2008.1 Duron x86
system with kernel 2.6.24, libc 2.7.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47692
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski 2011-02-11
00:28:28 UTC ---
What target are you running on?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47692
Summary: Numeric inaccuracy reported in testing lapack-3.3.0
BLAS module
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43366
--- Comment #11 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-02-10 22:56:21 UTC ---
Stupid question, but shouldn't it be possible to replace the call to
'is_scalar_reallocatable_lhs' by a check for the allocatable attribute?
Index: gcc/fortran/trans-expr.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47420
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47650
--- Comment #13 from joe at mcknight dot de 2011-02-10 22:50:51 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> See http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-01/msg00956.html for a patch
> (queued for 4.7, several tree-dump check testcases have to be adjusted).
O
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47662
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43366
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|una
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47662
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-02-10
22:40:58 UTC ---
Author: redi
Date: Thu Feb 10 22:40:53 2011
New Revision: 170026
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=170026
Log:
2011-02-10 Jonathan Wakely
PR libstdc++/47
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47686
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47691
Summary: [4.6 Regression] ICE: in create_linear_expr_from_tree,
at graphite-sese-to-poly.c:1138 with
-fgraphite-identity -ffast-math -fno-tree-scev-cprop
Product: gcc
Version:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47680
--- Comment #2 from Dominique d'Humieres 2011-02-10
21:16:27 UTC ---
> Actually I think it would be best to reject polymorphic arrays altogether for
> the 4.6 release, i.e. throw an error as soon as we encounter something like
>
> > class(t) ::
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47680
--- Comment #1 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-02-10 21:09:40 UTC ---
Actually I think it would be best to reject polymorphic arrays altogether for
the 4.6 release, i.e. throw an error as soon as we encounter something like
> class(t) :: x(4)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47690
Summary: [trans-mem] ICE in verify_cgraph_node with O0
Product: gcc
Version: trans-mem
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
AssignedTo: unas
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47689
Summary: [trans-mem] function is cloned even if not used in
transaction
Product: gcc
Version: trans-mem
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Priority: P3
C
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47324
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #23302|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47324
--- Comment #45 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-02-10
20:24:54 UTC ---
The raw stuff in the patch looks ok to me, it is always used just in the for_eh
case. The for_eh argument to output_loc_operands should be still also *_skip
and you shouldn't adjust
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47324
--- Comment #44 from Iain Sandoe 2011-02-10 20:16:42
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #43)
> Created attachment 23302 [details]
> tri-stated output_loc_sequence
>
> I agree it's ugly, we need to find a Better Way for 4.7 ...
>
> .. what to do about
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47324
--- Comment #43 from Iain Sandoe 2011-02-10 20:13:59
UTC ---
Created attachment 23302
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=23302
tri-stated output_loc_sequence
I agree it's ugly, we need to find a Better Way for 4.7 ...
.. what t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47324
--- Comment #42 from Jack Howarth 2011-02-10
19:55:37 UTC ---
The Apple linker maintainer says as far as he knows just i386 has the register
numbering schism.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47688
Summary: [C++0x] Segfault when assigning lambda to
std::function variable
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47687
Summary: [C++0x] Crash on a lambda returning a lambda (using
std::function)
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47686
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-02-10
19:41:12 UTC ---
the code has undefined behaviour
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47686
Summary: scope of variables declared within a nested for loop
is trivial
Product: gcc
Version: 4.1.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47684
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47667
--- Comment #3 from Jerry DeLisle 2011-02-10
19:27:56 UTC ---
The problem is straight forward. We are pending on IO inside a condition
expressiom. I will restucture the code to avoid this.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47682
Nicola Pero changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47684
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milesto
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47324
--- Comment #41 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-02-10
18:49:08 UTC ---
Ugh, it is a mess. DW_CFA_expression/DW_CFA_def_cfa_expression location list
comes from 3 different routines:
1) build_cfa_loc
2) build_cfa_aligned_loc
3) mem_loc_descriptor
In 1) an
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47324
--- Comment #40 from Jack Howarth 2011-02-10
18:48:07 UTC ---
What happens if you replace all the instances of DWARF2_FRAME_REG_OUT in the
proposed patch with a new DWARF2_FRAME_REG_OUT_EH macro that is a no-op on
anything but i386 darwin (where
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47678
Joseph S. Myers changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47685
--- Comment #1 from Alexandre Pereira Nunes
2011-02-10 18:30:48 UTC ---
It also happens on 4.4.5
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47324
--- Comment #39 from Iain Sandoe 2011-02-10 18:29:46
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #38)
> Wonder what do the debug consumers on PowerPC do currently...
> If they actually have separate register number decoders for .debug_frame and
> other .debug_*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47685
Summary: Tail call doesn't work for thumb2
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
AssignedTo: unassig...@gcc.gnu.o
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47678
--- Comment #1 from Eric Botcazou 2011-02-10
18:28:42 UTC ---
> Now a cryptic message is issued:
>
> cc1: fatal error:
> /home/eric/build/gcc/native32/gcc/../lib/gcc/i586-suse-linux/4.6.0/: No such
> file or directory
> compilation terminated.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47682
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski 2011-02-10
18:27:03 UTC ---
This was supposed to be fixed by
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2010-12/msg00199.html .
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47684
Summary: -fcompare-debug failure with -O3
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: debug
AssignedTo: unassig...@gcc.gn
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47677
Thorsten Glaser changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tg at mirbsd dot org
--- Comment #5 fro
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47324
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tromey at redhat dot com
--- Comment #38
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45375
--- Comment #44 from Mike Hommey 2011-02-10
17:43:04 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #43)
> Ah, so this is a crash of the test, not of elfhack. Could you attach both
> test.so and test.so.bak files ?
Actually, it would be better to just do that on
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45375
--- Comment #43 from Mike Hommey 2011-02-10
17:41:53 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #42)
> (In reply to comment #41)
> >
> > Segfaults or aborts ?
>
> Segfaults:
>
> ===
> === If you get failures below, please file a bug describing the error
> =
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47324
--- Comment #37 from Iain Sandoe 2011-02-10 17:40:57
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #36)
> Yes (though, I'm not a dwarf2out maintainer, so you'll need to ask for
> approval).
unfortunately, this causes problems for some PPC cases with -g ...
.. l
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45375
--- Comment #42 from Martin Jambor 2011-02-10
17:35:36 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #41)
>
> Segfaults or aborts ?
Segfaults:
===
=== If you get failures below, please file a bug describing the error
=== and your environment (compiler and link
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46003
--- Comment #3 from Yufeng Zhang 2011-02-10
17:36:12 UTC ---
The repro can be reduced to:
CODE
struct A
{
A(int);
};
template void foo(A& x)
{ 0 ? x : 0; }
CUT
The assertion failure occur
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46610
--- Comment #3 from Rainer Orth 2011-02-10 17:27:27 UTC
---
Author: ro
Date: Thu Feb 10 17:27:25 2011
New Revision: 170014
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=170014
Log:
PR target/46610
* gcc.target/mips/save-restore-1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46610
--- Comment #2 from Rainer Orth 2011-02-10 17:23:24 UTC
---
Author: ro
Date: Thu Feb 10 17:23:21 2011
New Revision: 170013
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=170013
Log:
PR target/46610
* gcc.target/mips/save-restore-1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47683
--- Comment #2 from Rainer Orth 2011-02-10 17:23:24 UTC
---
Author: ro
Date: Thu Feb 10 17:23:21 2011
New Revision: 170013
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=170013
Log:
PR target/46610
* gcc.target/mips/save-restore-1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46610
--- Comment #1 from Rainer Orth 2011-02-10 17:14:19 UTC
---
Author: ro
Date: Thu Feb 10 17:14:15 2011
New Revision: 170012
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=170012
Log:
PR target/46610
* gcc.target/mips/save-restore-1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47683
--- Comment #1 from Rainer Orth 2011-02-10 17:14:19 UTC
---
Author: ro
Date: Thu Feb 10 17:14:15 2011
New Revision: 170012
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=170012
Log:
PR target/46610
* gcc.target/mips/save-restore-1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47683
Summary: g++.dg/tree-prof/partition[12].C FAIL on IRIX
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
AssignedTo: una
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47682
Summary: unused-but-set-variabled warning when using fast
enumeration
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compon
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47511
--- Comment #4 from Jason Merrill 2011-02-10
16:29:43 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Thu Feb 10 16:29:39 2011
New Revision: 170005
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=170005
Log:
PR c++/47511
* semantics.c (potential_const
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47679
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-02-10
16:29:18 UTC ---
Changing boost slightly:
template inline bool equal_pointees2
(OptionalPointee const& x, OptionalPointee const& y ) {
-return (!x) != (!y) ? false : ( !x ? true : (*x) == (*y)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47679
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-02-10
16:20:13 UTC ---
So, before esra we have:
:
aOldItem = getitem (); [return slot optimization]
MEM[(struct optional_base *)&aNewItem].m_initialized = 0;
D.3621_11 = MEM[(const struct optional_base
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47678
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c |driver
Target Milestone|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47679
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Version|unknown
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47677
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47324
--- Comment #36 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-02-10
16:04:46 UTC ---
Yes (though, I'm not a dwarf2out maintainer, so you'll need to ask for
approval).
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47324
--- Comment #35 from Iain Sandoe 2011-02-10 15:59:27
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #34)
> For #c32, you obviously can't hardcode darwin ugly hacks into generic code.
> The #c33 patch looks much better, but still
> 1) in output_loc_sequence, you ne
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47679
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #23294|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47677
--- Comment #3 from Richard Guenther 2011-02-10
15:28:10 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu Feb 10 15:28:07 2011
New Revision: 170002
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=170002
Log:
2011-02-10 Richard Guenther
PR tree-op
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47681
Summary: gcc-4.3.2 compilation failed for armv4
Product: gcc
Version: 4.3.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: other
AssignedTo: unassig...@
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47569
--- Comment #7 from Tobias Burnus 2011-02-10
15:18:09 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #0)
> The example uses s(i) in stead of s(i:j) to pass the string, and this was a
> common usage pattern in the old fortran77 days, so this may bother more users.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29482
Kevin Sweet changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kevin at teews dot com
--- Comment #8 from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47569
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #23230|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47324
--- Comment #34 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-02-10
15:01:44 UTC ---
For #c32, you obviously can't hardcode darwin ugly hacks into generic code.
The #c33 patch looks much better, but still
1) in output_loc_sequence, you need to use DWARF2_FRAME_REG_OUT
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47680
Summary: [OOP] ICE with polymorphic array elements as dummy
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-invalid-code
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47679
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-02-10
14:48:38 UTC ---
Created attachment 23294
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=23294
676361.C
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47679
Summary: [4.6 Regression] Strange uninitialized warning after
SRA
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Componen
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47324
--- Comment #33 from Iain Sandoe 2011-02-10 14:39:46
UTC ---
in addition to Mike's fix,
the dw_loc_descr_ref reg numbers need to be adjusted in the loc lists,
below is a hack which works - I don't know the code well enough to know if the
dw_loc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47324
--- Comment #32 from Jack Howarth 2011-02-10
14:38:22 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #31)
I don't see how we can directly use DWARF2_FRAME_REG_OUT in
output_loc_operands, except as a template for the desired register changes. How
about this strate
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47676
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-02-10
13:52:48 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> The same code is being used before, which was compiling properly, but when
> migrated to Linux+gcc, it is giving this issue.
That's not a compiler bug. Th
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47678
Summary: [4.6 regression] missing error message for -I
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
AssignedTo: unassig.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47677
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47677
--- Comment #1 from Richard Guenther 2011-02-10
13:08:28 UTC ---
I'll investigate.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47663
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
--- Comment #2 from Richar
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47677
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.6.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47677
Summary: [4.6 Regression] Hang in VRP
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
AssignedTo: unassig..
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47676
--- Comment #2 from AK 2011-02-10 12:55:11
UTC ---
Thanks Jonathan for initial view.
The same code is being used before, which was compiling properly, but when
migrated to Linux+gcc, it is giving this issue.
In the menwhile, I will also check the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47676
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47676
Summary: error: field âOttybâ has incomplete type
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: driver
AssignedTo: unassi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47225
--- Comment #39 from Iain Sandoe 2011-02-10 12:08:44
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #38)
> So, is this fixed now except for the darwin issue (#c37)? Are you going to
> post it to gcc-patches after testing?
Ralf indicated that he was OK with all o
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47225
--- Comment #38 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-02-10
11:50:48 UTC ---
So, is this fixed now except for the darwin issue (#c37)? Are you going to
post it to gcc-patches after testing?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47420
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|mingw32 |i686-pc-mingw32
Status|WAITIN
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47675
--- Comment #2 from Michał Walenciak 2011-02-10
11:37:11 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> Don't use clobbers then but save/restore the registers yourself. You can't
> obviously take away all regs from GCC. Eventually this should be diagnosed
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47420
--- Comment #9 from Yu Simin 2011-02-10 11:36:23
UTC ---
Created attachment 23292
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=23292
dump files
Well, it not caused by r166555, just exposed by r166555.
The first difference in the dump fil
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47675
--- Comment #1 from Richard Guenther 2011-02-10
11:24:09 UTC ---
Don't use clobbers then but save/restore the registers yourself. You can't
obviously take away all regs from GCC. Eventually this should be diagnosed
though - I suppose you do see
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47665
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47665
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-02-10
11:15:28 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Feb 10 11:15:23 2011
New Revision: 17
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=17
Log:
PR target/47665
* combine.c (make_compound_
1 - 100 of 109 matches
Mail list logo
