http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47763
--- Comment #4 from Jie Zhang 2011-02-16 07:59:19 UTC
---
Yeah, normally we don't care about such cases. But this one comes from
dhrystone. If it can be fixed cleanly, why not do it?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47247
--- Comment #17 from Jan Hubicka 2011-02-16 07:50:48
UTC ---
> I see. Even with PREVAILING_DEF_IRONLY_EXP we still have to update gold to
> drop
> those, no? Gold doesn't know the language semantics to know which visible
I assume it will be par
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47763
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-02-16
07:48:24 UTC ---
Why should we care about code quality of function with undefined behavior?
Various optimizations add zero initialization or assume zero initialization of
undefined variables.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47763
--- Comment #2 from Jie Zhang 2011-02-16 07:42:45 UTC
---
OK. From this point, it's not empty. But if it returns an uninitialized value,
why bother initialize r0 to 0.
Btw, the patch in reviewing:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-02/msg00
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47763
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47764
Summary: The constant load instruction should be hoisted out of
loop
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47763
Summary: Useless initialization of register
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: rtl-optimization
AssignedTo: unas
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46807
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47716
Laurent GUERBY changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
Resolution|FIXED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47742
--- Comment #4 from dogbreath69 at hotmail dot com 2011-02-16 05:08:06 UTC ---
I haven't tried it with anything greater than GCC 4.1.2. Therefore I do not
know the answer.
> From: gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org
> To: dogbreat...@hotmail.com
> Subject: [
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46807
--- Comment #16 from rwgk at yahoo dot com 2011-02-16 05:08:05 UTC ---
Thank you very much! The original problem is solved, too.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43653
--- Comment #11 from Jeffrey A. Law 2011-02-16 04:03:41
UTC ---
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 02/15/11 15:42, ubizjak at gmail dot com wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43653
>
> --- Comment #10 from Uros B
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47247
--- Comment #16 from Rafael Avila de Espindola 2011-02-16 04:03:36 UTC ---
> The problem is with dropping linkonce_odr that has been previously reported.
> This way gold will allocate entry in the dynamic symbol table (you can see it
> in
> nm of
/gcc-4.6.0
--enable-debug=no --disable-nls
--enable-languages=c,c++,objc,fortran,obj-c++,java,ada --enable-threads=posix
--enable-__cxa_atexit --enable-java-gc=boehm
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.6.0 20110215 (experimental) [trunk revision 170201] (GCC)
Revision 169853 was ok.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47692
--- Comment #11 from John T 2011-02-16 01:19:36 UTC
---
(In reply to comment #8)
> On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 07:56:05PM +, jrt at worldlinc dot net wrote:
> > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47692
> >
> > --- Comment #6 from John T
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46620
--- Comment #5 from Alexandre Oliva 2011-02-16
00:53:18 UTC ---
Created attachment 23358
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=23358
Patch that fixes the problem
The problem is that we lost track at the first padding bit within a w
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46807
--- Comment #15 from Jason Merrill 2011-02-16
00:39:31 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Wed Feb 16 00:39:27 2011
New Revision: 170207
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=170207
Log:
PR c++/46807
* method.c (synthesized_metho
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47761
--- Comment #1 from Andreas Schwab 2011-02-16 00:23:29
UTC ---
Your PowerPC compiler is called powerpc-rtems4.11-gcc, not gcc.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37072
Gerald Pfeifer changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47247
--- Comment #15 from Jan Hubicka 2011-02-15 23:20:40
UTC ---
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47247
>
> --- Comment #14 from Rafael Avila de Espindola com> 2011-02-15 19:39:09 UTC ---
> Sorry, can you expand on what gcc was doing t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47761
Summary: powerpc not supporting -mcpu
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: ada
AssignedTo: unassig...@gcc.gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47716
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47742
--- Comment #3 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2011-02-15
23:16:09 UTC ---
Let me try again:
I think GCC (>= 4.4) should catch this using -Wconversion if you drop the
explicit
cast like in:
long infc = LONG_MAX;
double real_size = infc;
Doesn't it?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47742
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47760
--- Comment #1 from Alex 2011-02-15 23:00:51
UTC ---
Created attachment 23357
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=23357
Tarball of the source generated with -save-temps options
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47760
Summary: Getting internal compiler error: Segmentation fault
Product: gcc
Version: 4.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: driver
AssignedT
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47716
--- Comment #6 from Laurent GUERBY 2011-02-15
22:43:17 UTC ---
For reference a verbose version of the testsuite warnings that cause FAIL. I
will deactivate fortran in my future builds because otherwise the
gcc-testresults@ mail is too big and get
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43653
--- Comment #10 from Uros Bizjak 2011-02-15 22:41:40
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #9)
> I think an x86 maintainer is going to need to take a look at this.
> Which simply isn't going to work and it's all downhill from there, including a
> surpris
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47758
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47758
--- Comment #1 from Tobias Burnus 2011-02-15
22:21:28 UTC ---
Created attachment 23356
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=23356
untested patch
Do you know when it last worked? My candidate would be the patch - assuming
that it i
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47759
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pin
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47757
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47759
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47759
Summary: _mm_empty() intrinsic fails to serve as a boundary
between MMX and x87 code due to optimizations
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46620
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47716
--- Comment #5 from Tobias Burnus 2011-02-15
21:30:45 UTC ---
Author: burnus
Date: Tue Feb 15 21:30:43 2011
New Revision: 170200
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=170200
Log:
2011-02-15 Tobias Burnus
PR fortran/47
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47648
--- Comment #4 from Tobias Burnus 2011-02-15
21:30:46 UTC ---
Author: burnus
Date: Tue Feb 15 21:30:43 2011
New Revision: 170200
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=170200
Log:
2011-02-15 Tobias Burnus
PR fortran/47
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37273
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Blocks|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37273
--- Comment #12 from Jeffrey A. Law 2011-02-15
21:22:03 UTC ---
Author: law
Date: Tue Feb 15 21:21:59 2011
New Revision: 170199
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=170199
Log:
Revert
2011-01-25 Jeff Law
PR rtl-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45381
--- Comment #14 from Dominique d'Humieres
2011-02-15 21:06:59 UTC ---
Note that I did not have any problem to compile libcpp/lex.c on
powerpc-apple-darwin8 with
gcc version 4.0.1 (Apple Computer, Inc. build 5370):
...
gcc -I../../work/libcpp -I
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43653
--- Comment #9 from Jeffrey A. Law 2011-02-15 21:06:23
UTC ---
I think an x86 maintainer is going to need to take a look at this.
The problem as I see it is we're trying to use the address of a stack slot as a
vector initializer.
(insn 20 17
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47758
Summary: 729 unexpected failures in the libgomp test suite on
powerpc-apple-darwin8
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47757
Summary: Unintentionally? not exported _gfortran_* symbols in
libgfortran.so.3
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47725
--- Comment #10 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-02-15
19:46:29 UTC ---
Author: hjl
Date: Tue Feb 15 19:46:26 2011
New Revision: 170197
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=170197
Log:
Revert cant_combine_insn_p change.
gcc/
2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47633
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47247
--- Comment #14 from Rafael Avila de Espindola 2011-02-15 19:39:09 UTC ---
Sorry, can you expand on what gcc was doing that was causing it to expand the
dynamic symbol table?
With LLVM what we are doing is
*) Report all symbols
*) Any symbol not
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47633
--- Comment #10 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-02-15 19:38:54 UTC ---
Author: kargl
Date: Tue Feb 15 19:38:51 2011
New Revision: 170195
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=170195
Log:
2011-02-15 Steven G. Kargl
PR for
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17994
Richard Henderson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #7
Target: ia64-hp-hpux11.23
Configured with: ../gcc-svn/trunk/configure --target=ia64-hp-hpux11.23
--enable-languages=c,c++
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.6.0 20110215 (experimental) [trunk revision 170189] (GCC)
~/gcc-build-xxx/gcc/cc1plus -O2 -gdwarf-2 -quiet -milp32 pr47283.C
pr47283.C: In member
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43653
--- Comment #8 from Jeffrey A. Law 2011-02-15 19:01:20
UTC ---
ah. Fails with -O1 -ftree-vectorize, works with -O2 -ftree-vectorize on trunk.
Appears that we allocate memory (via get_secondary_mem) after the point at
which we believe the size o
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47755
--- Comment #5 from Michael Meissner 2011-02-15
18:51:39 UTC ---
Author: meissner
Date: Tue Feb 15 18:51:35 2011
New Revision: 170191
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=170191
Log:
Fix PR 47755
Modified:
branches/ibm/gcc-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47755
--- Comment #4 from Michael Meissner 2011-02-15
18:51:18 UTC ---
Author: meissner
Date: Tue Feb 15 18:51:15 2011
New Revision: 170190
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=170190
Log:
Fix PR 47755
Added:
branches/ibm/gcc-4_5
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47247
--- Comment #13 from Jan Hubicka 2011-02-15 18:49:15
UTC ---
> A quick summary to see if got this right:
Yes, the summary seems right.
Note that GCC plays now games with not putting COMDATs into LTO symbol table
unless they really need to be un
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47755
Michael Meissner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47755
--- Comment #2 from Michael Meissner 2011-02-15
18:43:01 UTC ---
Author: meissner
Date: Tue Feb 15 18:42:59 2011
New Revision: 170189
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=170189
Log:
Fix PR 47755
Added:
trunk/gcc/testsuite/
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47402
--- Comment #11 from Alexandre Oliva 2011-02-15
18:36:48 UTC ---
Author: aoliva
Date: Tue Feb 15 18:36:44 2011
New Revision: 170187
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=170187
Log:
PR debug/47106
PR debug/47402
* tree-inline.h (
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47402
--- Comment #12 from Alexandre Oliva 2011-02-15
18:37:01 UTC ---
Author: aoliva
Date: Tue Feb 15 18:36:56 2011
New Revision: 170188
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=170188
Log:
PR debug/47106
PR debug/47402
* cgraph.h (compu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47402
--- Comment #9 from Alexandre Oliva 2011-02-15
18:36:21 UTC ---
Author: aoliva
Date: Tue Feb 15 18:36:16 2011
New Revision: 170185
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=170185
Log:
PR debug/47106
PR debug/47402
* tree-flow.h (ref
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47106
--- Comment #14 from Alexandre Oliva 2011-02-15
18:37:01 UTC ---
Author: aoliva
Date: Tue Feb 15 18:36:56 2011
New Revision: 170188
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=170188
Log:
PR debug/47106
PR debug/47402
* cgraph.h (compu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47106
--- Comment #12 from Alexandre Oliva 2011-02-15
18:36:34 UTC ---
Author: aoliva
Date: Tue Feb 15 18:36:31 2011
New Revision: 170186
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=170186
Log:
PR debug/47106
PR debug/47402
* tree-flow.h (FO
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47106
--- Comment #13 from Alexandre Oliva 2011-02-15
18:36:48 UTC ---
Author: aoliva
Date: Tue Feb 15 18:36:44 2011
New Revision: 170187
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=170187
Log:
PR debug/47106
PR debug/47402
* tree-inline.h (
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47402
--- Comment #10 from Alexandre Oliva 2011-02-15
18:36:35 UTC ---
Author: aoliva
Date: Tue Feb 15 18:36:31 2011
New Revision: 170186
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=170186
Log:
PR debug/47106
PR debug/47402
* tree-flow.h (FO
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47106
--- Comment #11 from Alexandre Oliva 2011-02-15
18:36:23 UTC ---
Author: aoliva
Date: Tue Feb 15 18:36:16 2011
New Revision: 170185
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=170185
Log:
PR debug/47106
PR debug/47402
* tree-flow.h (re
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43653
--- Comment #7 from Uros Bizjak 2011-02-15 18:35:43
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> Working on trunk, still investigating if there was a patch designed to fix
> this
> problem or if the bug has just gone latent.
It still crashes for me (with
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47408
Michael Meissner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47636
Michael Meissner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44218
Michael Meissner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47751
--- Comment #2 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2011-02-15 17:51:18 UTC ---
-mfloat-gprs=double or -mspe without -mabi=spe does not correspond to any
standard ABI variant and is very likely to be broken.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43653
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot com
--- Comment #6 fro
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47725
--- Comment #9 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-02-15
16:50:47 UTC ---
Author: hjl
Date: Tue Feb 15 16:50:43 2011
New Revision: 170179
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=170179
Log:
Check zero/sign extended hard registers.
gc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47754
--- Comment #3 from Matthias Kretz 2011-02-15 16:40:38
UTC ---
ICC??? Whatever, I stopped to trust that compiler long ago:
:
vmovups 0x2039b8(%rip),%xmm0
vmovups 0x2039b4(%rip),%xmm1
vinsertf128 $0x1,0x2039b6(%rip),%ymm0,%ymm2
vinsertf128 $0x1,0x
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47754
--- Comment #2 from Matthias Kretz 2011-02-15 16:31:39
UTC ---
True, the Optimization Reference Manual and AVX Docs are not very specific
about the performance impact of this. But as far as I understood the docs it
will internally not be slower t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47756
--- Comment #2 from Olaf van der Spek 2011-02-15
16:24:06 UTC ---
Cases where < > would work but where " " is used.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47756
--- Comment #1 from Andreas Schwab 2011-02-15 16:22:28
UTC ---
How do you define these cases?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47754
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Target
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47704
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-02-15
16:16:34 UTC ---
Created attachment 23354
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=23354
gcc46-pr47704-2.patch
Or alternatively we could use TYPE_LANG_FLAG_5 here (as TYPE_LANG_FLAG_5 so fa
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47756
Summary: Warning for #include " " instead of < >
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Component: preprocessor
Assigned
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47704
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47606
--- Comment #3 from Patrick Marlier
2011-02-15 15:59:37 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> Created attachment 23351 [details]
> further reduced testcase
Remark: In this testcase, you removed the __attribute__((transaction_pure))
which was making
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47704
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-02-15
15:48:20 UTC ---
Caused by http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=165935
The problem is that ENUM_FIXED_UNDERLYING_TYPE_P and TYPE_FOR_JAVA use the same
bit. Now that the patch changed so th
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47166
--- Comment #30 from Ian Bolton 2011-02-15
15:47:24 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #29)
> I've had some problems with timeouts in my test setup, but I now have runs
> that
> differ only in that pthread1.cc times out for one multilib and no longer
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47755
--- Comment #1 from Michael Meissner 2011-02-15
15:41:49 UTC ---
Created attachment 23352
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=23352
Patch to allow V2DI easy vector constants
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47755
Summary: VSX code generates a TOC reference to clear memory
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
Priority: P3
Component: target
AssignedTo:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47606
--- Comment #2 from Aldy Hernandez 2011-02-15
15:37:59 UTC ---
Created attachment 23351
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=23351
further reduced testcase
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47752
Dodji Seketeli changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dodji at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47754
Summary: [missed optimization] AVX allows unaligned memory
operands but GCC uses unaligned load and register
operand
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.0
Status: UNCONFIRME
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47606
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47753
Kai Tietz changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #7 from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47690
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47753
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47745
--- Comment #7 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-02-15 15:22:10 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> If I did not do any mistake, the patch in comment #5 breaks at least
> gfortran.dg/typebound_operator_6.f03:
Yes, I'm seeing that too. The followin
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47753
--- Comment #5 from Dongsheng Song 2011-02-15
15:14:27 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> Note that since 2010-12-16, when 4.5.2 has been released, only *very small*
> changes went into the 4_5-branch libstdc++ code: either the problem already
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47753
--- Comment #4 from Paolo Carlini 2011-02-15
15:07:48 UTC ---
I would suggest checking first what happens if you build with stock or quite a
bit older binutils. Really nothing happened to the 4_5-branch C++ runtime over
the last weeks which could
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47753
--- Comment #3 from Paolo Carlini 2011-02-15
15:02:57 UTC ---
Note that since 2010-12-16, when 4.5.2 has been released, only *very small*
changes went into the 4_5-branch libstdc++ code: either the problem already
existed at least *two months* ea
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47753
--- Comment #2 from Dongsheng Song 2011-02-15
14:57:13 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> You say before 2011-02-13: can you figure out which specific commit did it? Do
> stock 4.5.2 or 4.5.1 work for you?
I checkout source from gcc svn and binu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47752
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47753
--- Comment #1 from Paolo Carlini 2011-02-15
14:48:52 UTC ---
You say before 2011-02-13: can you figure out which specific commit did it? Do
stock 4.5.2 or 4.5.1 work for you?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47750
--- Comment #1 from Tobias Burnus 2011-02-15
14:24:27 UTC ---
Submitted patch: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2011-02/msg00135.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47732
--- Comment #2 from Jan Koen Annot
2011-02-15 14:21:16 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> And overflow is undefined in C/C++ so you are invoking undefined behavior
> here.
Wow! This is an eye-opener for me! I am quite accustomed to assume two's
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47716
--- Comment #4 from Laurent GUERBY 2011-02-15
14:17:09 UTC ---
Tobias, the patch you mentionned did allow bootstrap with c,fortran and without
disabling libquadmath for gcc version 4.6.0 20110212 (experimental) [trunk
revision 170072] (GCC).
Fee
1 - 100 of 134 matches
Mail list logo
