http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46824
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46824
--- Comment #13 from Dodji Seketeli 2011-03-12
07:28:26 UTC ---
Author: dodji
Date: Sat Mar 12 07:28:20 2011
New Revision: 170897
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=170897
Log:
PR c++/46824
gcc/cp/
* call.c (add_builtin_
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48088
Summary: -Werror=frame-larger-than=100 does not work as
expected
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47125
--- Comment #3 from Jason Merrill 2011-03-12
06:49:01 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Sat Mar 12 06:48:57 2011
New Revision: 170896
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=170896
Log:
PR c++/47125
* pt.c (tsubst) [TYPENAME_TYPE
:
/tmp/x.cc:22:1: error: control reaches end of non-void function
$
-> 4 errors. Huh?
GCC pre-4.6 (svn trunk as of yesterday):
$ inst/bin/gcc --version | head -1
gcc (GCC) 4.6.0 20110311 (experimental)
$
$ inst/bin/gcc -c /tmp/x.cc -Wall
/tmp/x.cc: In function 'bool DeltaTwo(bool)&#
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47997
--- Comment #8 from Anatol 2011-03-12
04:50:22 UTC ---
What are the plans? Are you going to submit the fix to 4.6?
How can I help you with testing?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48084
--- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu 2011-03-12 04:04:49
UTC ---
Another one:
[hjl@gnu-6 ilp32-31]$ cat f.i
void
_mm_clflush (void const *__A)
{
__builtin_ia32_clflush (__A);
}
[hjl@gnu-6 ilp32-31]$ /export/build/gnu/gcc-x32/build-x86_64-linux/gcc/xgcc
/gcc4.6/libexec/gcc/x86_64-apple-darwin10.7.0/4.6.0/lto-wrapper
Target: x86_64-apple-darwin10.7.0
Configured with: ../gcc-4.6-20110311/configure --prefix=/sw
--prefix=/sw/lib/gcc4.6 --mandir=/sw/share/man --infodir=/sw/lib/gcc4.6/info
--enable-languages=c,c++,fortran,lto,objc,obj-c++,java --with-gmp
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48084
--- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu 2011-03-12 02:23:35
UTC ---
Another one:
[hjl@gnu-6 ilp32-31]$ cat m.i
void
_mm_monitor (void const * __P, unsigned int __E, unsigned int __H)
{
__builtin_ia32_monitor (__P, __E, __H);
}
[hjl@gnu-6 ilp32-31]$ /expo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48082
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski 2011-03-12
02:20:31 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> Ok, for the sake of my curiosity, could you explain why it is only an "issue"
> when compiling with the 64 bit libraries?
Because va_list is target specific
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47874
Ibaidul Sahib changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|CLOSED
--- Comment #7 from Ibaidul Sahib
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48086
--- Comment #1 from Jack Howarth 2011-03-12
02:16:22 UTC ---
$ ../gcc-4.6-20110311/configure --prefix=/sw --prefix=/sw/lib/gcc4.6
--mandir=/sw/share/man --infodir=/sw/lib/gcc4.6/info
--with-build-config=bootstrap-lto --enable-stage1-languages
-DIN_GCC_FRONTEND -DIN_GCC_FRONTEND -g -O2 -mdynamic-no-pic -flto=jobserver
-frandom-seed=1 -DIN_GCC -W -Wall -Wwrite-strings -Wcast-qual
-Wstrict-prototypes -Wmissing-prototypes -Wold-style-definition -Wc++-compat
-fno-common -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -Ic-family -I../../gcc-4.6-20110311/gcc
-I../../gcc-4.6
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48084
--- Comment #1 from H.J. Lu 2011-03-12 02:11:23
UTC ---
Another similar one:
[hjl@gnu-6 ilp32-31]$ cat z.i
typedef int __m64 __attribute__ ((__vector_size__ (8), __may_alias__));
typedef char __v8qi __attribute__ ((__vector_size__ (8)));
void
_m
length = 2]
ret# 20return_internal[length = 1]
.cfi_endproc
.LFE0:
.sizefoo, .-foo
.ident"GCC: (GNU) 4.6.0 20110311 (experimental)"
.section.note.GNU-stack,"",@progbits
[hjl@gnu-6 ilp32-31]$
We don't need to zero-extend 32bit pointer in EDI to RDI.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48084
Summary: [x32] internal compiler error: in copy_to_mode_reg, at
explow.c:630
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48082
--- Comment #3 from VA 2011-03-12 01:35:36 UTC ---
Ok, for the sake of my curiosity, could you explain why it is only an "issue"
when compiling with the 64 bit libraries?
Component: c
AssignedTo: unassig...@gcc.gnu.org
ReportedBy: c...@google.com
gcc version 4.6.0 20110311 (experimental) (GCC), but I reproduced this all the
way back to 4.2.x.
$ : > null.c
# Hey, we have an empty file!
$ DEPENDENCIES_OUTPUT=/dev/stdout ./gcc -c null.c
nul
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48082
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-linux-gnu
Component|c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48047
--- Comment #10 from Jerry DeLisle 2011-03-12
00:49:55 UTC ---
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Sat Mar 12 00:49:51 2011
New Revision: 170895
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=170895
Log:
2011-03-11 Jerry DeLisle
PR libgfortra
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48082
--- Comment #1 from VA 2011-03-12 00:33:10 UTC ---
Created attachment 23634
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=23634
preprocessor file
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48082
Summary: Problem compiling function that returns va_list on 64
bit system.
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47128
Sebastian Pop changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47446
--- Comment #5 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-03-11
23:13:38 UTC ---
Author: hjl
Date: Fri Mar 11 23:13:35 2011
New Revision: 170889
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=170889
Log:
Always allow the offsetted memory references
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47144
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47144
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.5.3 |4.6.0
Summary|[4.5/4.6 Regress
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47144
--- Comment #7 from Jason Merrill 2011-03-11
22:48:02 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Fri Mar 11 22:47:59 2011
New Revision: 170888
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=170888
Log:
PR c++/47144
* parser.c (cp_parser_template
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47144
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33763
Pat Haugen changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pthaugen at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #21
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46565
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47127
Sebastian Pop changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46803
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46803
--- Comment #9 from Jason Merrill 2011-03-11
21:36:04 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Fri Mar 11 21:36:02 2011
New Revision: 170885
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=170885
Log:
PR c++/46803
* c-common.c (attribute_takes_
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47552
Francois-Xavier Coudert changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48077
--- Comment #5 from William J. Schmidt 2011-03-11
21:27:25 UTC ---
BTW, I mis-entered the optimization level before. The code generation was at
-O2 when the mulhw was expanded into shifts/adds with the default P6 tuning.
At -O3 and up, the mulh
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47127
Sebastian Pop changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ro at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5 from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47944
Sebastian Pop changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47446
--- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu 2011-03-11 21:24:44
UTC ---
Another one:
/usr/gcc-4.6.0-x32/bin/gcc -S -o x.s -mx32 -funroll-all-loops -O3 -dp x.i
/usr/gcc-4.6.0-x32/bin/gcc -mx32 -funroll-all-loops -O3 -dp -c -o x.o x.s
x.s: Assembler messages:
x
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47125
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48077
--- Comment #4 from Michael Meissner 2011-03-11
20:43:20 UTC ---
It depends on what the default cpu is for the system. If you say -mcpu=power4,
-mcpu=power5, or -mcpu=power7, it generates code similar to what XLC generates
with mulhw to get the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48078
--- Comment #3 from Chris Demetriou 2011-03-11 19:59:40
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> I think this is different enough from any of those others to count as a
> distinct bug - confirmed
I hadn't seen them when i filed this (didn't match the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44623
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46803
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48077
William J. Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|powerpc64-linux, others |powerpc64-linux
Component|r
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48047
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-03-11
19:12:36 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> Regression tested OK. Can I get a release manager OK for this? If not, it can
> wait for 4.7.
This is fine for 4.6.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48053
--- Comment #3 from Peter Bergner 2011-03-11
19:06:17 UTC ---
Author: bergner
Date: Fri Mar 11 19:06:14 2011
New Revision: 170883
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=170883
Log:
gcc/
PR target/48053
* config/rs6000/pred
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48067
--- Comment #7 from William J. Schmidt 2011-03-11
18:52:45 UTC ---
I verified this on branches/ibm/gcc-4_5-branch, and it regtests successfully
there as well. Thanks for the quick turnaround!
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48047
--- Comment #8 from Jerry DeLisle 2011-03-11
18:49:30 UTC ---
Regression tested OK. Can I get a release manager OK for this? If not, it can
wait for 4.7.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48067
--- Comment #6 from William J. Schmidt 2011-03-11
18:46:27 UTC ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Fri Mar 11 18:46:24 2011
New Revision: 170882
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=170882
Log:
Backport PR tree-optimization/48067 from ma
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48077
--- Comment #2 from William J. Schmidt 2011-03-11
18:34:41 UTC ---
OK, interesting, thanks for the information. It seems the analysis of the cost
is not particularly good here. I'll dig into where the expansion is occurring.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48059
--- Comment #11 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-03-11 18:24:01 UTC ---
The patch in comment #8 induced a regression in module_read_2.f90, which is
fixed by the following update (we must only replace the base type, if the
actual argument is polym
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48078
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||accepts-invalid
Status|UNCO
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47346
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46564
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45383
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #9 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48078
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-03-11
17:38:17 UTC ---
Access checking inside templates seems to be completely broken, see PR 47346
and the bugs I listed there, this could be a dup of one of them
IU) with pre-4.6 (4.6.0 20110311)
(I tested some versions of GCC back to 4.2.x, same problem. They had local
mods, but none that should have caused a difference in this regard.)
FYI, clang C++ front-end flags an error as expected:
devtools/cpp_tests/x.cc:22:24: error: 'APrivateMethod' i
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48029
--- Comment #11 from Jason Merrill 2011-03-11
17:20:36 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Fri Mar 11 17:20:27 2011
New Revision: 170880
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=170880
Log:
PR c++/48029
* stor-layout.c (layout_type)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48077
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski 2011-03-11
17:11:25 UTC ---
Actually GCC is expanding the division by a constant into a multiplication but
using shifts and adds to do the multiplication based on the cost.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48053
--- Comment #2 from Peter Bergner 2011-03-11
17:08:33 UTC ---
Created attachment 23633
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=23633
A related but different test case.
Attached is another test case that tweaks a similar bug that Pat'
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47808
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Depends on|46003
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47808
--- Comment #15 from Jason Merrill 2011-03-11
16:49:46 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Fri Mar 11 16:49:41 2011
New Revision: 170878
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=170878
Log:
PR c++/47808
* decl.c (compute_array_index
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47571
--- Comment #31 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-03-11 16:45:31 UTC ---
> That being said, I'd prefer to postpone this fix to stage 1 due to
>
> - I'm currently moving flats so my stuff is all over and I'm very busy
> - AFAIU 4.6 relea
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48077
Summary: [Code Improvement] Use multiplication by magic number
for integer division by constant
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48067
--- Comment #4 from Richard Guenther 2011-03-11
16:36:22 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri Mar 11 16:36:16 2011
New Revision: 170877
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=170877
Log:
2011-03-11 Richard Guenther
PR tree-op
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48067
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48076
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski 2011-03-11
16:33:49 UTC ---
>This looks unlikely on x86, but it may be a much bigger deal on ARM.
This code should not be used on GNU/Linux on most targets anyways. ARM Linux
supports TLS natively.
I am not sa
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1773
--- Comment #79 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-03-11
16:09:23 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #70)
> - needs to remove the overloads on linkage (like bsearch, qsort) in the
> solaris
> headers because g++ is broken there.
So it's linked to from here, th
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48076
Summary: Unsafe double checked locking in __emutls_get_address
Product: gcc
Version: 4.4.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
Ass
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48073
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
PR lto/48073
* tree.c (find_decls_types_r): Do not walk types only reachable
from IDENTIFIER_NODEs.
* g++.dg/lto/20110311-1_0.C: New testcase.
Added:
trunk/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/lto/20110311-1_0.C
Modified:
trunk/gcc/ChangeLog
trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
trunk/gcc/tree.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47808
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48059
--- Comment #10 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-03-11 15:57:47 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #9)
> That looks like the right way to go. Do you understand how this can
> be a regression, whilst the correct interface mapping was previously
> not p
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48059
--- Comment #9 from paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com 2011-03-11 15:51:31 UTC ---
Janus,
That looks like the right way to go. Do you understand how this can
be a regression, whilst the correct interface mapping was previously
not present :-)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48035
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.6.0
Summary|[4.4/4.5/4.6 Reg
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47808
--- Comment #13 from Jason Merrill 2011-03-11
15:45:58 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #11)
> I think it isn't the ?: arms here, but the condition on which
> convert_like_real
> is called.
Same principle applies.
> fold_nondependent_expr on the C
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1773
--- Comment #78 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-03-11 15:44:59 UTC ---
> --- Comment #77 from Paolo Carlini
> 2011-03-08 11:19:03 UTC ---
> Great Rainer.
>
> As soon as 4.6.0 branches I guess we should ask Marc to present on the
> li
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48035
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-03-11
15:43:42 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Mar 11 15:43:37 2011
New Revision: 170874
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=170874
Log:
PR c++/48035
* init.c (build_zero_init_1):
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48075
Summary: [trans-mem] infinite loop when compiling
Product: gcc
Version: trans-mem
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
AssignedTo: unassig
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48059
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|una
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48074
Summary: [trans-mem] regular function used instead of clone in
a transaction
Product: gcc
Version: trans-mem
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36299
--- Comment #11 from Vincent Lefèvre 2011-03-11
15:15:16 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #10)
> If you don't want this warning, please contribute a testcase to
> gcc-patc...@gcc.gnu.org, so this warning won't reappear in the future:
Done: http://gc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48044
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48067
--- Comment #3 from Richard Guenther 2011-03-11
14:50:13 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> Reproduces on trunk/x86_64 with
>
> -O2 -ffast-math -mfma4 -fno-tree-forwprop -fno-tree-reassoc
>
> on trunk both forwprop and reassoc change
>
> d
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48044
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-03-11
14:47:29 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Mar 11 14:47:26 2011
New Revision: 170873
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=170873
Log:
PR middle-end/48044
* ipa.c (cgraph_remove_
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48035
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48044
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48069
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48059
--- Comment #7 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-03-11 14:45:22 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> I think the inputs to conv_parent_component_references are already wrong.
> From the caller of that function (gfc_conv_variable):
>
> 755
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47808
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48069
--- Comment #4 from Jason Merrill 2011-03-11
14:44:53 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Fri Mar 11 14:44:49 2011
New Revision: 170872
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=170872
Log:
PR c++/48069
* tree.c (type_hash_eq): Use C
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48069
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47198
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48073
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||lto
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48072
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46824
--- Comment #12 from Richard Guenther 2011-03-11
14:21:26 UTC ---
I checked comment #5 with ICC 12.0 in -strict_ansi mode.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48073
--- Comment #2 from tux008 at googlemail dot com 2011-03-11 14:20:49 UTC ---
Created attachment 23630
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=23630
(almost empty) assembly code file produced by g++-4.6.0 r170867
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48073
--- Comment #1 from tux008 at googlemail dot com 2011-03-11 14:19:51 UTC ---
Created attachment 23629
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=23629
preprocessed code
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48073
Summary: ICE with -flto in templated C++ code
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
AssignedTo: unassig...@gcc.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47768
--- Comment #7 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-03-11 14:13:52 UTC ---
Author: janus
Date: Fri Mar 11 14:13:49 2011
New Revision: 170871
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=170871
Log:
2011-03-11 Janus Weil
PR fortran/4
1 - 100 of 130 matches
Mail list logo
