http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38307
--- Comment #6 from rfm at gnu dot org 2011-03-17 06:20:42 UTC ---
I spent some hours looking at your code and I like it ... it's certainly
clearer than mine.
I found three problems which i've fixed on my system:
1. failure to check CLS_ISRESOLV e
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48163
Summary: [4.7 Regression]: ICEs for cris-elf, like
gcc.c-torture/compile/calls.c
gcc.c-torture/execute/complex-1.c
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48162
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at redhat dot com
Target Milestone|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48162
Summary: [4.7 Regression] 447.dealII in SPEC CPU 2006 failed to
build
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compon
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47504
--- Comment #4 from Jason Merrill 2011-03-17
03:14:22 UTC ---
True, the language standards seem to distinguish between this and the overflow
you get from saying INT_MAX+1. But GCC internals do not make this distinction;
in either case, we end up
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48019
Ian Lance Taylor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48161
--- Comment #3 from John David Anglin 2011-03-17
02:48:27 UTC ---
(insn 548 547 0 (set (reg:SI 147 [ D.35803 ])
(mem/s:SI (plus:SI (const_int 60 [0x3c])
(reg:SI 411)) [2 D.37625_60->reg_pressure_excess_cost_change+0
S
4 A3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48089
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.7.0
Target Milestone|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47570
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Known to work|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47301
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Known to work|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46336
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Version|4.6.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48089
--- Comment #3 from Jason Merrill 2011-03-17
02:36:33 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Thu Mar 17 02:36:29 2011
New Revision: 171086
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=171086
Log:
PR c++/48089
* semantics.c (potential_const
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47301
--- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill 2011-03-17
02:36:23 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Thu Mar 17 02:36:20 2011
New Revision: 171085
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=171085
Log:
PR c++/47301
* decl.c (compute_array_index_
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47570
--- Comment #1 from Jason Merrill 2011-03-17
02:36:07 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Thu Mar 17 02:36:04 2011
New Revision: 171083
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=171083
Log:
PR c++/47570
* semantics.c (cxx_eval_consta
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46336
--- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill 2011-03-17
02:36:15 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Thu Mar 17 02:36:12 2011
New Revision: 171084
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=171084
Log:
PR c++/46336
* decl.c (duplicate_decls): Re
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48161
--- Comment #2 from John David Anglin 2011-03-17
02:34:28 UTC ---
On linux, this is caused by this insn:
(gdb) p debug_rtx (insn)
(insn:TI 548 1143 1305 (set (reg:SI 31 %r31 [orig:147 D.35803 ] [147])
(mem/s:SI (plus:SI (const_int 60 [0x
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48161
John David Anglin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47301
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48139
--- Comment #8 from Jeffrey Yasskin 2011-03-17
01:09:38 UTC ---
Ah, I didn't check Posix, specifically
http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/functions/lrint.html. I now
agree that gcc can't optimize this without -fno-math-errno.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43947
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48156
--- Comment #1 from Steven Bosscher 2011-03-17
00:24:52 UTC ---
Cross-jumping changes this:
24 NOTE_INSN_BASIC_BLOCK
25 si:SI=bx:SI
REG_DEAD: bx:SI
26 di:SI=0x8
27 call <...>
REG_DEAD: di:SI
REG_DEAD: si:SI
RE
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48133
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48134
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48141
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48046
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48118
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48156
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48089
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47504
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski 2011-03-16
23:43:38 UTC ---
>which has implementation-defined behavior according to the C and C++ standards.
But that does not mean it has an overflow though, right?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48161
Summary: [4.6 regression] hppa*-*-* will not bootstrap on 4.6
branch with release checking
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priorit
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48139
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=47504
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48153
--- Comment #2 from Dominique d'Humieres 2011-03-16
23:07:58 UTC ---
> Created attachment 23685 [details]
> gcc47-pr48153.patch
>
> Please try this patch.
This fix the bootstrap at revision 171072. Thanks.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48019
Sean McGovern changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gseanmcg at gmail dot com
--- Comment #9
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48139
--- Comment #6 from sgunderson at bigfoot dot com 2011-03-16 22:59:53 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> So, there's no glibc bug, but I don't think this makes a compelling case for
> any particular gcc behavior. The "implementation" is gcc+glibc,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48160
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-p
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44606
Bernd Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bernds at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #16
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48114
--- Comment #20 from Andrey Zholos 2011-03-16
22:43:45 UTC ---
Good idea. The testcases should be adapted to the code paths in the GCC
generators though: for instance, binomial with p > .5 isn't covered there.
And BINS should be increased: for in
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48010
fabien at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|fabien at gcc dot gnu.org |unassigned at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48160
Summary: prepare_call_arguments failed to handle subreg
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: debug
AssignedTo: una
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42371
--- Comment #9 from Matt Hargett 2011-03-16 21:43:56 UTC
---
Now that 4.7 stage 1 is open, let me know if there's anything else I can
reasonably provide to provide examples, testing, etc. Thanks!
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48157
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid, wrong-code
S
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47510
Dodji Seketeli changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48159
Summary: [4.7 Regression] ICE: SIGSEGV in build2_stat
(tree.c:3802) with -O -ftree-loop-distribution
-fno-tree-ch -g
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRME
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47976
--- Comment #4 from Michael Hope 2011-03-16
21:18:59 UTC ---
Not present in svn168270, svn169407, svn169832
Present in svn170086. This leaves the following commits:
r170086 | gerald | 2011-02-13 08:22:17 +1300 (Sun, 13 Feb 2011)
r170053 | bern
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47510
--- Comment #8 from Dodji Seketeli 2011-03-16
21:11:19 UTC ---
Author: dodji
Date: Wed Mar 16 21:11:17 2011
New Revision: 171074
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=171074
Log:
PR debug/47510
gcc/
PR debug/47510
* dwa
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47510
--- Comment #7 from Dodji Seketeli 2011-03-16
21:05:03 UTC ---
Author: dodji
Date: Wed Mar 16 21:04:58 2011
New Revision: 171073
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=171073
Log:
PR debug/47510
gcc/
PR debug/47510
* dwa
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46336
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48158
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.7.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48158
Summary: [4.7 Regression] profiledbootstrap failure on
x86_64-linux
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47959
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48157
Summary: Unable to match function call to member function
template
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47570
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48153
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-03-16
20:37:17 UTC ---
Created attachment 23685
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=23685
gcc47-pr48153.patch
Please try this patch.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48153
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milesto
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48156
Summary: [4.6/4.7 Regression] wrong code with -fcrossjumping
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: rtl-optimization
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48019
--- Comment #8 from Ian Lance Taylor 2011-03-16 20:33:31
UTC ---
Created attachment 23683
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=23683
test
On GNU/Linux this program prints
connect: Connection timed out
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48019
--- Comment #7 from Ian Lance Taylor 2011-03-16 20:32:38
UTC ---
I don't have access to a Solaris system. I would be very interested in hearing
whether connect and accept calls are restarted after a signal handler installed
with SA_RESTART, or w
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28767
--- Comment #4 from Dodji Seketeli 2011-03-16
20:24:29 UTC ---
Patch posted to http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-03/msg00949.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48113
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48115
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48132
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47862
--- Comment #9 from Pat Haugen 2011-03-16
20:19:20 UTC ---
Author: pthaugen
Date: Wed Mar 16 20:19:14 2011
New Revision: 171072
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=171072
Log:
PR target/47862
* caller-save.c (in
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47510
Dodji Seketeli changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.6.0
Summary|DW_TAG_typedef
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48155
Summary: Reload doesn't handle subreg properly
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: rtl-optimization
AssignedTo: u
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48154
--- Comment #2 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-03-16
20:04:45 UTC ---
Author: hjl
Date: Wed Mar 16 20:04:40 2011
New Revision: 171069
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=171069
Log:
Check TARGET_ROUND for BUILT_IN_{FLOOR,CEIL,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48132
--- Comment #5 from Jason Merrill 2011-03-16
20:04:13 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Wed Mar 16 20:04:06 2011
New Revision: 171068
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=171068
Log:
PR c++/48132
* decl.c (check_array_designat
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48113
--- Comment #13 from Jason Merrill 2011-03-16
20:04:01 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Wed Mar 16 20:03:56 2011
New Revision: 171067
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=171067
Log:
PR c++/48113
* typeck.c (convert_for_initi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48115
--- Comment #6 from Jason Merrill 2011-03-16
20:03:53 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Wed Mar 16 20:03:46 2011
New Revision: 171066
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=171066
Log:
PR c++/48115
* call.c (convert_arg_to_ellip
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48132
--- Comment #4 from Jason Merrill 2011-03-16
20:03:17 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Wed Mar 16 20:03:12 2011
New Revision: 171065
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=171065
Log:
PR c++/48132
* decl.c (check_array_designat
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48113
--- Comment #12 from Jason Merrill 2011-03-16
20:03:07 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Wed Mar 16 20:03:01 2011
New Revision: 171064
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=171064
Log:
PR c++/48113
* typeck.c (convert_for_initi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48115
--- Comment #5 from Jason Merrill 2011-03-16
20:02:08 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Wed Mar 16 20:02:04 2011
New Revision: 171063
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=171063
Log:
PR c++/48115
* call.c (convert_arg_to_ellip
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48152
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-03-16
19:16:21 UTC ---
Created attachment 23682
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=23682
gcc47-pr48152.patch
Untested fix.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48152
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-03-16
18:49:54 UTC ---
Reproduced with:
struct A
{
A ();
~A ();
char buf[16];
virtual void bar (int, A, int);
};
void
foo (A *p)
{
A a;
p->bar (6, a, 7);
}
using x86_64-linux -> x86_64-mingw32
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48151
--- Comment #4 from Anh Vo 2011-03-16 18:49:19
UTC ---
Now the build fails at stage 2. Below are the trailing end error messages.
[...]
/c/Gcc/Build-Test_MinWG/./prev-gcc/xgcc -B/c/Gcc/Build-Test_MinWG/./prev-gcc/
-B
/usr/local/i686-pc-mingw32/b
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48154
--- Comment #1 from H.J. Lu 2011-03-16 18:43:08
UTC ---
I used -O3 -funroll-loops -ffast-math.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48154
Summary: [4.7 Regression] 481.wrf in SPEC CPU 2006 failed to
build
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48086
--- Comment #23 from mrs at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-03-16
18:27:41 UTC ---
Author: mrs
Date: Wed Mar 16 18:27:36 2011
New Revision: 171059
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=171059
Log:
2011-03-16 Jack Howarth
PR lto/4808
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48114
--- Comment #19 from Paolo Carlini 2011-03-16
18:23:46 UTC ---
For the time being at least, for testing I think I'm going to adapt the code in
the GNU GSL, it's pretty simple (see randist/test.c) but at least we are 100%
safe from the licensing p
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48086
--- Comment #22 from mrs at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-03-16
18:19:16 UTC ---
Author: mrs
Date: Wed Mar 16 18:19:12 2011
New Revision: 171058
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=171058
Log:
2011-03-16 Jack Howarth
PR lto/4808
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48115
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48148
--- Comment #13 from Jan Kratochvil
2011-03-16 18:02:51 UTC ---
In such case it expects
DW_TAG_GNU_call_site
DW_AT_low_pc
and it does not look up DW_AT_low_pc through DW_AT_abstract_origin across
linkage names.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45844
--- Comment #7 from William J. Schmidt 2011-03-16
18:00:32 UTC ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Wed Mar 16 18:00:23 2011
New Revision: 171057
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=171057
Log:
gcc:
Backport from mainline:
2010-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45714
--- Comment #8 from William J. Schmidt 2011-03-16
18:00:31 UTC ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Wed Mar 16 18:00:23 2011
New Revision: 171057
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=171057
Log:
gcc:
Backport from mainline:
2010-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48148
--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-03-16
17:56:35 UTC ---
I've been actually talking about direct calls, with
DW_TAG_GNU_call_site
DW_AT_abstract_origin
and how gdb matches that to the actual definition DIE.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48148
--- Comment #11 from Jan Kratochvil
2011-03-16 17:52:08 UTC ---
read_call_site_type in archer-jankratochvil-entryval for
DW_AT_GNU_call_site_target recognizes DW_FORM_ref* pointing to
DW_AT_declaration DIE and stores + later follows the linkage n
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48153
Summary: [4.7 Regression] Bootstrapping revision 171033 fails
on x86_64-apple-darwin10
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47883
Francois-Xavier Coudert changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Version|unk
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42616
nightstrike changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nightstrike at gmail dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47883
--- Comment #3 from Francois-Xavier Coudert
2011-03-16 17:43:47 UTC ---
Author: fxcoudert
Date: Wed Mar 16 17:43:41 2011
New Revision: 171056
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=171056
Log:
PR libfortran/47883
* acinclu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48152
nightstrike changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nightstrike at gmail dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48152
--- Comment #3 from Kai Tietz 2011-03-16 17:25:33
UTC ---
Created attachment 23681
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=23681
Preprocessed source
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48139
--- Comment #5 from Jeffrey Yasskin 2011-03-16
17:21:57 UTC ---
According to C99, lrint does not produce domain errors. It may only produce
range errors (and isn't required to):
"The lrint and llrint functions round their argument to the nearest
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47999
--- Comment #3 from Jason Merrill 2011-03-16
17:04:35 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Wed Mar 16 17:04:30 2011
New Revision: 171053
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=171053
Log:
PR c++/47999
* semantics.c (finish_call_exp
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48148
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|jakub at redhat dot com |jan.kratochvil at redhat
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48152
--- Comment #2 from Kai Tietz 2011-03-16 16:57:39
UTC ---
dump_tree of type is:
(gdb) call dump_tree(type)
No symbol "dump_tree" in current context.
(gdb) call debug_tree(type)
co
nstant 128>
unit size constant 16>
align 64 symtab 212
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48151
--- Comment #3 from Anh Vo 2011-03-16 16:53:53
UTC ---
Add option --without-build-config to the build configuration. The build is
currently in progress. Build result will be reported once the build is
complete.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48016
--- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu 2011-03-16 16:40:31
UTC ---
Another problem. expand_function_start has
t_save = build4 (ARRAY_REF, ptr_type_node,
cfun->nonlocal_goto_save_area,
integer_zero_node,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48152
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=48150
--- Comment #3 from rguenther at suse dot de
2011-03-16 16:33:25 UTC ---
On Wed, 16 Mar 2011, hjl.tools at gmail dot com wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48150
>
> H.J. Lu changed:
>
>What|Removed
1 - 100 of 164 matches
Mail list logo