http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48746
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48785
Summary: BOZ editing of real numbers not working with
-std=f2008
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48746
jpr at csc dot fi changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jpr at csc dot fi
--- Comment #1 from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42687
--- Comment #6 from Jason Merrill 2011-04-27
05:17:26 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Wed Apr 27 05:17:20 2011
New Revision: 173007
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=173007
Log:
PR c++/42687
* parser.c (cp_parser_primary_
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42687
--- Comment #8 from Jason Merrill 2011-04-27
05:20:38 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Wed Apr 27 05:20:33 2011
New Revision: 173009
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=173009
Log:
PR c++/42687
* parser.c (cp_parser_primary_
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42687
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42687
--- Comment #9 from Jason Merrill 2011-04-27
05:20:50 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Wed Apr 27 05:20:46 2011
New Revision: 173010
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=173010
Log:
PR c++/42687
* parser.c (cp_parser_primary_
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42687
--- Comment #7 from Jason Merrill 2011-04-27
05:20:10 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Wed Apr 27 05:20:06 2011
New Revision: 173008
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=173008
Log:
PR c++/42687
* parser.c (cp_parser_primary_
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48760
--- Comment #20 from Jason Merrill 2011-04-27
03:55:27 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #19)
> : data{ r, i } { }
Yes.
> In my opinion, at this point at least, it would be safer and simpler to
> restrict the syntax to C++1x
What is this C++1x yo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48771
--- Comment #3 from Jason Merrill 2011-04-27
03:58:16 UTC ---
Looks fine, but also remove the REFERENCE_TYPE check in
valid_type_in_constexpr_fundecl_p.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48767
--- Comment #2 from Nobuhiro Iwamatsu 2011-04-27
02:37:37 UTC ---
Hi,
Thanks for your work.
(In reply to comment #1)
> This is a target problem. The patch below will fix it.
I confirm fix on gcc-4.4, 4,5 and 4.6.
Thanks!
> BTW, I'm not sure
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48760
--- Comment #19 from Paolo Carlini 2011-04-27
01:26:43 UTC ---
Thus, if I understand correctly Gaby and Jason, we want to be able to
initialize a __complex__ float type *exactly* like an array of two floats?
Thus:
struct C
{
//float data[2];
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48784
Summary: #pragma pack(1) + -fstrict-volatile-bitfields = bad
codegen
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48750
--- Comment #13 from Paolo Carlini 2011-04-27
01:05:36 UTC ---
Created attachment 24108
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24108
Draft patch
This is my work ìn progress patch. I'm for example seeing very good to perfect
improvem
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48750
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42687
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48760
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #18
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48726
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48783
Summary: ARM: kernel compiled at -O2 has a unused reference to
__aeabi_uldivmod
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48726
--- Comment #4 from Jason Merrill 2011-04-26
23:42:53 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Tue Apr 26 23:42:50 2011
New Revision: 172993
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=172993
Log:
PR c++/48726
* call.c (convert_like_real):
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48782
Summary: unused-but-set static variables are not optimized out
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
AssignedTo:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48781
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48781
--- Comment #2 from Zhangxi Tan 2011-04-26
22:25:42 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> The alignment of __uint128_t is 16byte. I think you are invoking undefined
> behavior by using a data type which increases the alignment.
_uint128_t does not
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48781
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski 2011-04-26
22:10:59 UTC ---
The alignment of __uint128_t is 16byte. I think you are invoking undefined
behavior by using a data type which increases the alignment.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48781
Summary: gcc generate movdqa instructions on unaligned memory
address when using -mtune=native -march=native
Product: gcc
Version: 4.4.4
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48726
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48530
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48766
--- Comment #3 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2011-04-26 21:18:56 UTC ---
The combination -fwrapv -ftrapv is not particularly meaningful; it ought
to act exactly the same as -ftrapv (i.e. -ftrapv should override any
previous -fwrapv, and vi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48600
Joseph S. Myers changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40975
Joseph S. Myers changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48780
Summary: [C++0x] scoped enumerations and va_arg (default
argument promotions)
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48779
Summary: -Wunused-but-set-variable does not report unread
unit-static variables
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43341
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski 2011-04-26
20:24:21 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> (In reply to comment #5)
> > (In reply to comment #4)
> > > gcc -fpack-struct=4 -fprofile-generate test.c
> >
> > -fpack-struct changes the ABI so it is not
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43341
--- Comment #6 from Arthur O'Dwyer
2011-04-26 20:18:42 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> (In reply to comment #4)
> > gcc -fpack-struct=4 -fprofile-generate test.c
>
> -fpack-struct changes the ABI so it is not fully a bug there.
It's a gray a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48765
William J. Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||richard.sandiford at linaro
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43341
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski 2011-04-26
20:04:39 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> gcc -fpack-struct=4 -fprofile-generate test.c
-fpack-struct changes the ABI so it is not fully a bug there.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48754
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski 2011-04-26
20:05:54 UTC ---
Most likely a BRANCH_COST issue.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48770
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47995
--- Comment #4 from Jian Peng 2011-04-26 19:58:08
UTC ---
Hi, Maksim,
I did not dig into this, but my past experience is that it is related to recent
rework of SSa in FCC since it did not show up in old gcc-4.3
Thanks,
Jian
On Apr 26, 2011, a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43341
Arthur O'Dwyer changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||arthur.j.odwyer at gmail
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47995
Maksim Rayskiy changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||maksim.rayskiy at gmail dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48777
--- Comment #2 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2011-04-26 19:48:53 UTC ---
Indeed, empty structs in GNU C (as opposed to C++) are expected to take up
no space, and so possibly not have unique addresses.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48778
Summary: gcc 4.6 -Waddress adds unhelpful new warning case
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Priority: P3
Component: c
AssignedTo: unass
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45586
--- Comment #57 from Thomas Koenig 2011-04-26
19:37:32 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #54)
> (In reply to comment #53)
> > reduced testcase for 4.7
>
> Does not fail here - can you still reproduce it? (It might have been fixed by
> the patch for P
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48530
--- Comment #1 from Jason Merrill 2011-04-26
19:28:32 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Tue Apr 26 19:28:25 2011
New Revision: 172985
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=172985
Log:
PR c++/48530
* decl.c (cxx_maybe_build_clea
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48258
--- Comment #3 from Michael Meissner 2011-04-26
19:25:45 UTC ---
Author: meissner
Date: Tue Apr 26 19:25:41 2011
New Revision: 172984
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=172984
Log:
PR target/48258, improve vector reduction on
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48777
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski 2011-04-26
19:20:31 UTC ---
Considering empty structs are a GNU extension, this could be considered
correct.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48777
Summary: duplicate pointers to empty structs passed as
arguments to function
Product: gcc
Version: 4.0.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48279
--- Comment #12 from Tobias Burnus 2011-04-26
18:46:15 UTC ---
Created attachment 24106
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24106
Draft patch for the main issue and for the -std=f2003/f2008 diagnostic
The regression is caused by:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48776
Summary: ICE(segfault) after -std=f95 diagnostic error
involving PROCEDURE
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: error-recovery, ice-on-invalid-code
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48750
--- Comment #12 from Paolo Carlini 2011-04-26
18:40:17 UTC ---
Forgot: my numbers, etc, are all about the exaxt testcase in PR48751.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48750
--- Comment #11 from Paolo Carlini 2011-04-26
18:38:26 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #10)
> Yes, this certainly fixes my segfault.
For me, it only fixes the segfault, also avoids all valgrind and glibc errors
messages at runtime and drastically i
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45586
--- Comment #56 from Joost VandeVondele
2011-04-26 18:19:29 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #54)
> (In reply to comment #53)
> > reduced testcase for 4.7
>
> Does not fail here - can you still reproduce it? (It might have been fixed by
> the patch
hread model: posix
gcc version 4.7.0 20110426 (experimental) [trunk revision 172980] (GCC)
COLLECT_GCC_OPTIONS='-v' '-O0' '-flto' '-shared-libgcc' '-mtune=generic'
'-march=x86-64'
/data03/vondele/gnu/gcc_trunk/install/libexec/gcc/x86_64-u
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48752
--- Comment #11 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia.nrc.ca 2011-04-26 18:11:43 UTC ---
> Any clue what is wrong?
> After dinner I will try to look into the add_new_function path and figure out
> why summaries are not computed as they should.
These are th
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48750
--- Comment #10 from Tom 2011-04-26 18:09:05
UTC ---
Hi Paulo,
Yes, this certainly fixes my segfault.
Valgrind complains a little - although I am not sure if this is important (I
am very new to the helgrind tool). In case it is useful, I attac
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48752
--- Comment #10 from Jan Hubicka 2011-04-26
17:59:49 UTC ---
Hi,
the testcase doesn't seem to work for me. I get
In file included from
/test/gnu/gcc/objdir/hppa2.0w-hp-hpux11.11/libstdc++-v3/include/cctype:43:0,
from
/test/gnu/g
-with-ppl --with-cloog-include=/usr/include/cloog-ppl/
--disable-ppl-version-check
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.7.0 20110426 (experimental) (GCC)
$ gcc gcc.c-torture/execute/20010910-1.c -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer
-ftree-loop-distribution
$ valgrind -q ./a.out
(no output)
(however, there see
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48279
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-04-26
17:54:11 UTC ---
http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=165749
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48258
--- Comment #2 from Michael Meissner 2011-04-26
17:48:34 UTC ---
Author: meissner
Date: Tue Apr 26 17:48:29 2011
New Revision: 172981
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=172981
Log:
PR target/48258, improve vector reduction on
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48438
--- Comment #2 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-04-26 17:36:51 UTC ---
> - large_real_kind_2.F90
> Fails for CTEST_POWER(0.0, 5.4), which is:
> abs(0.0**5.4 - 0.0**5.4)/(0.0**5.4) > eps
>
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48604
Edmar Wienskoski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||edmar at freescale dot com
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48279
--- Comment #10 from Tobias Burnus 2011-04-26
17:06:03 UTC ---
Works: 2010-10-15-r165507 (a5b23678e24cec2da289a54ae62f98f7b1301c36)
Fails: 2010-10-23-r165882 (2dfbcd30bb4e761a9c5144a0656b8dfc6336ed37)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48775
Summary: gcc.dg/pr48616.c FAILs on Tru64 UNIX
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
AssignedTo: u
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48663
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48754
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|powerpc*-*-*|powerpc*-*-*, mips*-*-*
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48754
--- Comment #3 from Rainer Orth 2011-04-26 16:25:49 UTC
---
Created attachment 24105
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24105
-fdump-tree-optimized for mips-sgi-irix6.5, N32 ABI
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48774
Summary: gcc-4.6.0 optimization regression on
x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48742
--- Comment #5 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2011-04-26 15:24:13 UTC ---
On Tue, 26 Apr 2011, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> Created attachment 24104
> --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24104
> gcc46-pr48742.patch
>
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48750
--- Comment #9 from Paolo Carlini 2011-04-26
15:19:12 UTC ---
Seth, Tom, if you get a chance to test the changes I propose in Comment 7
(suitably, trivially tweaked for 4.4.x), please let me know as soon as
possible.
If Johannes cannot provide f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48742
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-04-26
15:16:05 UTC ---
Created attachment 24104
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24104
gcc46-pr48742.patch
So do you mean something like this? Haven't bootstrapped/regtested it yet...
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38644
Jiangning Liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jiangning.liu at arm dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48772
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48760
--- Comment #17 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2011-04-26 15:03:49 UTC ---
As far as I can see, the main (only?) use of imaginary types is for this
issue of constructing complex values. In addition, you need to define for
each target the A
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48773
Summary: Dataflow and REG_DEAD notes
Product: gcc
Version: 4.3.5
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
Priority: P3
Component: rtl-optimization
AssignedTo: unassig...@g
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48770
--- Comment #1 from Zdenek Sojka 2011-04-26 14:57:08
UTC ---
(gdb) disassemble
...
0x00400d06 <+18>:addq $0x1,(%rax)
0x00400d0a <+22>:mov$0x8,%eax
0x00400d0f <+27>:test %edi,%edi
0x0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48760
--- Comment #16 from Paolo Carlini 2011-04-26
14:54:12 UTC ---
Thanks Joseph for the explanation and the references. Now maybe I'm digressing
in terms of the C++ issue we are facing, but I'm wondering: at some point, even
for C99, shouldn't we su
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48742
--- Comment #3 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2011-04-26 14:50:47 UTC ---
There shouldn't be nested C_MAYBE_CONST_EXPR. The code you quote
> if (!in_late_binary_op)
> {
> if (!op0_maybe_const
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48772
Summary: [4.7 Regression] ICE: SIGSEGV in
walk_non_aliased_vuses (gimple.h:1100) with -O
-fnon-call-exceptions -fno-tree-ccp -fno-tree-dce
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48771
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||paolo.carlini at oracle dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48760
--- Comment #15 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2011-04-26 14:30:50 UTC ---
On Mon, 25 Apr 2011, john at johnmaddock dot co.uk wrote:
> Sorry to be dumb, but doesn't the result of the C code violate section G.5.2
> in
> C99 - which is to say
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48760
--- Comment #14 from Gabriel Dos Reis 2011-04-26
14:12:35 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #12)
> (In reply to comment #9)
> > I guess, in the 4.6.1 time frame we can only workaround the issue in C++03
> > mode
> > by doing the piecewise work in the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48771
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45586
--- Comment #54 from Tobias Burnus 2011-04-26
14:07:03 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #53)
> reduced testcase for 4.7
Does not fail here - can you still reproduce it? (It might have been fixed by
the patch for PR 48588. If it still occurs, I will
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48768
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-04-26
13:47:17 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Apr 26 13:47:13 2011
New Revision: 172970
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=172970
Log:
PR debug/48768
* tree-ssa.c (insert_debug_t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48112
--- Comment #5 from Tobias Burnus 2011-04-26
13:50:53 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> The crucial part of the patch is:
> + /* Avoid double resolution of function result symbols. */
> + if ((sym->result || sym->attr.result) && (sym->ns != g
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48771
Summary: [C++0x] is_literal_type incorrect for references to
non-literal types
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48734
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48768
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48734
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-04-26
13:44:54 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Apr 26 13:44:51 2011
New Revision: 172969
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=172969
Log:
PR tree-optimization/48734
* tree-ssa-reass
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48753
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48734
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-04-26
13:33:55 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Apr 26 13:33:49 2011
New Revision: 172967
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=172967
Log:
PR tree-optimization/48734
* tree-ssa-reass
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48279
--- Comment #9 from Tobias Burnus 2011-04-26
13:36:50 UTC ---
Works with: 2010-09-28-r164677
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48768
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-04-26
13:35:24 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Apr 26 13:35:21 2011
New Revision: 172968
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=172968
Log:
PR debug/48768
* tree-ssa.c (insert_debug_t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48753
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-04-26
13:31:21 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Apr 26 13:31:17 2011
New Revision: 172966
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=172966
Log:
PR testsuite/48753
* gcc.dg/tree-prof/val-p
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48766
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||iant at google dot com
--- Comment #2 from H.J.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48763
--- Comment #6 from Jan Hubicka 2011-04-26 13:20:24 UTC
---
> We should defer detection of incompatibilities to when we see the call stmt,
> thus expand_call_inline. We shouldn't worry about this disturbing inliner
Undoing the inliner decisions
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48753
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48731
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48763
--- Comment #5 from Richard Guenther 2011-04-26
13:05:32 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> I would say that PR48761 testcase is not 100% dup of this one. One tests that
> cgraph merging check type compatibility of direct call edges, the second
1 - 100 of 154 matches
Mail list logo
