all/gmp-4.3.2/ --with-mpc=/proj/install/mpc-0.8.2/
--with-mpfr=/proj/install/mpfr-2.4.2/ CFLAGS=-g
Thread model: single
gcc version 4.7.0 20110615 (experimental) (GCC)
>
> For the 4.6 branch, this required also backporting
Any idea if build succeeded for 4.6 branch? I tried and it failed
all/gmp-4.3.2/ --with-mpc=/proj/install/mpc-0.8.2/
--with-mpfr=/proj/install/mpfr-2.4.2/ CFLAGS=-g
Thread model: single
gcc version 4.7.0 20110615 (experimental) (GCC)
>
> For the 4.6 branch, this required also backporting
Any idea if the build succeeded for 4.6 branch? I tried and it failed
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49431
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44194
--- Comment #24 from Eric Botcazou 2011-06-16
05:26:56 UTC ---
> It would be nice if the expander does not spill the return into memory in the
> first place if possible. On other hand tagging compiler created memory
> location with temp decls so
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49431
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49431
Summary: is it illegal?
Product: gcc
Version: 4.4.7
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
AssignedTo: unassig...@gcc.gnu.org
Re
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49371
m...@gcc.gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mrs at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #31
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49335
--- Comment #4 from Michael Hope 2011-06-16
01:31:43 UTC ---
Also affects gimp. See LP: #791279.
Doesn't appear in trunk r172224 but does in r174795.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49429
--- Comment #7 from Easwaran Raman 2011-06-16
00:05:51 UTC ---
>From the dump after the dse.c changes, I see the following for the function
test2_31:
starting to process insn 90
v: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49430
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44194
davidxl changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xinliangli at gmail dot com
--- Comment #23 fro
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49429
--- Comment #6 from Hans-Peter Nilsson 2011-06-15
23:14:36 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> The full set of regressions for cris-elf
> (last_worked:start_fail 175051:175064) are:
>
> g++.sum g++.dg/torture/pr43879-1_1.C
Oops ignore that line;
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49430
Summary: ICE with allocatable length character in interface
block
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49429
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hp at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49427
--- Comment #1 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2011-06-15 22:52:07 UTC ---
It appears the v850 targets duplicate a lot of standard settings
tm_p_file=v850/v850-protos.h
tmake_file=v850/t-v850
md_file=v850/v850.md
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49429
--- Comment #4 from Steve Ellcey 2011-06-15 22:39:26
UTC ---
Created attachment 24542
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24542
dse dump of x.c after change was made
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49429
--- Comment #3 from Steve Ellcey 2011-06-15 22:38:15
UTC ---
Created attachment 24541
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24541
dse dump of x.c before change was made
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49429
--- Comment #2 from Steve Ellcey 2011-06-15 22:37:24
UTC ---
Created attachment 24540
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24540
Cut down version of gcc.dg/struct-by-value-1.c
This is a cutdown version of gcc.dg/struct-by-value-1.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49429
--- Comment #1 from Easwaran Raman 2011-06-15
22:22:05 UTC ---
Can you please attach the dse1 dump with and without my patch so that I can
look into it? I will also try to build a IA64 cross compiler and see if I can
spot what's happening, but I
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49429
Summary: dse.c changes to fix PR44194 (r175063) cause execution
failures
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49414
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49414
Steve Ellcey changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sje at cup dot hp.com
--- Comment #7 from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44194
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49428
Summary: Wrong FP calculation that yields 0.0.
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
AssignedTo: unassig...@gcc.g
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49427
Summary: v850e-elf wants 850e/v850e-common.c
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: build
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44194
--- Comment #21 from Easwaran Raman 2011-06-15
20:34:32 UTC ---
The DSE patch still leaves 2 redundant stores. The following patch will enable
DSE to remove those two stores. Does this look ok?
Index: gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr44194-1.c
=
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43912
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49225
--- Comment #4 from Paolo Carlini 2011-06-15
19:20:34 UTC ---
I see. Thus for the time being I'm probably going to use something like the
workaround suggested by Daniel in private email.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43772
eggert at gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||eggert at gnu dot org
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45399
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44160
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45378
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45399
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49426
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38470
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jim at meyering dot net
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49339
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49251
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||lene13 at gmail dot com
--- Comment #1 fr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49225
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48322
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||paolo.carlini at oracle dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49414
--- Comment #6 from Dominique d'Humieres 2011-06-15
17:57:06 UTC ---
For the record, it also fails on powerpc-apple-darwin9.8.0 (see
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2011-06/msg01771.html ). Could it also be
the cause of new failures in gfor
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49302
William J. Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49302
Michael Meissner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49229
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49251
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49414
--- Comment #5 from eraman at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-06-15 17:20:25 UTC ---
Author: eraman
Date: Wed Jun 15 17:20:20 2011
New Revision: 175082
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=175082
Log:
2011-06-15 Easwaran Raman
PR rtl
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49292
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49356
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49414
--- Comment #4 from Eric Botcazou 2011-06-15
17:03:31 UTC ---
> The DSE opportunity doesn't arise in ia32 since the struct is returned through
> stack. Is the following patch restricting the test to x86_64 ok? (I have
> tested
> that it works co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49414
--- Comment #3 from Eric Botcazou 2011-06-15
16:59:54 UTC ---
It seems to me that the test should just be skipped for targets that always
return structures in memory, i.e. most 32-bit targets.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49414
--- Comment #2 from Easwaran Raman 2011-06-15
16:58:57 UTC ---
The DSE opportunity doesn't arise in ia32 since the struct is returned through
stack. Is the following patch restricting the test to x86_64 ok? (I have tested
that it works correctly
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49426
Summary: unwarranted warning from -Wsign-compare
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
AssignedTo: unassig...@gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49425
--- Comment #1 from Tero Koskinen 2011-06-15
16:52:47 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #0)
> Testcase:
> gnatchop -w *.a
Oops, this line should be:
gnatchop -w *.a *.ada
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49414
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44194
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49399
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44618
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[4.4/4.5/4.6/4.7|[4.4/4.5/4.6 regression]
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49425
Summary: ACATS test C974008 fails if run after test C761011
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: ada
AssignedTo: u
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49411
--- Comment #6 from Quentin Neill 2011-06-15
16:39:47 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> newer patch has been posted
Thanks; I will test this on AMD HW.
> test the op of vpermil
Okay.
> _mm_com*
I spotted them in the opcode tables, but had for
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49371
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ramana.radhakrishnan at arm
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49420
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49419
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49412
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49411
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-06-15
15:57:29 UTC ---
FYI, a newer patch has been posted:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-06/msg01139.html
I don't think it is necessary to test the op of vpermil again if it is
CONST_INT, we know it
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49412
--- Comment #3 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-06-15
15:50:28 UTC ---
Author: hjl
Date: Wed Jun 15 15:50:22 2011
New Revision: 175080
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=175080
Log:
Mark __dso_handle hidden if assembler suppor
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49411
--- Comment #4 from Quentin Neill 2011-06-15
15:38:27 UTC ---
Hi Jakub,
Thanks for looking at this.
I think we need an nargs==3 case for the Compare/Predicate generation
(_mm_com*) intrinsics as well.
And did you mean to test the value of INTV
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49419
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-06-15
14:59:50 UTC ---
Anyway, the bug is elsewhere, in particular I'd say the bug is that we use the
normal SSA_NAME as init value of the second loop instead of the SSA_NAME
initialized from ASSERT_EXPR for
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49392
philb at gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48207
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason.vas.dias at gmail dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49424
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48459
--- Comment #26 from Richard Henderson 2011-06-15
14:40:58 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #25)
> (Assuming that backporting implies the emission of DWARF2 CFI) Is it not
> possible to drop DWARF2 CFI feature (which is optional) and still make 4.6x
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37477
Maxime van Noppen changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||maxime at altribe dot org
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37477
--- Comment #7 from Maxime van Noppen 2011-06-15
14:15:38 UTC ---
Created attachment 24538
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24538
Exhibits uncaught return values
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49424
Summary: ICE in lhd_set_decl_assembler_name at langhooks.c:158
with '-flto'
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49423
--- Comment #1 from philb at gnu dot org 2011-06-15 13:50:23 UTC ---
Created attachment 24537
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24537
testcase
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49423
Summary: [arm] internal compiler error: in push_minipool_fix
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
AssignedT
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49415
--- Comment #3 from Dominique d'Humieres 2011-06-15
13:47:43 UTC ---
I have bootstrapped revision 175077 with the patch in comment #2.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49422
Summary: [arm] unable to find a register to spill in class
'VFP_LO_REGS'
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49412
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-p
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27226
niva at niisi dot msk.ru changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||niva at niisi dot msk.ru
--- Co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49417
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.6.1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45375
--- Comment #103 from Markus Trippelsdorf
2011-06-15 12:34:20 UTC ---
Even with 8c1fce46fc0 reverted libxul fails to link during
a profiledbuild. Normal build is fine.
with bfd:
/usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/4.7.0/../../../../x86_64-pc-linux-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49415
--- Comment #2 from Dominique d'Humieres 2011-06-15
12:33:06 UTC ---
> Please try wrapping the problem prototype in #ifdef RTX_CODE, like some
> other prototypes in that header.
--- /opt/gcc/_clean/gcc/config/darwin-protos.h2011-04-06 13:5
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49419
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-06-15
12:29:51 UTC ---
Perhaps even for:
void bar (void);
int test (int);
int fn (int x, int y)
{
int i;
for (i = 0; i < y && test (i); i++)
;
if (i == y)
return;
if (i == __INT_MAX__)
b
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49419
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-06-15
12:19:00 UTC ---
So, i_47 which is the i value on entry of the second loop is determined to be
[0, +INF(OVF)] and something goes wrong afterwards. The bug will be there, but
I should note that VRP sho
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49421
Summary: [arm] suboptimal choice of working regs
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Component: target
AssignedTo: unas
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49417
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49419
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=49419
Mikael Pettersson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikpe at it dot uu.se
--- Comment #1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45375
--- Comment #102 from Markus Trippelsdorf
2011-06-15 11:44:22 UTC ---
Jan,
this is caused by:
commit 8c1fce46fc02e43e82b05f49894690133a1bcdcf
Author: hubicka
Date: Fri Jun 10 20:06:48 2011 +
Reverting the commit "fixes" the problem.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49419
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.6.1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45375
--- Comment #101 from Mike Hommey 2011-06-15
11:38:01 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #100)
> Please note that this error only happens during a profiled build.
> Normal build seems to be OK.
FWIW: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=664387
recursion : (reconfigured)
/home/jarryd/current/soft/src/gcc-svn/configure
--prefix=/home/jarryd/current/soft/install-latest --disable-multilib
--enable-languages=c,c++,go,lto --no-create --no-recursion
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.7.0 20110615 (experimental) (GCC)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49385
--- Comment #3 from revital.eres at linaro dot org 2011-06-15 11:26:32 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #0)
> Created attachment 24504 [details]
> The test to reproduce the RTL instruction.
> I see the following invalid mem to mem RTL instruction in te
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48613
--- Comment #6 from Martin Jambor 2011-06-15
11:22:38 UTC ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Wed Jun 15 11:22:35 2011
New Revision: 175077
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=175077
Log:
2011-06-15 Martin Jambor
PR tree-optimiza
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49419
Summary: [4.6/4.7 regression] gcc -O2 miscompiles gp2c
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=49418
--- Comment #1 from gcc-bug at safetymail dot info 2011-06-15 11:07:12 UTC ---
Created attachment 24534
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24534
test case
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49418
Summary: openmp default(none) in template function
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=45375
--- Comment #100 from Markus Trippelsdorf
2011-06-15 10:44:52 UTC ---
Please note that this error only happens during a profiled build.
Normal build seems to be OK.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49318
Ira Rosen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45375
--- Comment #99 from Markus Trippelsdorf
2011-06-15 10:32:08 UTC ---
New build failure with "gold" and gcc 4.7.0 20110615:
ake[6]: Entering directory
`/var/tmp/mozilla-central/moz-build-dir/js/src/shell'
js.cpp
c++ -o js.o -c
1 - 100 of 113 matches
Mail list logo
