http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49721
--- Comment #19 from Uros Bizjak 2011-08-03 06:47:30
UTC ---
Paolo,
FYI, problem in comment #11 can be seen on unpatched trunk by compiling the
testcase from comment #5.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49721
--- Comment #18 from Uros Bizjak 2011-08-03 06:40:45
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #17)
> H.J., I agree with what you write in comment 16. But unless we are sure that
> the problematic composition will never be generated (e.g. by ivopts), we
> c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49721
--- Comment #17 from Paolo Bonzini 2011-08-03 06:32:42
UTC ---
H.J., I agree with what you write in comment 16. But unless we are sure that
the problematic composition will never be generated (e.g. by ivopts), we cannot
afford that.
The patch i
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49953
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49953
Summary: _toupper() and _tolower() macros in ctype.h are broken
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
A
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49941
--- Comment #7 from Alan Modra 2011-08-03 03:07:13
UTC ---
The lurking problem being that copy_rtx_if_shared_1 needs to leave RETURN
shared, and I guess mark_used_flags doesn't need to do anything with RETURN
too.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49941
--- Comment #6 from Alan Modra 2011-08-03 02:43:18
UTC ---
Bernd, with your patch applied, bootstrap dies here:
In file included from
/home/amodra/src/gcc-virgin/libgcc/../libdecnumber/decQuad.c:140:0:
/home/amodra/src/gcc-virgin/libgcc/../libde
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49721
--- Comment #16 from H.J. Lu 2011-08-03 02:40:05
UTC ---
The fundamental question is what the actual address for
(symbol FOO + const_int Y), where the numerical value of
(symbol FOO + const_int Y) is outside of [0 - (2 to the power
of hardware ad
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49941
--- Comment #5 from Alan Modra 2011-08-03 01:29:54
UTC ---
Bernd, that looks very similar to the patch I started to write. Then I saw the
comment in mark_jump_label_1
/* Do not change a previous setting of JUMP_LABEL. If the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49593
--- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill 2011-08-03
01:25:40 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Wed Aug 3 01:25:37 2011
New Revision: 177227
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=177227
Log:
PR c++/49593
* pt.c (find_parameter_packs_r
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49803
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49803
--- Comment #4 from Jason Merrill 2011-08-03
01:25:28 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Wed Aug 3 01:25:25 2011
New Revision: 177226
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=177226
Log:
PR c++/49803
* init.c (sort_mem_initializer
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49593
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43886
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.7.0 |4.6.2
--- Comment #5 from Jason Merrill
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43886
--- Comment #4 from Jason Merrill 2011-08-03
01:25:47 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Wed Aug 3 01:25:44 2011
New Revision: 177228
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=177228
Log:
PR c++/43886
* parser.c (cp_parser_lambda_b
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49437
Joey Ye changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||joey.ye at arm dot com
--- Comment #2 from Joey
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49941
--- Comment #3 from Bernd Schmidt 2011-08-03
00:04:55 UTC ---
Created attachment 24898
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24898
Test patch
Please try this. If it doesn't work, please attach a preprocessed testcase.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49941
Bernd Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bernds at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48596
--- Comment #5 from Kazumoto Kojima 2011-08-02
23:53:30 UTC ---
I was trying to find a way that solves it without penalizing -O2
or the higher cases, though it's not easy to me. It seems that
the target's register_move_cost is the way to discour
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49688
Richard Henderson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigne
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40947
--- Comment #14 from Hin-Tak Leung
2011-08-02 23:31:30 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #13)
> One other possible problem: please avoid relative pathnames to configure and
> an object directory that is a subdir of the source tree. Better do (say)
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49878
Richard Henderson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.7.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49874
Richard Henderson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49874
Richard Henderson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.7.0
Target Milestone|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49952
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kris.van.hees at oracle dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49879
Richard Henderson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49881
Richard Henderson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.7.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49881
Richard Henderson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49864
Richard Henderson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49864
--- Comment #5 from Richard Henderson 2011-08-02
22:18:38 UTC ---
Author: rth
Date: Tue Aug 2 22:18:35 2011
New Revision: 177218
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=177218
Log:
PR target/49864
* reg-notes.def (REG_ARGS_SIZ
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49952
Summary: Unicode literals do not generate errors as prescribed
by the FDIS standard
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: trivial
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49577
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43886
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34888
--- Comment #4 from Richard Henderson 2011-08-02
21:10:51 UTC ---
Created attachment 24897
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24897
Optimize pop-all
The proposed patch for PR49864 introduces REG_ARGS_SIZE.
This records a (normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49593
--- Comment #1 from Jason Merrill 2011-08-02
21:09:13 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Tue Aug 2 21:09:08 2011
New Revision: 177214
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=177214
Log:
PR c++/49593
* pt.c (find_parameter_packs_r
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49577
--- Comment #4 from Jason Merrill 2011-08-02
21:09:20 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Tue Aug 2 21:09:17 2011
New Revision: 177215
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=177215
Log:
PR c++/49577
* typeck2.c (check_narrowing):
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43886
--- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill 2011-08-02
21:09:31 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Tue Aug 2 21:09:26 2011
New Revision: 177216
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=177216
Log:
PR c++/43886
* parser.c (cp_parser_lambda_b
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49803
--- Comment #3 from Jason Merrill 2011-08-02
21:09:02 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Tue Aug 2 21:08:57 2011
New Revision: 177213
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=177213
Log:
PR c++/49803
* init.c (sort_mem_initializer
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34888
Richard Henderson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32997
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dodji at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17994
Richard Henderson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47597
Richard Henderson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17994
--- Comment #10 from Torleif.Sandnes at atmel dot com 2011-08-02 20:46:09 UTC
---
I am on vacation, but will be back 8th August.
Torleif Sandnes
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49878
Richard Henderson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49914
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49084
--- Comment #5 from Anh Vo 2011-08-02 20:28:03
UTC ---
On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 8:41 AM, anhvofrcaus at gmail dot com
wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49084
>
> --- Comment #4 from Anh Vo 2011-08-02 15:40:34
> UTC ---
> On Tu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49914
--- Comment #10 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-08-02 20:27:00 UTC ---
Author: paolo
Date: Tue Aug 2 20:26:57 2011
New Revision: 177212
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=177212
Log:
2011-08-02 Paolo Carlini
PR boo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49721
--- Comment #15 from Uros Bizjak 2011-08-02 20:22:27
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #14)
> (In reply to comment #13)
> > (In reply to comment #10)
> > > Here is the problem:
> >
> > No, in your case new insn is rejected (twice):
> >
> > Trying 43
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43886
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49951
--- Comment #1 from Peter Thompson
2011-08-02 20:15:10 UTC ---
Note that when the Class destructor is commented out
// ~MyClass() {}; // destructor
then the debugger steps through the code without jumping around. Go figure!
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49885
--- Comment #9 from Daniel Kraft 2011-08-02 20:15:08
UTC ---
Fixed on trunk. I will also backport to 4.6 later, and then close the PR.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49227
--- Comment #6 from dcb 2011-08-02 20:09:55 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> Confirmed that my testcase no longer reproduces, as of svn revision 177081 or
> earlier.
I confirm that it seems to be fixed for me as of snapshot 20110730
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49885
--- Comment #8 from Daniel Kraft 2011-08-02 20:10:17
UTC ---
Author: domob
Date: Tue Aug 2 20:10:13 2011
New Revision: 177211
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=177211
Log:
2011-08-02 Daniel Kraft
PR fortran/49885
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49951
Summary: Debug stepping behavior regarding g++ Class destructor
has changed for the worse starting at gcc 4.5.0
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: nor
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49577
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49824
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
...@gcc.gnu.org
ReportedBy: jan.kratoch...@redhat.com
Target: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
FAIL: gcc (GCC) 4.4.7 20110802 (prerelease)
FAIL: gcc (GCC) 4.5.4 20110802 (prerelease)
FAIL: gcc (GCC) 4.6.2 20110802 (prerelease)
FAIL: gcc (GCC) 4.7.0 20110802 (experimental)
echo 'int i
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49721
--- Comment #14 from H.J. Lu 2011-08-02 19:42:30
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #13)
> (In reply to comment #10)
> > Here is the problem:
>
> No, in your case new insn is rejected (twice):
>
> Trying 434 -> 435:
> Failed to match this instruction
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49947
Kai Tietz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49721
--- Comment #13 from Uros Bizjak 2011-08-02 19:32:46
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #10)
> Here is the problem:
No, in your case new insn is rejected (twice):
Trying 434 -> 435:
Failed to match this instruction:
(parallel [
(set (reg/f:SI
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49947
--- Comment #1 from Kai Tietz 2011-08-02 19:31:33
UTC ---
Author: ktietz
Date: Tue Aug 2 19:31:30 2011
New Revision: 177205
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=177205
Log:
2011-08-02 Kai Tietz
PR middle-end/49947
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49721
--- Comment #12 from H.J. Lu 2011-08-02 19:29:12
UTC ---
combine.c has
/* Allocate array for insn info. */
max_uid_known = get_max_uid ();
uid_log_links = XCNEWVEC (struct insn_link *, max_uid_known + 1);
uid_insn_cost = XCNEWVEC (int,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49593
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49721
--- Comment #11 from Uros Bizjak 2011-08-02 19:19:06
UTC ---
So, we have:
(insn 129 128 131 2 (set (reg:DI 276)
(sign_extend:DI (reg:SI 277))) pr49721.f:10 123 {*extendsidi2_rex64}
(expr_list:REG_DEAD (reg:SI 277)
(nil)))
.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49949
Summary: wrong sign for product of complex and double
with -O2
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Priority: P3
Component: c++
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49721
--- Comment #10 from H.J. Lu 2011-08-02 19:17:43
UTC ---
Here is the problem:
(gdb)
Continuing.
Breakpoint 1, convert_memory_address_addr_space (to_mode=DImode,
x=0x707f73c0, as=0 '\000')
at /export/gnu/import/git/gcc/gcc/explow.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49878
--- Comment #4 from Richard Henderson 2011-08-02
18:48:04 UTC ---
Author: rth
Date: Tue Aug 2 18:48:00 2011
New Revision: 177200
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=177200
Log:
PR target/49878
h8300: Don't allow eliminable reg
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49721
--- Comment #9 from Uros Bizjak 2011-08-02 18:36:33
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> > #0 try_combine (i3=, i2=, i1=0x0,
> > i0= > out>, new_direct_jump_p=0x7fffdf54,
> > last_combined_insn=0x71a12c60) at
> > ../../gcc-svn/trunk
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49803
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49260
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49834
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49834
--- Comment #3 from Jason Merrill 2011-08-02
18:09:02 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Tue Aug 2 18:08:58 2011
New Revision: 177199
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=177199
Log:
PR c++/49834
* parser.c (build_range_temp):
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49885
--- Comment #7 from Daniel Kraft 2011-08-02 17:55:38
UTC ---
This seems to be fixed by changing gfc_start_block in
trans-array.c:gfc_trans_auto_array_allocation to gfc_init_block. That's the
way it already was in trans-decl.c:gfc_trans_auto_char
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49227
--- Comment #5 from Arthur O'Dwyer
2011-08-02 17:47:20 UTC ---
Confirmed that my testcase no longer reproduces, as of svn revision 177081 or
earlier.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49948
--- Comment #1 from Arthur O'Dwyer
2011-08-02 17:43:00 UTC ---
Created attachment 24895
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24895
Output of "gcc-4.5 -O3 -ftree-parallelize-loops=2 -std=c99 -c test.c -v"
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49944
--- Comment #4 from charlet at adacore dot com
2011-08-02 17:42:05 UTC ---
> I would not be so assertive as Arno.
Really? As the person who wrote this file and as the main tasking expert
of GNAT, I think I can be so assertive on this topic.
> I
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49948
Summary: ICE with -ftree-parallelize-loops: "address taken, but
ADDRESSABLE bit not set"
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority:
> I would not be so assertive as Arno.
Really? As the person who wrote this file and as the main tasking expert
of GNAT, I think I can be so assertive on this topic.
> It seems to me (but I may be wrong) that
> s-taprop-linux.adb really only calls glibc and libpthread, not the
> kernel, and
> the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49940
--- Comment #2 from Ludovic Brenta 2011-08-02
17:39:02 UTC ---
I found that declaring lwp_self in s-osinte-kfreebsd-gnu.ads similarly to the
declaration in s-osinte-freebsd.ads fixed the problem. Patch submitted as
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-pat
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49881
--- Comment #9 from Richard Henderson 2011-08-02
17:38:22 UTC ---
Author: rth
Date: Tue Aug 2 17:38:16 2011
New Revision: 177196
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=177196
Log:
PR target/49881
* config/avr/avr.md (push
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49944
--- Comment #3 from Ludovic Brenta 2011-08-02
17:30:43 UTC ---
I would not be so assertive as Arno. It seems to me (but I may be wrong) that
s-taprop-linux.adb really only calls glibc and libpthread, not the kernel, and
therefore should be calle
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42041
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46752
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49114
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49193
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49947
Summary: [4.7 Regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/forwprop-15.c
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
Assi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42041
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-08-02
16:13:35 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Aug 2 16:13:29 2011
New Revision: 177194
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=177194
Log:
Merge from gomp-3_1-branch branch:
2011-08-02 Jak
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49924
--- Comment #4 from Faisal Vali 2011-08-02 16:15:18
UTC ---
wow - that was quick - thank you Jason!!
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46752
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-08-02
16:13:35 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Aug 2 16:13:29 2011
New Revision: 177194
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=177194
Log:
Merge from gomp-3_1-branch branch:
2011-08-02 Jak
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49721
--- Comment #8 from H.J. Lu 2011-08-02 15:58:56
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> (In reply to comment #5)
> > Another testcase:
>
> Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault.
> try_combine (i3=, i2=, i1=0x0, i0= out>, new_direct_jump
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49721
--- Comment #7 from H.J. Lu 2011-08-02 15:57:35
UTC ---
Created attachment 24893
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24893
A patch
With this patch, I got many ICEs in gcc testsuite. One of
them is
[hjl@gnu-6 pr49721]$ cat x.i
st
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49834
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49500
--- Comment #13 from Hans-Peter Nilsson 2011-08-02
15:43:35 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #11)
> Any updates?
Still failing at r177108 for cris-elf. Not tested the patch, but it seems
everybody else has.
> Was the patch applied?
Does not look
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49852
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49084
--- Comment #4 from Anh Vo 2011-08-02 15:40:34
UTC ---
On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 7:18 AM, rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49084
>
> --- Comment #3 from Richard Guenther 2011-08-02
> 14:12:01 UTC ---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49721
--- Comment #6 from Uros Bizjak 2011-08-02 15:39:55
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> Another testcase:
Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault.
try_combine (i3=, i2=, i1=0x0, i0=, new_direct_jump_p=0x7fffdf54,
last_combine
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49260
--- Comment #10 from Jason Merrill 2011-08-02
15:35:28 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Tue Aug 2 15:35:20 2011
New Revision: 177186
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=177186
Log:
PR c++/49260
* call.c (build_call_a): Set
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49924
--- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill 2011-08-02
15:35:38 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Tue Aug 2 15:35:34 2011
New Revision: 177188
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=177188
Log:
PR c++/49924
* semantics.c (cxx_eval_vec_in
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49924
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49941
--- Comment #2 from Alan Modra 2011-08-02 15:29:57
UTC ---
So, rebuild_jump_labels doesn't add back this JUMP_LABEL, because
mark_jump_label does as its comment says:
If INSN is a JUMP_INSN and there is at least one
CODE_LABEL referenced in
1 - 100 of 194 matches
Mail list logo
