http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50362
Bug #: 50362
Summary: ICE on x86 architecture with -O2 or higher
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
Priority
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50353
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=50343
--- Comment #8 from Richard Guenther 2011-09-12
06:01:19 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Sep 12 06:01:15 2011
New Revision: 178775
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=178775
Log:
2011-09-12 Richard Guenther
PR tree-op
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50343
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50343
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50361
Bug #: 50361
Summary: gcc 4.6 ICE probably relating to std::initializer_list
and template argument deduction
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50338
--- Comment #5 from James McKelvey
2011-09-12 00:47:13 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> > All the source in my project's library is built with -flto.
> >
> > This same basic code worked with LTO before, shortly after LTO
> > first came out. Th
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50353
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski 2011-09-11
23:26:47 UTC ---
I think at -O0 this is ok, at -O1 and above should have removed the
TREE_ADDRESABLE on the variable already.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50159
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50159
--- Comment #3 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-09-11 22:10:26 UTC ---
Author: paolo
Date: Sun Sep 11 22:10:21 2011
New Revision: 178770
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=178770
Log:
2011-09-11 Daniel Krugler
PR lib
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50305
Michael Hope changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||michael.hope at linaro dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41076
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|avr-elf |avr
Priority|P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41076
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50327
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35831
--- Comment #11 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-11 20:48:40 UTC ---
r178767 implements a check to reject the original c.l.f. test case as well as
the one in comment #0.
At this point I would tend to say that comment #2 is valid, but we also
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50327
--- Comment #4 from Thomas Koenig 2011-09-11
20:48:29 UTC ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Sun Sep 11 20:48:26 2011
New Revision: 178768
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=178768
Log:
2011-09-11 Thomas Koenig
PR fortran/50327
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37222
--- Comment #2 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-11 20:43:13 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> This PR can be used to track some of the missing checks:
> * ALLOCATABLE/POINTER
> * string length
> * ...
http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?view=revis
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50360
Bug #: 50360
Summary: [cleanup] use an ENUM for the return values of
gfc_dep_compare_expr
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16663
--- Comment #8 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2011-09-11
20:28:50 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
>
> If 'void' is not allowed and 'misspelled' is not declared, then wouldn't it be
> better to recognize that case as an undeclared 'misspelled' instead
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47978
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47978
--- Comment #5 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-11 20:12:31 UTC ---
Author: janus
Date: Sun Sep 11 20:12:24 2011
New Revision: 178767
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=178767
Log:
2011-09-11 Janus Weil
PR fortran/3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35831
--- Comment #10 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-11 20:12:30 UTC ---
Author: janus
Date: Sun Sep 11 20:12:24 2011
New Revision: 178767
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=178767
Log:
2011-09-11 Janus Weil
PR fortran/
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50359
Bug #: 50359
Summary: poor error message for an undeclared identifier in
constructor
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16663
Rui Maciel changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rui.maciel at gmail dot com
--- Comment #7 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50010
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #13
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50352
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=50358
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50358
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50358
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.7.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50358
Bug #: 50358
Summary: AVR: Implement [u]maddqihi4 [u]msubqihi4 patterns on
the enhanced core
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.1
Status: UNCONFIR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50159
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot |paolo.carlini at oracle dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50357
Bug #: 50357
Summary: verify_cgraph_node failed with -O2
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50356
Bug #: 50356
Summary: Poor if condition in h8300 config code
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50355
Bug #: 50355
Summary: Comparison is always true in alpha config code
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50010
--- Comment #12 from Gary Funck 2011-09-11 16:29:39
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #10)
> Putting binutils 2.21.1 in PATH before the system versions of these tools,
> which are binutils 2.17.50 based, avoids the issue on FreeBSD 9/i386.
On the i68
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50354
Bug #: 50354
Summary: [4.7 regression] sparc64-linux gcc generates assembly
code that gas rejects, breaking bootstrap
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50078
--- Comment #8 from Steven Bosscher 2011-09-11
15:47:21 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> Comes from SSA expand => Matz
Comes from SSA expand because it is already wrong in the .expand dump:
;; MEM[(volatile unsigned int *)&var][arg_1(D)] ={v}
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50063
--- Comment #9 from Steven Bosscher 2011-09-11
15:46:22 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> Already wrong in the .expand dump:
This comment somehow ended up in the wrong PR. It should be in bug 50078.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38644
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||steven at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50078
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|steven at gcc dot gnu.org |matz at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #7
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50063
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||steven at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50078
--- Comment #6 from Steven Bosscher 2011-09-11
15:22:36 UTC ---
int
set_noop_p (const_rtx set)
{
rtx src = SET_SRC (set);
rtx dst = SET_DEST (set);
if (dst == pc_rtx && src == pc_rtx)
return 1;
if (MEM_P (dst) && MEM_P (src))
re
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50348
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50078
--- Comment #5 from Steven Bosscher 2011-09-11
15:14:19 UTC ---
Actually it is not noop_move_p that's at fault here, but the disgusting hack
for NOOP_MOVE_INSN_CODE. The insn is marked as a NOOP_MOVE somewhere else in
combine.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50290
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||steven at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39333
Rafał Mużyło changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #25238|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50353
Bug #: 50353
Summary: vec_set not used for vector indexing
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
14:50:36 UTC
---
I try to use gcc version 4.7.0 20110911 (experimental) to build gcc trunk, and
it also has the problem, but shows a different error:
i686-w64-mingw32-gcc -pipe -g0 -O2 -fomit-frame-pointer -finline
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50352
Bug #: 50352
Summary: [4.7 regression] arm-linux-gnueabi bootstrap failure
due to -Wformat error in arm.md
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
St
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41209
--- Comment #8 from Thomas Koenig 2011-09-11
12:06:48 UTC ---
*** Bug 49501 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49501
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44352
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37534
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50010
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||i[345]86-*-*
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50351
Bug #: 50351
Summary: An internal compiler error when building gcc4.6 using
"-flto -fuse-linker-plugin" on Win7 mingw64 target
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35831
--- Comment #9 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-11 10:06:03 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> Combining the three statements above, F08 clearly demands that the *shape* of
> the argument should be the same (meaning that the bounds themselves
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49997
--- Comment #5 from Jan Hubicka 2011-09-11 09:42:32 UTC
---
> Possibly. Last time I tried it it however lead to bigger and slower binaries.
> Well, I will patch frescobaldi today and lets see.
OK, removing this trick alone regress tramp3d by abou
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50338
--- Comment #4 from Jan Hubicka 2011-09-11 09:36:55 UTC
---
> All the source in my project's library is built with -flto.
>
> This same basic code worked with LTO before, shortly after LTO
> first came out. This is the first time I've tried it o
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49479
--- Comment #11 from Thomas Koenig 2011-09-11
09:16:08 UTC ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Sun Sep 11 09:16:03 2011
New Revision: 178757
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=178757
Log:
2011-09-11 Thomas Koenig
Backport fron t
59 matches
Mail list logo
