http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50196
--- Comment #5 from watsonsong 2011-10-08
06:30:52 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> I'll look into doing this for 4.7
Thank you.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50661
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50662
Bug #: 50662
Summary: Incorrect diagnostic returning non-const array pointer
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34927
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50661
Bug #: 50661
Summary: std::equal should use more efficient version for
arrays of pointers
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.4.5
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50659
--- Comment #6 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-07 23:05:59 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> In any case, here is a draft patch which fixes the ICE:
The patch in comment #4 regtests cleanly.
Of course it simply avoids the ICE by removing t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46093
Ian Lance Taylor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46093
--- Comment #1 from ian at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-07
22:51:16 UTC ---
Author: ian
Date: Fri Oct 7 22:51:11 2011
New Revision: 179702
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=179702
Log:
PR target/46093
* generic-morestack.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50646
--- Comment #5 from Andreas Schwab 2011-10-07 22:30:14
UTC ---
*** Bug 50647 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50647
Andreas Schwab changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50646
--- Comment #4 from Andreas Schwab 2011-10-07 22:27:41
UTC ---
Your bootstrap compiler must be broken, because the test is correctly
implemented: a successful run of the test program means little endian. Since
the test exited with non-zero exit
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50647
--- Comment #4 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2011-10-07 21:54:27 UTC ---
In general, please see our bug reporting instructions. Reports of
problems building GCC are not useful without details of the build, host
and target systems and the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50647
--- Comment #3 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2011-10-07 21:49:58 UTC ---
In general the declarations in system.h are expected to be used only for
very archaic hosts that do not have prototypes in their system headers.
For such hosts, int
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50646
--- Comment #3 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2011-10-07 21:46:20 UTC ---
Until comparatively recently, the only thing that cared about host
endianness was decimal floating-point support. However, now the lexer
cares as well.
What is the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50585
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50625
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50625
--- Comment #7 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-07 21:01:06 UTC ---
Author: janus
Date: Fri Oct 7 21:01:02 2011
New Revision: 179696
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=179696
Log:
2011-10-07 Janus Weil
PR fortran/5
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50585
--- Comment #9 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-07 21:01:06 UTC ---
Author: janus
Date: Fri Oct 7 21:01:02 2011
New Revision: 179696
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=179696
Log:
2011-10-07 Janus Weil
PR fortran/5
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50647
--- Comment #2 from Roger Meyer 2011-10-07
20:57:27 UTC ---
indeed, this should not happen.
but configure fails to figure that sbrk _is_ provided by the libc.
probably it doesn't use the proper feature test macros.
or it just err'd on compilatio
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50646
--- Comment #2 from Roger Meyer 2011-10-07
20:50:23 UTC ---
indeed, it would cause problems. i.e. compile some stuff with wrong endianness
and later silently crash.
in this specific case here the build stops later on on another error, caused by
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50659
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[F03] ICE on invalid with |[4.5/4.6/4.7 Regression]
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50659
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50659
--- Comment #3 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-07 19:32:25 UTC ---
Here is a variant which gives the same ICE, but after a regular error message:
program p
implicit none
procedure(Proc) :: Proc_Get
contains
function Proc (arg)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50660
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50640
--- Comment #7 from Richard Guenther 2011-10-07
18:59:26 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> (In reply to comment #3)
> > Hmm, this is not as trivial as PR50638. fortran frontend generates this
> > static variable local to MAIN:
> >
> > static s
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50660
--- Comment #3 from Paolo Carlini 2011-10-07
18:57:12 UTC ---
I guess we can avoid the , just use __null.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50640
--- Comment #6 from Richard Guenther 2011-10-07
18:53:44 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> Hmm, this is not as trivial as PR50638. fortran frontend generates this
> static variable local to MAIN:
>
> static struct __vtype_MAIN___T1 __vtab_MAIN
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50660
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|trivial |normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40210
--- Comment #11 from Pawel Sikora 2011-10-07 18:45:57
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #10)
> (In reply to comment #9)
> > Created attachment 25442 [details]
> > testcase
>
> I think those are hard to optimize really since those are inline-asm reall
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50659
--- Comment #2 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-07 18:45:43 UTC ---
Slight reduction of the original test case:
module m
integer :: arrSize
end module
program p
implicit none
procedure(Proc) :: Proc_Get
contains
function Proc (arg
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40210
--- Comment #10 from Andrew Pinski 2011-10-07
18:29:07 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #9)
> Created attachment 25442 [details]
> testcase
I think those are hard to optimize really since those are inline-asm really.
And the unsigned short one gets
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50659
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||janus at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40210
--- Comment #9 from Pawel Sikora 2011-10-07 18:22:25
UTC ---
Created attachment 25442
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25442
testcase
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50660
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|WAITING
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50660
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50660
Bug #: 50660
Summary: gcc repeats warnings twice
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: trivial
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50655
--- Comment #5 from davem at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-07 17:23:53 UTC ---
Author: davem
Date: Fri Oct 7 17:23:47 2011
New Revision: 179667
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=179667
Log:
Fix VIS3 assembler check and conditionaliz
/local/gcc-4.7 --enable-
languages=c,c++,fortran --disable-multilib
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.7.0 20111007 (experimental) (GCC)
$ gfortran -c test.F90 -o test.o
f951: internal compiler error: in replace_symbol, at fortran/expr.c:4155
Please submit a full bug report,
with preprocessed source
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50642
--- Comment #5 from Georg-Johann Lay 2011-10-07
17:17:30 UTC ---
Legibility first. There is no need to be more catholic than the pope ;-)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50638
--- Comment #10 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-10-07 17:05:11 UTC ---
> --- Comment #8 from Michael Matz 2011-10-07
> 17:02:00 UTC ---
> Okay, so it's really the emutlv_v variables. That should be fixed by the
> patch at gcc-patc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50638
--- Comment #9 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-10-07 17:03:31 UTC ---
> --- Comment #7 from Michael Matz 2011-10-07
> 17:00:59 UTC ---
> Hmm, I can't build go due to:
> ../../../gcc/libgo/runtime/sigqueue.goc:79:1: internal compiler
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50638
--- Comment #8 from Michael Matz 2011-10-07 17:02:00
UTC ---
Okay, so it's really the emutlv_v variables. That should be fixed by the
patch at gcc-patches.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50638
--- Comment #7 from Michael Matz 2011-10-07 17:00:59
UTC ---
Hmm, I can't build go due to:
../../../gcc/libgo/runtime/sigqueue.goc:79:1: internal compiler error: in
maybe_record_trace_start, at dwarf2cfi.c:2243
but that seems unrelated.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50638
--- Comment #6 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-10-07 16:58:40 UTC ---
> --- Comment #5 from Michael Matz 2011-10-07
> 16:53:59 UTC ---
> Mine. See also http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-10/msg00597.html .
> What's the variable
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50640
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||janus at gcc dot gnu.org,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50638
Michael Matz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #5 from Michael Matz
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50655
--- Comment #4 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-10-07 16:51:36 UTC ---
> --- Comment #3 from David S. Miller 2011-10-07
> 16:45:52 UTC ---
> Thanks, I'll add the necessary register directives and work on making the
> testcases condit
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50640
--- Comment #4 from Michael Matz 2011-10-07 16:50:10
UTC ---
Or another solution: should the fortran frontend perhaps put all these
variables not in MAINs scope (where they aren't referenced anyway), but
rather into file scope? That last solutio
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50655
--- Comment #3 from David S. Miller 2011-10-07
16:45:52 UTC ---
Thanks, I'll add the necessary register directives and work on making the
testcases conditional on assembler support.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50640
--- Comment #3 from Michael Matz 2011-10-07 16:45:55
UTC ---
Hmm, this is not as trivial as PR50638. fortran frontend generates this
static variable local to MAIN:
static struct __vtype_MAIN___T1 __vtab_MAIN___T1 = {._hash=41707971, ._size=4,
.
in/cygwin1.dbg
[New Thread 4884.0x170c]
GNU C++ (GCC) version 4.7.0 20111007 (experimental) (i686-pc-cygwin)
compiled by GNU C version 4.7.0 20111006 (experimental), GMP version
5.0.0, MPFR version 3.0.1-p4, MPC version 0.8.1
GGC heuristics: --param ggc-min-expand=30 --param ggc-min-heapsize=4096
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50638
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ro at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4 from R
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50644
--- Comment #4 from Michael Matz 2011-10-07 16:34:49
UTC ---
The fortran segfault is tracked as PR50640.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50642
--- Comment #4 from Andreas Schwab 2011-10-07 16:33:46
UTC ---
A @smallexample is supposed to be smaller than an @example.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50644
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50633
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50657
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50640
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com
--- Com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50657
Bug #: 50657
Summary: [4.7 Regression] FAIL: gfortran.dg/select_type_12.f03
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35860
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50644
--- Comment #2 from Michael Matz 2011-10-07 15:45:44
UTC ---
Try to find out what var is. The segfault should also happen with an
unoptimized cc1 so that you can see the value of var.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34888
Richard Henderson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49752
Richard Henderson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49752
--- Comment #2 from Richard Henderson 2011-10-07
15:35:56 UTC ---
Author: rth
Date: Fri Oct 7 15:35:49 2011
New Revision: 179663
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=179663
Log:
PR 49752
* fold-const.c (fold_checksum_tr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50335
--- Comment #4 from Gregory Maxwell 2011-10-07
15:29:42 UTC ---
Ha, indeed. Well, I don't want it to be forgotten just because its become old
and potentially inapplicable.
I test GCC development periodically on all the software I work on— most o
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49868
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49868
--- Comment #3 from Georg-Johann Lay 2011-10-07
15:24:32 UTC ---
Created attachment 25439
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25439
2/2: r179594: AVR part of implementation
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49868
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #24916|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50655
--- Comment #2 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-10-07 15:16:16 UTC ---
> --- Comment #1 from David S. Miller 2011-10-07
> 15:01:55 UTC ---
> Please try to figure out why the configure test is not detecting VIS3
> instruction capabili
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50655
--- Comment #1 from David S. Miller 2011-10-07
15:01:55 UTC ---
Please try to figure out why the configure test is not detecting VIS3
instruction capabilities in your assembler. That's why the VIS3 tests are
failing.
The combined-1.c test is no
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50335
--- Comment #3 from Paolo Carlini 2011-10-07
14:57:11 UTC ---
No miracles, eh?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50335
--- Comment #2 from Gregory Maxwell 2011-10-07
14:52:37 UTC ---
Still failing in r179659.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50656
Bug #: 50656
Summary: Several Go tests with unrecognized test line
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prior
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50636
--- Comment #10 from Andi Kleen 2011-10-07
14:44:10 UTC ---
To track the pattern you can simply use strace or ftrace (I did ftrace)
I checked the kernel code now and if the madvise is big enough it won't
split up the 2MB page. So doing it aggres
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50625
--- Comment #6 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-07 14:42:15 UTC ---
Fixed on trunk with r179660.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50302
--- Comment #4 from Andi Kleen 2011-10-07
14:40:02 UTC ---
Sorry yes my mistake.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50625
--- Comment #5 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-07 14:40:21 UTC ---
Author: janus
Date: Fri Oct 7 14:40:14 2011
New Revision: 179660
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=179660
Log:
2011-10-07 Janus Weil
PR fortran/5
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50527
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49049
Bernd Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49049
--- Comment #9 from Bernd Schmidt 2011-10-07
12:56:55 UTC ---
Author: bernds
Date: Fri Oct 7 12:56:52 2011
New Revision: 179657
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=179657
Log:
PR target/49049
* config/arm/arm.md (arm
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50527
--- Comment #10 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-07 12:50:00 UTC ---
Author: vries
Date: Fri Oct 7 12:49:56 2011
New Revision: 179656
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=179656
Log:
2011-10-07 Tom de Vries
PR middle
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50527
--- Comment #9 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-07 12:49:54 UTC ---
Author: vries
Date: Fri Oct 7 12:49:49 2011
New Revision: 179655
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=179655
Log:
2011-10-07 Tom de Vries
PR middle-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50650
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50633
--- Comment #12 from Bernd Schmidt 2011-10-07
12:20:57 UTC ---
Sorry, commit didn't go through earlier - it's in now.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49484
vijay changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vijay910 at gmail dot com
--- Comment #3 from vij
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50633
--- Comment #11 from Bernd Schmidt 2011-10-07
12:10:11 UTC ---
I see none of these failures in the x86_64 test run with my last patch applied.
Can you confirm that it's fixed?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50575
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
URL|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50492
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50650
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-10-07
11:48:07 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Oct 7 11:48:03 2011
New Revision: 179653
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=179653
Log:
PR tree-optimization/50650
* tree-vect-patt
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50492
--- Comment #6 from Eric Botcazou 2011-10-07
11:43:08 UTC ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Fri Oct 7 11:43:03 2011
New Revision: 179652
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=179652
Log:
PR lto/50492
* gcc-interface/gigi.h (gn
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50575
--- Comment #3 from Rainer Orth 2011-10-07 11:33:02 UTC
---
Author: ro
Date: Fri Oct 7 11:32:59 2011
New Revision: 179651
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=179651
Log:
Disable ABI warnings for gcc.c-torture/execute/vector-co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50557
--- Comment #6 from Igor Zamyatin 2011-10-07
10:33:33 UTC ---
Indeed, overall register pressure is not increased. Even before IRA dumps show
that register pressure is actually kept on the same level.
Looks like it is a tricky case we met.
Firs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50596
--- Comment #15 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-10-07
10:31:13 UTC ---
float a[1024], b[1024], c[1024], d[1024];
int j[1024];
void
f1 (void)
{
int i;
for (i = 0; i < 1024; ++i)
{
unsigned int x = a[i] < b[i] ? -1 : 0;
unsigned int y
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50655
Bug #: 50655
Summary: Many of the new VIS2/VIS3 tests FAIL on Solaris
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50596
--- Comment #14 from vincenzo Innocente
2011-10-07 10:15:03 UTC ---
signed char k[1024];
void foo6() {
for (int i=0; i!=N; ++i)
k[i] = (a[i]
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50636
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-10-07
10:01:32 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> Perhaps on Linux, at least with recentish kernel, we could change
> release_pages
> into keeping the pages in the G.free_pages chain, but call madvise
> MAD
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50653
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Component|c++
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50641
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50650
--- Comment #4 from vincenzo Innocente
2011-10-07 09:30:46 UTC ---
ok in my tests
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50654
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.7.0
1 - 100 of 127 matches
Mail list logo
