http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50771
Bug #: 50771
Summary: redundant argument passing code (x64) + inefficient
use of stack space
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.1
Status: UNCONFIR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50724
--- Comment #32 from Michael Matz 2011-10-18 01:33:10
UTC ---
To be honest, this bug report is not under any discussion anymore. I tried to
get any sort of sanity, but in the end it's all about egos; you won't
get what you want, it's really usel
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48087
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Component|c++
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49508
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48087
--- Comment #3 from Paolo Carlini 2011-10-18
01:22:07 UTC ---
*** Bug 49508 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48087
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48087
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50724
--- Comment #31 from Ethan Tira-Thompson 2011-10-18
00:33:41 UTC ---
I don't see what the hurry is to close the bug while it's still under
discussion. I guess you guys just like hit that 'resolved' button before
you've actually committed any res
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50770
Bug #: 50770
Summary: limits-fndefn.c times out on ARM; runs 22 x faster
with -fno-var-tracking
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCON
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44277
--- Comment #5 from Paolo Carlini 2011-10-17
23:29:00 UTC ---
Humm, I already see something wrong in my wild idea: the patchlet triggers also
in conditionals, eg 'if (!p)'...
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37678
Steve Ellcey changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44277
--- Comment #4 from Paolo Carlini 2011-10-17
23:12:58 UTC ---
Jason, would it make sense to produce the warning in cp_convert_to_pointer? I
see the function does *not* have a complain argument (which would be used in
the existing error calls), an
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50678
--- Comment #42 from Eric Botcazou 2011-10-17
22:58:24 UTC ---
> > Because %rbx is saved in the prologue of do_fail.
>
> hm. Isn't that the correct action?
Yes, this is correct, but this will also restore the correct %rbx in the
caller.
> als
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50678
--- Comment #41 from Iain Sandoe 2011-10-17 22:52:28
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #39)
I'll try and cook up a radar... (against sigtramp unwind data in Libc taking
into account your following comment).
I guess we should not expect a fix for Da
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50678
--- Comment #40 from Eric Botcazou 2011-10-17
22:44:06 UTC ---
> is there a definitive "right" or "wrong' - should I be patching
> gcc/config/i386/darwin.h to match the sigtramp and bug-file against
> libunwind?
> or just file a bug agains the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48835
--- Comment #40 from Eric Botcazou 2011-10-17
22:21:20 UTC ---
> I’d rather see the System.Address type being made a C pointer type,
> globally, in the first place. Since I don’t speak Ada, I can’t do
> it “the right way”. But what prevents us fr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50763
--- Comment #2 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-17 21:59:29 UTC ---
Created attachment 25536
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25536
tentative patch
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50764
--- Comment #1 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-17 21:55:12 UTC ---
Created attachment 25535
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25535
sdiff between 091t.crited and 092t.pre
I don't seen anything obviously wrong with the trans
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50724
--- Comment #30 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-10-17
21:21:45 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #28)
> So then there are a variety of potential solutions to evaluate:
>
> A) Don't use the builtin, go back to __isnan, perhaps only when -ff-m-o is in
> effe
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50410
--- Comment #8 from Tobias Burnus 2011-10-17
21:20:25 UTC ---
Created attachment 25534
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25534
Draft patch
The attached patch should fix all issues; however, I think the error message
text can be
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25975
--- Comment #10 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-10-17
21:05:02 UTC ---
*** Bug 50724 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50724
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50769
Bug #: 50769
Summary: [4.7 Regression] ICE: in phi_alternatives_equal, at
tree-cfgcleanup.c:355 with -O2
-fno-delete-null-pointer-checks
-fno-guess-branch-probabili
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50678
--- Comment #39 from Eric Botcazou 2011-10-17
20:37:01 UTC ---
> note that (despite the consistency within the code here) this differs from the
> order in gcc/config/i386/i386.h... (although these are not call-saved, still
> ... )
Yes, but this
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48835
--- Comment #39 from Thorsten Glaser 2011-10-17 20:29:52
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #38)
> (In reply to comment #36)
> > > few m68k or HAVE_cc0 patches from 4.7 (pr43804, pr47612/pr48554, pr47955,
> >
> > Do you think those could help with th
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50724
Ethan Tira-Thompson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|DUPLICA
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50768
Bug #: 50768
Summary: [4.7 Regression] ICE: in execute_todo, at
passes.c:1731 with -O2 -ftracer
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCON
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50758
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50763
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50500
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50758
--- Comment #6 from Dominique d'Humieres 2011-10-17
19:40:06 UTC ---
> The warning is not bogus when you are compiling with --disable-checking
> or when your GCC_VERSION is < 2007. ...
I am using
../work/configure --prefix=/opt/gcc/gcc4.7w
--e
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50767
Bug #: 50767
Summary: [4.7 Regression] ICE: in refs_may_alias_p_1, at
tree-ssa-alias.c:1004 with -O2 -fno-tree-copy-prop
-fno-tree-dominator-opts
Classification: Unclassified
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50766
Bug #: 50766
Summary: Binutils 2.22.51 rejects bmi2 pext operation with
memory operands
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25975
--- Comment #9 from Andrew Pinski 2011-10-17
19:25:07 UTC ---
*** Bug 50724 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50724
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50763
--- Comment #1 from Zdenek Sojka 2011-10-17 19:24:38
UTC ---
Created attachment 25530
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25530
simpler testcase
Might be the same problem:
$ gcc -O2 -fno-tree-dominator-opts testcase2.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47023
--- Comment #16 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-17 19:22:15 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> By the way, I think one should reject proc-pointers for both SIZEOF and
> C_SIZEOF. For C_SIZEOF because they are not interoperable (only type(c_fu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50724
Ethan Tira-Thompson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|DUPLICA
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47023
--- Comment #15 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-17 19:10:44 UTC ---
The following should fix comment #1:
Index: gcc/fortran/decl.c
===
--- gcc/fortran/decl.c(revision 18007
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50765
Bug #: 50765
Summary: [4.7 Regression] ICE: in expand_insn, at optabs.c:7681
with -ftree-vectorize -fno-tree-dce
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50746
--- Comment #8 from irar at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-17 19:03:10 UTC ---
Author: irar
Date: Mon Oct 17 19:03:02 2011
New Revision: 180106
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=180106
Log:
PR tree-optimization/50746
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50736
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50736
--- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill 2011-10-17
18:59:45 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Mon Oct 17 18:59:41 2011
New Revision: 180105
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=180105
Log:
PR c++/50736
* parser.c (cp_parser_lambda_i
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50760
--- Comment #3 from dodji at seketeli dot org
2011-10-17 18:59:05 UTC ---
Looking at gcc-testresults, it looks like your x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
target bootstrapped fine with revision 180099. So this failure seems to
be ia32 specific, at least.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44277
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44277
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25975
--- Comment #8 from Paolo Carlini 2011-10-17
18:53:56 UTC ---
*** Bug 50724 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50724
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
CC|daniel.kruegl
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44277
--- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill 2011-10-17
18:53:07 UTC ---
That seems reasonable, though I wouldn't have it enabled by default or -Wall.
Could start with replacing convert_and_check with a cp_convert_and_check that
also performs this check.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50746
--- Comment #7 from Ira Rosen 2011-10-17 18:49:20 UTC
---
I'll fix vect-114.c. It indeed doesn't need realignment. The vectorization
failed before switching to optab because of the type mismatch between the mask
and the data.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10980
--- Comment #11 from Ruben Van Boxem
2011-10-17 18:44:39 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #10)
> I bet it just ignores the attribute that is not how the attribute is
> supposed to work.
>
> We output error in this case intentionally (and warning in
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50678
--- Comment #38 from Iain Sandoe 2011-10-17 18:38:49
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #37)
> .. this doesn't fix the problem on Darwin9/m64 (with either the system
> libgcc_s
erm
*oops* shoulda reinstalled the RTS.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50724
Ethan Tira-Thompson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|DUPLICA
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50709
--- Comment #4 from Nenad Vukicevic 2011-10-17
18:36:40 UTC ---
Richard's suggestion worked. I was able to build trunk R180072 with this
command:
.../configure --disable-checking --enable-languages=all
and this change:
Index: gcc/ipa-inline.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50760
--- Comment #2 from dodji at seketeli dot org
2011-10-17 18:28:46 UTC ---
I am testing this patch, maybe you could help with your big fast iron?
Thanks.
diff --git a/gcc/input.c b/gcc/input.c
index 41842b7..8138a65 100644
--- a/gcc/input.c
+++ b
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50678
--- Comment #37 from Iain Sandoe 2011-10-17 18:28:47
UTC ---
.. this doesn't fix the problem on Darwin9/m64 (with either the system libgcc_s
or the one from current gcc/4.7).
I suppose it's failing to unwind through the sigtramp - that might req
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50764
Bug #: 50764
Summary: [4.7 Regression] ICE: in maybe_record_trace_start, at
dwarf2cfi.c:2243 with -O2 -fsched2-use-superblocks
-ftree-tail-merge
Classification: Unclassified
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44783
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|gcc-bugs at g
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50709
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.7.0
Summary|stage3 bootstrap
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44277
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu.org |jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44550
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50746
--- Comment #6 from Ira Rosen 2011-10-17 18:10:39 UTC
---
pr37482.c is now ok on powerpc64-suse-linux.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50763
Bug #: 50763
Summary: [4.7 Regression] ICE: verify_gimple failed: missing
PHI def with -O2 -fno-tree-ccp -fno-tree-copy-prop
-fno-tree-vrp
Classification: Unclassified
P
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50678
--- Comment #36 from Iain Sandoe 2011-10-17 18:07:09
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #35)
> In any case, the problem is elsewhere, namely in the
> unwind info for the _sigtramp function of the libc:
apropos the i386 variant:
> loc_expr_for_re
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44524
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50762
Bug #: 50762
Summary: ICE: in extract_insn, at recog.c:2137 (unrecognizable
insn) with -mavx2 and __builtin_shuffle
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44524
--- Comment #3 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-10-17 17:51:04 UTC ---
Author: paolo
Date: Mon Oct 17 17:51:00 2011
New Revision: 180103
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=180103
Log:
/cp
2011-10-17 Paolo Carlini
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50757
--- Comment #6 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-10-17 17:49:10 UTC ---
Author: paolo
Date: Mon Oct 17 17:49:06 2011
New Revision: 180102
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=180102
Log:
/gcc
2011-10-17 Paolo Carlini
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50757
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50757
--- Comment #4 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-10-17 17:44:47 UTC ---
Author: paolo
Date: Mon Oct 17 17:44:42 2011
New Revision: 180101
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=180101
Log:
/gcc
2011-10-17 Paolo Carlini
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50683
--- Comment #7 from Eric Botcazou 2011-10-17
17:40:30 UTC ---
> I would suggest against a gcc workaround, let's just fix binutils.
> I have posted a fix to the binutils list for testing.
OK, I don't have a strong opinion. What do the Debian fol
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50686
--- Comment #16 from Bernd Schmidt 2011-10-17
17:37:11 UTC ---
Sorry, I was being imprecise - only the instances where we generate notes 374
and 375 are interesting. Can you identify these two?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50410
--- Comment #7 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-17 17:36:33 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> The following produces a Segmentation fault in gfc_conv_structure (r178925)
>
> type t
>integer g
> end type
> type(t) ::
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50761
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code
Target Milestone|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50731
Uros Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3 from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50761
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50761
--- Comment #1 from Stéphane Magnenat 2011-10-17
17:16:56 UTC ---
Created attachment 25525
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25525
correct code
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50705
--- Comment #10 from SK 2011-10-17 17:16:36
UTC ---
Please let me know if I have to add or remove any GCC options while configuring
it or while compiling Linux.
Any comment which can help me move further will be helpful.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50761
Bug #: 50761
Summary: g++ internal compiler error using
std::initializer_list
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
S
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50686
--- Comment #15 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-10-17 17:13:10 UTC ---
> --- Comment #14 from Bernd Schmidt 2011-10-17
> 16:34:42 UTC ---
> Ok, so there are two restore_state notes following each other; note 374 and
> note 375. We'l
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50760
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dodji at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 from H.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50746
Richard Henderson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|WAITING
--- Comment #5 from Richard H
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50746
--- Comment #4 from Richard Henderson 2011-10-17
17:02:12 UTC ---
Author: rth
Date: Mon Oct 17 17:02:05 2011
New Revision: 180100
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=180100
Log:
PR 50746
* optabs.c (expand_vec_perm_expr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50760
Bug #: 50760
Summary: [4.7 Regression] bootstrap failure
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50759
Bug #: 50759
Summary: [4.7 Regression] @table ended by @end quotation at
line 595
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50724
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25975
--- Comment #7 from Paolo Carlini 2011-10-17
16:49:03 UTC ---
*** Bug 50724 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50724
Ethan Tira-Thompson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|DUPLICA
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50746
Richard Henderson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigne
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50410
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50686
--- Comment #14 from Bernd Schmidt 2011-10-17
16:34:42 UTC ---
Ok, so there are two restore_state notes following each other; note 374 and
note 375. We'll want a breakpoint in add_cfi to catch the two calls where these
notes are added. I'd expect
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48835
--- Comment #38 from Mikael Pettersson 2011-10-17
16:26:28 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #36)
> > With this patch, a trivial forward-port of the gcc-4.5.3 Ada/m68k patch,
> > and a
> …
> > r178834) I was finally able to successfully bootstrap Ada
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47023
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[4.6/4.7 regression]|C_Sizeof: Rejects valid
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47023
--- Comment #13 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-17 15:59:37 UTC ---
Author: janus
Date: Mon Oct 17 15:59:32 2011
New Revision: 180099
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=180099
Log:
2011-10-17 Janus Weil
PR fortran/
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50758
--- Comment #5 from dodji at seketeli dot org
2011-10-17 15:56:05 UTC ---
"dominiq at lps dot ens.fr" a écrit:
> I guess that revision 180090 is a similar fix that should work (I'll
> have the answer in a couple hours;-).
OK, thanks.
> Last q
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50686
--- Comment #13 from Rainer Orth 2011-10-17 15:54:02
UTC ---
Created attachment 25523
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25523
final dump
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50686
--- Comment #12 from Rainer Orth 2011-10-17 15:53:11
UTC ---
Created attachment 25522
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25522
dwarf2 dump
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50686
--- Comment #11 from Rainer Orth 2011-10-17 15:52:15
UTC ---
Created attachment 25521
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25521
nothrow dump
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50686
--- Comment #10 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-10-17 15:50:06 UTC ---
> --- Comment #9 from Bernd Schmidt 2011-10-17
> 15:04:17 UTC ---
> Well, shooting in the dark, let's get a few preliminaries out of the way -
> what
> are the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50754
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at redhat dot com
--- Commen
1 - 100 of 165 matches
Mail list logo