http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50845
Bug #: 50845
Summary: java.util.concurrent.ThreadPoolExecutor do not work
with core thread=0
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.2
Status: UNCONFIR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50844
--- Comment #2 from lsching17 at gmail dot com 2011-10-24 06:12:59 UTC ---
The last sentense should be "Compare to Sun jre 6 update 26, 10+ objects
can be created per second"
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50844
--- Comment #1 from lsching17 at gmail dot com 2011-10-24 06:11:22 UTC ---
Created attachment 25585
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25585
test script
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50844
Bug #: 50844
Summary: SimpleDateFormat too slow
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50843
--- Comment #1 from Diego Novillo 2011-10-24
05:53:35 UTC ---
Created attachment 25584
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25584
Pre-processed source
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50843
Bug #: 50843
Summary: ICE in simplify_subreg, simplify-rtx.c:5417 with
-march=pentium3
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50816
--- Comment #7 from Anitha Boyapati
2011-10-24 04:21:17 UTC ---
Created attachment 25583
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25583
Relevant testcase that is compilable
Compile it as:
$avr-gcc -mmcu=atxmega128a1 -g -gdwarf-2 tes
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50816
--- Comment #6 from Anitha Boyapati
2011-10-24 04:18:10 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> Please probide a testcase according to http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs/#need
>
> - Please, no external includes
Sorry! I thought I have provided pre-processed fi
-multilib --enable-languages=c,c++,objc,fortran,obj-c++,java,ada
--enable-threads=posix --enable-__cxa_atexit --enable-java-gc=boehm
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.7.0 20111023 (experimental) [trunk revision 180354] (GCC)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50834
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50834
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-10-24
00:20:00 UTC ---
Author: redi
Date: Mon Oct 24 00:19:56 2011
New Revision: 180359
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=180359
Log:
PR libstdc++/50834
* doc/xml/manual/using.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50839
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50802
John David Anglin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|middle-end |tree-optimization
--- Comment #2 from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50816
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50816
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gjl at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50751
--- Comment #4 from Oleg Endo 2011-10-23 21:56:56 UTC
---
Created attachment 25582
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25582
Experimental patch for mov.b with displacement addressing
> (In reply to comment #2)
>
> Welcome to the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50810
--- Comment #17 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2011-10-23
21:56:21 UTC ---
Now that the patch needs to be recommitted, I would suggest another minor
improvement. Please, remove the %qE so we do not print nonsense!
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50810
--- Comment #16 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2011-10-23
21:43:27 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #14)
> Patch needs preliminary clean-ups in gcc/config, etc.
It seems to me that enabling -Wc++0x-compat with -Wall is not a good idea
anyway. I guess many
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50839
Daniel Krügler changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||daniel.kruegler at
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50810
--- Comment #15 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-10-23 21:15:11 UTC ---
Author: paolo
Date: Sun Oct 23 21:15:08 2011
New Revision: 180349
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=180349
Log:
/c-family
2011-10-23 Paolo Carlini
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50841
--- Comment #3 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-10-23 21:15:12 UTC ---
Author: paolo
Date: Sun Oct 23 21:15:08 2011
New Revision: 180349
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=180349
Log:
/c-family
2011-10-23 Paolo Carlini
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50810
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50841
--- Comment #1 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-10-23 20:59:47 UTC ---
Author: paolo
Date: Sun Oct 23 20:59:43 2011
New Revision: 180348
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=180348
Log:
/c-family
2011-10-23 Paolo Carlini
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50810
--- Comment #13 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-10-23 20:59:48 UTC ---
Author: paolo
Date: Sun Oct 23 20:59:43 2011
New Revision: 180348
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=180348
Log:
/c-family
2011-10-23 Paolo Carlini
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50841
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50841
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|paolo.carlini at oracle dot |
|com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50841
Bug #: 50841
Summary: [4.7 regression] bootstrap failure: narrowing
conversion of '-0x1' from 'int' in
tree-object-size.c
Classification: Unclassified
Pr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50802
--- Comment #1 from John David Anglin 2011-10-23
19:54:21 UTC ---
The abort occurs in this block:
{ signed char xx = x, yy = y, r1, r2;
r1 = xx / yy;
r2 = xx % yy;
if (ABS (r2) >= (unsigned char) ABS (yy) || (signed
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50828
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50840
--- Comment #1 from simon at pushface dot org 2011-10-23 18:38:48 UTC ---
Oh. I see the Hg tree hasn't been updated for nearly a year. Git it is. Please
close this ...
Do you think that the Hg server should be stopped?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50810
--- Comment #11 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-10-23 18:34:51 UTC ---
Author: paolo
Date: Sun Oct 23 18:34:45 2011
New Revision: 180343
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=180343
Log:
/c-family
2011-10-23 Paolo Carlini
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50810
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50840
Bug #: 50840
Summary: gcc_update can't find SVN revision in Mercurial tree
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50839
Bug #: 50839
Summary: Array parameters always take lower precedence than
pointer parameters
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.1
Status: UNCONFIRM
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50838
Bug #: 50838
Summary: ice in refs_may_alias_p_1 with -O3
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50763
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50763
--- Comment #8 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-23 16:06:46 UTC ---
Author: vries
Date: Sun Oct 23 16:06:40 2011
New Revision: 180342
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=180342
Log:
2011-10-23 Tom de Vries
PR tree-op
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50763
--- Comment #7 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-23 16:06:38 UTC ---
Author: vries
Date: Sun Oct 23 16:06:32 2011
New Revision: 180341
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=180341
Log:
2011-10-23 Tom de Vries
PR tree-op
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44683
--- Comment #12 from Eric Botcazou 2011-10-23
15:57:13 UTC ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Sun Oct 23 15:57:09 2011
New Revision: 180340
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=180340
Log:
* fold-const.c (invert_tree_comparison): A
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47918
--- Comment #9 from Mikael Pettersson 2011-10-23
15:46:06 UTC ---
Julian Brown's proposed patch fixes non-local-goto-4.c on both m68k and i386:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-10/msg01657.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50837
Bug #: 50837
Summary: [c++0x] static_assert and constexpr in template class
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38549
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50788
Uros Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
URL|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50788
--- Comment #13 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-23 15:19:11 UTC ---
Author: uros
Date: Sun Oct 23 15:19:06 2011
New Revision: 180339
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=180339
Log:
PR target/50788
* config/i386/sse.m
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50788
--- Comment #12 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-23 15:16:30 UTC ---
Author: uros
Date: Sun Oct 23 15:16:27 2011
New Revision: 180338
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=180338
Log:
PR target/50788
* config/i386/sse.m
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50788
--- Comment #11 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-23 15:15:02 UTC ---
Author: uros
Date: Sun Oct 23 15:14:58 2011
New Revision: 180337
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=180337
Log:
PR target/50788
* config/i386/sse.m
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50778
Dodji Seketeli changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50788
--- Comment #10 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-23 14:18:13 UTC ---
Author: uros
Date: Sun Oct 23 14:18:08 2011
New Revision: 180335
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=180335
Log:
PR target/50788
* config/i386/sse.m
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50788
Uros Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Known to work|4.6.2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50053
--- Comment #5 from gee 2011-10-23 13:42:43 UTC ---
maybe this is related to x86_this_parameter in gcc/config/i386/i386.c
it might tell why caller push parameter to stack, whereas function prologue
treats first parameter is in %ecx when MS_ABI is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50788
--- Comment #8 from Uros Bizjak 2011-10-23 13:05:43
UTC ---
Looking a bit deeper into the problem - maskload pattern is simply wrong. There
is no dependency on the previous value in the register, vmaskmov insn puts zero
when value is not moved in
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50836
Mikael Pettersson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bernds at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50835
--- Comment #3 from Daniel Krügler
2011-10-23 12:23:41 UTC ---
Removing as much templates as possible:
//---
struct A {};
struct B
{
explicit B(A &t) : value(t) {}
operator A&() const { return value; }
A& value;
};
void should_be_l
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50819
--- Comment #4 from irar at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-23 12:13:57 UTC ---
Author: irar
Date: Sun Oct 23 12:13:49 2011
New Revision: 180334
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=180334
Log:
PR tree-optimization/50819
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50835
--- Comment #2 from Daniel Krügler
2011-10-23 11:50:17 UTC ---
Further simplification:
//---
struct vector {};
template
struct rvalue_probe
{
explicit rvalue_probe(T &t) : value(t) {}
operator T&() const { return value; }
T& value
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50835
--- Comment #1 from Daniel Krügler
2011-10-23 11:47:19 UTC ---
Simplified test case:
//---
template
struct vector {};
template
struct rvalue_probe
{
explicit rvalue_probe(T &t) : value(t) {}
operator T&() const { return value; }
T
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50788
--- Comment #7 from Uros Bizjak 2011-10-23 11:45:32
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> > It is OK for expanders to have match_dup. We just don't want to have
> > post-reload passes to trip on double-output to the same register.
>
> No disagreeme
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50830
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||paolo.carlini at oracle dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50788
--- Comment #6 from Eric Botcazou 2011-10-23
11:27:22 UTC ---
> It is OK for expanders to have match_dup. We just don't want to have
> post-reload passes to trip on double-output to the same register.
No disagreement. I just wanted to state the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50836
Bug #: 50836
Summary: [4.7 regression] bootstrap fails due to error: no
previous prototype for 'find_all_hard_reg_sets'
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50831
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Target Milestone|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50788
--- Comment #5 from Uros Bizjak 2011-10-23 10:59:21
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> but the expanders have match_dup. Uros, would you mind taking it over? TIA.
It is OK for expanders to have match_dup. We just don't want to have
post-reloa
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50824
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50823
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.7.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50816
Anitha Boyapati changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50834
--- Comment #2 from Pierre 2011-10-23 10:10:29 UTC
---
Ok first, thanks for the explanation !
I think the ambiguity comes from the order in which these statements are read
by someone not familiar with this :
1) First you find the reference to S
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50830
--- Comment #7 from Daniel Krügler
2011-10-23 10:02:19 UTC ---
I can only guess that there is a compiler defect in regard to handling variadic
template template parameters. The corresponding example
template
struct S;
template
struct X;
templa
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50830
--- Comment #6 from Daniel Krügler
2011-10-23 09:51:44 UTC ---
[I assume you refer to p8 and the sentence: "If an argument is a pack expansion
(14.5.3), it shall be the last argument in the template argument list."]
No. list_templates is not an
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43147
Marc Glisse changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marc.glisse at normalesup
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50829
Uros Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50829
--- Comment #3 from Marc Glisse 2011-10-23
08:20:50 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> This looks similar to PR 34283, a RA problem.
PR 48037 too. I didn't find all of those before reporting because I was looking
for something AVX-specific, sorr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50788
Uros Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|uros at gcc dot
72 matches
Mail list logo
