http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49720
--- Comment #2 from Chung-Lin Tang 2011-10-28
06:35:37 UTC ---
Author: cltang
Date: Fri Oct 28 06:35:31 2011
New Revision: 180604
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=180604
Log:
2011-10-28 Chung-Lin Tang
PR rtl-optimiza
: /home/jarrydb/current/soft/src/gcc-git/configure
--prefix=/home/jarrydb/current/soft/install-latest --disable-multilib
--enable-languages=c,c++
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.7.0 20111027 (experimental) (GCC)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50556
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50521
--- Comment #8 from Tomohiro Kashiwada 2011-10-28
03:58:45 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> Right. r171347 seem to be about fetches from bitfields while this change is
> about stores?
>
> An interesting test would be
>
> bitfield.bits.a =
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50892
Bug #: 50892
Summary: Internal compiler error: in gimplify_expr, at
gimplify.c:7477
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50842
--- Comment #10 from dave.anglin at bell dot net 2011-10-28 02:24:45 UTC ---
On 27-Oct-11, at 3:12 PM, ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50842
>
> --- Comment #6 from Eric Botcazou
> 2011-10-27 19
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30066
--- Comment #4 from Jason Merrill 2011-10-28
02:18:04 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Fri Oct 28 02:18:00 2011
New Revision: 180589
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=180589
Log:
PR c++/30066
gcc/c-family:
* c.opt (fvisibi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50521
--- Comment #7 from Henrik Nordström
2011-10-28 01:59:34 UTC ---
Right. r171347 seem to be about fetches from bitfields while this change is
about stores?
An interesting test would be
bitfield.bits.a = bitfield.bits.c
which should load the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50521
--- Comment #6 from Tomohiro Kashiwada 2011-10-28
01:32:42 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> Is this related to the strict volatile bitfields change in trunk revision
> 171347?
> http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs/trunk/gcc/expr.c?view=log&pathrev=17134
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48190
--- Comment #3 from Henrik Nordström
2011-10-27 23:26:05 UTC ---
Created attachment 25640
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25640
trunk change 171655 backported to 4.6.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50521
Henrik Nordström changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||henrik at henriknordstrom
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50891
--- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu 2011-10-27 23:20:47
UTC ---
Does this:
---
diff --git a/gcc/postreload.c b/gcc/postreload.c
index 0e50d85..526015b 100644
--- a/gcc/postreload.c
+++ b/gcc/postreload.c
@@ -2039,6 +2039,10 @@ reload_cse_move2add (rtx f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50888
--- Comment #3 from Mark Wielaard 2011-10-27 23:14:02
UTC ---
I don't think isspace() is really needed. We can just check for ' '
and maybe tab.
wow - 1999 was a long time ago
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50891
--- Comment #1 from H.J. Lu 2011-10-27 23:10:45
UTC ---
reload_cse_move2add treats
(insn 61 60 62 8 (set (reg:CCZ 17 flags)
(compare:CCZ (reg:SI 2 cx)
(const_int 3 [0x3]))) x.f90:9 6 {*cmpsi_1}
(nil))
(jump_insn 62 61 6
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48190
Henrik Nordström changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||henrik at henriknordstrom
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50891
Bug #: 50891
Summary: move2add_note_store fails to properly track register
content
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50751
--- Comment #12 from Kazumoto Kojima 2011-10-27
22:30:39 UTC ---
It seems that base_reg+index_reg addressing requires special
handling in RA and the move insn like
(define_insn "*movqi_m_reg_reg_store"
[(set (mem:QI (plus:SI (match_operand:SI
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45114
--- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-10-27
22:27:35 UTC ---
I don't have any self-contained tests but there are a number of TODOs in
libstdc++ which indicate places that should use a template alias when available
- I'll try the patch and revi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50884
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47687
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amaru_cuba at hotmail dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50875
--- Comment #8 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-27 21:55:26 UTC ---
Author: uros
Date: Thu Oct 27 21:55:22 2011
New Revision: 180582
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=180582
Log:
PR target/50875
* config/i386/sse.md
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50890
Bug #: 50890
Summary: [4.7 Regression] ICE in fold_convert_loc, at
fold-const.c:1894
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50751
--- Comment #11 from Oleg Endo 2011-10-27 21:54:17 UTC
---
Created attachment 25639
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25639
Stripped reload test case from jpeg-6b
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50823
Serge Belyshev changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50751
--- Comment #10 from Oleg Endo 2011-10-27 21:10:47 UTC
---
@@ -12430,6 +12453,10 @@ sh_secondary_reload (bool in_p, rtx x, r
if (rclass != GENERAL_REGS && REG_P (x)
&& TARGET_REGISTER_P (REGNO (x)))
return GENERAL_REGS;
+ if (rcla
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50889
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski 2011-10-27
20:46:26 UTC ---
The idea on how to add something which transforms the IR is to add a pass to
the pass manager.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50869
--- Comment #3 from Alexandre Oliva 2011-10-27
20:46:12 UTC ---
Created attachment 25638
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25638
Patch that fixes the bug, testing
Here's a patch that fixes the bug. We don't want cselib to expa
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50764
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comm
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50889
Bug #: 50889
Summary: PLUGIN_FINISH_UNIT arrives a bit to late for really
high-level (AST-based) in-memory code
transformation/instrumentation
Classification: Unclassified
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50876
--- Comment #16 from Iain Sandoe 2011-10-27 20:31:31
UTC ---
on i686-d9 I can reproduce the second fail from the c/l (which possibly means
it's unrelated or just exposed by the changes):
$ gdb --args gcc/lto1 -fPIC -quiet -dumpdir ./ -dumpbase
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50164
Igor Zamyatin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||izamyatin at gmail dot com
--- Comment #1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50842
--- Comment #9 from Iain Sandoe 2011-10-27 19:42:42
UTC ---
1/ FTR on *-darwin9 and x86_64-darwin10
(default system configurations, bar GCC pre-requisites).
I can bootstrap from the 'macada' 4.3 or the Adacore libre 4.5 compilers with
or withou
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50842
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||iains at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comme
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50842
--- Comment #7 from Dominique d'Humieres 2011-10-27
19:23:02 UTC ---
For the record, in order to bootstrap Ada on powerpc-apple-darwin9, I have the
following patch
--- ../_gcc_clean/gcc/ada/gcc-interface/Makefile.in2011-10-27
17:40:15.00
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45114
--- Comment #8 from Dodji Seketeli 2011-10-27
19:18:33 UTC ---
A candidate patch extending the patch attached in the first comment
and allegedly implementing the feature was posted to
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-10/msg02494.html. If so
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50842
--- Comment #6 from Eric Botcazou 2011-10-27
19:12:09 UTC ---
> Didn't work. I looked at the generated Makefile in
> gcc/ada/gcc-interface and the LIBICONV
> variable wasn't set to anything.
So OUTPUT_OPTION is set to the same value but not LI
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50875
--- Comment #7 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-27 19:07:32 UTC ---
Author: uros
Date: Thu Oct 27 19:07:27 2011
New Revision: 180576
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=180576
Log:
PR target/50875
* config/i386/sse.md
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50886
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.7.0
--- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu 2011-10-27 1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50888
Mark Wielaard changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||green at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50888
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek 201
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50888
Bug #: 50888
Summary: Bootstrap failure in libjava against latest git glibc
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50878
--- Comment #8 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-27 18:33:40 UTC ---
Created attachment 25637
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25637
tentative patch
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50879
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46603
--- Comment #7 from Eric Botcazou 2011-10-27
18:20:00 UTC ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Thu Oct 27 18:19:54 2011
New Revision: 180572
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=180572
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/46603
PR bootstrap/
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50879
--- Comment #3 from Eric Botcazou 2011-10-27
18:19:59 UTC ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Thu Oct 27 18:19:54 2011
New Revision: 180572
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=180572
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/46603
PR bootstrap/
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50887
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50887
--- Comment #1 from Georg-Johann Lay 2011-10-27
18:01:17 UTC ---
Created attachment 25636
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25636
aoa.c
C source file that has several call to printf-ish function.
With the current implementatio
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50887
Bug #: 50887
Summary: [avr] Support ACCUMULATE_OUTGOING_ARGS
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50886
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org,
n host: /sw/src/fink.build/gcc47-4.7.0-1/darwin_objdir/gcc/xgcc
-B/sw/src/fink.build/gcc47-4.7.0-1/darwin_objdir/gcc/ -O2 -flto
-flto-partition=none -c -m32 -o c_lto_20090210_0.o
/sw/src/fink.build/gcc47-4.7.0-1/gcc-4.7-20111027/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/lto/20090210_0.c
(timeout = 300)
/FAIL
In fi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50886
Bug #: 50886
Summary: [4.7 Regression] 445.gobmk in SPEC CPU 2006 failed to
build
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50869
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50878
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|una
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50878
--- Comment #7 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-27 17:03:51 UTC ---
> I see this with 180560 FYI.
Thanks for the testcase, I'm able to reproduce it now.
- Tom
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50878
--- Comment #6 from Ramana Radhakrishnan 2011-10-27
16:56:38 UTC ---
I see this with 180560 FYI.
Ramana
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50883
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50878
--- Comment #5 from Ramana Radhakrishnan 2011-10-27
16:38:53 UTC ---
Created attachment 25635
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25635
testcase
bzipped testcase.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50878
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50876
--- Comment #14 from Iain Sandoe 2011-10-27 16:30:13
UTC ---
I have done an LTO bootstrap (--with-build-config='bootstrap-lto
bootstrap-debug') on i686-darwin9 with trunk @ 180565 + the patch @
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-10/msg02470.h
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50885
Bug #: 50885
Summary: FAIL: gcc.dg/strlenopt-22.c (test for excess errors)
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50753
--- Comment #2 from Steve Kargl
2011-10-27 15:56:35 UTC ---
On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 03:49:15PM +, kargl at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> >
> > "Arguments.
> >
> > I shall be of type integer or a boz-literal-constant.
> > J shall be of type
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50764
--- Comment #5 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-27 15:54:07 UTC ---
during 223r.dwarf2, maybe_record_trace_start is called with lab == code_label
29, at the start of block 5, and we hit the assert:
...
gcc_checking_assert (cfi_row_equal_
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50753
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot |kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50764
--- Comment #4 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-27 15:29:10 UTC ---
Created attachment 25634
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25634
sdiff between 209r.split4 and 210r.sched2 with -ftree-tail-merge
The effect of -fsched2-use
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50842
--- Comment #5 from dave.anglin at bell dot net 2011-10-27 15:25:41 UTC ---
On 10/27/2011 6:21 AM, ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50842
>
> --- Comment #4 from Eric Botcazou 2011-10-27
> 10:21:38
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50883
--- Comment #5 from Sebastian Huber
2011-10-27 15:19:57 UTC ---
If we look at the function f (the function g is similar):
struct s {
int alignment;
unsigned char a;
unsigned char b;
unsigned char c;
unsigned char d;
};
unsigned f(stru
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50883
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50784
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|
gt; Executing on host: /sw/src/fink.build/gcc47-4.7.0-1/darwin_objdir/gcc/xgcc
> -B/sw/src/fink.build/gcc47-4.7.0-1/darwin_objdir/gcc/ -flto -funsigned-char
> -c -m32 -o c_lto_20090120_0.o
> /sw/src/fink.build/gcc47-4.7.0-1/gcc-4.7-20111027/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/lto/20090120_0.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50884
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-10-27
14:38:01 UTC ---
I haven't confirmed it, but this looks like another dup of PR 47687
n the
gcc testsuite with lto.exp. At -m32, I see...
Executing on host: /sw/src/fink.build/gcc47-4.7.0-1/darwin_objdir/gcc/xgcc
-B/sw/src/fink.build/gcc47-4.7.0-1/darwin_objdir/gcc/ -flto -funsigned-char
-c -m32 -o c_lto_20090120_0.o
/sw/src/fink.build/gcc47-4.7.0-1/gcc-4.7-20111027/gcc/test
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50882
--- Comment #4 from joerg.rich...@pdv-fs.de 2011-10-27 14:44:14 UTC ---
Cannot test svn trunk. The loc_t issue still remains, see bug 50874.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50884
--- Comment #2 from amaru_cuba at hotmail dot com 2011-10-27 14:35:18 UTC ---
Perverse use of lambda functions causes the compiler to segfault.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50764
--- Comment #3 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-27 14:32:45 UTC ---
Created attachment 25633
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25633
sdiff between 209r.split4 (before sched2) -fno-tree-tail-merge and
-ftree-tail-merge
differ
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50884
--- Comment #1 from amaru_cuba at hotmail dot com 2011-10-27 14:30:53 UTC ---
Created attachment 25632
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25632
The preprocessed file.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50884
Bug #: 50884
Summary: c++0x: anonymous functions causes compilation to
segfault
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50317
--- Comment #4 from Jan Kratochvil
2011-10-27 13:57:22 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> not sure if that is a gdb bug though ('p' is optimized out - does the
> debug info say that 'p' is zero?). Jan, can you investigate that at
> the gdb side?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50871
--- Comment #8 from Paolo Carlini 2011-10-27
13:34:31 UTC ---
Yes, and I'm afraid we rely on it even more, not something we can do today.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50873
--- Comment #2 from Matthew Gretton-Dann
2011-10-27 13:31:27 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> I see this too, but I don't think it's my patch's fault. I reverted it and the
> reduced test still failed. The patch makes no difference for this bas
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50871
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-10-27
13:31:17 UTC ---
It would work for my original case, yes. There are other cases where the
warning is not a pedwarn, but is just suppressed by system_header while
building the lib.
But it occurred t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50876
--- Comment #11 from rguenther at suse dot de
2011-10-27 13:25:11 UTC ---
On Thu, 27 Oct 2011, iains at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50876
>
> --- Comment #10 from Iain Sandoe 2011-10-27
> 13:08:14 UTC
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50655
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
URL|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50871
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||paolo.carlini at oracle dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50876
--- Comment #10 from Iain Sandoe 2011-10-27 13:08:14
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #9)
> (In reply to comment #8)
>
> > Can you try
>
> looks good so far on i686-darwin9 off a stage3-bubble
> (gcc and ada lto tests restored to normal).
similar
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50876
--- Comment #9 from Iain Sandoe 2011-10-27 12:45:37
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> Can you try
looks good so far on i686-darwin9 off a stage3-bubble
(gcc and ada lto tests restored to normal).
Will do a full bootstrap & regtest.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50879
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
URL|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50879
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50731
--- Comment #7 from Richard Guenther 2011-10-27
12:11:04 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu Oct 27 12:10:57 2011
New Revision: 180564
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=180564
Log:
2010-10-27 Richard Guenther
PR middle-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50731
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50883
--- Comment #2 from Sebastian Huber
2011-10-27 11:55:05 UTC ---
Created attachment 25629
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25629
ARM assembler.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50883
--- Comment #1 from Sebastian Huber
2011-10-27 11:54:31 UTC ---
Created attachment 25628
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25628
Sample code.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50883
--- Comment #3 from Sebastian Huber
2011-10-27 11:55:32 UTC ---
Created attachment 25630
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25630
PowerPC assembler.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50883
Bug #: 50883
Summary: [ARM] Suboptimal optimization for small structures
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50878
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50823
--- Comment #6 from Richard Guenther 2011-10-27
11:53:23 UTC ---
*** Bug 50872 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50872
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50872
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50876
--- Comment #8 from rguenther at suse dot de
2011-10-27 11:51:06 UTC ---
On Thu, 27 Oct 2011, iains at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50876
>
> --- Comment #7 from Iain Sandoe 2011-10-27
> 10:54:50 UTC --
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50802
--- Comment #4 from dave.anglin at bell dot net 2011-10-27 11:50:36 UTC ---
On 27-Oct-11, at 7:21 AM, rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> Is (sizeof (int) == sizeof (long long))? What else could be target
> specific here? VRP is target agnostic
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50869
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-*-*
Priority|P3
1 - 100 of 198 matches
Mail list logo
