http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51525
--- Comment #1 from Uros Bizjak 2011-12-13 07:29:54
UTC ---
Also fails with some other g++.dg/abi/covariantX.C testcases [1].
[1] http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2011-12/msg01368.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51525
Bug #: 51525
Summary: [4.7 Regression] ICE: verify_flow_info_failed in
g++.dg/abi/covariant5.C
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONF
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51524
Bug #: 51524
Summary: [BMI2] New regression on 182266 vs 182257
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51254
--- Comment #3 from Yuehai Du 2011-12-13 04:16:22
UTC ---
Hi Richard
would it be ok if i submit a patch like this to fix this bug:
Index: gcc/tree-ssa-loop-ivopts.c
===
--- gcc/tr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51254
Yuehai Du changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||duyuehai at gmail dot com,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50578
zihao.jiang changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51523
Bug #: 51523
Summary: LTO keeps unneeded functions (mingw32 target)
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51506
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
--- Comment #2 from A
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51522
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51520
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51515
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51522
Bug #: 51522
Summary: ICE in gfortran 4.6.2, x86_64
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51521
Bug #: 51521
Summary: [4.7 Regression]: build fails on cris-elf building
libstdc++-v3: verify_flow_info failed
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51520
Bug #: 51520
Summary: ICE in gfortran 4.6.2, x86_64
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51519
Bug #: 51519
Summary: [4.7 Regression] ICE: in inline_small_functions, at
ipa-inline.c:1410 with -O
-fno-guess-branch-probability -findirect-inlining
Classification: Unclassified
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51491
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50751
--- Comment #21 from Kazumoto Kojima 2011-12-12
22:08:18 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #20)
> As far as I could observe it, this is mainly triggered by the following in
> sh_legitimate_index_p:
>
> + if (mode == QImode && (unsigned) INTVAL (o
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51518
Bug #: 51518
Summary: ICE: in expand_call, at calls.c:3421 with
-mno-accumulate-outgoing-args and __attribute__
((ms_abi)) (after sorry)
Classification: Unclassified
Pro
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51517
Bug #: 51517
Summary: [4.4 regression ] Wrong debug information for pointers
with negative strides.
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.2
Status: U
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48427
--- Comment #2 from Dmitry Gorbachev
2011-12-12 21:43:38 UTC ---
I can't reproduce the bug with recent GCC.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48259
--- Comment #10 from Dmitry Gorbachev
2011-12-12 21:43:15 UTC ---
Recent GCC 4.7.0 works with both testcases. GCC 4.6.3 still fails on the 1st.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51491
--- Comment #5 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-12-12 21:33:03 UTC ---
Created attachment 26061
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26061
tentative patch
Using this tentative patch, now also f in f.c.149t.optimized has 2 clobber
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51491
--- Comment #4 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-12-12 21:25:58 UTC ---
f1.c vs. f.c:
...
int g(int*);int g(int*);
int f1(void) |int f(void)
{{
int tt = 0; int tt = 0;
int t = 4;
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21617
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Summa
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51481
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51495
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51495
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-12-12
21:00:39 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Dec 12 21:00:36 2011
New Revision: 182265
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=182265
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/51495
* function.c (thr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51481
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-12-12
20:59:31 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Dec 12 20:59:28 2011
New Revision: 182264
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=182264
Log:
PR tree-optimization/51481
* gimple-fold.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21617
--- Comment #7 from Vladimir Makarov 2011-12-12
20:51:19 UTC ---
Author: vmakarov
Date: Mon Dec 12 20:51:16 2011
New Revision: 182263
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=182263
Log:
2011-12-12 Vladimir Makarov
PR rtl-op
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45830
--- Comment #5 from Georg-Johann Lay 2011-12-12
20:13:45 UTC ---
Author: gjl
Date: Mon Dec 12 20:13:40 2011
New Revision: 182262
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=182262
Log:
PR tree-optimization/45830
* gcc.c-torture
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51491
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski 2011-12-12
19:51:32 UTC ---
The testcase which I referenced in the bug report is one where it shows adding
a CLOBBER is a good idea. Anyways the following two functions should produce
the same exact code:
int g(
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51511
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51510
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51485
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51511
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-12-12
19:44:25 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Dec 12 19:44:22 2011
New Revision: 182261
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=182261
Log:
PR testsuite/51511
* gcc.dg/pr45819.c: Add
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51510
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-12-12
19:43:54 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Dec 12 19:43:49 2011
New Revision: 182260
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=182260
Log:
PR middle-end/51510
* calls.c (internal_arg
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51485
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-12-12
19:43:09 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Dec 12 19:43:06 2011
New Revision: 182259
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=182259
Log:
Backported from mainline
2011-12-11 Jakub
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51496
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51516
Bug #: 51516
Summary: [trans-mem] problem with TM clone aliases
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51509
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|arm-linux-androideabi |arm-linux-androideabi,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51496
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-12-12
18:55:10 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Dec 12 18:55:06 2011
New Revision: 182257
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=182257
Log:
PR c++/51496
* parser.c (cp_parser_omp_for_
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50569
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
* tree-sra.c (build_ref_for_model): Replicate a chain of COMPONENT_REFs
in the expression of MODEL instead of just the last one.
Added:
branches/gcc-4_6-branch/gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/execute/20111212-1.c
- copied unchanged from r182252,
trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/execute/20
* tree-sra.c (build_ref_for_model): Replicate a chain of COMPONENT_REFs
in the expression of MODEL instead of just the last one.
Added:
trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/execute/20111212-1.c
Modified:
trunk/gcc/ChangeLog
trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
trunk/gcc/tree-sra.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51503
--- Comment #2 from Richard Henderson 2011-12-12
18:10:10 UTC ---
Odd. I thought this was supposed to happen automatically with
lang_env_dependencies = { module=libitm; cxx=true; };
in Makefile.def.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51135
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50078
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51135
--- Comment #6 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-12-12 17:34:24 UTC ---
Author: paolo
Date: Mon Dec 12 17:34:19 2011
New Revision: 182250
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=182250
Log:
2011-12-12 Paolo Carlini
Revert:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51443
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51511
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-12-12
16:48:56 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Dec 12 16:48:46 2011
New Revision: 182247
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=182247
Log:
PR testsuite/51511
* gcc.dg/pr45819.c: Add
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51510
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-12-12
16:44:31 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Dec 12 16:44:23 2011
New Revision: 182246
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=182246
Log:
PR middle-end/51510
* calls.c (internal_arg
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51347
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51495
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-12-12
16:36:38 UTC ---
I don't think so. We only do something about single_succ_p basic blocks and
therefore we should never call e.g. that can_duplicate_block_p predicate more
than once for each basic bloc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46887
--- Comment #10 from David Edelsohn 2011-12-12
16:29:03 UTC ---
Has GCC/GCJ imported a recent version of classpath? The "bug" may be that the
classpath package is not up to date in libjava. In fact, the file may not be
used at all and solely a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46887
--- Comment #9 from Michael Haubenwallner 2011-12-12 16:17:48 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> The problem still exists, but classpath is maintained upstream, not by GCC.
Checking out the GNU classpath project from savannah (CVS HEAD), there is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48354
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #24407|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50873
--- Comment #4 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-12-12 15:18:29 UTC ---
Author: rsandifo
Date: Mon Dec 12 15:18:24 2011
New Revision: 182244
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=182244
Log:
gcc/
PR middle-end/50873
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51497
--- Comment #6 from Dominique d'Humieres 2011-12-12
15:17:19 UTC ---
> I can't reproduce anything with the testcase from comment #2.
Sorry for the confusion. The code in comment #2 was here only to show the
actual code after the inlining of tris
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51515
Bug #: 51515
Summary: Unable to forward declare nested functions
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priorit
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51514
Bug #: 51514
Summary: [OOP] Wrong code when passing a CLASS to a TYPE
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: wrong-code
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51500
--- Comment #3 from gee 2011-12-12 14:48:52 UTC ---
it seems that libffi handles calling convention of method which is cdecl or
stdcall.
but not for thiscall for mingw32 ia-32.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51500
--- Comment #2 from gee 2011-12-12 14:46:26 UTC ---
please fix java::lang::Class::initializeClass for mingw32 ia-32 by adding
__thiscall before being involved this bug. surely PR50053 is fixed but i leaved
a kludge toward this bug.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51497
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46887
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46887
--- Comment #7 from Sean McGovern 2011-12-12
14:30:27 UTC ---
If this can't be reassigned, can we just close it as "not ours"?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51499
--- Comment #13 from fb.programming at gmail dot com 2011-12-12 14:20:58 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #9)
> So, you are suggesting to remove the need in flag_associative_math for fp for
> cases when a reduction computation is already unrolled by t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51495
--- Comment #3 from stevenb.gcc at gmail dot com
2011-12-12 14:09:12 UTC ---
> Untested fix.
Wouldn't that fix make this operation O(E^2)?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51495
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51135
Kai Tietz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51135
--- Comment #4 from Kai Tietz 2011-12-12 13:29:14
UTC ---
Author: ktietz
Date: Mon Dec 12 13:29:10 2011
New Revision: 182238
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=182238
Log:
Correct bug-number in ChangeLog.
PR libstdc++
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41951
--- Comment #7 from Tobias Burnus 2011-12-12
13:14:24 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> However, while the example of comment 2 (attachment 18978 [details]) compiles,
> it fails to link with: undefined reference to `assign_'
The problem is in
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51491
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenther at suse dot de,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51471
--- Comment #6 from Mikael Pettersson 2011-12-12
13:10:33 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> So my question is: what is the mechanism that should prevent epilogue insns
> from being moved to before the epilogue?
A full compiler barrier? See PR3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51497
--- Comment #4 from Dominique d'Humieres 2011-12-12
13:09:49 UTC ---
> I can't see any vectorizer differences for the testcase in comment #2 and the
> patch you cite only (should) have debuginfo changes, no changes to the
> produced
> IL at stat
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51499
--- Comment #12 from Dominique d'Humieres
2011-12-12 12:47:54 UTC ---
> > even when the above loops are unrolled. How can the loop L5 be unrolled if
> > it
> > is only there for a "scalar epilogue"?
>
> It can't be unrolled, since the alignment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51471
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vries at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48508
--- Comment #11 from Richard Guenther 2011-12-12
12:40:42 UTC ---
Created attachment 26056
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26056
manually reduced testcase
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48508
--- Comment #10 from Richard Guenther 2011-12-12
12:39:04 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> We shouldn't be emitting anything for that nested function declaration in the
> concrete instance of the inlined function, and we don't when compiling wi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49074
--- Comment #10 from Tobias Burnus 2011-12-12
12:31:55 UTC ---
The failing assert is:
Breakpoint 2, gfc_conv_array_constructor_expr (expr=0x16b8f10,
se=0x7fffd580)
at /home/tob/projects/gcc-git/gcc/gcc/fortran/trans-expr.c:4529
4529
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51495
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=49074
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51496
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51499
--- Comment #11 from Ira Rosen 2011-12-12 11:27:26 UTC
---
Right. We need to check that there is no load permutation.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51499
--- Comment #10 from Richard Guenther 2011-12-12
11:24:22 UTC ---
Hmm. But we are vectorizing
sum += a[i]
sum += a[i+1]
the same as
sum += a[i+1]
sum += a[i]
no? Thus you have to check whether the summation occours in "memory order"
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51498
--- Comment #3 from Richard Guenther 2011-12-12
11:22:33 UTC ---
SUN_JAVAC and MAUVEDIR are weird though, we are testing GCJ after all.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51499
--- Comment #9 from Ira Rosen 2011-12-12 11:13:24 UTC
---
(In reply to comment #7)
>
> In some cases it might be necessary but not here:
>
> sum1+=a;
> sum2+=a;
>
> gives exactly the same result as
>
> (sum1, sum2) += (a, a);
>
So, you a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51499
--- Comment #8 from Ira Rosen 2011-12-12 11:03:59 UTC
---
(In reply to comment #6)
> While investigating pr51597, I have found that vectorized loops in programs as
> simple as
>
> subroutine spmmult(x,b,ad)
> implicit none
> integer, parameter
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51513
--- Comment #1 from sgunderson at bigfoot dot com 2011-12-12 10:54:16 UTC ---
Forgot this:
pannekake:~> gcc-4.6 -v
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=gcc-4.6
COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-linux-gnu/4.6/lto-wrapper
Target: x86_64-linux-gnu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51513
Bug #: 51513
Summary: [missed optimization] Only partially optimizes away
unreachable switch default case
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.2
Sta
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51481
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #26053|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50053
Kai Tietz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51498
--- Comment #2 from gee 2011-12-12 10:41:04 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> What's the issue you are fixing?
i experienced the dejagnu error that gcj is not found in path. this is because
of gnu make doesn't export its variable to environment i
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50053
--- Comment #13 from Kai Tietz 2011-12-12 10:40:32
UTC ---
Author: ktietz
Date: Mon Dec 12 10:40:27 2011
New Revision: 182225
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=182225
Log:
PR libgcj/50053
* java/lang/natClass.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51497
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.7.0
--- Comment #3 from Richard Guen
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51491
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51481
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51492
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51465
Kiskunsag changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |blocker
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51493
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50913
--- Comment #7 from Richard Guenther 2011-12-12
10:16:31 UTC ---
*** Bug 51493 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
1 - 100 of 128 matches
Mail list logo
