http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49444
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45030
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50283
--- Comment #13 from Andrew Pinski 2011-12-16
02:16:00 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #10)
> On 27-Nov-11, at 1:59 PM, rth at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> > You don't. We're supposed to prevent frame-related insns
> > from appearing in branch delay
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48922
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
Component|other
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48922
--- Comment #3 from Paul H. Hargrove 2011-12-16
01:42:30 UTC ---
Created attachment 26105
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26105
BUILDDIR/gcc/config.log from the problematic build
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47953
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski 2011-12-16
01:33:57 UTC ---
The trunk gives the same assembly code for both cases now.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47090
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48922
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49790
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Known to work|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49789
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski 2011-12-16
00:53:44 UTC ---
Is this still an issue?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49747
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49650
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49634
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49599
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization, TREE
Sta
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49575
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Status|UN
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49548
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49137
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski 2011-12-16
00:35:49 UTC ---
Hmm, I already have gmp and mpfr already installed but I also use the sources
inside the source directory, it works for me and uses the newly compiled ones
too.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49444
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski 2011-12-16
00:33:10 UTC ---
This is the patch which I ended up with:
Index: tree-ssa-loop-ivopts.c
===
--- tree-ssa-loop-ivopts.c(revision 61449
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49237
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski 2011-12-16
00:27:00 UTC ---
This works for me with a recent snapshot of 4.7. Can you try again?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48987
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=4
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Keywords|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49720
--- Comment #4 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-12-15
23:50:36 UTC ---
Author: hjl
Date: Thu Dec 15 23:50:32 2011
New Revision: 182394
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=182394
Log:
Detect infinite recursion condition
gcc/
2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48850
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48724
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski 2011-12-15
23:39:37 UTC ---
Has this been fixed?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48419
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51474
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48491
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||lto
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48227
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski 2011-12-15
23:18:35 UTC ---
/* X86_TUNE_PAD_RETURNS */
m_CORE2I7 | m_AMD_MULTIPLE | m_GENERIC,
So we still do it for Core2 i7.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47466
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Status|UN
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51558
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51558
--- Comment #8 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-12-15 22:15:28 UTC ---
Author: paolo
Date: Thu Dec 15 22:15:21 2011
New Revision: 182392
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=182392
Log:
2011-12-15 Paolo Carlini
Jona
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51566
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.7.0
Summary|ICE: verify_gimp
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51571
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Status|UN
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51574
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49720
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com
--- Comment #3 from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48847
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51458
--- Comment #1 from Jason Merrill 2011-12-15
21:55:35 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Thu Dec 15 21:55:31 2011
New Revision: 182391
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=182391
Log:
PR c++/51458
* decl.c (has_designator_probl
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51458
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45030
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51575
Bug #: 51575
Summary: [4.7 Regression] ICE: verify_gimple failed: statement
marked for throw, but doesn't with
-fnon-call-exceptions and placement new
Classification: Unclassified
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49847
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Component|java
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51463
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50101
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Target Milestone|--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51360
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[4.6/4.7 Regression]|[4.6 Regression] spurious
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49806
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51463
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-12-15
20:46:01 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Dec 15 20:45:53 2011
New Revision: 182387
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=182387
Log:
PR c++/51463
* decl.c (grokdeclarator): Set
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51549
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51574
--- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu 2011-12-15 20:13:55
UTC ---
We are running out of stack:
#0 0x00d72a35 in rtx_equal_p (x=) at ../../src/gcc/rtl.c:500
#1 0x00dbeaea in simplify_binary_operation_1 (code=MINUS,
mode=SImode, op0=0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51574
--- Comment #1 from H.J. Lu 2011-12-15 20:07:44
UTC ---
It is on Linux/ia32 or Linux/x86-64.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51574
Bug #: 51574
Summary: [4.6] Internal error: Segmentation fault (program
cc1plus)
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51568
--- Comment #3 from Eugene 2011-12-15 19:44:34
UTC ---
>On linux sizeof (struct rec) is 7, so how do you expect an unsigned (size = 4)
to hold the entire value?
Agree, that was my mistake.
I misexpected the enum to fit one byte.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51572
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone|-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46278
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50775
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49868
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||documentation
Priority|P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51573
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comm
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51310
--- Comment #7 from toon at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-12-15 18:26:08 UTC ---
Author: toon
Date: Thu Dec 15 18:26:02 2011
New Revision: 182384
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=182384
Log:
2011-12-15 Toon Moene
PR fortran/513
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51571
Prasoon changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |critical
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51573
Bug #: 51573
Summary: [4.7 Regression] ICE (segfault) in
lto_varpool_encoder_encode_initializer_p
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNC
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51360
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-12-15
17:29:29 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Dec 15 17:29:25 2011
New Revision: 182381
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=182381
Log:
PR c/51360
* c-parser.c (c_parser_omp_claus
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51568
--- Comment #2 from Richard Earnshaw 2011-12-15
17:27:19 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> On linux sizeof (struct rec) is 7, so how do you expect an unsigned (size = 4)
> to hold the entire value?
>
> If you want a packed enum, you need to spe
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51117
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-12-15
17:27:11 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Dec 15 17:27:08 2011
New Revision: 182379
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=182379
Log:
PR tree-optimization/51117
* g++.dg/opt/pr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49806
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-12-15
17:27:50 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Dec 15 17:27:45 2011
New Revision: 182380
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=182380
Log:
PR middle-end/49806
* gcc.dg/tree-ssa-vrp47
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51568
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51462
Dodji Seketeli changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51572
Bug #: 51572
Summary: [4.7 Regression] LTO bootstrap failed with
bootstrap-profiled
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50952
--- Comment #11 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-12-15 16:43:27 UTC ---
I think that this was fixed by
2011-11-21 Andreas Tobler
* libtool.m4: dditional FreeBSD 10 fixes.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51571
Bug #: 51571
Summary: No named return value optimization while adding a
dummy scope
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51567
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51567
--- Comment #3 from Richard Guenther 2011-12-15
16:38:16 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu Dec 15 16:38:08 2011
New Revision: 182377
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=182377
Log:
2011-12-15 Richard Guenther
PR lto/515
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49868
--- Comment #10 from Georg-Johann Lay 2011-12-15
16:28:42 UTC ---
More dependency: Need RELOCs to represent byte
http://sourceware.org/PR13503
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51569
--- Comment #1 from Pascal 2011-12-15 16:28:11
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #0)
>
> According to the standard -0.0 is greater than zero.
Sorry, I am also confusing things by saying this.
please read instead "-0.0>=0.0 return True"
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51570
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.7.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51570
Bug #: 51570
Summary: [4.7 Regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/guality/pr45003-[23].c
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51569
Bug #: 51569
Summary: documentation on sign intrinsic
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51568
Bug #: 51568
Summary: Enum value is not extracted properly via a union
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.3.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51473
Dodji Seketeli changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51473
--- Comment #5 from Dodji Seketeli 2011-12-15
15:40:31 UTC ---
Author: dodji
Date: Thu Dec 15 15:40:25 2011
New Revision: 182375
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=182375
Log:
PR c++/51473 - ICE with invalid auto
gcc/cp/
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49050
--- Comment #5 from Tobias Burnus 2011-12-15
15:25:39 UTC ---
Author: burnus
Date: Thu Dec 15 15:25:32 2011
New Revision: 182373
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=182373
Log:
2011-12-15 Tobias Burnus
PR fortran/51
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47545
--- Comment #6 from Tobias Burnus 2011-12-15
15:25:37 UTC ---
Author: burnus
Date: Thu Dec 15 15:25:32 2011
New Revision: 182373
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=182373
Log:
2011-12-15 Tobias Burnus
PR fortran/51
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51075
--- Comment #3 from Tobias Burnus 2011-12-15
15:25:39 UTC ---
Author: burnus
Date: Thu Dec 15 15:25:32 2011
New Revision: 182373
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=182373
Log:
2011-12-15 Tobias Burnus
PR fortran/51
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51550
--- Comment #4 from Tobias Burnus 2011-12-15
15:25:37 UTC ---
Author: burnus
Date: Thu Dec 15 15:25:32 2011
New Revision: 182373
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=182373
Log:
2011-12-15 Tobias Burnus
PR fortran/51
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47545
--- Comment #5 from Tobias Burnus 2011-12-15
15:18:38 UTC ---
Author: burnus
Date: Thu Dec 15 15:18:33 2011
New Revision: 182372
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=182372
Log:
2011-12-15 Tobias Burnus
PR fortran/51
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51550
--- Comment #3 from Tobias Burnus 2011-12-15
15:18:38 UTC ---
Author: burnus
Date: Thu Dec 15 15:18:33 2011
New Revision: 182372
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=182372
Log:
2011-12-15 Tobias Burnus
PR fortran/51
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49050
--- Comment #4 from Tobias Burnus 2011-12-15
15:18:39 UTC ---
Author: burnus
Date: Thu Dec 15 15:18:33 2011
New Revision: 182372
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=182372
Log:
2011-12-15 Tobias Burnus
PR fortran/51
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51075
--- Comment #2 from Tobias Burnus 2011-12-15
15:18:40 UTC ---
Author: burnus
Date: Thu Dec 15 15:18:33 2011
New Revision: 182372
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=182372
Log:
2011-12-15 Tobias Burnus
PR fortran/51
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51562
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|NEW
Version|4.5.2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51567
--- Comment #2 from Richard Guenther 2011-12-15
14:42:19 UTC ---
5007 gcc_assert (child->die_parent == parent
5008 || (child->die_parent
5009 == get_AT_ref (parent, DW_AT_specification)));
we have
(gdb
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51567
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51567
Bug #: 51567
Summary: [4.7 Regression] ICE in splice_child_die, at
dwarf2out.c:5009 with -flto -g
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNC
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41159
--- Comment #18 from Uros Bizjak 2011-12-15 14:04:56
UTC ---
Created attachment 26102
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26102
intermediate object file for alpha-linux-gnu target
Attached object fails with lto crosscompiler to a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41159
--- Comment #17 from Uros Bizjak 2011-12-15 14:01:56
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #16)
> It's tedious to look at this without a testcase that triggers on native
> x86_64. My usual simple crosses do not work with LTO as I need a target
> assemble
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51162
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51298
--- Comment #6 from Alan Modra 2011-12-15 13:45:20
UTC ---
I expect all of the libgomp bugs I recently fixed will affect some other
processors, eg. Alpha, IA64, and Sparc in some memory modes. I know PR51376
won't affect x86, and I expect PR5124
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49865
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-12-15
13:39:58 UTC ---
Well, that is the "bad" sequence.
Until r171648 instead of two movl 8(%ebp), %eX insns (one before rep stosl, one
after) there was just one of those and one movl %eA, %eB register move
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47857
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-12-15
13:38:25 UTC ---
If you're going to change the status please check what VERIFIED means (we don't
use that status in this bugzilla)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51360
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51562
--- Comment #2 from willus0 at hotmail dot com 2011-12-15 13:16:37 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> (x=1,x)+(x=2,x)
>
> is invoking undefined behavior as there is no sequence point inbetween
> the two assignments to x.
Is the same also true of
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51498
--- Comment #7 from gee 2011-12-15 13:00:58 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> so it should figure that out automatically. Aren't you e.g. building in
> source
> directory (./configure ...)? Otherwise it would be good if you could debug
> why
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51564
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
1 - 100 of 137 matches
Mail list logo