http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51406
--- Comment #7 from Uros Bizjak 2011-12-17 07:28:59
UTC ---
The testcases use "target c++11" target selector. This selector is not known
on 4.6 and earler branches. The testcases fail as following on 4.6 branch [1]:
Running target unix
ERROR:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50283
--- Comment #14 from dave.anglin at bell dot net 2011-12-17 04:12:48 UTC ---
On 15-Dec-11, at 9:16 PM, pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50283
>
> --- Comment #13 from Andrew Pinski
> 2011-12-16 02:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51416
--- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill 2011-12-17
03:28:42 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Sat Dec 17 03:28:39 2011
New Revision: 182430
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=182430
Log:
PR c++/51416
* init.c (build_value_init_noc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51552
Jie Zhang changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51583
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
URL|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51252
--- Comment #6 from dave.anglin at bell dot net 2011-12-17 00:17:44 UTC ---
On 16-Dec-11, at 1:04 PM, ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51252
I need to determine whether it's possible to suppo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51072
Richard Henderson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51072
--- Comment #11 from Richard Henderson 2011-12-17
00:07:17 UTC ---
Author: rth
Date: Sat Dec 17 00:07:10 2011
New Revision: 182424
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=182424
Log:
PR bootstrap/51072
* config-lang.in (tar
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51593
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51072
Richard Henderson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51416
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51593
--- Comment #2 from Alisdair Meredith 2011-12-16
23:18:27 UTC ---
Thanks, I thought I had tried that, but I guess not.
It seems reasonable to close this as user error.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51576
Ian Lance Taylor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ian at airs dot com
--- Comment #5 fro
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51592
Ian Lance Taylor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
* gcc.dg/20111216-1.c: New test.
Added:
trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/20111216-1.c
Modified:
trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51461
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51331
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Depends on|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51331
--- Comment #5 from Jason Merrill 2011-12-16
22:59:32 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Fri Dec 16 22:59:27 2011
New Revision: 182418
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=182418
Log:
PR c++/51331
* class.c (convert_to_base_sta
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51589
Harald Anlauf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anlauf at gmx dot de
--- Comment #3 from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51593
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski 2011-12-16
22:48:40 UTC ---
This works:
using type = typename wrap::template type;
Which seems correct as you need to say "wrap::template type" is a type.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51593
Bug #: 51593
Summary: alias templates fail in dependent contexts requiring
::template
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51589
--- Comment #2 from Walter Spector 2011-12-16
22:37:44 UTC ---
No error messages from Absoft (v9), g95, or PGI (v11.10). All print the
revised version of i, but only perform 10 iterations.
NAG (5.2 edit 721) considers the intent(out) to be an e
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51592
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski 2011-12-16
22:36:59 UTC ---
I want to say this is a dup of
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51576
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51461
--- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill 2011-12-16
22:34:53 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Fri Dec 16 22:34:49 2011
New Revision: 182415
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=182415
Log:
PR c++/51461
* decl.c (check_static_variabl
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51331
--- Comment #4 from Jason Merrill 2011-12-16
22:34:44 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Fri Dec 16 22:34:39 2011
New Revision: 182414
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=182414
Log:
PR c++/51331
* class.c (convert_to_base_sta
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51592
Bug #: 51592
Summary: ICE with -fnon-call-exceptions
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
Severity
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51591
Bug #: 51591
Summary: Strange output from STOP statement in OpenMP region
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51590
--- Comment #1 from Tobias Burnus 2011-12-16
21:47:04 UTC ---
Created attachment 26116
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26116
Test case
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
AssignedTo: unassig...@gcc.gnu.org
ReportedBy: bur...@gcc.gnu.org
Host: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
With 4.7.0 20111216 I get an ICE:
$ g++ -c -O3 test-it
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51589
--- Comment #1 from Walter Spector 2011-12-16
21:32:55 UTC ---
Sorry - my description is backwards from the test case. The first is
intent(inout), and should probably give a warning. The second is intent(out)
and should give an error.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51589
Bug #: 51589
Summary: Modification of loop index variable by intent(out) or
intent(inout) procedures
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.1
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51585
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51588
Bug #: 51588
Summary: [4.4/4.5/4.6/4.7 Regression] ICE
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51587
Volker Reichelt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-checking,
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51587
Bug #: 51587
Summary: [4.7 Regression] ICE with struct vs. enum clash
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51586
Volker Reichelt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||error-recovery,
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51586
Bug #: 51586
Summary: [4.7 Regression] ICE with invalid union
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51540
--- Comment #14 from Christopher Yeleighton
2011-12-16 20:31:24 UTC ---
I would rather prefer to be able to use gcc (as a software developer) while not
having the ISO standard, which is 1) unreadable with an unarmed eye, 2) not
free (as in anythi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51585
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski 2011-12-16
20:25:09 UTC ---
Was this after:
2011-12-12 Dmitry Vyukov
* cgraphunit.c (init_lowered_empty_function): Fix flags for new edges.
But not before the revert of it?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51585
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=50803
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50803
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-12-16
20:16:28 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Dec 16 20:16:23 2011
New Revision: 182411
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=182411
Log:
PR testsuite/50803
* gcc.dg/ipa/inline-5.c:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51540
--- Comment #13 from Paolo Carlini 2011-12-16
20:16:16 UTC ---
Up to Jon to decide which details he wants to add to the docs, but please
always keep in mind that in the areas where the behavior isn't implementation
defined only the ISO Standard (
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51585
Volker Reichelt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Target Milestone|--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51585
Bug #: 51585
Summary: [4.7 Regression] verify_flow_info failed ICE with
virtual inheritance
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRM
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51471
--- Comment #12 from Andrew Pinski 2011-12-16
20:07:23 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #11)
> This is the patch which I am testing:
I ran into a bootstrap miscompare which is caused by an assembler bug
(http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?i
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50833
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50686
--- Comment #25 from Andrew Pinski 2011-12-16
20:05:16 UTC ---
Can you try the patch in PR 51471#c11 ? That patch fixes most of the
maybe_record_trace_start on mips* for me.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51584
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski 2011-12-16
19:58:58 UTC ---
I think this is related to PR 47346.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50444
--- Comment #9 from Martin Jambor 2011-12-16
19:35:07 UTC ---
I have just discovered this has not been fixed by the patch to dela with PR
50569. I'm moving this to the top of my todo list now.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49237
--- Comment #2 from Wouter Vermaelen
2011-12-16 19:28:36 UTC ---
I also can't reproduce it anymore.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50803
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-12-16
19:13:49 UTC ---
Created attachment 26115
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26115
gcc47-pr50803.patch
Patch lightly tested with crosses to 32-bit hppa-hpux and hppa-linux and 64-bit
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51540
--- Comment #12 from Christopher Yeleighton
2011-12-16 18:59:31 UTC ---
Additionally, and also for the default operator form, it is unclear what the
result is when the operator is noncommutative. That is, whether y[n+1] is set
to x[n+1]+y[n] or
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51331
Jason Merrill 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|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51135
--- Comment #8 from Kai Tietz 2011-12-16 18:43:11
UTC ---
Author: ktietz
Date: Fri Dec 16 18:43:06 2011
New Revision: 182410
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=182410
Log:
PR libstdc++/51135
* libsupc++/unwind-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16635
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|SUSPENDED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51584
Bug #: 51584
Summary: Errorneous compilation when deriving from an
inaccessible friend class.
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.1
Status: UNCONFI
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51252
--- Comment #5 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-12-16 18:04:23 UTC ---
> --- Comment #4 from Richard Henderson 2011-12-16
> 18:00:43 UTC ---
> While that might solve the ICE, the clone table doesn't actually
> get registered, which i
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51252
--- Comment #4 from Richard Henderson 2011-12-16
18:00:43 UTC ---
While that might solve the ICE, the clone table doesn't actually
get registered, which is why that clone-1 test case still fails.
You'll need to play with collect2 and all its mag
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51072
Joseph S. Myers changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||steven at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51503
Joseph S. Myers changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51072
Joseph S. Myers changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51124
--- Comment #7 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-12-16 17:55:22 UTC ---
> What sort of backtrace in gdb do you get on 32-bit Solaris 8-11/x86 for the
> execution failure
> in the libitm.c++/eh-1.C test?
This one:
[Thread debugging usi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51252
--- Comment #3 from Rainer Orth 2011-12-16 17:50:33 UTC
---
Created attachment 26114
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26114
proposed minimal patch
With this patch, the only remaining TM failure on Tru64 UNIX is
FAIL: libitm.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51252
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|hppa2.0w-hp-hpux11.11 |hppa2.0w-hp-hpux11.11,
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51124
--- Comment #6 from Jack Howarth 2011-12-16
17:45:38 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> Right, I'm seeing exactly the same output for libitm.c/memcpy-1.c and
> libitm.c/memset-1.c on 32-bit Solaris 8-11/x86, and also in an
> i686-unknown-linux-gn
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39400
Denis Excoffier changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||g...@denis-excoffier.org
--- Comment #4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51124
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
received signal EXC_BAD_ACCESS, Could not access memory.
Reason: KERN_PROTECTION_FAILURE at address: 0x
0xa074 in ITM_WU4 (this=, ptr=0x0, val=1) at
../../../../gcc-4.7-20111216/libitm/method-serial.cc:90
90 CREATE_DISPATCH_METHODS(virtual, )
(gdb) bt
#0 0xa074 in ITM_WU4 (this
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51582
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Keywords|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50686
--- Comment #24 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-12-16 16:56:55 UTC ---
> --- Comment #23 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-12-07
> 09:21:16 UTC ---
> Can't reproduce with i686-linux x mips-sgi-irix6.5 cross either.
I could, on Centos 5 (x86_
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51583
Bug #: 51583
Summary: One more missing force_gimple_operand in SRA
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prior
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51576
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zsojka at seznam dot cz
--- Comment #4 fr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51575
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51575
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-12-16
16:37:00 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Dec 16 16:36:49 2011
New Revision: 182409
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=182409
Log:
PR tree-optimization/51575
* g++.dg/opt/pr5
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51582
Bug #: 51582
Summary: ICE when using a class with a matrix of complex
numbers in C++0x mode
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.2
Status: UNCONFIRM
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51575
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51581
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-12-16
16:25:26 UTC ---
Created attachment 26111
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26111
div2.c
Testcase where f1-f6 are normal integer division loops and f7-f12 the same
division rewritten
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49084
--- Comment #24 from Anh Vo 2011-12-16 16:24:19
UTC ---
Indeed, the build went smoothly. Thank you all specially Eric Botcazou for
fixing this issue.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51581
Bug #: 51581
Summary: Integer division by constant is not vectorized
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51579
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51557
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51576
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51579
--- Comment #3 from Paolo Carlini 2011-12-16
15:45:15 UTC ---
To be clear, I didn't mean to imply that somebody here is going to add unnamed
parameters to C, only, that apparently *you* are seeing attribute((unused)) as
something meant to solve t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51124
--- Comment #3 from Jack Howarth 2011-12-16
15:44:36 UTC ---
Could the memcpy-1.exe/memset-1.exe execution failures be related to those seen
on i386-pc-solaris2.9?
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2011-12/msg01261.html
We also seem to shar
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51573
--- Comment #10 from Richard Guenther 2011-12-16
15:31:02 UTC ---
Patch #1 now passes LTO bootstrap, I'll schedule a SPEC2k6 build and commit
early next week if that succeeds. Feels more like baby-steps incrementally
improving the -flto -g situa
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51572
--- Comment #17 from Richard Guenther 2011-12-16
15:28:35 UTC ---
It'll take me a while to do the necessary pre-reorg of streaming TREE_CHAIN
for FIELD_DECLs -> next week.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51579
--- Comment #2 from Yann Droneaud 2011-12-16 15:25:41
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> I don't think we should start warning each time an __attribute__((unused))
> parameter is actually used. In my experience that's absolutely common and
> perv
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51557
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-12-16
15:21:52 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Dec 16 15:21:48 2011
New Revision: 182404
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=182404
Log:
PR debug/51557
* sel-sched-ir.c (create_cop
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51576
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-12-16
15:20:38 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Dec 16 15:20:35 2011
New Revision: 182403
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=182403
Log:
PR tree-optimization/51576
* tree-cfg.c (re
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51124
--- Comment #2 from Jack Howarth 2011-12-16
15:19:55 UTC ---
On x86_64-apple-darwin11, the failure of...
FAIL: libitm.c/clone-1.c execution test
at -m32/-m64 appears to be due to the -pie linker default when targeting
darwin11.
If I append -Wl,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51572
--- Comment #16 from Richard Guenther 2011-12-16
15:13:27 UTC ---
For g++.dg/debug/pr45660.C we have a limbo DIE for 'T' which has DECL_CONTEXT
of the type 'S'. We create a DIE for 'S' when creating a DIE for the
FUNCTION_DECL 'i' which we do wh
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51580
Bug #: 51580
Summary: [4.7 regression] segfault during loop vectorization at
-O3
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51572
--- Comment #15 from rguenther at suse dot de
2011-12-16 14:53:34 UTC ---
On Fri, 16 Dec 2011, markus at trippelsdorf dot de wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51572
>
> --- Comment #14 from Markus Trippelsdorf
> 2011-12-16
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51572
--- Comment #14 from Markus Trippelsdorf
2011-12-16 14:51:03 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #13)
> On Fri, 16 Dec 2011, markus at trippelsdorf dot de wrote:
>
> > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51572
> >
> > --- Comment #12 from Mark
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51572
--- Comment #13 from rguenther at suse dot de
2011-12-16 14:47:45 UTC ---
On Fri, 16 Dec 2011, markus at trippelsdorf dot de wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51572
>
> --- Comment #12 from Markus Trippelsdorf
> 2011-12-16
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51572
--- Comment #12 from Markus Trippelsdorf
2011-12-16 14:45:32 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #11)
> On Fri, 16 Dec 2011, markus at trippelsdorf dot de wrote:
>
> > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51572
> >
> > --- Comment #10 from Mark
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51572
--- Comment #11 from rguenther at suse dot de
2011-12-16 14:42:45 UTC ---
On Fri, 16 Dec 2011, markus at trippelsdorf dot de wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51572
>
> --- Comment #10 from Markus Trippelsdorf
> 2011-12-16
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51572
--- Comment #10 from Markus Trippelsdorf
2011-12-16 14:40:28 UTC ---
Even with your patch (and also changing the similar occurrence
a few lines below) and patch #1 from PR51573 libxul of Firefox
still fails to build with the same ICE.
1 - 100 of 137 matches
Mail list logo
