http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52544
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c |middle-end
Severity|major
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48835
--- Comment #52 from Thorsten Glaser 2012-03-10 00:52:32
UTC ---
Mikael’s patches work fine for me, gnat-4.6 (4.6.3-1+m68k.2) has just made its
way to debian-ports.org unreleased, chances are it’ll become part of the stock
unstable sources soon.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52548
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51785
--- Comment #27 from Paolo Carlini 2012-03-09
23:48:17 UTC ---
Thanks a lot Joseph, a very good solution.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52546
--- Comment #2 from Marek Vasut 2012-03-09
22:53:04 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> > Is there any way to tell the compiler how much stack does a naked function
> > consume (or that it consumes zero stack)? Is this a GCC bug?
>
> It's a limit
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51785
--- Comment #26 from Joseph S. Myers 2012-03-09
22:13:49 UTC ---
The __USE_GNU conditional has now been removed from glibc after further
discussion on libc-alpha, so the libstdc++ changes can be reverted (probably
after 4.7.0).
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52547
--- Comment #1 from Rohit Banga 2012-03-09
21:59:25 UTC ---
Removing -fopenmp resolves the problem. That piece of information should be
helpful in solving the bug.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52546
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52545
--- Comment #5 from Sriraman Tallam 2012-03-09
21:30:54 UTC ---
On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 12:27 PM, gjl at gcc dot gnu.org
wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52545
>
> --- Comment #4 from Georg-Johann Lay 2012-03-09
> 20:27:42 U
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52521
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-03-09
21:21:15 UTC ---
Created attachment 26869
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26869
gcc48-pr52521.patch
If ignoring possibility of parameters with default arguments, I guess the fix
co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52548
Bug #: 52548
Summary: missed PRE optimization when function call follows
to-be hoisted variable
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCON
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52547
Bug #: 52547
Summary: Internal compiler Error in create_tmp_var in
gimplify.c:465
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52482
--- Comment #4 from David Fang 2012-03-09
20:44:14 UTC ---
Also, from my testing, it looks like AS=odas is needed; if I just pass
AS_FOR_TARGET=odas, then the wrong assembler is used and sjlj.S fails.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52546
Bug #: 52546
Summary: -fstack-usage not working with __attribute__((naked))
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52545
--- Comment #4 from Georg-Johann Lay 2012-03-09
20:27:42 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> Right, I was not looking at SECTION_MACH_DEP when I defined the macro. Is it
> ok
> to just bump SECTION_MACH_DEP?
>
> The patch I have in mind is:
>
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52545
--- Comment #3 from Sriraman Tallam 2012-03-09
19:36:21 UTC ---
Right, I was not looking at SECTION_MACH_DEP when I defined the macro. Is it ok
to just bump SECTION_MACH_DEP?
The patch I have in mind is:
-#define SECTION_MACH_DEP 0x200 /* s
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52545
--- Comment #2 from Georg-Johann Lay 2012-03-09
19:21:09 UTC ---
...and here is the change:
http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?view=revision&revision=179288
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52545
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52545
Bug #: 52545
Summary: output.h: SECTION_EXCLUDE flag clobbers
SECTION_MACH_DEP
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52456
--- Comment #7 from Benjamin Kosnik 2012-03-09
18:46:52 UTC ---
Hey all. Undesignated are optionally-added symbols (like tls) that are
configure or platform dependant and so are not set into the baselines. This is
new.
They are not FAIL. It's t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52530
--- Comment #9 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-03-09 18:01:56 UTC ---
Author: uros
Date: Fri Mar 9 18:01:47 2012
New Revision: 185148
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=185148
Log:
PR target/52530
* config/i386/i386.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52267
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52544
Bug #: 52544
Summary: compilation fails with -finstrument-functions and sse
c code
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52530
--- Comment #8 from Uros Bizjak 2012-03-09 17:08:13
UTC ---
Created attachment 26865
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26865
Patch that introduces %E modifier
Patch in testing.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52530
Uros Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #7 from Uros Bizjak 2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52104
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|i386-pc-solaris2.[89] |i386-pc-solaris2.1[01]
Host|i
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47631
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52543
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52543
--- Comment #3 from Georg-Johann Lay 2012-03-09
15:44:46 UTC ---
Created attachment 26864
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26864
lower.s: Assembler output with -fno-split-wide-types
Compiled with
avr-gcc lower.c -Os -S -dp -m
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52543
--- Comment #2 from Georg-Johann Lay 2012-03-09
15:40:58 UTC ---
Created attachment 26863
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26863
lower.s: Assembler output
Compiled with
avr-gcc lower.c -Os -S -dp -mmcu=atmega128
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52543
--- Comment #1 from Georg-Johann Lay 2012-03-09
15:39:41 UTC ---
Created attachment 26862
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26862
lower.c: C source
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52543
Bug #: 52543
Summary: lower-subreg.c: code bloat of 300%-400% for bulti-word
memory splits
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRME
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52530
--- Comment #6 from H.J. Lu 2012-03-09 15:17:07
UTC ---
This patch works for me:
---
diff --git a/gcc/ChangeLog.addr32 b/gcc/ChangeLog.addr32
index 066f1ec..a191e47 100644
--- a/gcc/ChangeLog.addr32
+++ b/gcc/ChangeLog.addr32
@@ -1,3 +1,8 @@
+20
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52530
Uros Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52542
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52540
--- Comment #6 from Kai Tietz 2012-03-09 13:00:40
UTC ---
Hmm, it seems to be a shared/static issue on Windows.
As if I pass to command-line -static with the define, the test passes too.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52540
--- Comment #5 from Paolo Carlini 2012-03-09
12:55:30 UTC ---
I would recommend trying to figure out first when the problem has been
introduced, without excluding some sort of compiler issue, because these
library facilities are in general pretty
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52540
--- Comment #4 from Kai Tietz 2012-03-09 12:00:00
UTC ---
Issue happens in
include/bits/locale_classes.tcc:
template
const _Facet&
use_facet(const locale& __loc)
{
const size_t __i = _Facet::id._M_id();
--version
GNU Fortran (GCC) 4.8.0 20120309 (experimental) [trunk revision 185121]
$ cat bind.f90
interface
subroutine s() bind(c)
end subroutine s
end interface
procedure(s) :: t
call t
end
$ gfortran -c bind.f90 ; nm bind.o
t MAIN__
U _gfortran_set_args
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52533
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-03-09
11:44:27 UTC ---
Created attachment 26861
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26861
gcc47-pr52533.patch
Untested fix.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52541
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52540
Kai Tietz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52540
--- Comment #2 from Kai Tietz 2012-03-09 11:19:34
UTC ---
Hmm, I tested this testcase on my cygwin-cross-compiler for x64 and
I didn't noticed this failure.
I get for it by shown samples always proper output (eg '03/09/12 12:18:20').
So it might
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52541
--- Comment #1 from Konrad Rudolph
2012-03-09 11:09:23 UTC ---
Created attachment 26860
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26860
MWE
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52541
Bug #: 52541
Summary: g++ allows definition of const POD
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52540
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dave.korn.cygwin at gmail
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52540
Bug #: 52540
Summary: std::use_facet throws bad_cast when compiled with
_GLIBCXX_DEBUG
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.4
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51244
--- Comment #31 from Kazumoto Kojima 2012-03-09
10:36:31 UTC ---
Created attachment 26859
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26859
A test result
testresult on sh4-unknown-linux-gnu [trunk revision 185088].
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52539
Bug #: 52539
Summary: I/O: Wrong result for UTF-8/UCS-4 list-directed and
namelist read and nml write
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51244
--- Comment #30 from Oleg Endo 2012-03-09
10:02:25 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #29)
> (In reply to comment #28)
> Regtest on sh4-unknown-lunix-gnu has been done successfully.
> Oleg, your patch is pre-approved.
Thanks a lot!
Could you please at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52536
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52538
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-03-09
09:51:34 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> If you want to use C++11, then you have to write C++11 code. That is the way
> forward I think we have discussed this before.
Yes, in PR 52485, and see a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51988
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski 2012-03-09
09:27:35 UTC ---
Author: pinskia
Date: Fri Mar 9 09:27:29 2012
New Revision: 185131
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=185131
Log:
2012-03-09 Andrew Pinski
PR middle-end/51
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52537
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52538
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski 2012-03-09
09:07:10 UTC ---
If you want to use C++11, then you have to write C++11 code. That is the way
forward I think we have discussed this before.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52538
Bug #: 52538
Summary: Extend C++11 UDLs to be compatible with inttypes.h
macros
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52537
Bug #: 52537
Summary: slow trim function
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Comp
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51244
--- Comment #29 from Kazumoto Kojima 2012-03-09
08:40:32 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #28)
Regtest on sh4-unknown-lunix-gnu has been done successfully.
Oleg, your patch is pre-approved.
58 matches
Mail list logo
