http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53282
--- Comment #4 from vincenzo Innocente
2012-05-09 06:29:40 UTC ---
Hi Honza,
I forgot to say that I tried both
-flto-partition=1to1
and
-flto-partition=none
with the same result
the point is that the symbols in question refers to a templated fu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53176
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
URL|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53289
Bug #: 53289
Summary: unnecessary repetition of caret diagnostics
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priori
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53270
--- Comment #13 from jimis 2012-05-09 04:43:20 UTC ---
--disable-libstdcxx-threads doesn't help, I get the same error at exactly the
same point(guard.cc:33).
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53288
Bug #: 53288
Summary: [C++11] Reference fails to bind directly to prvalue
member access expression
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UN
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52908
--- Comment #6 from Venkataramanan
2012-05-09 03:13:01 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> (In reply to comment #4)
> > A Quick make check on i386.exp result is shown below:
> >
> > Tests that now fail, but worked before:
> >
> > gcc.target/i38
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53273
--- Comment #6 from Hans-Peter Nilsson 2012-05-09
00:13:44 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> Usual way to avoid it in the
> testsuite is to put a loop into main().
Besides, the background of this PR (at the URL) is that I don't want a recipe
th
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53273
--- Comment #5 from Hans-Peter Nilsson 2012-05-09
00:04:08 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> You seem to be hitting the logic detecting functions executed just once and
> making them optimized for size rather than speed.
No, not really "once",
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53287
Bug #: 53287
Summary: "self-initialization" warning doesn't seem to work for
non-primitive types...
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: U
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53273
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #27351|application/octet-stream|text/plain
mime type|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53273
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53273
--- Comment #2 from Hans-Peter Nilsson 2012-05-08
23:41:41 UTC ---
Created attachment 27351
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27351
Like i2.i (attachment 27350) but with main and auxiliary functions, and always
aborting
This at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53273
--- Comment #1 from Hans-Peter Nilsson 2012-05-08
23:24:15 UTC ---
Created attachment 27350
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27350
preprocessed file with just the (previously) miscompiled function
This is basically gcc.dg/tort
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53008
--- Comment #3 from Dave Boutcher 2012-05-08
22:56:23 UTC ---
I just submitted a patch for this one (Issue 6201064)
(http://codereview.appspot.com/6201064/)
Patch included here just for fun:
Index: gcc/trans-mem.c
diff --git a/gcc/trans-mem.c b
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53284
--- Comment #1 from Richard Henderson 2012-05-08
22:39:35 UTC ---
Can you investigate why configure decides that __atomic_compare_exchange_8
is implemented inline? That it isn't inline is obvious from the recursion.
Was the configure change to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53286
Bug #: 53286
Summary: [mingw] improve "CreateProcess: No such file or
directory" error message
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONF
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53285
Bug #: 53285
Summary: libibiberty's md5.c builds with warnings with 4.7 and
trunk
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53261
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53261
--- Comment #5 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2012-05-08
22:14:43 UTC ---
Author: manu
Date: Tue May 8 22:14:34 2012
New Revision: 187300
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=187300
Log:
2012-05-09 Manuel López-Ibáñez
PR c++/
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53278
rsand...@gcc.gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53278
--- Comment #6 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-05-08 21:42:09 UTC ---
Author: rsandifo
Date: Tue May 8 21:42:03 2012
New Revision: 187299
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=187299
Log:
gcc/
PR rtl-optimization/53278
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51244
--- Comment #38 from Oleg Endo 2012-05-08
21:36:35 UTC ---
Author: olegendo
Date: Tue May 8 21:36:30 2012
New Revision: 187298
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=187298
Log:
PR target/51244
* config/sh/sh.md (*branch_
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53270
--- Comment #12 from John David Anglin 2012-05-08
20:50:01 UTC ---
You might try configuring with "--disable-libstdcxx-threads". It
disables C++11 threads support.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44959
--- Comment #23 from Hin-Tak Leung
2012-05-08 20:48:25 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #22)
> > --- Comment #21 from Hin-Tak Leung
> > 2012-05-08 14:15:52 UTC ---
>
> I think there was a misunderstanding: I specificially asked for the
> smallest
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50342
--- Comment #11 from simon at pushface dot org 2012-05-08 20:01:50 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #10)
> I'm wondering if you could add:
>
> # Work around PR50342
> BOOT_CFLAGS += -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=0
>
> to config/mh-darwin and fix the issue. If s
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53263
--- Comment #10 from François Dumont 2012-05-08
19:31:49 UTC ---
Ok, I will submit a patch tomorrow generalizing usage of __gnu_debug::__base in
debug macros.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53270
--- Comment #11 from dave.anglin at bell dot net 2012-05-08 19:23:48 UTC ---
On 5/8/2012 3:03 PM, steven at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> Is that old a glibc still supported?
The following still works except for libitm:
dave@selway:/lib> /lib/libc.so.6
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53270
--- Comment #10 from Steven Bosscher 2012-05-08
19:03:01 UTC ---
>From gcc61:
$ /lib/libc-2.7.so
GNU C Library stable release version 2.7, by Roland McGrath et al.
Copyright (C) 2007 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This is free software; see th
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53180
Pat Haugen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.8.0 |---
--- Comment #2 from Pat Haugen 2012-05-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53270
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|2012-05-07 00:00
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49700
Joost VandeVondele changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53278
rsand...@gcc.gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53238
--- Comment #8 from Daniel Richard G. 2012-05-08
18:18:04 UTC ---
I did a non-bootstrap build to speed things up a bit. (The system already has
GCC 4.5.2.)
First: Your patch needs a couple of ";;" sprinkled in there :-)
Second: With the patch,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53283
Sriraman Tallam changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tmsriram at google dot com
--- Comment
ree-vectorize -fPIC'
> CXXFLAGS='-O2 -fPIC -ftree-vectorize -fvisibility-inlines-hidden
> -march=native'
> -enable-libitm -disable-multilib CC=gcc CXX=g++
> --enable-languages=c,c++,fortran,lto --no-create --no-recursion
> Thread model: posix
> gcc version 4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53282
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53226
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c++ |tree-optimization
Target Milestone|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53284
Bug #: 53284
Summary: Several libatomic tests fail on 32-bit Solaris/x86
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53279
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||build
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53176
--- Comment #23 from Uros Bizjak 2012-05-08 16:10:07
UTC ---
Author: uros
Date: Tue May 8 16:01:54 2012
New Revision: 187289
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=187289
Log:
PR target/53176
* config/i386/i386.c (ix86_se
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53250
--- Comment #8 from Uros Bizjak 2012-05-08 16:05:40
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> Author: uros
> Date: Tue May 8 16:01:54 2012
> New Revision: 187289
>
> URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=187289
> Log:
> PR target/5
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53277
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53185
--- Comment #5 from Gary Funck 2012-05-08 16:01:50
UTC ---
Ping. Is there an ETA for a fix for this bug? It is preventing us from being
able to merge from the GCC trunk. Thanks.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53250
--- Comment #7 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-05-08 16:01:59 UTC ---
Author: uros
Date: Tue May 8 16:01:54 2012
New Revision: 187289
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=187289
Log:
PR target/53250
* config/i386/i386.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49797
--- Comment #4 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2012-05-08 15:54:15 UTC ---
> --- Comment #3 from Matt Hargett 2012-04-23 22:19:35
> UTC ---
> Can you please back port this to 4.6 as well? Running into this on Scientific
> Linux 6.1 on x6
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53278
Kenneth Zadeck changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zadeck at naturalbridge dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53272
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44959
--- Comment #22 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2012-05-08 15:36:03 UTC ---
> --- Comment #21 from Hin-Tak Leung
> 2012-05-08 14:15:52 UTC ---
I think there was a misunderstanding: I specificially asked for the
smallest of the differing
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53272
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.7.2
--- Comment #6 from Hans-Peter
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53272
--- Comment #5 from Hans-Peter Nilsson 2012-05-08
15:28:02 UTC ---
Author: hp
Date: Tue May 8 15:27:58 2012
New Revision: 187286
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=187286
Log:
PR target/53272
* gcc.dg/torture/pr53272-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53261
--- Comment #4 from dave.anglin at bell dot net 2012-05-08 15:26:51 UTC ---
On 5/7/2012 12:25 PM, manu at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> Could you test on hppa?
The patch fixes the compilation error.
>
>
> Actually, I am not sure whether "if (!tem || int
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53272
--- Comment #4 from Hans-Peter Nilsson 2012-05-08
15:27:08 UTC ---
Author: hp
Date: Tue May 8 15:27:03 2012
New Revision: 187285
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=187285
Log:
PR target/53272
* config/cris/cris.c (cri
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53272
--- Comment #3 from Hans-Peter Nilsson 2012-05-08
15:21:55 UTC ---
Author: hp
Date: Tue May 8 15:21:50 2012
New Revision: 187284
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=187284
Log:
PR target/53272
* gcc.dg/torture/pr53272-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53272
--- Comment #2 from Hans-Peter Nilsson 2012-05-08
15:20:56 UTC ---
Author: hp
Date: Tue May 8 15:20:52 2012
New Revision: 187283
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=187283
Log:
PR target/53272
* config/cris/cris.c (cri
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53270
John David Anglin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |UNCONFIRMED
Ever Confirmed|1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51874
--- Comment #18 from Rainer Orth 2012-05-08 15:09:32
UTC ---
Created attachment 27349
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27349
Hack to avoid IRIX 6.5 libgo_cv_lib_setcontext_clobbers_tls failure
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51874
--- Comment #17 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2012-05-08 15:08:13 UTC ---
> --- Comment #16 from Ian Lance Taylor 2012-04-24
> 16:33:13 UTC ---
> At some point, can you update this bug with the current set of test failures
> using Go o
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53278
--- Comment #3 from Ramana Radhakrishnan 2012-05-08
14:56:18 UTC ---
The patch below appears to trigger the issue but there's a fundamental question
as to why lower-subreg generates concatns when the documentation suggests that
concat and concatn
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53280
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53209
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||krebbel at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #9 from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44959
--- Comment #21 from Hin-Tak Leung
2012-05-08 14:15:52 UTC ---
There are two curious things:
1. why does the 2nd stage drops to only about 600 byte. (I assume 20-30k is
normal).
2. I did have a success with 4.6.1 (and I believe with both make/ma
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44959
--- Comment #20 from Hin-Tak Leung
2012-05-08 14:08:17 UTC ---
Created attachment 27348
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27348
3rd set of those checksum files. tar.gz'ed
This one is from 4.6.2 (the other two from 4.6.1), just
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44959
--- Comment #19 from Hin-Tak Leung
2012-05-08 14:07:03 UTC ---
Created attachment 27347
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27347
another set of those checksum files. tar.gz'ed
I think this one is from make bootstrap4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44959
--- Comment #18 from Hin-Tak Leung
2012-05-08 14:05:56 UTC ---
Created attachment 27346
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27346
one set of those checksum files. tar.gz'ed
I think this one is from 4.6.1, make bootstrap4-lean
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53278
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53283
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53282
--- Comment #2 from vincenzo Innocente
2012-05-08 14:01:27 UTC ---
understood why it is related to the order of the input files.
Still that particular symbol shall not be hidden.
I've a library with 307 of those symbols, and lto hides only 7 of t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53283
Bug #: 53283
Summary: [4.8 Regression] Many failures on
x86_64-apple-darwin10 after revision 186789
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53282
--- Comment #1 from Richard Guenther 2012-05-08
13:51:34 UTC ---
This has nothing to do with -fvisbility-inlines-hidden (well, that might
be necessary to trigger it). LTO brings symbols local to ship them to
multiple partitions and partition lay
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53282
Bug #: 53282
Summary: lto and visibility-inlines-hidden makes "wrongly"
hidden symbols and in a way that depends on the order
of the input compilation units
Classification: Unclass
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50476
--- Comment #1 from Rui Maciel 2012-05-08
13:35:33 UTC ---
This issue is still present in gcc 4.6.3.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50359
--- Comment #2 from Rui Maciel 2012-05-08
13:33:57 UTC ---
This issue is still present in g++ 4.6.3.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53281
--- Comment #1 from Rui Maciel 2012-05-08
13:27:24 UTC ---
The same suggestion applies to the cases where a non-const method is called
from a const method, such as in the example below:
class Foo {
void bar1() {}
void bar2() con
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53281
Bug #: 53281
Summary: poor error message for calling a non-const method from
a const object
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.3
Status: UNCONFIRM
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53226
--- Comment #13 from Michael Matz 2012-05-08 13:19:42
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #10)
> The other way is to try to get away without immediately removing propagated
> source stmts - the obvious downside is that transforms relying on
> single-use
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53226
--- Comment #12 from Richard Guenther 2012-05-08
12:12:42 UTC ---
One way would be to have a queue of propagation sources to be removed and
delay the removal until after we have processed the function (the basic
block?).
Then have a worklist of s
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53226
--- Comment #11 from Michael Matz 2012-05-08 12:12:20
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #9)
> I guess instead of using prev/prev_initialized, the loop could gimple_set_uid
> (stmt, 0) the stmts it is about to process and gimple_set_uid (stmt, 1) stmts
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53226
--- Comment #10 from Richard Guenther 2012-05-08
12:09:05 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #9)
> Ugh, remove_prop_source_from_use can remove stmts while prev iterator points
> to
> them. This has been buggy before, but didn't result in endless loop
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53226
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #9 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53226
Michael Matz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|2012-05-04 00:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53180
--- Comment #1 from Bernd Schmidt 2012-05-08
10:35:21 UTC ---
Created attachment 27344
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27344
Candidate patch
I think I have a theory of what's going wrong. Can you test this patch?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44141
--- Comment #18 from Uros Bizjak 2012-05-08 10:32:33
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #17)
> Which makes this a target bug then. Uros?
Following the explanation in comment #16, I'd say so.
Please note that we already implement the radical change,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53280
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dodji at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Mile
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53280
Bug #: 53280
Summary: s390 bootstrap failure since r186977
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44141
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|rtl-optimization|target
--- Comment #17 from Richard Gu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53262
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53268
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48724
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53226
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |UNCONFIRMED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53279
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Mi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53278
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53279
--- Comment #1 from Mikael Pettersson 2012-05-08
09:56:01 UTC ---
I believe the get_def_for_expr_class and convert_tree_comp_to_rtx functions
should be #ifdef HAVE_conditional_move.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53263
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|paolo.carlini at oracle dot |
|com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53279
Bug #: 53279
Summary: [4.8 regression] error: 'convert_tree_comp_to_rtx'
defined but not used [-Werror=unused-function] breaks
m68k-linux bootstrap
Classification: Unclassified
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53278
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
fPIC'
CXXFLAGS='-O2 -fPIC -ftree-vectorize -fvisibility-inlines-hidden -march=native'
-enable-libitm -disable-multilib CC=gcc CXX=g++
--enable-languages=c,c++,fortran,lto --no-create --no-recursion
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.8.0 20120508 (experimental) [trunk revision 187
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53275
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53278
Bug #: 53278
Summary: [4.8 regression] internal compiler error: in
df_uses_record, at df-scan.c:3179 when compiling
libgcc2.c __mulvdi3 on armv5tel-linux
Classification: Unclassifi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53277
Bug #: 53277
Summary: Warning using -Wconversion and -Ox in gcc 4.5, 4.6 and
4.7 but not in previous releases
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53276
Bug #: 53276
Summary: DWARF-2 line information truncated for MIPS16 thunks
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
1 - 100 of 104 matches
Mail list logo
