http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53672
--- Comment #3 from John Forrest 2012-06-15
06:57:43 UTC ---
Balaji,
Attached - AbcMatrix.ii gives segfault using "compile"
There are more than a dozen places in my code where code such as -
>for (int i=0;i which[i]=cilk_spawn
> pivo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53002
Steven Drake changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53202
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.7.2
--- Comment #7 from H.J. Lu 2012-06-15 0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50043
--- Comment #14 from Kirby Zhou 2012-06-15 02:14:48
UTC ---
I have tested to apply this patch to 4.7 branch, everythings goes well.
Since it breaks already existing code, anybody can do commit backport to 4.7
branch?
(In reply to comment #13)
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51509
--- Comment #3 from Ramana Radhakrishnan 2012-06-15
00:51:26 UTC ---
With -fno-split-wide-types I can end up getting identical output to what is
expected in this case with FSF trunk. I suspect this might be another of those
costs with lower-subre
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53202
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.6.3
Summary|Copy construct
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53578
--- Comment #10 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-06-15
00:28:36 UTC ---
Should be fixed on trunk, please test.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53578
--- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-06-15
00:27:35 UTC ---
Author: redi
Date: Fri Jun 15 00:27:29 2012
New Revision: 188646
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=188646
Log:
PR libstdc++/53578
* include/ext/concurren
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53578
--- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-06-15
00:27:35 UTC ---
Author: redi
Date: Fri Jun 15 00:27:29 2012
New Revision: 188646
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=188646
Log:
PR libstdc++/53578
* include/ext/concurren
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53651
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53676
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at redhat dot com
--- Comment #4 from H.J
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53678
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.1.2
Target Milestone|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53678
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53678
Bug #: 53678
Summary: [4.6/4.7/4.8 Regression] namespace pollution on NetBSD
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: rejects-vali
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53676
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Status|UN
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53676
--- Comment #2 from Matt Hargett 2012-06-14 23:00:33 UTC
---
I forgot to mention -- it's the same result on all types, both signed and
unsigned. the int8_t case is (hopefully) representative of the root cause for
all/most of them.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53677
Bug #: 53677
Summary: GNAT build didn't stop after a fatal error
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prior
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53676
--- Comment #1 from Matt Hargett 2012-06-14 22:48:49 UTC
---
Created attachment 27622
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27622
ZIP containing pre-processed source and binaries that demonstrate the const
folding regression
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53676
Bug #: 53676
Summary: [4.7/4.8 regression] constant folding regression,
shown as slowdown as measured by Adobe's C++Benchmark
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53270
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail|4.8.0 |4.7.1
--- Comment #31 from Jonathan Wak
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53270
--- Comment #30 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-06-14
22:20:56 UTC ---
Author: redi
Date: Thu Jun 14 22:20:52 2012
New Revision: 188637
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=188637
Log:
PR libstdc++/53270
* include/ext/concurre
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53648
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53648
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-06-14
22:07:37 UTC ---
Author: redi
Date: Thu Jun 14 22:07:33 2012
New Revision: 188636
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=188636
Log:
PR libstdc++/53648
* include/std/tuple (__
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53549
fabien at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|un
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52558
--- Comment #22 from Aldy Hernandez 2012-06-14
21:15:10 UTC ---
FYI, backported to 4.7.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53675
Bug #: 53675
Summary: [4.8 Regression] bootstrap fails on netbsd5.1 due to
unsupported dwarf4 info
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UN
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53673
Pawel Sikora changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pluto at agmk dot net
--- Comment #2 from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53568
--- Comment #2 from Oleg Endo 2012-06-14 19:33:17
UTC ---
Author: olegendo
Date: Thu Jun 14 19:33:10 2012
New Revision: 188632
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=188632
Log:
PR target/53568
* config/sh/sh.md: Add peeph
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52558
--- Comment #21 from Aldy Hernandez 2012-06-14
19:22:54 UTC ---
Author: aldyh
Date: Thu Jun 14 19:22:48 2012
New Revision: 188631
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=188631
Log:
PR tree-optimization/52558
Backpo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53672
--- Comment #2 from John Forrest 2012-06-14
19:22:30 UTC ---
Balaji,
Updated my copy.
My simple version - now works - but real case still doesn't.
Try and give you a .ii file tomorrow.
John
On 14/06/12 17:56, bviyer at gmail dot com wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53533
Richard Henderson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #16 from Richard
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53639
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-06-14
18:27:00 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Jun 14 18:26:53 2012
New Revision: 188629
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=188629
Log:
PR target/53639
* config/i386/i386.md (*and
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53533
--- Comment #15 from Matt Hargett 2012-06-14 18:01:31 UTC
---
(In reply to comment #14)
> Mine, at least for a 4.8 solution.
What enhancement to 4.7 caused the regression? Can whatever the change was be
(partially) reverted to lessen the impact?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53674
--- Comment #1 from gee 2012-06-14 17:57:01 UTC ---
Please note that http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27620 patch is
used to help dejagnu invoke proper mingw-targeted compiler.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48814
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||alexcheremkhin at gmail dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53656
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53674
Bug #: 53674
Summary: [libffi] 260 excess testsuite failure
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53589
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-06-14
17:49:54 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Jun 14 17:49:49 2012
New Revision: 188626
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=188626
Log:
Backported from mainline
2012-06-12 Jakub
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53580
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-06-14
17:48:42 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Jun 14 17:48:38 2012
New Revision: 188625
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=188625
Log:
Backported from mainline
2012-06-07 Jakub
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52993
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-06-14
17:46:57 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Jun 14 17:46:53 2012
New Revision: 188624
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=188624
Log:
Backported from mainline
2012-06-06 Jakub
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53673
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-06-14
17:21:45 UTC ---
There's no point differentiating the gnu variants, they don't have any ABI
impact.
This could (and probably should) be done in the library because the output of
G++ is ABI compatibl
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53672
Balaji V. Iyer changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bviyer at gmail dot com
--- Comment #1 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53455
--- Comment #25 from Niall Douglas
2012-06-14 16:37:15 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #24)
> (In reply to comment #22)
> > I can submit a wishlist issue for GCC for the above if it doesn't already
> > exist?
>
> Sure.
Added as #53673.
Niall
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53673
Bug #: 53673
Summary: Add magic weak symbol to indicate C++ standard setting
(C++03, C++11 etc) to help debug ABI problems
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unkn
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53455
--- Comment #24 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-06-14
16:23:48 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #22)
> The loss of std::pair interop between
> C++03 and C++11 in my mind is pretty fatal for a lot of end users.
It's a bug. It's being addressed.
> I can s
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53455
--- Comment #23 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-06-14
16:22:05 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #21)
> So this boils down to that we cannot have a c++11/non-c++11 heterogenous
> environment on a system. One would have to build all libraries for both
> stan
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53455
--- Comment #22 from Niall Douglas
2012-06-14 16:16:19 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #20)
> That wouldn't help if you built one object with -std=c++11 and another with
> -std=c++98 and linked them both into the same .so, you'd have the symbol, but
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53455
--- Comment #21 from Jonas Wielicki 2012-06-14 16:10:38 UTC ---
So this boils down to that we cannot have a c++11/non-c++11 heterogenous
environment on a system. One would have to build all libraries for both
standards until c++11 is well establis
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53672
Bug #: 53672
Summary: gcc/branches/cilkplus does not like C++ spawn (when
optimized)
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53455
--- Comment #20 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-06-14
15:45:23 UTC ---
That wouldn't help if you built one object with -std=c++11 and another with
-std=c++98 and linked them both into the same .so, you'd have the symbol, but
wouldn't have built everyth
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53656
--- Comment #2 from Alexey Cheremkhin
2012-06-14 15:38:36 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> Looks similar to bug 48814.
Thank you very much.
It is definitely the same bug.
Bug 48814 was fixed on 2012-03-16, so I simply used the patch.
Alexey C
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53455
--- Comment #19 from Jonas Wielicki 2012-06-14 15:21:07 UTC ---
Right, because otherwise I would not consider that as a safe verification that
this is indeed a duplicate of the referenced bug. And I like safe
verifications.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53455
--- Comment #18 from Niall Douglas
2012-06-14 15:15:30 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #17)
> (In reply to comment #16)
> > I think I built it correctly with std=c++11, but is there a way to verify
> > this
> > properly in the built library?
>
> c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53671
--- Comment #1 from H.J. Lu 2012-06-14 14:41:43
UTC ---
It is caused by revision 188531.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53533
Richard Henderson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rth at gcc dot gnu.org
Assign
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53670
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-06-14
14:32:28 UTC ---
There have been thousands of changes made in the five years since 4.1.2, noone
knows if any of them fixes your issue, or even if it has been fixed, and I
doubt anyone will spent thei
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53670
--- Comment #2 from Prakash 2012-06-14
14:21:27 UTC ---
Thanks for the quick update. But our organization is heavily using GCC 4.1.2. I
have the source code downloaded, build and deployed locally in one of our
boxes. If you can provide the code f
Hi,
I have a small problem. I am making a new pass for my gcc, and some of my
adds are deleted by optimization passes.
here is the code i add :
t = builtin_decl_explicit (BUILT_IN_ACC_SETUPARGUMENT);
g = gimple_build_call(t,
3,
build1(ADDR_EXPR, i
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53671
Bug #: 53671
Summary: [4.8 Regression] Many guality test failures
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priori
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53455
--- Comment #17 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-06-14
14:00:50 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #16)
> I think I built it correctly with std=c++11, but is there a way to verify this
> properly in the built library?
crashtest.cpp doesn't crash ;)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51581
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #27617|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53455
--- Comment #16 from Jonas Wielicki 2012-06-14 13:26:53 UTC ---
I think I built it correctly with std=c++11, but is there a way to verify this
properly in the built library?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53455
--- Comment #15 from Niall Douglas
2012-06-14 13:24:58 UTC ---
Agreed, but it is highly unlikely to happen anytime soon unless a new sponsor
turns up. BPL needs a fair bit of post-bitrot work as it is.
Niall
(In reply to comment #12)
> Maybe so
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53455
--- Comment #14 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-06-14
13:21:59 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #0)
> I tried boost as delivered with fedora 17, a home-compiled version with
> -std=c++11 and a home-compiled version without c++11. The c++11 flag on the
> _l
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53657
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||org.gnu.gcc.bugtracker at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53455
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53597
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53597
--- Comment #3 from Tobias Burnus 2012-06-14
13:11:32 UTC ---
Author: burnus
Date: Thu Jun 14 13:11:27 2012
New Revision: 188618
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=188618
Log:
2012-06-14 Tobias Burnus
PR fortran/53
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50619
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50619
--- Comment #8 from Tobias Burnus 2012-06-14
13:04:57 UTC ---
Author: burnus
Date: Thu Jun 14 13:04:43 2012
New Revision: 188617
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=188617
Log:
2012-06-14 Tobias Burnus
Backport from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53605
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53616
--- Comment #7 from Richard Guenther 2012-06-14
13:02:12 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu Jun 14 13:02:06 2012
New Revision: 188615
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=188615
Log:
2012-06-14 Richard Guenther
Backpo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53597
--- Comment #2 from Tobias Burnus 2012-06-14
13:00:55 UTC ---
Author: burnus
Date: Thu Jun 14 13:00:50 2012
New Revision: 188614
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=188614
Log:
2012-06-14 Tobias Burnus
PR fortran/53
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52841
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52841
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52841
--- Comment #19 from Richard Guenther 2012-06-14
12:55:19 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu Jun 14 12:55:11 2012
New Revision: 188613
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=188613
Log:
2012-06-14 Richard Guenther
Backp
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53670
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53455
--- Comment #12 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-06-14
12:51:08 UTC ---
Maybe someone should look at fixing these warnings in Boost.Python, or ensure
-fno-strict-aliasing is used
"g++" -ftemplate-depth-128 -O3 -finline-functions -Wno-inline -Wall
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53670
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-06-14
12:39:21 UTC ---
4.1.2 is no longer maintained or supported, I suggest you try a more recent
release.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53425
jon_y changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ktietz70 at googlemail dot
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53670
Bug #: 53670
Summary: GCC internal compiler error
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.1.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53455
--- Comment #11 from Niall Douglas
2012-06-14 11:49:01 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #9)
> maybe related: https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/ticket/6919
> Had similar crash issue. Though in my case (which may well be different from
> the OP) rebuild
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53604
--- Comment #11 from Paul Scruby 2012-06-14
11:46:32 UTC ---
I've written half a dozen test harnesses this morning to tried to recreate this
bug unsuccessfully. My team writes very low-latency code so they do quite a
lot of 'abusive' (but legal)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51033
--- Comment #26 from Ramana Radhakrishnan
2012-06-14 11:22:26 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #23)
> (In reply to comment #21)
> > What does it mean "exercise the backend a lot"? Do you mean it takes a lot
> > of
> > time?
>
> I think so.
>
> > I
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53669
Mikael Pettersson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikpe at it dot uu.se
--- Comment #1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53669
Bug #: 53669
Summary: suboptimal small switch - 3-way jump with only 1
comparison
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53657
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.5.1, 4.6.1
Target Milestone|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53652
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-06-14
10:23:31 UTC ---
Such a def_insn_and_split isn't going to work well, because the hw supported
alternative (xor with all ones vector) needs the vector constant loaded into
memory, which is much preferra
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53039
--- Comment #14 from Paolo Carlini 2012-06-14
10:03:07 UTC ---
Thus, is it possible that a different approach at fixing PR46394, among those
already envisaged, could work for this one?
Maybe Dodji can look again into it? He has already analyzed
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53657
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53657
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.5.1, 4.6.0
Target Milestone|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53657
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.5.1, 4.6.0
Target Milestone|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52941
--- Comment #12 from Uros Bizjak 2012-06-14 09:26:33
UTC ---
Probably, you should update libjava/sysdep/sh/locks.h as well.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32998
philomath changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||philomath868 at gmail dot
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53657
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-06-14
09:17:51 UTC ---
it was also non-trivial in 4.5.0, but not 4.5.1+
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53657
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||4.7.0, 4.7.1, 4.8.0
--- Comment #2 from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53668
Bug #: 53668
Summary: Do some Cray-pointer fixes
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: diagnostic, missed-optimization
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53667
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53663
--- Comment #3 from brendan.jones.it at gmail dot com 2012-06-14 09:00:37 UTC
---
Sorry - wrong file
/* -*- Mode: C ; c-basic-offset: 4 -*- */
/* gcc test.c -Wall -Wextra -o test -O1 && ./test ; echo $?
should print 0, prints 10
gcc known t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53621
chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Version|4.7
1 - 100 of 149 matches
Mail list logo
