http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54009
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||powerpc-linux
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54009
Bug #: 54009
Summary: incorrect code generated for DFmode lo_sum mem
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53995
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53995
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53995
--- Comment #3 from Jason Merrill 2012-07-18
02:48:21 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Wed Jul 18 02:48:17 2012
New Revision: 189599
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=189599
Log:
PR c++/53995
* decl.c (finish_enum_value_li
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53995
--- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill 2012-07-18
02:48:04 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Wed Jul 18 02:47:59 2012
New Revision: 189598
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=189598
Log:
PR c++/53995
* decl.c (finish_enum_value_li
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53995
--- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill 2012-07-18
02:48:04 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Wed Jul 18 02:47:59 2012
New Revision: 189598
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=189598
Log:
PR c++/53995
* decl.c (finish_enum_value_li
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38621
--- Comment #11 from Kazumoto Kojima 2012-07-18
01:11:47 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #10)
> I've tried to reproduce the issue with rev 189549 (GCC 4.8),
> GCC 4.7.2 20120711 (prerelease) and GCC 4.6.4 20120716 (prerelease).
> It seems this is no
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54008
Bug #: 54008
Summary: [4.8 Regression] gcc.dg/tree-prof/update-loopch.c and
gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr18133-1.c
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
Statu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48009
Daniel Richard G. changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|target |spam
--- Comment #9 from Daniel Richa
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53348
--- Comment #7 from Daniel Richard G. 2012-07-17
23:24:13 UTC ---
Created attachment 27821
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27821
Patch against GCC SVN trunk
Hi David,
The attached patch is everything I've got so far to addre
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53949
--- Comment #5 from Kazumoto Kojima 2012-07-17
23:04:54 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> Kaz, do you think it is safe to assume that SR.S = 0 at function entry?
I think so. I can't imagine a practical system with setting
SR.S to one in its st
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54007
Bug #: 54007
Summary: lto15.adb fails: gnat1: error: LTO support has not
been enabled in this configuration
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
S
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52621
John David Anglin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||danglin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54006
--- Comment #1 from Hans-Peter Nilsson 2012-07-17
22:44:11 UTC ---
By "the macros just check for presence of certain patterns" I mean the code
defining those macros, in c-family/c-cppbuiltin.c:cpp_atomic_builtins.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54006
Bug #: 54006
Summary: __atomic_always_lock_free inconsistent with
__GCC_ATOMIC_INT_LOCK_FREE et al.
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: U
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51081
--- Comment #5 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-07-17 21:51:25 UTC ---
Author: janus
Date: Tue Jul 17 21:51:20 2012
New Revision: 189589
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=189589
Log:
2012-07-17 Janus Weil
PR fortran/5
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54000
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
Compone
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54005
Bug #: 54005
Summary: Use __atomic_always_lock_free in libstdc++
is_lock_free instead of __atomic_is_lock_free
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53989
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53989
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53989
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53989
--- Comment #5 from Jason Merrill 2012-07-17
21:34:18 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Tue Jul 17 21:34:06 2012
New Revision: 189587
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=189587
Log:
PR c++/53989
* tree.c (build_cplus_array_ty
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53989
--- Comment #5 from Jason Merrill 2012-07-17
21:34:18 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Tue Jul 17 21:34:06 2012
New Revision: 189587
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=189587
Log:
PR c++/53989
* tree.c (build_cplus_array_ty
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54004
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|__atomic_always_lock_free |__atomic_always_lock_free /
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54004
Bug #: 54004
Summary: __atomic_always_lock_free has a fault implementation
in which the target has no saying
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53989
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-07-17
20:38:28 UTC ---
Indeed, went away with http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=186346
apparently.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52366
Ben Voigt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||richardvoigt at gmail dot
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54003
--- Comment #1 from Hans-Peter Nilsson 2012-07-17
20:31:58 UTC ---
Created attachment 27818
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27818
Conceptual patch - note comments
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54003
Bug #: 54003
Summary: __atomic_always_lock_free inconsistent with
__atomic_is_lock_free
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54000
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3 from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53985
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53985
--- Comment #1 from Tobias Burnus 2012-07-17
20:07:56 UTC ---
Author: burnus
Date: Tue Jul 17 20:07:32 2012
New Revision: 189586
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=189586
Log:
2012-07-17 Tobias Burnus
PR fortran/53
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53989
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot |jason at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54002
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-07-17
20:06:07 UTC ---
See PR 52366, which makes this a dup of PR 52315
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54002
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53989
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|jason at redh
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54002
Bug #: 54002
Summary: [C++0x][constexpr] Initializing constexpr static
member using constexpr static method fails
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53549
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53549
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53549
--- Comment #12 from Jason Merrill 2012-07-17
19:27:55 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Tue Jul 17 19:27:51 2012
New Revision: 189585
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=189585
Log:
PR c++/53549
* parser.c (cp_parser_class_h
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53949
Oleg Endo changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4 fro
() {}
-gdwarf-4 -fdebug-types-section
gdb ./a.out -ex 'ptype eo'
FAIL: gcc (GCC) 4.7.2 20120717 (prerelease)
FAIL: gcc (GCC) 4.8.0 20120717 (experimental)
type = class F::O {
}
-gdwarf-4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54001
Bug #: 54001
Summary: GDB Regression: FAIL: gdb.go/methods.exp: setting
breakpoint at main.T.Foo
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
Status: UNCO
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53549
--- Comment #11 from Jason Merrill 2012-07-17
18:09:07 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Tue Jul 17 18:08:59 2012
New Revision: 189582
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=189582
Log:
PR c++/53549
* parser.c (cp_parser_class_h
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54000
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52250
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aturjan at yahoo dot com
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53999
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54000
--- Comment #1 from Benedict Geihe
2012-07-17 16:01:08 UTC ---
Created attachment 27816
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27816
preprocessed minimal example
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54000
Bug #: 54000
Summary: Performance breakdown for gcc-4.{6,7} vs. gcc-4.5
using std::vector in matrix vector multiplication
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53993
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #3 from Tobias Burnu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53999
Bug #: 53999
Summary: failure in selective scheduler
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53998
Bug #: 53998
Summary: [PATCH] fixed format string issue in
gcc/libgo/runtime/goc2c.c
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53798
--- Comment #8 from Martin 2012-07-17 13:41:35 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> And what about when you put gmp, mpfr and mpc in the GCC source tree? That's
> what worked fine for me. The same configure command without the
> --with-gmp/--with-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53997
Bug #: 53997
Summary: [PATCH] fixed format string issue in
gcc/libgcc/config/libbid/bid128_string.c
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53996
Bug #: 53996
Summary: [PATCH] fixed format string issue in
/gcc/gcc/ada/gcc-interface/utils.c
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCON
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53993
--- Comment #2 from Tobias Burnus 2012-07-17
12:37:52 UTC ---
Okay, I think I understand:
#include "myfile.f90"
gets translated (cpp) into
# 1 "myfile.f90" 1
... content of that file ...
# 8 "myfile.f90" 2
Where "1" is the first line
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53798
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-07-17
12:35:39 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> ${SRCDIR}/configure --prefix=${INSTPATH} \
> --with-gmp=${INSTPATH} --with-mpfr=${INSTPATH} --with-mpc=${INSTPATH} \
> --with-gmp-lib=${INSTPATH}/lib64 --w
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53798
--- Comment #6 from Martin 2012-07-17 12:18:11 UTC ---
> --with-gnu-as --with-as=/opt/SP/gcc/bin/as \
> --with-gnu-ld --with-ld=/opt/SP/gcc/bin/ld
Wrong path when replacing the env vars, should read
--with-gnu-as --with-as=/opt/SP/gcc/gcc-4.7.1/bi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53798
--- Comment #5 from Martin 2012-07-17 12:15:38 UTC ---
IMHO nothing special with the configure call.
SRCDIR=/opt/SP/build/gcc/gcc-4.7.1
Build dir=/opt/SP/build/gcc/gcc-4.7.1-build
INSTPATH=/opt/SP/gcc/gcc-4.7.1
A set of tools including current bin
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53995
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53995
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fabien at gcc dot gnu.org
Known t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53993
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Keywords|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53995
Bug #: 53995
Summary: [4.7/4.8 Regression] Overload resolution fails with
enum argument, says
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
Status: UNCONF
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53994
Andreas Schwab changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52101
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53813
--- Comment #5 from John David Anglin 2012-07-17
11:15:09 UTC ---
It's probably fixed. In my posted testsuite results, I see it went
away between 189310 and 189394.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53994
Bug #: 53994
Summary: different result copying doubles(nan)
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53993
Bug #: 53993
Summary: gfortran ignores file part of #line directives
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53798
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-07-17
10:46:27 UTC ---
What's your complete configure command?
Multilib bootstrap on x86_64-linux with --enable-languages=c,c++,java works
fine for me, and for others e.g.
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testre
from Jakub Jelinek 2012-07-17
10:27:09 UTC ---
Can't reproduce this with a cross compiler (4.7.2 20120717 (prerelease)).
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53798
--- Comment #3 from Martin 2012-07-17 10:10:52 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
Hi Jonathan,
> Another, simpler, workaround is to build the support libs by putting the
> sources in the gcc source tree.
may be feasible, but also one could be forc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53798
--- Comment #2 from Martin 2012-07-17 10:10:01 UTC ---
Created attachment 27809
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27809
Diffs of a crude workaround
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52101
--- Comment #11 from Tobias Burnus 2012-07-17
09:40:18 UTC ---
Author: burnus
Date: Tue Jul 17 09:40:12 2012
New Revision: 189565
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=189565
Log:
2012-07-17 Tobias Burnus
PR fortran/5
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53735
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|assemble-failure|
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53967
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53986
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19351
Florian Weimer changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fweimer at redhat dot com
--- Comment #2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49265
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49265
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49265
--- Comment #7 from Tobias Burnus 2012-07-17
08:59:22 UTC ---
Author: burnus
Date: Tue Jul 17 08:59:18 2012
New Revision: 189562
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=189562
Log:
2012-07-17 Tobias Burnus
Steven G.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53992
Bug #: 53992
Summary: Combining -fopenmp and -fgnu-tm results in segfault or
misbehaving binaries
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.1
Status: UNC
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53990
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-07-17
08:02:56 UTC ---
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copy_elision and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Return_value_optimization
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53989
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53991
Bug #: 53991
Summary: _mm_popcnt_u64 fails with -O3 -fgnu-tm
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P
85 matches
Mail list logo
