http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54824
--- Comment #2 from Dmitry Gorbachev
2012-10-10 06:13:05 UTC ---
Created attachment 28409
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28409
Testcase #2
Another testcase. Compile with `-O2 -funswitch-loops' (or with `-O3').
GCC
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54868
--- Comment #3 from Marc Glisse 2012-10-10 04:58:40
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> Maybe moving the test from tree-ssa/ to vect/ would be enough?
I tried that and tested on x86_64, but the test wasn't run then (no trace in
any log).
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54867
--- Comment #4 from Marc Glisse 2012-10-10 04:41:23
UTC ---
Maybe you are hitting the same issue I did a few days ago: ".*" also matching
new lines (unlike grep)? Replacing it with \[\\n\]* helped in my case.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54882
Bug #: 54882
Summary: build fails for rl78-elf building libstdc++
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52480
Oleg Endo changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52480
--- Comment #4 from Oleg Endo 2012-10-10 00:51:03
UTC ---
Author: olegendo
Date: Wed Oct 10 00:50:37 2012
New Revision: 192283
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=192283
Log:
PR target/52480
* config/sh/sh.m
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54602
Oleg Endo changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comm
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54699
--- Comment #6 from Oleg Endo 2012-10-10 00:22:54
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
>
> It looks we've got reg+reg+const addressing. It seems that
> reload_completed simply means that hard register are allocated
> already but doesn't me
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53761
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unas
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54699
--- Comment #5 from Kazumoto Kojima 2012-10-10
00:03:54 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> I'm wondering whether there is anything after reload that actually needs
> address validation. I guess that after the reload pass pretty much every
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53307
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53307
--- Comment #5 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-10-09 23:37:12 UTC ---
Author: paolo
Date: Tue Oct 9 23:37:07 2012
New Revision: 192279
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=192279
Log:
2012-10-10 Paolo Carlini
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54109
--- Comment #5 from xur at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-10-09 23:34:25 UTC ---
Author: xur
Date: Tue Oct 9 23:34:18 2012
New Revision: 192277
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=192277
Log:
2012-10-09 Rong Xu
Google
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53307
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.7.2, 4.8.0
--- Comment #4 fro
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53018
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54602
--- Comment #2 from Oleg Endo 2012-10-09 22:57:40
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> The problem is the "*movsi_pop" insn. It prevents delay-slot stuffing of pop
> insns on everything < SH3. This was probably added to avoid pop insns in
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54602
Oleg Endo changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52323
--- Comment #4 from Steven Bosscher 2012-10-09
22:16:34 UTC ---
IMHO -fgcse should just be disabled on ix86.
Index: i386.c
===
--- i386.c(revision 192273)
+++ i386.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54879
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
In Funktion »testsource«:
> c1.f90:58:0: interner Compiler-Fehler: Segmentation fault: 11
This goes away when updating to
gcc-Version 4.7.3 20121009 (prerelease) [gcc-4_7-branch revision 192273] (GCC)
just as the runtime error in comment 11.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54860
--- Comment #17 from Hans-Peter Nilsson 2012-10-09
22:02:22 UTC ---
To be absolutely clear: I don't really care about the new errors, it was just
appropriate to mention them. Don't let any investigation hold up your
break-fixing commit...
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54860
--- Comment #16 from Hans-Peter Nilsson 2012-10-09
21:57:14 UTC ---
Created attachment 28407
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28407
Excerpt from g++.log with the mentioned new errors
I would have attached the whole of
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54820
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54867
--- Comment #3 from Eric Botcazou 2012-10-09
21:37:21 UTC ---
> Unfortunately, this doesn't help. I'm attaching the -m64 dump for reference.
This should though. Are you sure that you have correctly patched the file?
eric@polaris:~/bu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54860
--- Comment #15 from dodji at seketeli dot org
2012-10-09 21:33:00 UTC ---
> --- Comment #13 from Hans-Peter Nilsson 2012-10-09
> 20:43:11 UTC ---
>
> The patch fixes the problem for cris-elf with no regressions in test-suite
> results.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54860
--- Comment #14 from dodji at seketeli dot org
2012-10-09 21:28:44 UTC ---
I have submitted the patch to
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-10/msg00914.html.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54881
Bug #: 54881
Summary: ICE in fold_convert_loc, at fold-const.c:2016
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54880
Bug #: 54880
Summary: ICE in gfc_create_module_variable, at
fortran/trans-decl.c:4013
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCON
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44249
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[4.6/4.7/4.8 Regression]|[4.6/4.7 Regression] IRA
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54879
Bug #: 54879
Summary: gcc/combine.c:12018: warning: comparison always false
due to limited range of data type
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54878
Bug #: 54878
Summary: libgfortran issues found by the Coverity scanner
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52066
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||steven at gcc dot gnu.org
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54860
--- Comment #13 from Hans-Peter Nilsson 2012-10-09
20:43:11 UTC ---
The patch fixes the problem for cris-elf with no regressions in test-suite
results. Thanks!
But, the new tests introduce some new failures:
+g++.sum g++.dg/cpp0x/gen
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54680
--- Comment #1 from Oleg Endo 2012-10-09 19:57:35
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #0)
>
> Another scenario that does not work however is:
>
> float test03 (int x)
> {
> return sinf ( x * 2 * pi / 65536 );
> }
>
> (Notice the missi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54221
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||janus at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54760
Oleg Endo changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54874
--- Comment #11 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-10-09 19:41:41 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #10)
> Ok, I just tried this one on x86_64-apple-darwin11.3.0, where I have three
> (non-release) versions of gfortran lying around:
>
> gcc-Ve
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54760
--- Comment #3 from Oleg Endo 2012-10-09 18:59:19
UTC ---
Author: olegendo
Date: Tue Oct 9 18:59:11 2012
New Revision: 192269
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=192269
Log:
PR target/54760
* doc/extend.tex
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54788
--- Comment #5 from Sylwester Arabas 2012-10-09
18:57:42 UTC ---
Created attachment 28404
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28404
testcase
The bug report got cluttered with non-relevant discussion and code (thanks
aga
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54877
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unas
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54861
--- Comment #3 from Oleg Zabluda 2012-10-09
18:48:56 UTC ---
I can confirm that this fixes it in gcc 4.7.0.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99
--- Comment #19 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2012-10-09
18:47:33 UTC ---
Reconfirmed with revision 192154:
pr99.cc:6:30: error: call of overloaded ‘f(X, X)’ is ambiguous
return f(X(), X());
^
pr99.cc:6:30: note: candid
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54861
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Macleod 2012-10-09
18:40:16 UTC ---
Author: amacleod
Date: Tue Oct 9 18:40:02 2012
New Revision: 192268
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=192268
Log:
2012-10-09 Andrew MacLeod
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54860
--- Comment #12 from Uros Bizjak 2012-10-09 18:40:06
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #11)
> I can confirm that the patch fixes the sparc bootstrap.
Also alpha bootstrap.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54876
--- Comment #4 from rguenther at suse dot de
2012-10-09 18:35:53 UTC ---
markus at trippelsdorf dot de wrote:
>
>http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54876
>
>Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
>
> What|Removed
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54861
Andrew Macleod changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54877
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54877
Dmitry Gorbachev changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Known
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54877
Bug #: 54877
Summary: [4.7/4.8 Regression] ICE: tree check: expected
ssa_name, have real_cst in copy_ssa_name_fn, at
tree-ssanames.c:335
Classification: Unclassified
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52961
--- Comment #9 from Paolo Carlini 2012-10-09
17:20:35 UTC ---
Uhm, I was under the impression that the other 2 used to give problems and
that's why we don't warn anymore by default. Bah. All in all, given that we
have the warning anyway, I
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54874
--- Comment #10 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-10-09 17:13:05 UTC ---
Ok, I just tried this one on x86_64-apple-darwin11.3.0, where I have three
(non-release) versions of gfortran lying around:
gcc-Version 4.6.0 20110202 (experimental) [trunk
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54860
--- Comment #11 from davem at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-10-09 17:12:25 UTC ---
I can confirm that the patch fixes the sparc bootstrap.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52961
--- Comment #8 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2012-10-09
17:06:25 UTC ---
The problem of default warnings without options is that default warnings are
often the most useful and, hence, the ones that people would like to make an
error with -Werror=. U
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29383
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52961
--- Comment #7 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2012-10-09
16:58:36 UTC ---
In any case, there are only 3 warnings in -Wempty-body. All of them seem worth
to warn by default.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54876
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||markus at trippelsdorf dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52961
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||paolo.carlini at oracle dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54860
davem at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||davem at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53520
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52733
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54874
--- Comment #9 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-10-09 16:15:24 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> I can confirm that patching my 4.7.2 source tree fixes not just the test case
> but also the code it was derived from, on x86_64-linux.
Ve
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53763
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53763
--- Comment #3 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-10-09 16:09:39 UTC ---
Author: paolo
Date: Tue Oct 9 16:09:32 2012
New Revision: 192263
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=192263
Log:
2012-10-09 Paolo Carlini
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54874
--- Comment #8 from Salvatore Filippone
2012-10-09 16:02:35 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> (In reply to comment #5)
> > (In reply to comment #0)
> > > I am getting the following output from the test case. It seems wrong, I
> > > do n
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53763
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot |paolo.carlini at oracle dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53397
Venkataramanan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51228
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Known to work|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54876
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener 2012-10-09
15:29:12 UTC ---
Err,
static tree
prune_expression_for_jf_1 (tree *tp, int *walk_subtrees, void *)
{
if (EXPR_P (*tp))
SET_EXPR_LOCATION (*tp, UNKNOWN_LOCATION);
else
*walk_s
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54876
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54876
Bug #: 54876
Summary: [4.8 Regression] LTO bootstrap broken, streaming
garbage-collected BLOCK
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Stat
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29383
--- Comment #8 from Andy Nelson 2012-10-09
15:19:36 UTC ---
Interesting. Didn't see this dup originally in my search.
In response to your other email (that it is very very hard), can you explain
a bit why if you've got the time/inclinati
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54837
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54869
--- Comment #11 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2012-10-09 15:05:31 UTC ---
> --- Comment #4 from Ulrich Drepper
> 2012-10-09 11:23:41 UTC ---
> (In reply to comment #0)
>> The new ext/random/simd_fast_mersenne_twister_engine/cons
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54869
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54860
--- Comment #9 from Dodji Seketeli 2012-10-09
14:52:24 UTC ---
Created attachment 28400
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28400
Candidate fix patch
Guys, could you please test this patch on your trees to see if it fixe
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54869
--- Comment #9 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-10-09 14:50:31 UTC ---
Author: paolo
Date: Tue Oct 9 14:50:19 2012
New Revision: 192256
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=192256
Log:
2012-10-09 Paolo Carlini
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54874
--- Comment #7 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-10-09 14:47:38 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> Well, this may be more complicated. On x86_64-apple-darwin10, compiling the
> attached test with 4.6.3 gives:
> [...]
> a.out(97528) malloc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54874
--- Comment #6 from Salvatore Filippone
2012-10-09 14:46:15 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> (In reply to comment #0)
> > I am getting the following output from the test case. It seems wrong, I do
> > not
> > see why allocating the pol
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54874
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54837
--- Comment #3 from Richard Guenther 2012-10-09
14:40:12 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Oct 9 14:40:01 2012
New Revision: 192255
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=192255
Log:
2012-10-09 Richard Guenther
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54875
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dodji at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54875
Daniel Krügler changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||daniel.kruegler at
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54837
--- Comment #2 from Richard Guenther 2012-10-09
14:14:36 UTC ---
DECL_ABSTRACT_ORIGIN (parm) == aexp
(gdb) call debug_tree (parm)
unit size
align 32 symtab -165706496 alias set 2 canonical type 0x760c85e8
precis
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54808
--- Comment #3 from chgena at mail dot ru 2012-10-09 14:10:09 UTC ---
Some 4.8 betas seem to be affected too
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54860
--- Comment #8 from dodji at seketeli dot org
2012-10-09 14:08:20 UTC ---
I can reproduce it now. I guess I shouldn't look at bugs around
midnight or something.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54834
--- Comment #4 from Tobias Schlüter 2012-10-09
14:06:19 UTC ---
I ran make in a directory with a pre-existing build, ao maybe that include file
was an old leftover. Please don't invest any further time in this now, I'll
try a clean build first.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54834
--- Comment #3 from Tobias Schlüter 2012-10-09
14:00:43 UTC ---
Created attachment 28399
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28399
toplevel config.log
I'm attaching the toplevel config.log. From it I read that the compiler is
c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54845
Arnaud Charlet changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||charlet at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54866
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
URL|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54866
--- Comment #2 from Rainer Orth 2012-10-09 13:40:32 UTC
---
Author: ro
Date: Tue Oct 9 13:40:21 2012
New Revision: 192253
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=192253
Log:
Fix gcc.target/i386/long-double-80-7.c (PR ta
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54875
Bug #: 54875
Summary: Forward declare enums cannot be used as a template
argument
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRM
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54820
--- Comment #7 from Eric Botcazou 2012-10-09
13:37:57 UTC ---
> Well, we could first build g++ and libstdc++, and then Ada I guess, but
> that's probably too ambitious.
Very likely indeed, since you need to have binary compatibility betw
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54868
--- Comment #2 from Marc Glisse 2012-10-09 13:37:56
UTC ---
Maybe moving the test from tree-ssa/ to vect/ would be enough? Seems like
vect.exp uses check_vect_support_and_set_flags (I don't see how to use that for
a single test).
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54867
--- Comment #2 from Rainer Orth 2012-10-09 13:35:01 UTC
---
Created attachment 28398
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28398
final dump
Unfortunately, this doesn't help. I'm attaching the -m64 dump for reference.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54820
--- Comment #6 from charlet at adacore dot com
2012-10-09 13:09:38 UTC ---
> > On that machine, the entire user-space is built without any static
> > libstdc++
> > libraries, so it's quite annoying (and unexpected) to have to install
> >
> > On that machine, the entire user-space is built without any static
> > libstdc++
> > libraries, so it's quite annoying (and unexpected) to have to install
> > them for
> > Ada bootstrap. Couldn't Ada use the g++/libstdc++ bits from the compiler
> > being
> > built?
>
> No, this is stage 1 so
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54862
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54869
--- Comment #8 from Paolo Carlini 2012-10-09
11:44:09 UTC ---
Boy, nobody cites me like that, at least, not while I'm still alive.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54820
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54869
--- Comment #7 from Dominique d'Humieres 2012-10-09
11:39:17 UTC ---
As Nathan Froyd said at
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-10/msg00772.html
"Please try to consider what's best for all the people who use GCC, not just
the cases
1 - 100 of 152 matches
Mail list logo
