http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44376
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54760
--- Comment #10 from Oleg Endo 2012-10-12
00:50:44 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> (In reply to comment #7)
> > * Slot illegal instruction exception <<< but which insns?!?!
>
> Ah, you could see a list in that manual rej09b0003_
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54760
--- Comment #9 from Oleg Endo 2012-10-12 00:45:45
UTC ---
Author: olegendo
Date: Fri Oct 12 00:45:36 2012
New Revision: 192388
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=192388
Log:
PR target/54760
* config/sh/sh.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54760
--- Comment #8 from Kazumoto Kojima 2012-10-12
00:43:09 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> * Slot illegal instruction exception <<< but which insns?!?!
Ah, you could see a list in that manual rej09b0003_sh4a.pdf,
pdf page 108, Slot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51244
--- Comment #55 from Oleg Endo 2012-10-12
00:41:31 UTC ---
Author: olegendo
Date: Fri Oct 12 00:41:23 2012
New Revision: 192387
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=192387
Log:
PR target/51244
* config/sh/sh.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54760
--- Comment #7 from Oleg Endo 2012-10-12 00:26:42
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> (In reply to comment #5)
> > Kaz, do you happen to know something regarding this matter?
>
> My SH4 software manual says for STC that all stc/stc.l ins
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54760
--- Comment #6 from Kazumoto Kojima 2012-10-12
00:13:51 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> Kaz, do you happen to know something regarding this matter?
My SH4 software manual says for STC that all stc/stc.l instructions
except stc gbr,rn
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51878
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51878
--- Comment #4 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-10-11 23:37:55 UTC ---
Author: paolo
Date: Thu Oct 11 23:37:48 2012
New Revision: 192381
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=192381
Log:
2012-10-11 Paolo Carlini
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51878
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.8.0
--- Comment #3 from Paolo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52662
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Known to work|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54903
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52955
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53127
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52955
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53067
--- Comment #9 from Paolo Carlini 2012-10-11
22:21:50 UTC ---
Turns out I was wrong in my last message! Francois made me notice that in fact
in my experiments I was reverting the quick hack in an incorrect way. I have
now properly done the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54905
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29834
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ace.of.zerosync at gmail
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54905
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski 2012-10-11
21:52:06 UTC ---
The real testcase that shows the issue with GCC:
struct f
{
};
f g;
struct A
{
A(f& s);
};
int main() {
A(g), 1;
}
--- CUT ---
The other testcase I thin
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54905
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|blocker |normal
--- Comment #4 from Andr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54905
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski 2012-10-11
21:45:28 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> Looks like GCC is getting confused if the constructor is going to be a
> function
> declaration or not.
s/function/variable/
Here is a testcase
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54905
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski 2012-10-11
21:41:13 UTC ---
Looks like GCC is getting confused if the constructor is going to be a function
declaration or not.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54905
--- Comment #1 from Marc Glisse 2012-10-11 21:39:01
UTC ---
#include
struct A
{
A(std::ostream& s);
};
int main() {
A(std::cout);
}
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53949
--- Comment #7 from Oleg Endo 2012-10-11 20:43:02
UTC ---
A note regarding the SR.S bit. The insns sets and clrs are available only on
SH3* and SH4*. SH1* and SH2* (incl SH2A) do not implement them.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54905
Bug #: 54905
Summary: invalid use of qualified-name 'std::cout'
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.4
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: blocker
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54760
Oleg Endo changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54893
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54904
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54893
--- Comment #3 from torvald at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-10-11 19:54:11 UTC ---
I agree with Michael. Accesses to volative vars are disallowed in safe code,
but relaxed transactions can run unsafe code (after going irrevocable). The
test case i
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54904
Bug #: 54904
Summary: Large mode constant live in a register not used to
optimize smaller mode constants
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53780
Matt Hargett changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||matt at use dot net
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54903
Bug #: 54903
Summary: Auto + static in-class constant initalization not
working
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53055
--- Comment #9 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2012-10-11
18:27:00 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> Note: this is very old, I barely remember it.
>
> (In reply to comment #6)
> > Sorry, I think your message is not easily understandable. I think you
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54691
--- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu 2012-10-11 18:22:07
UTC ---
Please try ld.bfd from binutils trunk or 2.23.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53055
--- Comment #8 from Marc Glisse 2012-10-11 18:16:58
UTC ---
Note: this is very old, I barely remember it.
(In reply to comment #6)
> Sorry, I think your message is not easily understandable. I think you are
> trying to say that "the rig
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53055
--- Comment #7 from Paolo Carlini 2012-10-11
18:08:23 UTC ---
As long as we avoid the ICE and the message is fine I'm happy. Then I'll take
care of the column number asap.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54784
--- Comment #12 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-10-11 17:58:19 UTC ---
r192374 fixes the problem on trunk. Will commit to the 4.7 branch soon.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53055
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54795
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||markus at trippelsdorf dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54795
--- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu 2012-10-11 17:54:11
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> (In reply to comment #0)
>
> > It happens at random.
>
> Maybe --enable-checking=valgrind can help here?
I will give it a try.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54784
--- Comment #11 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-10-11 17:52:44 UTC ---
Author: janus
Date: Thu Oct 11 17:52:36 2012
New Revision: 192374
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=192374
Log:
2012-10-11 Janus Weil
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54795
--- Comment #1 from Uros Bizjak 2012-10-11 17:41:30
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #0)
> It happens at random.
Maybe --enable-checking=valgrind can help here?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53055
--- Comment #5 from Paolo Carlini 2012-10-11
17:22:00 UTC ---
If the patch otherwise works fine, I would encourage you to submit it anyway
even if the caret isn't accurate: AFAICS, for all the errors emitted by that
function the caret is a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54898
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||markus at trippelsdorf dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51219
--- Comment #3 from Paolo Carlini 2012-10-11
16:45:46 UTC ---
When fixing this please double check the testcase in PR54808.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51219
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||chgena at mail dot ru
--- Comme
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54808
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54824
--- Comment #5 from Marek Polacek 2012-10-11
15:40:40 UTC ---
Started with http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?view=revision&revision=185913
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54824
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek 2012-10-11
15:37:41 UTC ---
In the second TC the user shouldn't lie to the compiler and put
__attribute__((noreturn)) to a function, that in fact returns. Without this
attribute, or with e.g. abort () in
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54902
Bug #: 54902
Summary: [4.7 Regression], ICE (segfault) building on
arm-linux-gnueabi
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
Status: UNCONF
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54901
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54898
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener 2012-10-11
15:16:07 UTC ---
We produce this situation somewhen during WPA stage (probably type merging).
(gdb) p expr
$1 = (tree) 0x7693e3f0
(gdb) p expr->type_common.main_variant
$2 = (tree) 0x7f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54901
Bug #: 54901
Summary: [4.8 Regression] air.f90, aermod.f90, and mdbx.f90 are
miscompiled with '-m64 -O3 -funroll-loops
-fwhole-program' after revision 192213
Classification
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54898
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener 2012-10-11
15:00:09 UTC ---
What happens is that the input at LTRANS stage has wrecked TYPE_MAIN_VARIANT:
(gdb) call debug_tree ($31)
constant 32>
unit size constant 4>
align 32 symtab 0 al
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54824
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36107
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36107
--- Comment #3 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-10-11 14:38:00 UTC ---
Author: paolo
Date: Thu Oct 11 14:37:44 2012
New Revision: 192361
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=192361
Log:
2012-10-11 Paolo Carlini
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54889
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54892
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.7.3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54894
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|una
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36107
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu.org |
Known to work|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54896
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener 2012-10-11
14:08:16 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> Thanks for the test case!
>
> Bug is confirmed with GCC 4.8 (trunk revision 192219).
>
> Problem areas at -O1:
> alias stmt walking: 31.6
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51727
--- Comment #15 from Tobias Schlüter 2012-10-11
14:01:27 UTC ---
I'm sorry that I'm spamming your inboxes, but I only now read the comment in
front of write_symbol1, and it says something that I was wondering about all
this time, so I want to at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54898
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54899
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Known to work|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54602
--- Comment #6 from Oleg Endo 2012-10-11 13:48:04
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> (In reply to comment #4)
> >
> > I don't know the history about it. I can only imagine that some
> > system could assume some banked regs will be not
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54868
Marc Glisse changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Component|tree-o
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51727
Tobias Schlüter changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #28424|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54868
--- Comment #7 from Marc Glisse 2012-10-11 13:28:41
UTC ---
Author: glisse
Date: Thu Oct 11 13:28:27 2012
New Revision: 192359
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=192359
Log:
2012-10-11 Marc Glisse
PR tests
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54893
--- Comment #2 from Mike Spear 2012-10-11
13:21:19 UTC ---
There is a key difference here. The transaction in my example is /relaxed/.
According to the specification, there are no restrictions on what a relaxed
transaction can do. Relax
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51727
Tobias Schlüter changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #28410|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51727
Tobias Schlüter changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54894
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-10-11
12:33:41 UTC ---
I'd say the problem is that useless_type_conversion_p considers the overaligned
double type compatible to double, yet get_vectype_for_scalar_type returns
non-NULL for the normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54894
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-10-11
12:22:47 UTC ---
You should be using __builtin_assume_aligned builtin, i.e.
double *Ap = __builtin_assume_aligned (&A[ih+il][kh], 16);
instead of the hacks with the overaligned scalar pointer,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54900
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54889
--- Comment #2 from Igor Zamyatin 2012-10-11
11:40:39 UTC ---
Now I see no compfails on the whole spec test 465
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54897
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54897
--- Comment #8 from Hans-Peter Nilsson 2012-10-11
11:36:49 UTC ---
Author: hp
Date: Thu Oct 11 11:36:39 2012
New Revision: 192354
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=192354
Log:
PR testsuite/54897
* testsuit
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54897
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c++ |testsuite
--- Comment #7 f
ad1;
int iret1;
iret1 = pthread_create( &thread1, NULL, context, (void*) 0);
func_2 (func_11 (0, 0, 0, 0) );
pthread_join( thread1, NULL);
}
is miscompiled by gcc --param allow-store-data-races=0 -O2 (or -O3) on x86_64.
[ gcc version 4.8.0 20121011 (experimental) (GCC) ]
T
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54897
--- Comment #6 from Hans-Peter Nilsson 2012-10-11
10:55:23 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> Actually, I was wrong about 32-bit HWI, the actual problem is
> In cris case that is MIN (32 + 3 + 1, 32), while i?86/x86_64 have 64 resp. 128
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54899
--- Comment #2 from Zdenek Sojka 2012-10-11 10:47:09
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> bug2.ii:57
> Thing thing(Vec<>(0.0, 1.0, 0.0), Vec<>(0.0, 1.0, 1.0));
> bug2.ii:33
>inline VecBinaryExpr(const Vec<>& e1, const Vec<>& e2) :
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54893
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pmarlier at gcc dot gnu.org
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54899
Zdenek Sojka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zsojka at seznam dot cz
--- Comm
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54897
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-10-11
10:31:31 UTC ---
I'd go with
--- libstdc++-v3/testsuite/23_containers/bitset/45713.cc2010-09-22
17:15:42.0 +0200
+++ libstdc++-v3/testsuite/23_containers/bitset/45713.cc2012-10-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54899
Bug #: 54899
Summary: -fpredictive-commoning and -ftree-vectorize
optimizations generate a nonsensical binary which
segfaults
Classification: Unclassified
Produ
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54897
--- Comment #4 from Paolo Carlini 2012-10-11
10:19:39 UTC ---
Ah! I'm Ok with xfailing - I'm leaving that to you - or we can just remove the
test, isn't a big deal.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43765
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43765
--- Comment #3 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-10-11 10:15:56 UTC ---
Author: paolo
Date: Thu Oct 11 10:15:49 2012
New Revision: 192351
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=192351
Log:
2012-10-11 Paolo Carlini
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54867
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54897
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-10-11
10:11:52 UTC ---
Actually, I was wrong about 32-bit HWI, the actual problem is
MAX_FIXED_MODE_SIZE.
bprecision
= MIN (precision + BITS_PER_UNIT_LOG + 1, MAX_FIXED_MODE_SIZE);
bprecisio
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54867
--- Comment #5 from Eric Botcazou 2012-10-11
10:11:44 UTC ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Thu Oct 11 10:11:37 2012
New Revision: 192350
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=192350
Log:
PR testsuite/54867
* gcc.dg
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54898
--- Comment #1 from Dmitry G. Dyachenko 2012-10-11
10:11:02 UTC ---
Created attachment 28422
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28422
2.cpp
: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: lto
AssignedTo: unassig...@gcc.gnu.org
ReportedBy: dim...@gmail.com
Created attachment 28421
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28421
1.c
gcc version 4.8.0 20121011 (experimen
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43765
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu.org |
Known to work|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54868
--- Comment #6 from Marc Glisse 2012-10-11 09:57:19
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> Have a look at vect.exp: there are specific naming conventions for
> testcases that control how they are compiled.
Gah, you are right, thanks. I wish
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54897
--- Comment #2 from Paolo Carlini 2012-10-11
09:48:39 UTC ---
See if changing the test to the following (unconditional) works for you:
int test[sizeof(std::bitset<__SIZE_MAX__>) != 1 ? 1 : -1];
It passes on x86_64-linux, -m32 and -m64.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54868
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54889
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49423
--- Comment #16 from Dinar Temirbulatov
2012-10-11 09:11:27 UTC ---
this regression after PR43137, also absence of pool range predicates for
arm_zero_extendqisi2, arm_zero_extendqisi2_v6, arm_zero_extendhisi2,
arm_zero_extendhisi2_v6 cause
1 - 100 of 108 matches
Mail list logo
