--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-08
21:23 ---
Subject: Bug 20905
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Branch: gcc-4_0-branch
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-04-08 21:23:26
Modified files:
gcc/cp : Change
--- Additional Comments From mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-08
21:41 ---
Fixed in 4.0, 4.1.
--
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[3.4/4.0/4.1 Regression]|[
--- Additional Comments From janis187 at us dot ibm dot com 2005-04-08
21:45 ---
Subject: Re: [4.1 Regression] ICE in extract_insn for test vmx/varargs-1.c
A simple build (C only, no bootstrap, no testsuite run) with the latest
patch passes all of the gcc.dg/vmx tests on powerpc64-linu
--- Additional Comments From mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-08
21:46 ---
Removing rejects-valid; treating all incorrect warnings as rejects-valid due to
-Werror is not useful.
--
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Additional Comments From mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-08
21:46 ---
Removing rejects-valid; treating all incorrect warnings as rejects-valid due to
-Werror is not useful.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20624
--- Additional Comments From mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-08
21:48 ---
Removing rejects-valid; treating all incorrect warnings as rejects-valid due to
-Werror is not useful.
--
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Additional Comments From dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-08
21:49 ---
(In reply to comment #18)
> Ugh. The copy we inserted turned out to be totally useless for determining
> that the condition at the end of BB5 is always false. Argggh.
>
> To make this scheme work we'd h
--- Additional Comments From kreckel at ginac dot de 2005-04-08 22:14
---
(In reply to comment #20)
> Thatis the mathematical question/answer. The real issue is this:
>
> * in operator-(const T&, const complex&), should the imaginary
> part eve be touched?
>
> there are vairous
--- Additional Comments From tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-08
22:19 ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> Isn't this related to or at least a dup of bug 19101?
A different bug because a different provision of the standard
is violated. Probably, a meta-bug "parser-related bugs"
could
#include
#include
void print_joined (const char *first, const char *delim, const char *last,
const char *def,
char **list) {
switch (*list == NULL) {
for (; *list; ++list) {
printf("%s", delim);
if (0) {
case 0:
printf("%s", first);
}
p
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-08
22:32 ---
Fixed in 4.0.0 and above.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-08
23:18 ---
Subject: Bug 20466
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-04-08 23:18:32
Modified files:
gcc/testsuite : ChangeLog
Added files:
gcc/t
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-08
23:21 ---
Subject: Bug 20466
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-04-08 23:21:12
Modified files:
gcc: ChangeLog flow.c
Log message:
--- Additional Comments From hp at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-08 23:24
---
Correction committed.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESO
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-08
23:42 ---
Subject: Bug 20814
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-04-08 23:42:06
Modified files:
gcc: ChangeLog
gcc/config/rs6000:
--- Additional Comments From dje at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-08 23:45
---
patch committed
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-09
00:09 ---
Subject: Bug 20909
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-04-09 00:08:59
Modified files:
libstdc++-v3 : ChangeLog
libstdc++-v3/inclu
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-09
00:15 ---
Subject: Bug 20909
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Branch: gcc-4_0-branch
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-04-09 00:14:59
Modified files:
libstdc++-v3 : Change
--
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.0.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20909
--
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.0.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20806
One of the micro-optimizations that may be done inside the tree optimizer
involves disregarding V_MAY_DEF/V_MUST_DEF operands for read-only
globals.
So, if a symbol is marked read-only and the operand scanner
requests a V_MAY_DEF or V_MUST_DEF operand for it, we replace it
with a VUSE.
This works
--- Additional Comments From pluto at pld-linux dot org 2005-04-09 02:29
---
(In reply to comment #24)
> (In reply to comment #15)
please ignore previous post.
gcc passes params in the right way but something is wrong.
with the original sourcecode gdb shows stack frame with
invalid par
--- Additional Comments From rth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-09 03:09
---
I'm working on atomic builtins, but this will *not* resolve the problem of
compiling for i386 and i486+. Indeed, it could easily make it worse because
you won't have the kind of control you did before wrt hidin
Consider:
int
foo (int a, int b, int c, int d)
{
int x, y;
b = a;
if (a == b)
x = c;
else
x = d;
if (x == c)
return a;
else
return b;
}
Run ./cc1 -quiet -O2 -fno-tree-dominator-opts.
Here is the result.
foo (a, b, c, d)
{
int y;
int x;
int D.1145;
:
b_4 =
201 - 224 of 224 matches
Mail list logo
