http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46127
Summary: Use 16bit add instead of 32bit in thumb2
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
AssignedTo: unassig.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46097
--- Comment #26 from Jonathan Wakely 2010-10-22
07:34:55 UTC ---
I don't think dlmopen has anything to do with C++ namespaces, but I could be
wrong
Are those libraries that crash designed to be used via dlopen, rather than
linking to them explic
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36503
--- Comment #9 from Uros Bizjak 2010-10-22 07:37:22
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> I built ffmpeg for x86-64 with --disable-asm with the attached patch and the
> regression tests failed. Reverting the patch fixes them. I saved the binaries
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46097
--- Comment #27 from Jeffrey Walton 2010-10-22
07:37:55 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #26)
> [SNIP]
> Are those libraries that crash designed to be used via dlopen, rather than
> linking to them explicitly?
I'm not sure. How can one tell?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46128
Summary: There is no mechanism for detecting VFP revisions in
ARM GCC.
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Priority: P3
Comp
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46115
--- Comment #2 from Rob Staudinger
2010-10-22 08:33:46 UTC ---
There obviously is some relation, but this proposal evades syntactical
overloading of operators, unlike C++ lambda functions or LLVM blocks.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45720
--- Comment #7 from Richard Guenther 2010-10-22
08:59:56 UTC ---
We need some sort of a testcase.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46098
Uros Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #3 from Uros Bizjak 2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46098
Uros Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot |ubizjak at gmail dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46129
Summary: ICE: in tsubst_copy, at cp/pt.c:11375
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
AssignedTo: unassig...@gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46121
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.6.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46114
--- Comment #7 from Rainer Orth 2010-10-22 10:09:26 UTC
---
Created attachment 22113
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22113
working assembler output
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46114
--- Comment #8 from Rainer Orth 2010-10-22 10:10:13 UTC
---
Created attachment 22114
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22114
miscompiled assembler output
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46126
Ira Rosen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46114
--- Comment #9 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2010-10-22 10:15:20 UTC ---
> --- Comment #6 from Bernd Schmidt 2010-10-21
> 23:33:47 UTC ---
> I'm assuming you run the testcase on Solaris? Can you provide good/bad
> assembly
> output?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45720
--- Comment #8 from Vladimir Kharchenko 2010-10-22 10:15:16 UTC ---
It can happen that this file is minimal test case. :(
The piece of source:
961 if ((l_maxabs = temp.s_max[rw]) < 0)
962 {
963 l_maxabs =
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46098
--- Comment #5 from Uros Bizjak 2010-10-22 10:16:27
UTC ---
Created attachment 22115
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22115
Patch in testing.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46129
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46122
--- Comment #2 from Daniel Kraft 2010-10-22 10:44:16
UTC ---
I have to admit that I more or less copied that "check_intentin" business while
rewriting the code. It seems to "make sense", but I didn't find (and care to
find) this in the standard.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45352
--- Comment #16 from Zdenek Sojka 2010-10-22 11:17:55
UTC ---
I gave this patch a lot of testing (compiled ~800 packages) and it seems to
solve all crashes in reset_sched_cycles_in_current_ebb, without introducing any
new problems.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45720
--- Comment #9 from Uros Bizjak 2010-10-22 11:21:27
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> So I have no hypotheses about the reason of this exception.
> Maybe, it was indirect jump into the middle of instruction.
> I will continue attemts to create
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46128
--- Comment #1 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2010-10-22 12:08:57 UTC ---
On Fri, 22 Oct 2010, Jacob.Bramley at arm dot com wrote:
> There is currently no mechanism for detecting different versions of VFP using
> the pre-processor. In C code
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45720
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45946
--- Comment #5 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-10-22 12:29:09 UTC ---
Author: uros
Date: Fri Oct 22 12:29:03 2010
New Revision: 165824
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=165824
Log:
PR target/45946
* config/i386/i386.m
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46121
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46126
--- Comment #3 from irar at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-10-22 12:48:26 UTC ---
Author: irar
Date: Fri Oct 22 12:48:15 2010
New Revision: 165825
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=165825
Log:
PR tree-optimization/46126
* tree-v
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46126
Ira Rosen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45720
--- Comment #11 from Richard Guenther 2010-10-22
13:22:18 UTC ---
Created attachment 22116
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22116
untested patch
Patch which fixes the testcase (and some more).
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46114
Bernd Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bernds at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #10
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46108
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46114
--- Comment #11 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2010-10-22 13:35:08 UTC ---
> --- Comment #10 from Bernd Schmidt 2010-10-22
> 13:24:53 UTC ---
> I'll also need preprocessed source since I'm lacking Solaris includes. I'll
> be
> away fo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46130
Summary: [4.6 Regression] ICE: SIGSEGV in
walk_stmt_load_store_addr_ops (gimple.c:4894) with -O2
-fno-tree-dce
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46129
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at redhat dot com
--- Comment #2 from H.J
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46130
--- Comment #1 from Zdenek Sojka 2010-10-22 13:48:55
UTC ---
Created attachment 22118
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22118
another testcase
This testcase is shorter and doesn't take address of an function, but it needs
-flto
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46103
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46130
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46130
--- Comment #3 from Zdenek Sojka 2010-10-22 14:05:10
UTC ---
Created attachment 22119
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22119
different crash
Very similiar testcase, but it crashes with different message:
$ gcc -O2 -fno-tree-d
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46130
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44689
--- Comment #3 from Zdenek Sojka 2010-10-22 14:33:22
UTC ---
Created attachment 22120
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22120
different testcase
This one doesn't need -fprofile-generate
$ gcc -fenable-icf-debug -g pr44689-2.C
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46131
Summary: Some TLS execution tests fail on Tru64 UNIX with
emutls
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: wrong-code
Severity: normal
Pr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46131
--- Comment #1 from Rainer Orth 2010-10-22 14:37:37 UTC
---
Created attachment 22122
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22122
assembler output
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46131
--- Comment #2 from Rainer Orth 2010-10-22 14:38:17 UTC
---
Btw, this might be the root cause for PR target/45693.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45720
--- Comment #12 from Richard Guenther 2010-10-22
14:44:53 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri Oct 22 14:44:48 2010
New Revision: 165832
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=165832
Log:
2010-10-22 Richard Guenther
PR tree-o
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46132
Summary: ICE: in force_decl_die, at dwarf2out.c:20525 with
-fenable-icf-debug
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46131
--- Comment #3 from Richard Henderson 2010-10-22
14:51:59 UTC ---
I don't see anything wrong in the assembler code for
the test case. I think you'll need to debug the libgcc
routines to see what's going wrong in between there and
the system thre
complex(float __r = 0.0f, float __i = 0.0f)
: _M_value(__r + __i * 1.0fi) { }
private:
_ComplexT _M_value;
};
constexpr complex c1;
Gives:
%$bin/H-x86_64-gcc-constexpr.20101022/bin/g++ -c -std=gnu++0x complex_wanna.cc
complex_wanna.cc:16:19: error: ‘(__complex__ float){0.0f, 0.0f}’ is not a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46131
--- Comment #4 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2010-10-22 14:59:32 UTC ---
> --- Comment #3 from Richard Henderson 2010-10-22
> 14:51:59 UTC ---
> I don't see anything wrong in the assembler code for
> the test case. I think you'll need
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45946
--- Comment #6 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-10-22 15:15:22 UTC ---
Author: uros
Date: Fri Oct 22 15:15:16 2010
New Revision: 165836
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=165836
Log:
PR target/45946
* config/i386/i386.m
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46134
Summary: constexpr vs. defaulted ctor
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
AssignedTo: unassig...@gcc.gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46134
--- Comment #1 from Benjamin Kosnik 2010-10-22
15:31:36 UTC ---
Created attachment 22124
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22124
pre-processed sources
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46135
Summary: ICE: in splice_child_die, at dwarf2out.c:7627 with -g1
-femit-class-debug-always -fenable-icf-debug
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46136
Summary: ICE: in size_of_dcall_table, at dwarf2out.c:12387 with
-fenable-icf-debug
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46098
--- Comment #6 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-10-22 16:13:04 UTC ---
Author: uros
Date: Fri Oct 22 16:12:57 2010
New Revision: 165845
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=165845
Log:
PR target/46098
* config/i386/sse.md
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46098
--- Comment #7 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-10-22 16:18:53 UTC ---
Author: uros
Date: Fri Oct 22 16:18:41 2010
New Revision: 165846
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=165846
Log:
PR target/46098
* config/i386/sse.md
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45946
Uros Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46098
Uros Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46137
Summary: [4.6 Regression] g++.dg/torture/pr45877.C FAILs with
-fno-tree-dce
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46138
Summary: ICE: SIGSEGV in htab_hash_string (hashtab.c:847) with
-g -fenable-icf-debug for almost any fortran program
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46133
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46137
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46137
--- Comment #2 from Zdenek Sojka 2010-10-22 18:22:30
UTC ---
Created attachment 22127
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22127
reduced testcase
After reducing, the testcase no longer needs -fno-tree-dce:
$ gcc -O pr46137.C
pr4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46103
--- Comment #6 from Jason Merrill 2010-10-22
18:37:46 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Fri Oct 22 18:37:41 2010
New Revision: 165849
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=165849
Log:
PR c++/46103
* init.c (build_vec_init): Han
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46129
--- Comment #3 from Jason Merrill 2010-10-22
18:37:58 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Fri Oct 22 18:37:53 2010
New Revision: 165850
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=165850
Log:
PR c++/46129
* pt.c (instantiate_class_temp
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46134
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46129
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46137
--- Comment #3 from Richard Guenther 2010-10-22
19:03:43 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri Oct 22 19:03:39 2010
New Revision: 165852
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=165852
Log:
2010-10-22 Richard Guenther
PR middle-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46099
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46097
--- Comment #28 from Jeffrey Walton 2010-10-22
19:49:26 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #26)
> I don't think dlmopen has anything to do with C++ namespaces, but I could be
> wrong
>
> Are those libraries that crash designed to be used via dlopen, r
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46139
Summary: bug in std::binary_search realisation
Product: gcc
Version: 4.4.4
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
AssignedTo: unassig.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46137
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46140
Summary: [4.4/4.5/4.6 Regression] Include not found - but exit
status code is zero
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: diagnostic
Severity: n
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46097
--- Comment #29 from Jonathan Wakely 2010-10-22
20:36:45 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #28)
> > Are those libraries that crash designed to be used via dlopen, rather than
> > linking to them explicitly?
> Apparently they are (the authors would hav
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46140
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46139
--- Comment #1 from Paolo Carlini 2010-10-22
20:51:51 UTC ---
I think this is invalid. The Standard talks exactly about the comparisons which
we are doing, ie, assumes are well formed, both for lower_bound and for
binary_search itself. Indeed, bo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46139
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely 2010-10-22
20:54:43 UTC ---
The standard is *very* clear about the operations used by binary_search and
both ahttp://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/lwg-closed.html#631 which
was declared Not A Defect
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46103
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46139
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46140
--- Comment #2 from Tobias Burnus 2010-10-22
21:20:16 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> Someone named Tobias broke this with
Which was part of the fix for PR 37821. The issue was that the file name of the
including file was not printed before.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46140
--- Comment #3 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-10-22 21:42:33 UTC ---
A patch as simple as
Index: scanner.c
===
--- scanner.c (revision 165861)
+++ scanner.c (working copy)
@@
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46141
Summary: -fno-builtin-strstr changes __builtin_strstr
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
AssignedTo: unassig..
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46141
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46142
Summary: [4.6 Regression] FMA test failures
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
AssignedTo: unassig...
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46143
Summary: __attribute__((optimize)) emits wrong code
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
AssignedTo: unassig..
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46143
Ryan Johnson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #22129|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46143
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely 2010-10-22
22:47:09 UTC ---
that program has two kinds of undefined behaviour I can see
not only do two wrongs not make a right, but attribute((optimize(0))) doesn't
make it right either
do you have a testcas
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46140
--- Comment #4 from Steve Kargl
2010-10-22 22:48:54 UTC ---
On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 09:42:36PM +, kargl at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> Index: scanner.c
> ===
> --- scanner.c (r
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46143
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely 2010-10-22
22:53:17 UTC ---
here's one which avoids invalid iterators and stack smashing:
#include
#include
struct foo { };
typedef std::vector foov;
foov v(1);
int
#ifdef BUG
__attribute__((optimize(0))
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46143
--- Comment #4 from Ryan Johnson 2010-10-22 23:06:53
UTC ---
As I said, the stack smashing was only there to make the behavior consistent.
If the offending stack location happens to contain zero, the bug would go
unnoticed (try adding 'long n[1]'
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46144
Summary: [4.6 regression] gfortran.dg/vect/fast-math-vect-8.f90
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assign
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46097
Ian Lance Taylor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ian at airs dot com
--- Comment #30 fr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46097
--- Comment #31 from Ian Lance Taylor 2010-10-22 23:55:44
UTC ---
As I understand this, this is a request for a warning for any definition of a
global variable. Is that correct?
Such a warning certainly can not be part of -Wall or -Wextra. Glo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46144
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rth at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37360
--- Comment #23 from Jie Zhang 2010-10-23 00:38:16
UTC ---
Author: jiez
Date: Sat Oct 23 00:38:13 2010
New Revision: 165880
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=165880
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/37360
* config/mips/mips.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46142
--- Comment #1 from H.J. Lu 2010-10-23 00:40:08
UTC ---
I saw
FAIL: gcc.target/i386/fma3-builtin-2.c (internal compiler error)
FAIL: gcc.target/i386/fma3-builtin-2.c (test for excess errors)
FAIL: gcc.target/i386/fma4-builtin-2.c (internal compi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46142
--- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu 2010-10-23 00:41:49
UTC ---
I got
./xgcc -B./ -S ../../src-trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/fma3-builtin-2.c
-O3 -mfma -mno-fma4 -S
../../src-trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/fma3-builtin-2.c: In function
‘vec
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46142
--- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu 2010-10-23 00:46:01
UTC ---
On Fedora 13/x86-64, you can use
CC="gcc -m32" CXX="g++ -m32" ../src-trunk/configure i686-linux
to bootstrap 32bit gcc. You need to install 32bit libraries
used by gcc.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45720
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46145
Summary: [C++0x] Should defaulted copy constructor imply
default move constructor?
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46145
--- Comment #1 from tom.prince at ualberta dot net 2010-10-23 04:55:18 UTC ---
Created attachment 22131
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22131
Test case
99 matches
Mail list logo
