http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46315
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
URL|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46470
--- Comment #2 from Richard Henderson 2010-11-16
22:22:19 UTC ---
Author: rth
Date: Tue Nov 16 22:22:13 2010
New Revision: 166829
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=166829
Log:
PR target/46470
* recog.c (peep2_attempt)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46455
--- Comment #24 from Zouzou 2010-11-16 22:29:35
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #23)
> Created attachment 22424 [details]
> add destructors in
> here's another patch, this one uses SFINAE to select an appropriate overload
> based on the type of __g
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46490
--- Comment #10 from Eric Botcazou 2010-11-16
22:30:25 UTC ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Tue Nov 16 22:30:19 2010
New Revision: 166830
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=166830
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/46490
* combine.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46490
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
URL|http://www.dr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46470
Richard Henderson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46455
--- Comment #25 from Jonathan Wakely 2010-11-16
22:36:16 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #24)
> apparently the 1st overload doesn't match so it falls back to the 3rd one.
bah! ok, thanks, back to the drawing board...
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46422
--- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu 2010-11-16 22:53:49
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> Fix is posted at http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-11/msg01597.html
It has been approved:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-11/msg01610.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46455
--- Comment #26 from Jonathan Wakely 2010-11-16
23:03:08 UTC ---
Oops, that patch was broken - could you change the recursive mutex destructor
so it calls _S_destroy(&_M_mutex, 0) instead of _S_destroy(&_M_mutex)
As I can only test on POSIX syst
/include -isystem
/sw/lib/gcc4.6/x86_64-apple-darwin10.5.0/sys-include -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I.
-I../../../gcc-4.6-20101116/libgomp
-I../../../gcc-4.6-20101116/libgomp/config/bsd
-I../../../gcc-4.6-20101116/libgomp/config/posix
-I../../../gcc-4.6-20101116/libgomp -Wall -pthread -Werror -g -O2 -MT loop.lo
-MD
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46510
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|x86_64-apple-darwin10 |*-*-darwin*
Host|x86_64-app
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46490
--- Comment #12 from John Marino 2010-11-16 23:07:46
UTC ---
That's great news, Eric!
Many thanks, both for spending some long hours resolving this the same day it
was reported, and for the tip on the raise_from_pure test. This results in two
G
ude -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I.
-I../../../gcc-4.6-20101116/libgomp
-I../../../gcc-4.6-20101116/libgomp/config/bsd
-I../../../gcc-4.6-20101116/libgomp/config/posix
-I../../../gcc-4.6-20101116/libgomp -Wall -pthread -Werror -g -O2 -MT
barrier.lo -MD -MP -MF .deps/barrier.Tpo -c
../../../gcc-4.6-20101116/libg
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46455
--- Comment #27 from Jonathan Wakely 2010-11-16
23:22:24 UTC ---
I don't think that's right either ... I need to find a better way to test
this
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46511
Summary: [4.6 Regression] Bootstrap failure: ICE in
decide_is_variable_needed, at varpool.c:338
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: blocker
P
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46455
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #22424|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46511
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46510
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
--- Comm
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46510
--- Comment #4 from Dominique d'Humieres 2010-11-16
23:42:24 UTC ---
A backtrace can be found in pr46511.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46488
--- Comment #5 from Lance Kinley 2010-11-16 23:52:24
UTC ---
I compiled the latest snapshot:
gcc (GCC) 4.5.2 2010 (prerelease)
and tried -O3 -fno-delayed-branch again on server/core_filters.c and that still
doesn't work.
I retried -O -fno-d
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46488
--- Comment #6 from Eric Botcazou 2010-11-17
00:09:42 UTC ---
> I compiled the latest snapshot:
> gcc (GCC) 4.5.2 2010 (prerelease)
>
> and tried -O3 -fno-delayed-branch again on server/core_filters.c and that
> still
> doesn't work.
>
> I
missing-prototypes -Wold-style-definition
-version -finhibit-size-directive -fno-inline -fno-exceptions
-fno-zero-initialized-in-bss -fno-toplevel-reorder -fno-tree-vectorize
-fno-stack-protector -o xxx.s
GNU C (GCC) version 4.6.0 20101116 (experimental) [trunk revision 166834]
(hppa-linux)
com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46513
Summary: Request: Warning for use of unsafe string handling
functions
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46513
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely 2010-11-17
00:53:47 UTC ---
The maintainers of GNU libc, the C and C++ committees and the POSIX working
group have not seen fit to include those functions, and they're not available
on my GNU/Linux box.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46513
--- Comment #2 from Jeffrey Walton 2010-11-17
01:08:22 UTC ---
Hi Jonathan,
(In reply to comment #1)
> The maintainers of GNU libc, the C and C++ committees and the POSIX working
> group have not seen fit to include those functions, and they're
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46512
--- Comment #1 from H.J. Lu 2010-11-17 01:25:27
UTC ---
ix86_function_arg_boundary has
static unsigned int
ix86_function_arg_boundary (enum machine_mode mode, const_tree type)
{
unsigned int align;
if (type)
{
/* Since the main va
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46514
Summary: 128-bit shifts on x86_64 generate silly code unless
the shift amount is constant
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Priority:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46512
--- Comment #2 from Nathan Froyd 2010-11-17
01:41:16 UTC ---
Author: froydnj
Date: Wed Nov 17 01:41:13 2010
New Revision: 166849
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=166849
Log:
PR target/46512
* config/pa/pa.c (pa_funct
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46497
--- Comment #3 from Jason Merrill 2010-11-17
01:43:13 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Wed Nov 17 01:43:10 2010
New Revision: 166851
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=166851
Log:
PR c++/46497
* call.c (build_over_call): Ch
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46515
Summary: [4.6 Regression] Many libjava failures
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
AssignedTo: unassi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46497
--- Comment #4 from Paolo Carlini 2010-11-17
02:02:25 UTC ---
Jason, I'm sorry, I don't understand what's going on here: apparently nothing
changed for my original testcase: the assert still triggers, and it doesn't for
the non-defaulted variant?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46513
--- Comment #3 from Jeffrey Walton 2010-11-17
02:04:14 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> The maintainers of GNU libc, the C and C++ committees and the POSIX working
> group have not seen fit to include those functions, and they're not available
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46512
John David Anglin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46513
--- Comment #4 from Jeffrey Walton 2010-11-17
03:49:44 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> Hi Jonathan,
>
> (In reply to comment #1)
> > The maintainers of GNU libc, the C and C++ committees and the POSIX working
> > group have not seen fit to in
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45939
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45870
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44266
--- Comment #7 from Alan Modra 2010-11-17 06:01:08
UTC ---
Author: amodra
Date: Wed Nov 17 06:01:03 2010
New Revision: 166856
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=166856
Log:
PR target/44266
Backport r159963
* config
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45807
--- Comment #7 from Alan Modra 2010-11-17 06:09:58
UTC ---
Author: amodra
Date: Wed Nov 17 06:09:53 2010
New Revision: 166857
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=166857
Log:
PR target/45807
Backport r164685,r164825,r165
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46488
--- Comment #7 from Lance Kinley 2010-11-17 06:15:36
UTC ---
I compiled and used the latest SVN snapshot:
gcc (GCC) 4.6.0 20101116 (experimental) [trunk revision 166840]
And got the same exact results as before with regard to both -O and -O3 in
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46118
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46099
--- Comment #8 from Alexandre Oliva 2010-11-17
06:43:31 UTC ---
*** Bug 46118 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46516
Summary: gfortran-trunk: error: libgfortran.spec: No such file
or directory
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46516
--- Comment #1 from Joost VandeVondele
2010-11-17 07:03:53 UTC ---
just for reference, this is the configure line
/data/vondele/gcc_bench/gcc_trunk/gcc/configure
--prefix=/data/vondele/gcc_bench/gcc_trunk/build
--enable-languages=c,c++,fortran -
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46516
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fxcoudert at gcc dot
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46516
--- Comment #3 from Tobias Burnus 2010-11-17
07:25:33 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> Can you do some debugging? The file is searched for in passed "-L" via
> gcc/fortran/gfortranspec.c's find_spec_file which is called by
> lang_specific_drive
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46455
--- Comment #29 from Zouzou 2010-11-17 07:38:39
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #28)
> Created attachment 22427 [details]
> add destructors in
> almost the same as the last patch but the destructor calls:
> _S_destroy<__gthread_recursive_mutex_t>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46488
--- Comment #8 from Eric Botcazou 2010-11-17
07:41:44 UTC ---
> And got the same exact results as before with regard to both -O and -O3 in
> combination with -fno-delayed-branch
Sorry for being unclear: starting with the 4.5.2 snapshot, issues r
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46516
--- Comment #4 from Francois-Xavier Coudert
2010-11-17 07:44:00 UTC ---
I suppose it's the --disable-multilib, but I don't know why.
101 - 148 of 148 matches
Mail list logo
