http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45552
--- Comment #4 from Sebastian Pop 2010-12-14 19:18:56
UTC ---
Reduced testcase:
typedef struct
{
double z;
} Vector;
typedef struct
{
float *vertex;
float *normal;
} VertexArray;
typedef struct
{
Vector *vertex;
int num_vertex;
} Objec
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46944
Summary: gcc should accept -fuse-linker-plugin only if linker
handles -plugin
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46945
Summary: [4.6 Regression] gfortran.dg/unpack_zerosize_1.f90
FAILs with -ftree-vrp -fno-tree-ccp -fno-tree-fre
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norma
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31403
--- Comment #8 from Stephen.Bartlett at opentv dot com 2010-12-14 19:48:20 UTC
---
I am getting the same error using gcc 4.4.5 20101112 (Red Hat 4.4.5-2),
with Fedora 13 on an 64 bit machine/OS.
Are you aware of a solution, or any limitations u
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
--- Comment #35 from Iain Sandoe 2010-12-14 19:53:34
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #34)
> If I did not make any mistake, the updated patch in comment #32 does not fix
> the failures in comments #29 and #31.
no, you are correct - I think we now ha
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
--- Comment #36 from Dominique d'Humieres
2010-12-14 20:05:43 UTC ---
> fails in 28, 29 and 31 are still present.
On which platform do you see the failures in 28? I don't see them on
x86_64-apple-darwin10.5.0 when doing a full test of g++.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46891
Ralf Wildenhues changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|x86_64-apple-darwin10 |*-apple-darwin{9,10}
Host|x86
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46520
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[4.6 Regression]|[4.6 Regression]
|libqu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45330
--- Comment #3 from Nathan Froyd 2010-12-14
20:31:30 UTC ---
Author: froydnj
Date: Tue Dec 14 20:31:22 2010
New Revision: 167814
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=167814
Log:
gcc/cp/
PR c++/45330
* cp-tree.h (suggest_
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46946
Summary: contradiction in docs for -Ofast and -ffast-math
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
AssignedTo: unass
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46945
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
--- Comment #38 from Jan Hubicka 2010-12-14
21:28:12 UTC ---
I posted the fixes, but it should not affect -fno-reorder-blocks-and-partition.
Any idea what is going wrong here?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
--- Comment #39 from Jan Hubicka 2010-12-14
21:32:15 UTC ---
The patch I had in mind
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-12/msg01129.html
The hunk
Index: gcc/opts.c
===
--- gcc/o
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
--- Comment #40 from Iain Sandoe 2010-12-14 21:37:53
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #38)
> I posted the fixes, but it should not affect
> -fno-reorder-blocks-and-partition.
> Any idea what is going wrong here?
well, unless some interaction from t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46912
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mrs at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46947
Summary: Segmentation Fault compiling templates with function
pointers
Product: gcc
Version: 4.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
Priority: P3
Compon
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46910
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely 2010-12-14
22:13:31 UTC ---
Author: redi
Date: Tue Dec 14 22:13:26 2010
New Revision: 167819
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=167819
Log:
2010-12-14 Jonathan Wakely
PR libstdc++/46
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46910
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46947
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
--- Comment #41 from Jan Hubicka 2010-12-14 22:46:09
UTC ---
> well, unless some interaction from the typo.. (possible) .. AFAICT most of the
> fallout is multiple definitions of .eh symbols...
Actually forcing hot&cold sections to coincide migh
nsupported tests1
=== g++ Summary ===
# of unsupported tests2
/opt/gcc/build_w/gcc/testsuite/g++/../../g++ version 4.6.0 20101214
(experimental) [trunk revision 167812p3] (GCC)
I'll apply the Honza's patch and regtest during the night.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46948
Summary: [4.6 Regression] Undefined reference errors, LTO, and
visibility
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45791
--- Comment #9 from Jan Hubicka 2010-12-14
23:15:16 UTC ---
OK, main() code seems to optimize out that is an imrovement. Is it optimized
away with your patch pre-IPA too?
Derived() is also devirtualizable:
Derived::Derived() (struct Derived *
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45791
--- Comment #10 from Jan Hubicka 2010-12-14
23:17:13 UTC ---
Eh,
wanted to paste:
D.2236_10 = (int (*__vtbl_ptr_type) (void)) f;
OBJ_TYPE_REF(D.2236_10;D.2215_3->2) (D.2215_3);
I told ccp should IMO optimize it, but doesn't. I guess it is bec
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
--- Comment #43 from Jack Howarth 2010-12-14
23:21:35 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #39)
> The patch I had in mind
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-12/msg01129.html
>
> The hunk
> Index: gcc/opts.c
> ==
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46940
--- Comment #2 from Jan Hubicka 2010-12-14
23:22:27 UTC ---
Author: hubicka
Date: Tue Dec 14 23:22:23 2010
New Revision: 167822
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=167822
Log:
PR lto/46940
PR lto/44463
* lto-symtab.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44463
--- Comment #5 from Jan Hubicka 2010-12-14
23:22:27 UTC ---
Author: hubicka
Date: Tue Dec 14 23:22:23 2010
New Revision: 167822
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=167822
Log:
PR lto/46940
PR lto/44463
* lto-symtab.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46940
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44463
--- Comment #6 from Jan Hubicka 2010-12-14
23:24:20 UTC ---
Note that the fix solves the problem just partly. We now have duplicate
definition of the symbol with -fno-use-linker-plugin -flto-partition=1to1
This is because the problem in can_prev
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45133
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely 2010-12-14
23:27:20 UTC ---
Author: redi
Date: Tue Dec 14 23:27:17 2010
New Revision: 167823
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=167823
Log:
2010-12-14 Jonathan Wakely
PR libstdc++/45
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45133
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44966
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45791
--- Comment #11 from Martin Jambor 2010-12-14
23:35:29 UTC ---
I believe Richi's comment #14 in PR 46076 applies here as well.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
--- Comment #44 from Iain Sandoe 2010-12-14 23:39:34
UTC ---
Created attachment 22758
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22758
merge between Honza's and Iain's patches
combined patch.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
--- Comment #45 from Iain Sandoe 2010-12-14 23:43:04
UTC ---
the majority of fails are now:
warning: no debug symbols in executable (-arch x)
which is probably not good news ..
(but possibly a dsymutil issue)...
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
--- Comment #46 from Iain Sandoe 2010-12-14 23:44:20
UTC ---
a better prune
Index: gcc/testsuite/lib/prune.exp
===
--- gcc/testsuite/lib/prune.exp(revision 167813)
+++ gcc/t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
--- Comment #47 from Dominique d'Humieres
2010-12-14 23:51:20 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #39)
> The patch I had in mind
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-12/msg01129.html
With this patch applied on top of revision 167812 without any of
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45631
--- Comment #2 from Jan Hubicka 2010-12-14
23:52:45 UTC ---
I guess it is the simple algorithm we use to work out most common value.
We end up with
Trying transformations on stmt p_1(D) ();
Indirect call value:12 match:48 all:90.
The most commo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
--- Comment #48 from Jan Hubicka 2010-12-15
00:06:12 UTC ---
Uh, this is getting confusing. We are really tracking 3 problems iteracting
with each other (and prevosly hidding each other)
1) darwin_text_section returns unlikely_text section that
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46949
Summary: ICE when weakref is used on a definition (internal
compiler error: in function_and_variable_visibility,
at ipa.c:904)
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45791
--- Comment #12 from Jan Hubicka 2010-12-15
00:10:45 UTC ---
No, this is different, since OBJ_TYPE_REF is sitting here and it imply type
conversion in the way we implement it right now.
There is no type mismatch in between the original address an
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45791
--- Comment #13 from Jan Hubicka 2010-12-15
00:12:54 UTC ---
... but obviously the problem still is that we don't devirtualize this early
enough for inlining. The low level code should be able to do so if FRE+CCP was
added as early pass or FRE w
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46820
--- Comment #12 from Dmitry Gorbachev
2010-12-15 00:15:24 UTC ---
It's weak, alias("...").
"At present, a declaration to which weakref is attached can only be static."
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
--- Comment #49 from Iain Sandoe 2010-12-15 00:28:04
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #48)
> Uh, this is getting confusing. We are really tracking 3 problems iteracting
> with each other (and prevosly hidding each other)
indeed.
> 1) darwin_text_s
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46930
--- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill 2010-12-15
00:35:20 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Wed Dec 15 00:35:17 2010
New Revision: 167834
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=167834
Log:
PR c++/46930
* decl.c (grokdeclarator): Rej
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31403
--- Comment #9 from Kazumoto Kojima 2010-12-15
00:36:39 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> I am getting the same error using gcc 4.4.5 20101112 (Red Hat 4.4.5-2),
> with Fedora 13 on an 64 bit machine/OS.
Which version of gcc do you use for sour
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45375
--- Comment #19 from Jan Hubicka 2010-12-15
00:44:25 UTC ---
Filled in the GNU LD bug as
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12323
. -I../../../../gcc/libquadmath -g -O2 -m64 -MT math/frexpq.lo
-
MD -MP -MF math/.deps/frexpq.Tpo -c ../../../../gcc/libquadmath/math/frexpq.c
-
fno-common -DPIC -o math/.libs/frexpq.o
make[1]: *** [all-target-libada] Error 2
make[1]: *** Waiting for unfinished jobs
d...@macpro-xp:~/gnu/gcc/objdir/prev-gcc$ ./xgcc -B./ -v
Reading specs from ./specs
COLLECT_GCC=./xgcc
COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=./lto-wrapper
Target: i686-apple-darwin9
Configured with: ../gcc/configure --build=i686-apple-darwin9
--host=i686-apple-darwin9 --target=i686-apple-darwin9 --with-tune=generic
--prefix=/opt/gnu/gcc/gcc-4.6.0 --with-gmp=/opt/gnu/gcc/gcc-4.6.0
--enable-debug=no --disable-nls
--enable-languages=c,c++,objc,fortran,obj-c++,java,ada --enable-threads=posix
--enable-__cxa_atexit --enable-java-gc=boehm
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.6.0 20101214 (experimental) [trunk revision 167825] (GCC)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
--- Comment #50 from Jack Howarth 2010-12-15
01:18:18 UTC ---
I noticed that the proposed patch at
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-12/msg01129.html also seems to have an
error here...
*** machopic_select_section (tree decl,
**
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46893
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46951
Summary: 30_threads/future/members/45133.cc failed
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
AssignedTo: unas
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46951
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46951
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely 2010-12-15
01:37:50 UTC ---
it only seems to fail on i686, this run failed too:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2010-12/msg01246.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46951
--- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu 2010-12-15 01:41:21
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> it only seems to fail on i686, this run failed too:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2010-12/msg01246.html
I got this on Fedora 14/x86-64 with gcc configur
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44897
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2010-10-02 20:21:12 |2010-12-14 20:21:12
--- Comment #7 from Jan
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
--- Comment #51 from Jan Hubicka 2010-12-15 01:52:59
UTC ---
> which I assume should have be a change to...
>
> ! base_section = darwin_text_section (weak);
Ah, yes. Sorry for the typo. Does it make any difference?
Honza
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44959
Hin-Tak Leung changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||4.5.0, 4.5.1
--- Comment #3 from Hin-Tak
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46951
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely 2010-12-15
01:59:59 UTC ---
doh - I need to add -pthread to the dg-options - fix on the way...
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46951
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely 2010-12-15
02:07:11 UTC ---
Author: redi
Date: Wed Dec 15 02:07:07 2010
New Revision: 167839
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=167839
Log:
2010-12-15 Jonathan Wakely
PR libstdc++/46
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46951
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely 2010-12-15
02:08:44 UTC ---
should be ok now - I had configured with --enable-libstdcxx-time=rt which meant
I didn't need -pthread, so the tests passed for me
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46952
Summary: Spurious "recursive call" error with type bound
procedure
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
--- Comment #52 from Jack Howarth 2010-12-15
03:14:56 UTC ---
Created attachment 22760
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22760
reduced patch
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46953
Summary: [4.6 Regression] profiledbootstrap failed
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: bootstrap
AssignedTo: unas
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
--- Comment #53 from Jack Howarth 2010-12-15
03:19:51 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #51)
> > which I assume should have be a change to...
> >
> > ! base_section = darwin_text_section (weak);
>
> Ah, yes. Sorry for the typo. Does it ma
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46924
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46862
Janis Johnson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46954
Summary: FDEs possibly left unsorted in unwind-dw2-fde.c
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: other
AssignedTo:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46928
--- Comment #6 from Sebastian Pop 2010-12-15 05:04:43
UTC ---
Author: spop
Date: Wed Dec 15 05:04:40 2010
New Revision: 167843
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=167843
Log:
Fix PR46928: handle "A[p] == A[p]" in data dep analy
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46845
--- Comment #6 from Sebastian Pop 2010-12-15 05:04:52
UTC ---
Author: spop
Date: Wed Dec 15 05:04:50 2010
New Revision: 167844
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=167844
Log:
Fix PR46845: handle scop parameters before scev anal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45948
--- Comment #7 from Sebastian Pop 2010-12-15 05:04:34
UTC ---
Author: spop
Date: Wed Dec 15 05:04:30 2010
New Revision: 167842
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=167842
Log:
Fix PR45948: add ssa defs from builtin partitions to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46928
Sebastian Pop changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45948
Sebastian Pop changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46845
Sebastian Pop changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40894
Hin-Tak Leung changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||
Known to fail|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46930
--- Comment #3 from Paolo Carlini 2010-12-15
06:03:45 UTC ---
Many thanks!
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46930
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45261
ats changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||atstivalet at gmail dot com
--- Comment #9 from ats
101 - 178 of 178 matches
Mail list logo
