http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46952
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Keywords|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46952
--- Comment #2 from Tobias Burnus 2010-12-15
08:37:42 UTC ---
Reduced test case. Crucial seems to be that "inter" and "bar" call "foo" and
that foo and bar are defined via the interface "inter".
Similarly to gfortran and ifort also Crayftn rejec
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46938
Dave Korn changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
URL|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46951
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
CC|jwakely.gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46938
--- Comment #2 from Dave Korn 2010-12-15 09:51:30
UTC ---
Author: davek
Date: Wed Dec 15 09:51:26 2010
New Revision: 167848
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=167848
Log:
PR testsuite/46938
* gcc.dg/pr43157.c: Add dg-r
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46938
Dave Korn changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46893
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46955
Summary: Missing DW_AT_const_value from
DW_TAG_template_value_parameter
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46956
Summary: [4.6 Regression] g++ PCH fails
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
AssignedTo: unassig...@gcc.gnu.or
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46955
Dodji Seketeli changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41736
--- Comment #5 from Dodji Seketeli 2010-12-15
10:21:41 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> The ordinary cases work fine with svn trunk gcc.
> However, member pointers still don't have all the info emitted.
> Consider this test case:
>
> struct S
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
--- Comment #54 from Iain Sandoe 2010-12-15 10:22:27
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #49)
As Dominique surmised, this is a different problem:
> as per Comment #28/30:
> FAIL: g++.dg/pch/system-1.C -g assembly comparison
> FAIL: g++.dg/pch/system
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46869
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|hppa2.0w-hp-hpux11.11 |hppa2.0w-hp-hpux11.11,
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46671
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46945
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46945
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45388
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46956
--- Comment #1 from Jan Hubicka 2010-12-15 11:55:41 UTC
---
__GLOBAL__sub_I__GCC_gcc_4_6_reghunt_gcc_testsuite_g__.dg_pch_system_1.C_867072EB_51FA32F0:
__GLOBAL__sub_I__GCC_gcc_4_6_reghunt_gcc_testsuite_g__.dg_pch_system_1.C_867072EB_B88D4144:
H
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46945
--- Comment #3 from Janne Blomqvist 2010-12-15 11:57:28
UTC ---
The offending patch is most likely
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-11/msg02499.html
Wrt. the recent changes in the definition of size_t, there is
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46869
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||paolo.carlini at oracle dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46939
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
--- Comment #55 from Iain Sandoe 2010-12-15 12:36:00
UTC ---
this solves
FAIL: g++.dg/other/pr22003.C (test for excess errors)
but we have total failure with "-O3 -g" for gcc.
[all fails are warning: no debug symbols in executable (-arch )
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46939
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #2 from Jan Hubicka 2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46838
--- Comment #3 from Salvatore Filippone
2010-12-15 13:08:12 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> The default initializer is obtained via expr.c's gfc_default_initializer.
The original code gives
Overall matrix creation time : 1.69176E-01
[local
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46956
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46649
--- Comment #8 from Alexander Monakov 2010-12-15
13:08:47 UTC ---
Author: amonakov
Date: Wed Dec 15 13:08:41 2010
New Revision: 167854
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=167854
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/46649
* sel-sche
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46649
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
--- Comment #56 from Jan Hubicka 2010-12-15
13:10:15 UTC ---
Hi,
thanks for testing. I wonder why we need to add those +DEF_SECTION fields?
I think the infinite recursion problem should be fixed by dropping the whole
machinery on selecting secti
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46053
--- Comment #5 from Martin Jambor 2010-12-15
13:19:50 UTC ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Wed Dec 15 13:19:46 2010
New Revision: 167855
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=167855
Log:
2010-12-15 Martin Jambor
PR tree-optimiza
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46287
--- Comment #4 from Martin Jambor 2010-12-15
13:19:51 UTC ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Wed Dec 15 13:19:46 2010
New Revision: 167855
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=167855
Log:
2010-12-15 Martin Jambor
PR tree-optimiza
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46242
--- Comment #4 from Martin Jambor 2010-12-15
13:19:51 UTC ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Wed Dec 15 13:19:46 2010
New Revision: 167855
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=167855
Log:
2010-12-15 Martin Jambor
PR tree-optimiza
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
--- Comment #57 from Iain Sandoe 2010-12-15 13:25:07
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #56)
> I wonder why we need to add those +DEF_SECTION fields?
> I think the infinite recursion problem should be fixed by dropping the whole
> machinery on select
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46939
--- Comment #3 from Jan Hubicka 2010-12-15
13:28:56 UTC ---
Created attachment 22763
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22763
patch I am testing
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
--- Comment #58 from Jan Hubicka 2010-12-15 13:33:15
UTC ---
> [ the key change is that there need to be coalesced sections for the DECL_WEAK
> () -- I am not strongly saying the sections need to be pre-declared - if you
> think that named sectio
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46956
--- Comment #3 from Iain Sandoe 2010-12-15 13:35:16
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> Ought to be cured by http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2010-12/msg00364.html
yes, with your patch pch.exp=* clean for c/c++/ObjC*.
[full regtest not done].
thanks
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46868
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||froydnj at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46868
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gcc at abeckmann dot de
--- Comment #3 fr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46855
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #22758|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
--- Comment #60 from Jan Hubicka 2010-12-15 13:49:51
UTC ---
Hi,
yes please try with the darwin bits alone and the hunk in opts.c enabling
function reordering when partitioning is on.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
--- Comment #61 from Iain Sandoe 2010-12-15 13:56:07
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #59)
> Created attachment 22764 [details]
> Honza+Darwin mods
> If you think I should test with just the darwin bits, OK I can do that.
with *only* the darwin pat
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
--- Comment #62 from Iain Sandoe 2010-12-15 14:00:40
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #61)
> (In reply to comment #59)
> > Created attachment 22764 [details] [details]
> > Honza+Darwin mods
>
> > If you think I should test with just the darwin bits,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
--- Comment #63 from Jan Hubicka 2010-12-15 14:07:16
UTC ---
OK,
if the darwin changes + opts.c change solves the problem, lets submit the patch
and I will try to re-review the bb-reorder patch and we can deal with the
problem
incrementally. Than
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46242
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46287
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46053
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
--- Comment #64 from Jack Howarth 2010-12-15
14:34:03 UTC ---
Iain,
My old radar bug report numbered 7289379, "linker warnings when no unwind
labels are emitted while targeting 10.6", my be have some useful information.
The report was...
08-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46957
Summary: http://blog.regehr.org/archives/320 Example 1
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
C
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46232
--- Comment #6 from Martin Jambor 2010-12-15
15:05:40 UTC ---
Well, SRA currently propagates sub-accesses across assignments only
from the RHS to the LHS. I will have a look at how intrusive it would
be to add the other direction as well.
Never
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
--- Comment #65 from Jack Howarth 2010-12-15
15:15:42 UTC ---
Iain,
Can you try labeling the unlikely sections with the function names as Apple
suggested and see if that helps with the problems with -g using honza patch?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
--- Comment #66 from Iain Sandoe 2010-12-15 15:17:29
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #64)
Thanks Jack, I'll take a look at this info, if necessary.
a couple of points;
this below has subsequently been replaced with an #undef of the target hook in
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46958
Summary: Go ARM Does Not Compile
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: go
AssignedTo: i...@airs.com
Reporte
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46959
Summary: M68K Not Supported by Go
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: go
AssignedTo: i...@airs.com
Report
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46960
Summary: MIPS Not Supported by Go
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: go
AssignedTo: i...@airs.com
Report
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46961
Summary: PowerPC Not Supported By Go
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: go
AssignedTo: i...@airs.com
Rep
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46962
Summary: SPARC Not Supported By Go
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: go
AssignedTo: i...@airs.com
Repor
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40947
Hin-Tak Leung changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||
Known to fail|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46963
Summary: SPARC64 Not Supported by Go
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: go
AssignedTo: i...@airs.com
Rep
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39976
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #30
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43548
--- Comment #4 from Alan Hourihane 2010-12-15
16:20:56 UTC ---
Created attachment 22766
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22766
preprocessed source
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43548
Alan Hourihane changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #22766|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46964
Summary: ARM Not Supported by Go
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: go
AssignedTo: i...@airs.com
Reporte
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43548
--- Comment #7 from Alan Hourihane 2010-12-15
16:30:29 UTC ---
If I disable -O2 it works.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46959
--- Comment #1 from Joel Sherrill 2010-12-15 16:03:49
UTC ---
How does this look for m68k? I recall d0/d1/a0/a1 are clobbered by the caller.
a6 is a frame pointer, a7 is the stack pointer. So is this the set that needs
to be handled for m68k?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46965
Summary: SH Go Does not Compile (__builtin_return_address)
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: go
AssignedTo: i..
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45791
--- Comment #14 from Martin Jambor 2010-12-15
16:07:31 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #9)
> OK, main() code seems to optimize out that is an imrovement. Is it optimized
> away with your patch pre-IPA too?
Yes. Just before IPA, in fact.
>
> Der
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46221
Dave Korn changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|powerpc-linux, i?86-linux, |powerpc-linux, i?86-linux,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46959
--- Comment #2 from Andreas Schwab 2010-12-15 16:40:08
UTC ---
You cannot put reserved registers in the clobber list.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46674
--- Comment #11 from Dave Korn 2010-12-15 16:17:54
UTC ---
Created attachment 22765
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22765
Lower all C identifiers to actual assembler symbols for comparison.
This should resolve the problem by
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43548
Alan Hourihane changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||alanh at fairlite dot co.uk
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43548
--- Comment #6 from Alan Hourihane 2010-12-15
16:24:57 UTC ---
Ignore comment 3, wrong output. Here's the correct one.
m68k-atari-mint-g++ -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -O2 -pipe -D_GNU_SOURCE -MT
pcrecpp_unittest.o -MD -MP -MF .deps/pcrecpp_unittest.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46964
--- Comment #1 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2010-12-15 16:57:07 UTC ---
On Wed, 15 Dec 2010, joel at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> does not define SAVE_REGS in gcc-go.c for ARM. Is this correct for ARM?
>
> #elif defined(__arm__)
> #define S
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46869
--- Comment #5 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2010-12-15 17:08:00 UTC ---
> --- Comment #4 from Paolo Carlini
> 2010-12-15 12:20:12 UTC ---
> Rainer, if in order to reduce the noise you want to simply xfail for now the
> failing tests i
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46232
--- Comment #7 from Eric Botcazou 2010-12-15
17:07:44 UTC ---
> Nevertheless, this has been the case in 4.5 as well, how come the
> testcase does not fail there?
The generated code is identical on mainline and 4.5 branch so there is no
actual re
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
--- Comment #67 from Iain Sandoe 2010-12-15 17:11:28
UTC ---
Created attachment 22768
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22768
darwin-function-section-patch
OK - sorted out a couple of minor glitches...
...I'm going to reg-test
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28105
--- Comment #11 from Janne Blomqvist 2010-12-15
17:15:31 UTC ---
Author: jb
Date: Wed Dec 15 17:15:25 2010
New Revision: 167860
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=167860
Log:
PR 28105 Remove size<0 checks before calling malloc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42083
--- Comment #5 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org
2010-12-15 17:35:09 UTC ---
Author: paolo
Date: Wed Dec 15 17:35:04 2010
New Revision: 167862
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=167862
Log:
/cp
2010-12-15 Paolo Carlini
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46404
Sebastian Pop changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45310
--- Comment #3 from Zdenek Sojka 2010-12-15 17:39:39
UTC ---
Created attachment 22769
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22769
another testcase
$ gcc -O -fnon-call-exceptions pr45310-2.C
pr45310-2.C: In destructor 'B::~B()':
pr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46232
--- Comment #8 from Martin Jambor 2010-12-15
17:40:00 UTC ---
I see. I think this is not a P1 stuff then and should definitely not
block a release. I'd rather not promise anything, but I'll add this
to my TODO list and hope I will try to addres
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42083
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46404
--- Comment #4 from Sebastian Pop 2010-12-15 17:55:26
UTC ---
Ok, I will have a look at that one as well.
Thanks for pointing out that this error was not fixed, but probably hidden.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46815
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek 2010-12-15
17:50:40 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Dec 15 17:50:34 2010
New Revision: 167865
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=167865
Log:
PR debug/46815
* cp-gimplify.c (cp_generici
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46232
--- Comment #9 from Eric Botcazou 2010-12-15
17:58:51 UTC ---
> I see. I think this is not a P1 stuff then and should definitely not
> block a release. I'd rather not promise anything, but I'll add this
> to my TODO list and hope I will try to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46404
--- Comment #3 from Zdenek Sojka 2010-12-15 17:52:09
UTC ---
I can't reproduce it neither with the reduced testcase, but the original one
still fails (I am sorry for not mentioning it was reduced from
gcc.dg/graphite/pr42284.c):
$ gcc -O -fgraph
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46801
--- Comment #4 from Martin Jambor 2010-12-15
18:13:27 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-11/msg02722.html
Does this mean it also fails on i586 or is this a hppa thing?
Thanks.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46801
--- Comment #5 from Eric Botcazou 2010-12-15
18:21:38 UTC ---
> Does this mean it also fails on i586 or is this a hppa thing?
It fails everywhere.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46966
Summary: [4.6 Regression] ICE: in execute_cse_reciprocals, at
tree-ssa-math-opts.c:474 with -floop-interchange
-fno-tree-copy-prop -fno-tree-loop-im
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.
arget: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
Configured with: ../gcc-trunk/configure --prefix=/home/jey/bins
--program-suffix=-trunk --with-cpu=native --with-arch=native
--enable-languages=c,c++,fortran
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.6.0 20101215 (experimental) (GCC)
COLLECT_GCC_OPTIONS='-v' '
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46968
--- Comment #1 from Jey Kottalam 2010-12-15
19:20:34 UTC ---
Created attachment 22771
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22771
testcase
This is from Intel TBB 3.0.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46968
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46670
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gcc at jey dot kottalam.net
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40947
--- Comment #5 from Ralf Wildenhues 2010-12-15
19:23:05 UTC ---
Can you attach alphaev68-dec-osf5.1a/libjava/config.log for this failure
please?
Thanks.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46969
Summary: -O -ftree-vectorize -ftree-parallelize-loops=2
-fcompare-debug
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Comp
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46969
--- Comment #1 from Zdenek Sojka 2010-12-15 19:29:53
UTC ---
Created attachment 22773
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22773
dumps - pr46969.*gkd
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46967
Summary: lots of testsuite failures with libgomp on
hppa-hp-hpux11.31
Product: gcc
Version: 4.4.5
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compon
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46970
Summary: [4.3/4.4/4.5/4.6 Regression] wrong code with -Os
-ftree-loop-linear
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46969
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46966
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46945
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek 2010-12-15
20:20:19 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Dec 15 20:20:10 2010
New Revision: 167871
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=167871
Log:
PR fortran/46945
* trans-array.c (gfc_array
1 - 100 of 157 matches
Mail list logo
