http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46724
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek 2010-12-17
08:55:06 UTC ---
Ah, the trick is that you keep the artificial PARM_DECL out of DECL_ARGUMENTS
as it was and manually add it in var-tracking.
To avoid dropping the DECL_NAME test you could perhaps give
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45310
--- Comment #5 from Steven Bosscher 2010-12-17
09:19:51 UTC ---
The verification error happens after the 'phiprop' pass, and disappears with
-fno-tree-phiprop. Focusing on that pass now...
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45310
--- Comment #6 from Steven Bosscher 2010-12-17
09:31:46 UTC ---
It seems to me that we should remove all traces of the deleted statements,
including EH info. Like so:
Index: tree-ssa-phiprop.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46724
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek 2010-12-17
09:44:03 UTC ---
Created attachment 22794
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22794
gcc46-pr46724-incremental.patch
Incremental patch for that.
BTW, the reason why a location list is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46989
Summary: Mixing "-fprofile-arcs -ftest-coverage" and OpenMP
triggers a bug
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46990
Summary: [OOP] gfortran rejects passing a CLASS variable to
TYPE
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: rejects-valid
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45088
--- Comment #8 from Dodji Seketeli 2010-12-17
10:39:23 UTC ---
Author: dodji
Date: Fri Dec 17 10:39:21 2010
New Revision: 167976
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=167976
Log:
Fix for PR debug/45088
gcc/
* dwarf2out.c (g
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46991
Summary: [OOP] polymorphic assumed-size actual arguments
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: rejects-valid
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39213
--- Comment #14 from Jakub Jelinek 2010-12-17
10:46:09 UTC ---
Created attachment 22795
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22795
gcc46-pr39213.patch
I wonder if this wouldn't fix it (at least, that's similar to how lex.c guards
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25137
Matti Rintala changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bitti at iki dot fi
--- Comment #12 from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25137
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
AssignedTo|paolo.carlini at o
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25137
--- Comment #13 from Jonathan Wakely 2010-12-17
11:33:48 UTC ---
GCC allows it too, otherwise it would be an error not a warning.
But no, there hasn't been any progress I know of, the warning is still given
for std::array in C++0x mode as well a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46985
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46900
--- Comment #7 from Dmitry Gorbachev
2010-12-17 12:13:54 UTC ---
> Thus, the "-march=native" somehow gets
> lost in the single-step compile.
PR42445 ?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44959
Hin-Tak Leung changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||4.5.2
--- Comment #5 from Hin-Tak Leung
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25137
--- Comment #14 from Paolo Carlini 2010-12-17
12:22:50 UTC ---
I'm sorry I don't mean to wrk on this over the next weeks, maybe sombody will
ne interested in picking my patch in this thread and completing it (both for C
and C++): http://gcc.gnu.o
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46849
--- Comment #8 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-12-17 12:31:57 UTC ---
Author: janus
Date: Fri Dec 17 12:31:54 2010
New Revision: 167978
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=167978
Log:
2010-12-17 Janus Weil
Tobias Bu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46849
--- Comment #9 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-12-17 12:34:11 UTC ---
r167978 fixes the rejects-valid part, i.e. comment #3.
ToDo: ICE-on-invalid in comment #2.
uot; .
gcc/fortran:
* trans-types.c: Include "tm.h" .
Modified:
branches/pr46489-20101217-branch/gcc/ChangeLog.46489
branches/pr46489-20101217-branch/gcc/c-family/c-opts.c
branches/pr46489-20101217-branch/gcc/calls.c
branches/pr46489-20101217-branch/gcc/config/alpha/a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46985
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek 2010-12-17
12:53:28 UTC ---
This is called when constant_after_peeling is called on:
D.1682_40 = &tar[0].i + D.1683_39;
(&tar[0].i is is_gimple_min_invariant). Folding folds
&tar[0].i p+ () ((ptr$dim$0$lbound_81
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46761
--- Comment #6 from Alexander Monakov 2010-12-17
12:55:03 UTC ---
Author: amonakov
Date: Fri Dec 17 12:54:59 2010
New Revision: 167980
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=167980
Log:
PR middle-end/46761
* graphite-clast
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46761
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46985
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46987
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46984
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
--- Comment #88 from Jack Howarth 2010-12-17
13:50:40 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #85)
> Created attachment 22787 [details]
> updated #2 darwin candidate function sect. patch
>
>
> o I think that the "no debug symbols" is down to missing pu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46987
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
--- Comment #89 from Dominique d'Humieres
2010-12-17 14:08:12 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #88)
> Iain,
>Do you think the "no debug symbols" warnings in the partition2.C test case
> on darwin10 are the caused by the same issue (lack of pub sy
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
--- Comment #90 from Iain Sandoe 2010-12-17 14:21:00
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #89)
> (In reply to comment #88)
> > Iain,
> >Do you think the "no debug symbols" warnings in the partition2.C test
> > case
> > on darwin10 are the caused by
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
--- Comment #91 from Dominique d'Humieres
2010-12-17 14:31:18 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #90)
> ... In any event the two remaining issues need resolution -- I suspect they
> are
> causing fallout elsewhere.
> ... I just don't see the point in
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46989
--- Comment #1 from Sylvestre Ledru
2010-12-17 14:40:30 UTC ---
Created attachment 22797
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22797
sci_parallel_run.ii
I have been able to reproduce this issue with -v or -save-temps
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46989
--- Comment #2 from Sylvestre Ledru
2010-12-17 14:41:11 UTC ---
Created attachment 22798
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22798
sci_parallel_run.s
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
--- Comment #92 from Jack Howarth 2010-12-17
14:47:01 UTC ---
Don't forget about PR45646 where we used to fail
g++.dg/tree-prof/partition2.C with a linker error of...
ld: in /var/folders/1C/1CdoNxmNFHyOIjNBLNuJhTM/-Tmp-//ccVrX7dM.o, sectio
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
--- Comment #93 from Jack Howarth 2010-12-17
14:59:30 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #90)
> as far as whether Darwin10 supports -freorder-blocks-and-partition
> - there should be no difference before/after the patch (darwin < 10 should not
> suppo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
--- Comment #94 from Iain Sandoe 2010-12-17 15:03:38
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #93)
> (In reply to comment #90)
>
> > as far as whether Darwin10 supports -freorder-blocks-and-partition
> > - there should be no difference before/after the patc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46852
Nathan Froyd changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46794
--- Comment #7 from Daniel Kraft 2010-12-17 15:30:02
UTC ---
Author: domob
Date: Fri Dec 17 15:29:55 2010
New Revision: 167990
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=167990
Log:
2010-12-17 Daniel Kraft
PR fortran/46794
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46794
Daniel Kraft changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46992
Summary: [4.6 Regression] [C++0x] ICE: tree check: expected
record_type or union_type or qual_union_type, have
template_type_parm in lookup_conversions, at
cp/search.c:2452
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46992
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46869
--- Comment #8 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2010-12-17 16:09:09 UTC ---
> --- Comment #6 from Benjamin Kosnik 2010-12-16
> 22:49:23 UTC ---
>
> Does this still happen if -g is removed? (Via -g0)
I've manually checked for
FAIL: 20_ut
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46992
--- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu 2010-12-17 16:09:44
UTC ---
It is caused by revision 166167:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2010-11/msg00053.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46987
--- Comment #3 from Martin Jambor 2010-12-17
16:12:25 UTC ---
I've nailed this down to
gimple_call_set_arg (call_stmt, 0, tmp);
in gimple_adjust_this_by_delta. When I comment it out, the corruption
goes away (though the produced code is of c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44332
serowk at yandex dot ru changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||serowk at yandex dot ru
--- Comm
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35294
--- Comment #11 from serowk at yandex dot ru 2010-12-17 16:16:28 UTC ---
Created attachment 22799
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22799
gcc 35294 possible Fix
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35294
--- Comment #12 from serowk at yandex dot ru 2010-12-17 16:17:07 UTC ---
Created attachment 22800
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22800
gcc 4.4.5 possible fix
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46970
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35294
--- Comment #13 from serowk at yandex dot ru 2010-12-17 16:22:36 UTC ---
I have attached two versions of the patch (gcc 4.2.4 and gcc 4.4.5). Patched
gcc 4.2.4 seems to work. With the patched gcc 4.4.5, I ran into bug 44332, and
can not check. For
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46890
Nathan Froyd changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46993
Summary: Optimization on i386 lead to user-visible traps during
floating-point operations
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46869
--- Comment #9 from Paolo Carlini 2010-12-17
17:00:59 UTC ---
Maybe I'm missing something: can't we just add -g0 to the dg-options string?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46869
--- Comment #10 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2010-12-17 17:02:53 UTC ---
> --- Comment #9 from Paolo Carlini
> 2010-12-17 17:00:59 UTC ---
> Maybe I'm missing something: can't we just add -g0 to the dg-options string?
Sure, I just wa
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46869
--- Comment #11 from Paolo Carlini 2010-12-17
17:06:47 UTC ---
I see. I think you want to change libstdc++.exp then.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46939
--- Comment #8 from John Regehr 2010-12-17 17:11:05
UTC ---
Here is the current performance that we measure, in cycles:
gcc-head: 43
icc: 41
clang-head: 41
suncc: 42
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46970
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek 2010-12-17
17:14:01 UTC ---
Created attachment 22801
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22801
gcc46-pr46970.patch
Untested patch that fixes this and keeps ltrans-3.c working.
I don't feel very
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46778
--- Comment #3 from Paolo Carlini 2010-12-17
17:40:46 UTC ---
Jason, sorry for bothering: I would be interested in knowing in particular your
opinion about t4, where is_constructible_mini "returns" true, that is, isn't
just that errors are not su
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46670
--- Comment #5 from Jason Merrill 2010-12-17
17:47:32 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Fri Dec 17 17:47:27 2010
New Revision: 167993
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=167993
Log:
PR c++/46670
* pt.c (value_dependent_expres
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46869
--- Comment #12 from Jonathan Wakely 2010-12-17
17:51:23 UTC ---
or CXXFLAGS_default in scripts/testsuite_flags ?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46994
Summary: [4.6 Regression] ICE: in check_loop_closed_ssa_use, at
tree-ssa-loop-manip.c:422 with -fgraphite-identity
-fno-tree-dce -ffast-math
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46978
--- Comment #5 from Mikael Morin 2010-12-17
19:28:36 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> Thus, a good candidate would be the TRANSFER rewriting patch for PR 45648.
>
You mean the TRANSPOSE rewriting patch.
I was hoping not to be the culprit befor
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46994
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46995
Summary: [4.6 Regression] ICE: verify_ssa failed: definition in
block 11 does not dominate use in block 16 with
-fgraphite-identity -fno-tree-dce -ffast-math
Product: gcc
Vers
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46995
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46394
--- Comment #2 from Marc Glisse 2010-12-17
20:04:18 UTC ---
Note that if I change the function to:
template,
void
>::value
>::type
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46394
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dseketel at redhat dot com
--- Comment #3 from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46465
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46755
--- Comment #4 from Steven Bosscher 2010-12-17
20:40:20 UTC ---
*** Bug 46465 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43672
Kai Tietz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46990
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46990
Mikael Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikael at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20385
--- Comment #10 from Paolo Bonzini 2010-12-17 21:23:38
UTC ---
Author: bonzini
Date: Fri Dec 17 21:23:36 2010
New Revision: 167999
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=167999
Log:
gcc:
2010-12-17 Paolo Bonzini
PR c/20385
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46996
Summary: xgcc: Internal error: Illegal instruction (program
cc1)
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44982
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46996
--- Comment #1 from cryintothebluesky at googlemail dot com 2010-12-17 21:30:32
UTC ---
Created attachment 22804
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22804
gzipped gcc/insn-attrtab.i file
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46990
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |UNCONFIRMED
Ever Confirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43631
--- Comment #2 from Steven Bosscher 2010-12-17
21:43:13 UTC ---
Jakub, ping?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46996
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46997
Summary: new ia64 vector instructions are broken on HP-UX
(big-endian)
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43977
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46990
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|201
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
--- Comment #95 from Dominique d'Humieres
2010-12-17 22:07:55 UTC ---
For the reasons given below, I have reached the conclusion that the failures
for g++.dg/tree-prof/partition2.C are not caused by the above patches, but
exposed by any patch fix
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45552
Sebastian Pop changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45758
Sebastian Pop changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tolkiendili at gmail dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45375
--- Comment #20 from H.J. Lu 2010-12-17 22:25:56
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #19)
> Filled in the GNU LD bug as
> http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12323
It should have been fixed on hjl/lto-mixed branch at
http://git.kernel.org/?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46807
--- Comment #2 from rwgk at yahoo dot com 2010-12-17 22:34:16 UTC ---
Using a binary search I found that svn rev. 161579 introduced the ICE.
(Note that I had to replace gcc/config/i386/i386.md with rev. 161594
since gcc doesn't build otherwise.)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46807
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski 2010-12-17
22:37:56 UTC ---
Can you provide the preprocessed source?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46974
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pault at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46998
Summary: [4.6 Regression] FAIL: objc.dg/exceptions-4.m
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: testsuite
AssignedTo:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46998
--- Comment #1 from H.J. Lu 2010-12-17 23:48:36
UTC ---
/export/gnu/import/svn/gcc-test-intel64/src-trunk/gcc/testsuite/objc.dg/exceptions-4.m:
In function 'test':^M
/export/gnu/import/svn/gcc-test-intel64/src-trunk/gcc/testsuite/objc.dg/exceptio
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
--- Comment #96 from Iain Sandoe 2010-12-17 23:56:16
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #95)
> For the reasons given below, I have reached the conclusion that the failures
> for g++.dg/tree-prof/partition2.C are not caused by the above patches, but
> e
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46974
--- Comment #2 from Steve Kargl
2010-12-18 00:01:03 UTC ---
On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 11:15:44PM +, kargl at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> Anyone know why this flag is needed?
>
Well, the answer is to let simplify_transfer_[34].f90
in the tests
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46996
--- Comment #3 from cryintothebluesky at googlemail dot com 2010-12-18 00:16:48
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> Please run cc1 under gdb and show us the "Illegal instruction".
I think the illegal instruction is caused by stack overflow:
gdb p
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46998
Nicola Pero changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46999
Summary: Problem compiling gcc 4.5.2
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libgcj
AssignedTo: unassig...@gcc.gnu.or
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46992
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46670
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zsojka at seznam dot cz
--- Comment #6 fr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46782
--- Comment #4 from Alexandre Oliva 2010-12-18
06:24:55 UTC ---
Author: aoliva
Date: Sat Dec 18 06:24:52 2010
New Revision: 168013
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=168013
Log:
gcc/ChangeLog:
PR debug/46782
* cfgcleanup.c (tr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46756
--- Comment #4 from Alexandre Oliva 2010-12-18
06:25:12 UTC ---
Author: aoliva
Date: Sat Dec 18 06:25:09 2010
New Revision: 168014
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=168014
Log:
gcc/ChangeLog:
PR debug/46756
* jump.c (mark_all
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46756
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46782
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
1 - 100 of 103 matches
Mail list logo
