http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46072
Michael Haubenwallner changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||michael.haubenwallner at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47448
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Summary|Accepts
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45422
--- Comment #32 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-01-25
09:02:57 UTC ---
IMHO for P1 purposes we should just look at compile time regressions from 4.5
here at this point. On the #c1 testcase I get with --enable-checking=release
current trunk and current 4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38292
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47439
--- Comment #1 from Janne Blomqvist 2011-01-25 09:28:14
UTC ---
Seems the reason for Windows _mktemp() behavior is due to replicating some
age-old BSD behavior. From the Linux mktemp(3) manpage:
BUGS
Never use mktemp(). Some implementati
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47454
Summary: registers are not allocated according to its preferred
order
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compon
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45422
--- Comment #33 from Joost VandeVondele
2011-01-25 09:47:10 UTC ---
I just note that the timings reported by David and Jakub are not for the
compile options I originally reported.
With 4.6 (20110117) I now have
gfortran -c -ftime-report -cpp -
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47411
--- Comment #5 from Richard Guenther 2011-01-25
09:48:12 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Jan 25 09:48:07 2011
New Revision: 169222
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=169222
Log:
2011-01-25 Richard Guenther
PR tree-op
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44699
--- Comment #18 from Richard Guenther 2011-01-25
09:48:12 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Jan 25 09:48:07 2011
New Revision: 169222
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=169222
Log:
2011-01-25 Richard Guenther
PR tree-o
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47411
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47265
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zsojka at seznam dot cz
--- Comment #3 fr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47443
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45422
--- Comment #34 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-01-25
09:52:23 UTC ---
-march=native is ambiguous, please see with -v what actually is being used.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47414
--- Comment #6 from Richard Guenther 2011-01-25
09:55:58 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Jan 25 09:55:54 2011
New Revision: 169223
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=169223
Log:
2011-01-25 Richard Guenther
PR middle-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47414
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37773
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45422
--- Comment #35 from Joost VandeVondele
2011-01-25 10:03:02 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #34)
> -march=native is ambiguous, please see with -v what actually is being used.
This was mentioned in the initial comment:
-march=k8-sse3 -mcx16 -msahf
-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37773
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-01-25
10:08:42 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> (In reply to comment #3)
> > Works as desigened. Really ;)
>
> So what is the point of -fmax-errors=N ?
Eh? Surely -fmax-errors *is* the option intende
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47265
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=44334
--- Comment #45 from rguenther at suse dot de
2011-01-25 10:20:01 UTC ---
On Tue, 25 Jan 2011, howarth at nitro dot med.uc.edu wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44334
>
> --- Comment #44 from Jack Howarth
> 2011-01-25 03:13
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47411
--- Comment #7 from Richard Guenther 2011-01-25
10:24:59 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Jan 25 10:24:56 2011
New Revision: 169224
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=169224
Log:
2011-01-25 Richard Guenther
PR middle-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47411
--- Comment #8 from Richard Guenther 2011-01-25
10:26:23 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Jan 25 10:26:20 2011
New Revision: 169225
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=169225
Log:
2011-01-25 Richard Guenther
PR middle-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47265
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-01-25
10:27:41 UTC ---
Actually, there is a far easier fix. Either add
if (all && !has_zero_uses (name))
all = false;
to the end of forward_propagate_addr_expr, or we could iterate some more,
either l
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47265
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47265
--- Comment #6 from Richard Guenther 2011-01-25
10:47:29 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> Actually, there is a far easier fix. Either add
> if (all && !has_zero_uses (name))
> all = false;
> to the end of forward_propagate_addr_expr, or
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47455
Summary: internal compiler error: in fold_convert_loc, at
fold-const.c: 2028
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47438
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47444
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47447
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Known to work|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47409
--- Comment #6 from Richard Guenther 2011-01-25
11:03:10 UTC ---
We should at least make sure to use memcpy for the array part in
struct {
volatile int i;
int a[10];
} a, b;
a = b;
do we really want to blow up code-size (and compile-tim
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47430
--- Comment #4 from Richard Guenther 2011-01-25
11:07:04 UTC ---
2) make sure other PCH is not read during compilation that is writing PCH
makes sense to me anyway
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47428
--- Comment #5 from Richard Guenther 2011-01-25
11:09:08 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> Created attachment 23100 [details]
> gcc46-pr47427.patch
>
> Different untested fix.
Looks good.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47426
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47424
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Keywords|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47423
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||EH, lto
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47456
Summary: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault while
using jna
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47455
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47456
steve.reinke at iws dot fraunhofer.de changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |blocker
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47418
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47417
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Target Milestone|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47416
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.6.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47438
--- Comment #4 from doh-hyun koh 2011-01-25
11:28:51 UTC ---
#include
int Test1(tranNo, name, path, sSpId, spId, spPg, type, size, parm)
long tranNo;
char* name, *path;
short sSpId, spId, spPg, type;
long size;
char* parm;
{
printf("---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47413
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Status
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47455
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Target Milestone|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25071
Janne Blomqvist changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47428
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-01-25
12:01:57 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Jan 25 12:01:54 2011
New Revision: 169226
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=169226
Log:
PR tree-optimization/47427
PR tree-optimiza
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47427
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-01-25
12:01:57 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Jan 25 12:01:54 2011
New Revision: 169226
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=169226
Log:
PR tree-optimization/47427
PR tree-optimiza
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25071
--- Comment #8 from Joost VandeVondele
2011-01-25 12:12:59 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> Reopening..
actually, I think this is a kind of error that should be caught at run-time
with -fcheck=arguments (not to say bounds). I guess that's not
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25071
--- Comment #9 from Tobias Burnus 2011-01-25
12:41:11 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> actually, I think this is a kind of error that should be caught at run-time
> with -fcheck=arguments (not to say bounds). I guess that's not so easy to
> imp
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47417
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-01-25
12:43:56 UTC ---
which version of Boost are you using? I don't know if it's fixed now but older
releases (e.g. 1.42) did not support the current rvalue-reference model and
unordered_map has no copy-c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47427
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47428
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47417
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|rejects-valid |
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46072
--- Comment #4 from Michael Haubenwallner 2011-01-25 12:52:22 UTC ---
What exactly is the difference for gcc between not initializing a static
variable and initializing it to zero?
This is the difference in the generated assembler file:
$ cat
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47444
--- Comment #5 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2011-01-25
12:58:12 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> Well. You might argue that the wording should be 'may be' in all cases
> where the offending statement might not be executed (which is certainly
> und
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47265
--- Comment #7 from Michael Matz 2011-01-25 12:58:33
UTC ---
FWIW removing the second recursive call doesn't regress the testsuite.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47444
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-01-25
13:07:06 UTC ---
If you want to, although Clang can't analyze C++
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47426
--- Comment #4 from Richard Guenther 2011-01-25
13:16:58 UTC ---
The problem is that i_1(D) has an empty points-to set. It doesn't even
receive constraints which is because the function is static but it
escapes from getfoo which results in us fa
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47444
--- Comment #7 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2011-01-25
13:16:55 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> If you want to, although Clang can't analyze C++
The difference is that by design, Clang aims to do it at some moment in the
future, it is a matter of
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47265
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-01-25
13:19:35 UTC ---
Have you gathered statistics how much less does forwprop propagate though?
I'm ATM running an instrumented bootstrap/regtest to see how many replacement
hits result from the iterations
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47457
Summary: g++ calls without optimisation incorrectly from
explicitly optimised code
Product: gcc
Version: 4.4.5
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47457
--- Comment #1 from Vasily Gurevich 2011-01-25
13:23:58 UTC ---
Created attachment 23117
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=23117
optimizetest.cpp
Source file
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47455
--- Comment #2 from Tobias Burnus 2011-01-25
13:24:39 UTC ---
Regarding the regression:
FAILS: 2010-05-03-r158988
WORKS: 2010-04-29-r158905
That includes a huge merge by Paul (r158910, 2010-04-29) - seemingly the
OOP branch merge.
* *
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47457
--- Comment #2 from Vasily Gurevich 2011-01-25
13:24:51 UTC ---
Created attachment 23118
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=23118
gcc -v output
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47448
--- Comment #2 from Tobias Burnus 2011-01-25
13:30:35 UTC ---
Author: burnus
Date: Tue Jan 25 13:30:32 2011
New Revision: 169228
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=169228
Log:
2011-01-25 Tobias Burnus
PR fortran/47
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47457
Juha Kallioinen changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||juha.kallioinen at nokia
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47457
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #23116|application/octet-stream|text/plain
mime type|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47166
--- Comment #23 from Ian Bolton 2011-01-25
13:45:59 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #21)
> So is this now fixed on the trunk? Can anyone run SPEC2k?
Spec2K's Ammp now runs correctly for trunk, with -mthumb -O3.
The rest of Spec2K is OK too (apart
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47457
--- Comment #5 from Vasily Gurevich 2011-01-25
13:51:14 UTC ---
Created attachment 23119
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=23119
real preprocessed source
Excuse me, preprocessed source, just in case.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47448
--- Comment #3 from Tobias Burnus 2011-01-25
13:54:36 UTC ---
Author: burnus
Date: Tue Jan 25 13:54:33 2011
New Revision: 169229
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=169229
Log:
2011-01-25 Tobias Burnus
PR fortran/47
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47448
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37273
--- Comment #8 from Jeffrey A. Law 2011-01-25 14:10:51
UTC ---
Author: law
Date: Tue Jan 25 14:10:46 2011
New Revision: 169231
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=169231
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/37273
* ira-costs.c (sca
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37273
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45586
--- Comment #38 from Mikael Morin 2011-01-25
14:32:28 UTC ---
The patch looks good.
Somewhat hackish as you acknowledge, but worth submitting anyway.
A few minor comments below.
> Index: fortran/trans-expr.c
> ==
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45586
--- Comment #39 from Mikael Morin 2011-01-25
14:40:40 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #37)
>
> That's what we do ;)
Wow! Middle-end gurus take design decisions of mine before I have ever thought
them. They are real wizards after all.
> And voi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47271
--- Comment #16 from Sebastian Pop 2011-01-25
14:51:28 UTC ---
Author: spop
Date: Tue Jan 25 14:51:23 2011
New Revision: 169233
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=169233
Log:
Fix PR47271: only if-convert full writes.
2011-01-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47271
Sebastian Pop changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46898
Joel Sherrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45586
--- Comment #40 from Michael Matz 2011-01-25 15:02:40
UTC ---
The patch from comment #35 requires another change in unrelated code, which
I think actually fixes a pre-existing bug in type extension support:
Index: fortran/trans-expr.c
==
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45586
--- Comment #41 from Joost VandeVondele
2011-01-25 15:03:55 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #39)
> > void *. So you get the ICE.
> Hum, may I suggest a --push-harder/--will-you-swallow-it option ?
--enable-checking=release ?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47458
Summary: m32r fails to build -- __builtin_eh_return not
supported
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47458
--- Comment #1 from froydnj at codesourcery dot com 2011-01-25 15:08:48 UTC ---
On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 03:05:32PM +, joel at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> In file included from
> /users/joel/test-gcc/gcc-svn/libgcc/../gcc/unwind-dw2.c:1582:0:
> /u
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47459
Summary: m68k Ada ICE in maybe_add_or_update_dep_1, at
sched-deps.c:854
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Comp
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47340
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47459
Joel Sherrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|m68k Ada ICE in |Regression: m68k Ada ICE in
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47449
--- Comment #12 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-01-25
15:14:54 UTC ---
Author: hjl
Date: Tue Jan 25 15:14:49 2011
New Revision: 169234
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=169234
Log:
Don't propagate hard register.
2011-01-25
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47166
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.6.0
Summary|[4.5/4.6 Regress
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46072
--- Comment #5 from Michael Haubenwallner 2011-01-25 15:40:07 UTC ---
Created attachment 23120
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=23120
Patch to simply not use bss section with .bs, but private-data-section instead
I'm going to t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47409
--- Comment #7 from John Regehr 2011-01-25 15:41:58
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> struct {
> volatile int a[100];
> } a, b;
> a = b;
>
> ? And what's the difference of the above to
>
> volatile struct {
> int a[100];
> } a, b;
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38536
--- Comment #22 from Tobias Burnus 2011-01-25
15:44:50 UTC ---
Created attachment 23121
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=23121
draft patch, working but too many warnings (cf. test suite failures)
Currently
c_loc(a(1:2))
prod
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47458
--- Comment #2 from Joel Sherrill 2011-01-25 16:19:28
UTC ---
I can now build C/C++ for m32r-rtems*.
m32c-rtems* builds ok without any patches.
OK to commit this and close this PR?
Index: gcc/config/m32r/m32r.c
==
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45701
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-01-25
16:22:45 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Jan 25 16:22:34 2011
New Revision: 169240
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=169240
Log:
PR target/45701
* config/arm/arm.c (any_si
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45701
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47424
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47458
--- Comment #3 from froydnj at codesourcery dot com 2011-01-25 16:26:42 UTC ---
On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 04:19:33PM +, joel at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> I can now build C/C++ for m32r-rtems*.
>
> m32c-rtems* builds ok without any patches.
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47460
Summary: Inconsistent behaviour of __sync_fetch_and_add
builtin?
Product: gcc
Version: 4.4.5
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47457
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||i?86-*-linux
Status|UNCONF
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47458
--- Comment #4 from Richard Guenther 2011-01-25
16:29:26 UTC ---
Looks obvious.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47424
Andreas Schwab changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47461
Summary: warn_unused_result attribute ignored for templates
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
AssignedTo: u
1 - 100 of 208 matches
Mail list logo
