http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47426
--- Comment #5 from Richard Guenther 2011-01-25
16:38:32 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Jan 25 16:38:26 2011
New Revision: 169241
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=169241
Log:
2011-01-25 Richard Guenther
PR tree-op
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47460
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-01-25
16:40:50 UTC ---
This seems more appropriate as a question to the gcc-help list requesting
clarification, not a bug report.
To answer part of it ...
(In reply to comment #0)
> I get the unexpected
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47460
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-01-25
16:42:43 UTC ---
My guess is that the Debian packages are built with --with-arch=i486 but your
4.4.5 build isn't (and your 4.5.1 build doesn't need to be as it's implied by
the i686-pc-linux-gnu targ
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47458
Joel Sherrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47375
--- Comment #6 from Janne Blomqvist 2011-01-25 16:46:07
UTC ---
Author: jb
Date: Tue Jan 25 16:46:00 2011
New Revision: 169243
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=169243
Log:
PR 47375 getlog thread safety
Modified:
trunk/l
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47382
--- Comment #2 from Martin Jambor 2011-01-25
16:47:50 UTC ---
Patch posted to mailing list:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-01/msg01753.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47461
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47460
--- Comment #3 from Manuel Holtgrewe 2011-01-25
16:53:23 UTC ---
Sorry for posting this here again, but could somebody clarify the following,
nevertheless and if this is expected behaviour, close the bug as invalid? In
the future, I'll first try
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46607
--- Comment #8 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2011-01-25 16:55:18 UTC ---
On Tue, 25 Jan 2011, rwild at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> But there is a good reason to relink on ELF: uninstalled libraries and
> executables get DT_RPATH entries agains
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46261
Alex Godko changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||k0l0b0k.void at gmail dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47310
Alex Godko changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47460
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-01-25
16:59:49 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
>
> Versions 4.4 and 4.5 were built with the same parameters (modulo some
> libraries), so my question is: Why are the __sync_fetch* builtins not found in
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47331
--- Comment #7 from Tobias Burnus 2011-01-25
17:01:10 UTC ---
Author: burnus
Date: Tue Jan 25 17:01:06 2011
New Revision: 169244
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=169244
Log:
2011-01-25 Tobias Burnus
Backport from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47460
Manuel Holtgrewe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47331
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47409
--- Comment #8 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2011-01-25 17:04:24 UTC ---
On Tue, 25 Jan 2011, rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> do we really want to blow up code-size (and compile-time) for
>
> struct {
> volatile int a[100];
> } a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47382
--- Comment #3 from Martin Jambor 2011-01-25
17:08:51 UTC ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Tue Jan 25 17:08:47 2011
New Revision: 169245
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=169245
Log:
2011-01-25 Martin Jambor
PR tree-optimiza
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47331
--- Comment #9 from Matt Fago 2011-01-25 17:10:07
UTC ---
Awesome, thanks all!
I'll continue testing the next snapshot.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47430
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45422
--- Comment #36 from davidxl 2011-01-25 17:28:30
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #35)
> (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:
> -marc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47462
Summary: g++.dg/opt/devirt1.C no longer devirtualized
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
Assig
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47462
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47416
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-01-25
17:51:29 UTC ---
cc1plus errors on that testcase before ICEing, thus I'll try to delta reduce
the testcase as ice-on-invalid.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44334
--- Comment #46 from jh at suse dot de 2011-01-25 17:57:38 UTC ---
I sorted out increasing large function growth ratio as most safe way
to deal with (easier half of) this problem. Unlike the parameters for
inline limits it won't cause code size
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47442
--- Comment #5 from Joel Sherrill 2011-01-25 18:15:41
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> The alternative ABI is just slightly different. When using the 68881,
> floating
> point values are returned in %fp0. When not using it, floating point va
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47459
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.6.0
Summary|[4.6 regression]
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47423
--- Comment #2 from Jan Hubicka 2011-01-25 18:42:38 UTC
---
> fix it? If we'd LTO libsupc++ we have to makr the personality function
> as address-taken.
If it works, the patch is OK.
Honza
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47444
--- Comment #8 from eidletni at mail dot ru 2011-01-25 18:46:50 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> >because constructor of struct A never called with "bad"
> How can that be true if the compiler does not know that or could figure that
> out?
In th
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47442
Joel Sherrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #23108|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47463
Summary: ICE in gfc_add_component_ref
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: critical
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
AssignedTo: unassig...@gcc.gn
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44334
--- Comment #47 from Dominique d'Humieres
2011-01-25 19:06:04 UTC ---
> I sorted out increasing large function growth ratio as most safe way
> to deal with (easier half of) this problem. Unlike the parameters for
> inline limits it won't caus
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47444
--- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-01-25
19:10:42 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> I really don't understand, why you guys so easily set wontfix to this bug.
> Nobody cares that "inlining constructor" or "return instead throw" depends on
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47442
--- Comment #7 from Ian Lance Taylor 2011-01-25 19:17:49
UTC ---
The patch looks reasonable to me, though I would like to hear Andreas's
opinion.
Technically this patch should go to the libffi maintainers, as libffi is
maintained in a separate r
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35926
--- Comment #5 from Tony Poppleton 2011-01-25
19:33:20 UTC ---
I can confirm this still exists on both GCC 4.5.1 and GCC 4.6.0 (20110115),
when compiling with -O3.
I did some basic investigation into the files produced by the --dump-tree-all
fla
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47444
--- Comment #10 from eidletni at mail dot ru 2011-01-25 19:40:17 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #9)
> WONTFIX doesn't mean "nobody cares"
As I know, it does. Bugzilla resolution: fixed - "we have problem and fix it",
invalid - "user may think that w
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47464
Summary: [4.6 Regression] Many gomp failures
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libgomp
AssignedTo: unassig...@g
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47265
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-01-25
19:51:02 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Jan 25 19:50:56 2011
New Revision: 169250
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=169250
Log:
PR tree-optimization/47265
PR tree-optimiza
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47443
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-01-25
19:51:02 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Jan 25 19:50:56 2011
New Revision: 169250
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=169250
Log:
PR tree-optimization/47265
PR tree-optimiza
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47463
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47032
Michael Haubenwallner changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||michael.haubenwallner at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47442
--- Comment #8 from Andreas Schwab 2011-01-25 20:05:54
UTC ---
>+#ifdef __rtems__
>+void rtems_cache_flush_multiple_data_lines( const void *, size_t );
>+#else
Include the header that declares it.
>+ cmp.l #0, %a1
cmp.w#0, %
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47463
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=47455
--- Comment #3 from Tobias Burnus 2011-01-25
20:32:53 UTC ---
RFC patch. Janus, what do you think?
(Compiles and works for the example; no further tests.)
--- a/gcc/fortran/trans-expr.c
+++ b/gcc/fortran/trans-expr.c
@@ -5929,6 +5929,9 @@ gfc_t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47442
--- Comment #9 from joel.sherrill at oarcorp dot com 2011-01-25 20:34:03 UTC ---
On 01/25/2011 02:06 PM, sch...@linux-m68k.org wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47442
>
> --- Comment #8 from Andreas Schwab 2011-01-25
> 20:05:54
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47442
--- Comment #10 from Joel Sherrill 2011-01-25
20:42:19 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> >+#ifdef __rtems__
> >+void rtems_cache_flush_multiple_data_lines( const void *, size_t );
> >+#else
>
> Include the header that declares it.
>
> >+cm
"joel at gcc dot gnu.org" writes:
> Why cmp.w when it is tst.l?
Because it is smaller.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47442
--- Comment #11 from Andreas Schwab 2011-01-25 20:53:37
UTC ---
"joel at gcc dot gnu.org" writes:
> Why cmp.w when it is tst.l?
Because it is smaller.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47442
Joel Sherrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #23123|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47423
--- Comment #3 from Kai Tietz 2011-01-25 21:07:36
UTC ---
I tested patch and it works fine.
Thank you,
Kai
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47465
Summary: [4.6 Regression] --enable-languages=c
--enable-stage1-languages=c++ no longer builds
libstdc++ in stage1
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29832
--- Comment #10 from Sebastian Pop 2011-01-25
21:24:51 UTC ---
Author: spop
Date: Tue Jan 25 21:24:44 2011
New Revision: 169253
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=169253
Log:
Add testcase for PR29832.
2011-01-25 Sebastian Po
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47465
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46970
--- Comment #8 from Sebastian Pop 2011-01-25 21:25:35
UTC ---
Author: spop
Date: Tue Jan 25 21:25:24 2011
New Revision: 169257
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=169257
Log:
Add testcase for PR46970.
2011-01-18 Sebastian Pop
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43567
--- Comment #8 from Sebastian Pop 2011-01-25 21:24:41
UTC ---
Author: spop
Date: Tue Jan 25 21:24:35 2011
New Revision: 169252
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=169252
Log:
Add testcase for PR43567.
2011-01-25 Sebastian Pop
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46215
--- Comment #3 from Sebastian Pop 2011-01-25 21:25:26
UTC ---
Author: spop
Date: Tue Jan 25 21:25:13 2011
New Revision: 169256
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=169256
Log:
Add testcase for PR46215.
2011-01-18 Sebastian Pop
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43657
--- Comment #9 from Sebastian Pop 2011-01-25 21:25:05
UTC ---
Author: spop
Date: Tue Jan 25 21:24:53 2011
New Revision: 169254
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=169254
Log:
Add testcase for PR43657.
2011-01-18 Sebastian Pop
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46168
--- Comment #5 from Sebastian Pop 2011-01-25 21:25:13
UTC ---
Author: spop
Date: Tue Jan 25 21:25:02 2011
New Revision: 169255
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=169255
Log:
Add testcase for PR46168.
2011-01-18 Sebastian Pop
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46003
Yufeng Zhang changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||yufeng.zhang at arm dot com
--- Comment #2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46215
Sebastian Pop changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29832
Sebastian Pop changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43657
Sebastian Pop changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46168
Sebastian Pop changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44334
--- Comment #48 from Jack Howarth 2011-01-25
21:29:53 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #47)
> Well, the choice is not '-finline-limit' versus '--param
> large-function-growth': some polyhedron tests are sensitive to some value of
> '-finline-limit'
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46970
Sebastian Pop changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43567
Sebastian Pop changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45586
Mikael Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||janus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #42 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47464
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47446
--- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu 2011-01-25 21:53:55
UTC ---
The same testcase failed with -fPIC:
[hjl@gnu-6 ilp32-18]$ /export/build/gnu/gcc-x32/build-x86_64-linux/gcc/xgcc
-B/export/build/gnu/gcc-x32/build-x86_64-linux/gcc/ -mx32 -O -fPIC -dp -
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47446
--- Comment #3 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-01-25
22:05:19 UTC ---
Author: hjl
Date: Tue Jan 25 22:05:16 2011
New Revision: 169258
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=169258
Log:
Put back the last TARGET_64BIT check in ix86
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45136
--- Comment #9 from Alexandre Oliva 2011-01-25
22:28:02 UTC ---
Author: aoliva
Date: Tue Jan 25 22:27:51 2011
New Revision: 169260
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=169260
Log:
PR debug/45136
PR debug/45130
* haifa-sched.c (g
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45130
--- Comment #4 from Alexandre Oliva 2011-01-25
22:28:02 UTC ---
Author: aoliva
Date: Tue Jan 25 22:27:51 2011
New Revision: 169260
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=169260
Log:
PR debug/45136
PR debug/45130
* haifa-sched.c (g
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45136
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47311
--- Comment #26 from Dodji Seketeli 2011-01-25
22:32:34 UTC ---
"pluto at agmk dot net" writes:
> with this patch the *current* gcc-trunk (with fixed PR47317)
> ICEs in fixed_type_or_null.
Thank you for testing so early. I posted a second (hop
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47228
Summary: likely improper segfault in generated code
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
AssignedTo: unassig...@
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46569
Summary: bootsrap comparison failure in fortran/trans-openmp.c
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: rtl-optimization
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46570
Summary: bootsrap comparison failure in fortran/trans-openmp.c
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: rtl-optimization
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46069
Summary: ill-formed use of decltype causes segfault
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
AssignedTo: unassig
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46759
--- Comment #4 from rwgk at yahoo dot com 2010-12-05 06:14:35 UTC ---
Created attachment 22639
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22639
reproducer for similar warning from gcc 4.6
I'm getting a similar warning with g++ from the cu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46878
DJ Delorie changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #23074|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47265
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47464
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Priority|P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47464
--- Comment #2 from Jeffrey A. Law 2011-01-26 00:07:44
UTC ---
We're miscompiling move_exit_barriers, though I don't yet know how my patch is
the root cause.
Jeff
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47228
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|i686-pc-linux-gnu |i?86-pc-linux-gnu
Status|UNCO
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46569
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski 2011-01-26
00:14:17 UTC ---
*** Bug 46570 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46570
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46569
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46571
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski 2011-01-26
00:16:38 UTC ---
*** Bug 46569 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47456
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46069
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47466
Summary: c++ __builtin_expect() regression
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
AssignedTo: unassig...@
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43601
Dave Korn changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47467
Summary: [4.6 Regression] hwint.h:239:3: error: implicit
declaration of function 'abs'
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40125
Dave Korn changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47464
--- Comment #3 from Jeffrey A. Law 2011-01-26 04:33:24
UTC ---
Stranger and stranger. It looks like my patch may have exposed a latent bug
in the post-reload ifcvt pass. It's moving some insns which clearly aren't
safe to move.
IF-CASE-1 foun
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47468
Summary: FAIL: tmpdir-g++.dg-struct-layout-1/*
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
AssignedTo: unassig...@
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47468
--- Comment #1 from Dave Korn 2011-01-26 04:47:09
UTC ---
Created attachment 23128
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=23128
preprocessed source for testcase (first failing test)
This is what causes:
FAIL: tmpdir-g++.dg-struct-la
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47468
Dave Korn changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||i686-pc-cygwin
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47293
--- Comment #3 from Jerry DeLisle 2011-01-26
05:45:35 UTC ---
I think this fixes it. Why it was whacked, who knows.
Index: gd_qnan.h
===
--- gd_qnan.h(revision 169141)
+++ gd_q
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47468
--- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu 2011-01-26 05:53:17
UTC ---
See PR 44948. I think -march=native turns on SSE which
triggers this warning.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47468
--- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu 2011-01-26 05:55:50
UTC ---
Also see PRs 46195 and 46280.
101 - 200 of 208 matches
Mail list logo
