http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47556
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||i?86-*-*
Component|c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47557
Summary: Effect of aligned attribute on arrays
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
AssignedTo: unassig...@gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44606
--- Comment #13 from Nathan Froyd 2011-01-31
21:53:15 UTC ---
Author: froydnj
Date: Mon Jan 31 21:53:12 2011
New Revision: 169452
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=169452
Log:
gcc/
Backport from mainline:
2010-12-30
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47455
--- Comment #7 from Dominique d'Humieres 2011-01-31
21:56:08 UTC ---
The ICEs disappear with the patch in comment #6, but the test in comment #4
fails at
if(any (this%x%i /= [5, 7])) call abort() ! FAILS
and segfault later if I comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47558
Summary: 163267 breaks exception traceback in xplor-nih
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
AssignedTo: un
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47455
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|una
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47455
--- Comment #9 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-01-31 22:04:27 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> The test in comment #6 segfault also.
Yes, this is expected. It's not intended to be a run-time test. 'find_x'
returns a NULL-pointer, which is bei
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47559
Summary: ICE: verify_stmts failed: statement marked for throw,
but doesn't with -fnon-call-exceptions and noexcept
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47556
--- Comment #2 from Jeremy Fitzhardinge 2011-01-31
22:16:54 UTC ---
Hm, yes, I see. The hand-written asm, which uses %ah, does appear to run into
false partial register stalls according to 3.5.2.3 in the Intel Optimisation
Reference Manual.
On
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47455
--- Comment #10 from Tobias Burnus 2011-01-31
22:18:41 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> The test in comment #6 segfault also.
That's a test-case problem.
this%x = find_x(this)
is invalid if the LHS is not associated - and a RHS null() is als
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47515
--- Comment #4 from Ian Lance Taylor 2011-01-31 22:21:19
UTC ---
The backward hacking around libtool is because of the need to create .gox
files, for which I need the .o file. Part of the complexity here is
historical, though, from a time when w
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47455
--- Comment #11 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-01-31 22:52:03 UTC ---
Author: janus
Date: Mon Jan 31 22:51:59 2011
New Revision: 169455
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=169455
Log:
2011-01-31 Janus Weil
PR fortran/
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47279
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31827
Trevor Hemsley changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||trevor.hemsley at ntlworld
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47558
--- Comment #1 from Jack Howarth 2011-01-31
23:36:35 UTC ---
The following patch reverting the remainder of r163267 eliminates the dipCoup
testcase failure in xplor-nih 2.27 when built with current gcc trunk on
x86_64-apple-darwin10...
Index: gc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47558
--- Comment #2 from Jack Howarth 2011-01-31
23:42:04 UTC ---
Created attachment 23190
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=23190
differences in xplor-nih linkages from r163266 to r163267
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47515
--- Comment #5 from Ian Lance Taylor 2011-01-31 23:44:46
UTC ---
Revision 169456, committed to mainline, avoids the --whole-archive problem.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47558
--- Comment #3 from Iain Sandoe 2011-01-31 23:49:31
UTC ---
we keep going round this loop --- by making this change; you are replacing the
unwinder in libSystem with the one in FSF libgcc_s.
This might well work for stand-alone code -- but it is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47560
Summary: [4.6 Regression] FAIL: abi/header_cxxabi.c (test for
excess errors)
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47561
Summary: Error message does not say to which option it refers
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47558
--- Comment #4 from Jack Howarth 2011-02-01
00:14:17 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> we keep going round this loop --- by making this change; you are replacing the
> unwinder in libSystem with the one in FSF libgcc_s.
Why do you say that? I a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47561
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski 2011-02-01
00:20:33 UTC ---
-ftree-loop-linear This is all documented in the manual.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47274
--- Comment #26 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia.nrc.ca 2011-02-01 00:27:21 UTC ---
On Mon, 31 Jan 2011, davek at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> If one of you could try the whole thing with "--save-temps -v -Wl,-v
> -Wl,--verbose", and attach the various
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47558
--- Comment #5 from Jack Howarth 2011-02-01
00:32:07 UTC ---
Iain,
I think you are confused about what reverting r163267 achieves. I believe
the remaining change in r163267 was left in place because we were under the
impression that the magic
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47274
--- Comment #27 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia.nrc.ca 2011-02-01 00:37:22 UTC ---
On Mon, 31 Jan 2011, davek at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> If one of you could try the whole thing with "--save-temps -v -Wl,-v
> -Wl,--verbose", and attach the various
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42835
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comm
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47548
--- Comment #1 from DJ Delorie 2011-02-01 01:06:43 UTC
---
Created attachment 23192
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=23192
Patch to avoid trying to validate interim patterns
Try this one. If there are multiple reloads needed
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40457
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42835
Bernd Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47166
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comm
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47373
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
St
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47562
Summary: Meta bug to keep track of Neon enhancements.
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: meta-bug
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Componen
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47166
--- Comment #26 from Bernd Schmidt 2011-02-01
01:34:59 UTC ---
I'll be testing the backport and committing the patch.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47166
--- Comment #27 from Ramana Radhakrishnan
2011-02-01 01:38:32 UTC ---
On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 1:35 AM, bernds at gcc dot gnu.org
wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47166
>
> --- Comment #26 from Bernd Schmidt 2011-02-01
> 01:3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45039
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44606
--- Comment #14 from Nathan Froyd 2011-02-01
02:11:57 UTC ---
Author: froydnj
Date: Tue Feb 1 02:11:54 2011
New Revision: 169465
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=169465
Log:
gcc/
Backport from mainline:
2010-12-30
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44606
Nathan Froyd changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47293
--- Comment #4 from Jerry DeLisle 2011-02-01
02:29:21 UTC ---
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Tue Feb 1 02:29:18 2011
New Revision: 169466
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=169466
Log:
2011-01-31 Jerry DeLisle
PR libquadmath
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47563
Summary: m32r does not have synchronization primitives
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
AssignedTo: una
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47564
Summary: internal compiler error in memory_address_addr_space,
at explow.c:504
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47564
Diego Novillo changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dnovillo at gcc dot
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47564
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot com
--- Comment #2 fro
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47543
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47558
--- Comment #6 from Jack Howarth 2011-02-01
03:55:13 UTC ---
We should be very concerned about the fact that on the darwin10 builds of gcc
trunk, we don't prefix the same symbols in the FSF gcc's libgcc_s.1.dylib with
$ld$hide$os10.4$, $ld$hide$o
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47558
--- Comment #7 from Jack Howarth 2011-02-01
04:01:52 UTC ---
Also note that on darwin10...
lrwxr-xr-x 1 root wheel 17 Nov 4 19:37 libgcc_s.1.dylib ->
libSystem.B.dylib
lrwxr-xr-x 1 root wheel 19 Nov 4 20:32 libgcc_s.10.4.dylib ->
l
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31827
--- Comment #12 from Dave Korn 2011-02-01 04:03:02
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #11)
> Recreated this on linux x86_64 with gcc 4.6-20110129. Running ulimit -a shows
> me that the default stack limit is 8192 and increasing this to 18000 allows
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47561
Sebastian Pop changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47558
--- Comment #8 from Jack Howarth 2011-02-01
06:10:32 UTC ---
Actually a backtrace confirms that current gcc trunk is broken and the missing
linkage on /usr/lib/libgcc_s.1.dylib is causing the wrong unwinder to be
used...
howarth% ../bin/xplor -d
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47274
--- Comment #28 from Dave Korn 2011-02-01 06:59:58
UTC ---
It looks like the problem is much earlier than the linker; it looks like the IR
symtabs in the input object files are being generated incorrectly. Here are
the real symbol tables:
$ ./o
-tune-32=generic
--with-arch-64=x86-64 --with-tune-64=generic --with-fpmath=sse
--enable-fully-dynamic-string --disable-nls
--enable-languages=c,c++,fortran,objc,obj-c++ --enable-libgomp --enable-libssp
--enable-lto
Thread model: win32
gcc version 4.6.0 20110131 (experimental) (GCC)
oracle@vc:~$ i686
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47455
--- Comment #12 from Tobias Burnus 2011-02-01
07:29:44 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #11)
> trunk/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/typebound_call_19.f03
"valgrind ./a.out" shows:
Invalid free() / delete / delete[]
at 0x4C256FC: free (in /usr/lib64
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47456
--- Comment #9 from steve.reinke at iws dot fraunhofer.de 2011-02-01 07:52:46
UTC ---
i added a testcase...
i hope anybody can help me now, please...
101 - 152 of 152 matches
Mail list logo
