http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47646
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47324
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #22
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47646
--- Comment #3 from Dominique d'Humieres 2011-02-09
08:26:12 UTC ---
The following patch is missing for
gcc/testsuite/obj-c++.dg/attributes/method-noreturn-1.mm:
---
/opt/gcc/_gcc_clean/gcc/testsuite/obj-c++.dg/attributes/method-noreturn-1.mm
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47646
--- Comment #4 from Eric Botcazou 2011-02-09
08:31:01 UTC ---
> The following patch is missing for
> gcc/testsuite/obj-c++.dg/attributes/method-noreturn-1.mm:
Can't you simply move the dg directives ?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47646
--- Comment #5 from Andreas Krebbel 2011-02-09
08:35:32 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> > The following patch is missing for
> > gcc/testsuite/obj-c++.dg/attributes/method-noreturn-1.mm:
>
> Can't you simply move the dg directives ?
No. The
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47642
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-02-09
08:44:54 UTC ---
On sparc64 obviously libquadmath isn't used and thus it is expected it works
there and has nothing to do with libquadmath - on sparc*/s390* long double is
IEEE quad already, so it is l
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46072
--- Comment #6 from Michael Haubenwallner 2011-02-09 09:03:05 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> Created attachment 23120 [details]
> Patch to simply not use bss section with .bs, but private-data-section instead
>
> I'm going to try this patch w
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47641
Uros Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||danglin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47652
Uros Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47657
Summary: missed vectorization
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
AssignedTo: unassig...@gcc.gn
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47658
Summary: -Os generates bigger code than -O2/3 for many small
inline functions (objects)
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46456
Ian Bolton changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||danglin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3 fr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46276
Ian Bolton changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47241
--- Comment #5 from Kai Tietz 2011-02-09 09:40:28
UTC ---
So it seems to be an issue of lto and file-caching. There is a dangling
file-handle, which can cause this issue.
Could you please test the following patch, if it solves the unlink issue?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47637
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
--- Comment #3 from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46661
--- Comment #2 from Rainer Orth 2011-02-09 10:01:11 UTC
---
Author: ro
Date: Wed Feb 9 10:01:07 2011
New Revision: 169963
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=169963
Log:
PR libffi/46661
* testsuite/libffi.call/cls_poin
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47659
Summary: -Wconversion[-extra] should emit warning for constant
expressions
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
C
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47650
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47660
Summary: Retain warning text of -Wconversion messages when
-Wconversion-extra is in effect
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Pr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47658
--- Comment #1 from Richard Guenther 2011-02-09
10:58:01 UTC ---
It works for me, the abstraction is completely eliminated by early inlining.
At -Os we do not inline E::foo2 into E::foo1 but that isn't abstraction and
it isn't easily visible that
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47657
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47657
--- Comment #2 from Joost VandeVondele
2011-02-09 11:25:42 UTC ---
Created attachment 23283
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=23283
testcase including timing routine, last number is flop rate.
the cray compiler is supposed to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45505
--- Comment #20 from Martin Jambor 2011-02-09
11:48:11 UTC ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Wed Feb 9 11:48:09 2011
New Revision: 169964
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=169964
Log:
2011-02-09 Martin Jambor
PR middle-end/4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45505
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47661
Summary: predict is confused by FP comparisons when math can
trap
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47324
--- Comment #23 from Jack Howarth 2011-02-09
12:31:27 UTC ---
Any comments on this bit of Mike's patch...
+int
+darwin_dbx_register_number(n)
+{
+#if 1
+ /* Without -O3, eh-alloc-1.c -m32 fails. */
+ /* Works! */
+ if (write_symbols == DWARF
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45381
--- Comment #13 from Iain Sandoe 2011-02-09 12:35:57
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> (In reply to comment #5)
> > I think altivec should disabled with "gcc version 4.0.1 (Apple Inc. build
> > 5493)". Otherwise this pr could be closed as wontfi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47241
--- Comment #6 from coolypf 2011-02-09 12:54:46 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> So it seems to be an issue of lto and file-caching. There is a dangling
> file-handle, which can cause this issue.
>
> Could you please test the following patch, i
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47241
--- Comment #7 from Kai Tietz 2011-02-09 13:10:24
UTC ---
So there seems to be another dangling file-handle on it ... you are sure new
plugin was used by ld? Another thing of interest, is the file it tries to
remove still existing or already remo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47241
--- Comment #8 from coolypf 2011-02-09 13:50:15 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> So there seems to be another dangling file-handle on it ... you are sure new
> plugin was used by ld? Another thing of interest, is the file it tries to
> remove st
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47241
--- Comment #9 from coolypf 2011-02-09 13:53:17 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> (In reply to comment #7)
> > So there seems to be another dangling file-handle on it ... you are sure new
> > plugin was used by ld? Another thing of interest, is t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46321
--- Comment #1 from Tobias Burnus 2011-02-09
13:59:09 UTC ---
Note: There are four cases where a polymorphic deallocate is needed - though
some might end up in the same code path:
- explicit DEALLOCATE (cf. comment 0)
- implicit deallocate at th
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47637
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47324
--- Comment #24 from Ian Lance Taylor 2011-02-09 14:10:25
UTC ---
The first branch of darwin_dbx_register_number looks like it will use the wrong
register numbers in debug info. The second branch looks like it will do the
wrong thing for -gstabs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45375
--- Comment #40 from Martin Jambor 2011-02-09
14:12:57 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #39)
> That could well be https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=629638
> Can you check with a changeset newer than
> http://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47662
Summary: [4.6 Regression] -fno-operator-names no longer works
with STL headers
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47662
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bkoz at gcc dot gnu.org,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47650
--- Comment #7 from joe at mcknight dot de 2011-02-09 14:22:48 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> See http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-01/msg00956.html for a patch
> (queued for 4.7, several tree-dump check testcases have to be adjusted).
Co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47324
--- Comment #25 from Jack Howarth 2011-02-09
14:25:23 UTC ---
Ian, does that mean you believe we should just need...
int
darwin_dbx_register_number(n)
return dbx_register_map[n];
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47662
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47172
--- Comment #3 from Dodji Seketeli 2011-02-09
14:27:44 UTC ---
Candidate patch posted to
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-02/msg00603.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47646
--- Comment #6 from Eric Botcazou 2011-02-09
14:28:03 UTC ---
> No. The problem is that two dg-warnings would be at the same line then.
Then merge them, it's essentially the same warning issued twice.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47662
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-02-09
14:32:50 UTC ---
I've also just noticed the manual for -fno-operator-names could do with some
improvement: those alternative tokens aren't technically keywords, they're
certainly not "synonyms as key
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45375
--- Comment #41 from Mike Hommey 2011-02-09
14:34:08 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #40)
> I have just checked-out mozilla-central entirely by doing
>
> hg clone http://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/
>
> and the elfhack test still segfaults for
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46661
--- Comment #3 from Rainer Orth 2011-02-09 14:40:18 UTC
---
Author: ro
Date: Wed Feb 9 14:40:15 2011
New Revision: 169972
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=169972
Log:
PR libffi/46661
* testsuite/libffi.call/cls_poin
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46661
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47662
--- Comment #3 from Paolo Carlini 2011-02-09
15:10:39 UTC ---
Thanks Jon, for sure that 'or' hasn't been added on purpose.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47324
--- Comment #26 from Ian Lance Taylor 2011-02-09 15:13:22
UTC ---
I think the patch to dwarf2out.c is all you need and I don't understand why you
are thinking about any patch to config/i386/darwin.h and config/i386/darwin.c
at all.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47583
--- Comment #13 from Jerry DeLisle 2011-02-09
15:47:26 UTC ---
There is some debate whether or not I did this properly. I was rushing last
night, cobbled the PR number in the email subject, omitted the patch to the
mailing list, left the pr numb
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47663
Summary: Very simple wrapper not inlined
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: midd
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47664
Summary: early inliner now needs iteration for multiple calls
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
Assi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47637
--- Comment #5 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-02-09 15:58:11 UTC ---
Author: janus
Date: Wed Feb 9 15:58:05 2011
New Revision: 169978
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=169978
Log:
2011-02-09 Janus Weil
PR fortran/4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47637
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47622
--- Comment #5 from Jie Zhang 2011-02-09 16:04:53 UTC
---
I think my patch which causes this bug might be wrong after checking this test
case in details. I may work out a new patch following Jeff's suggestion.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47663
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47659
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P5
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47665
Summary: [4.6 Regression] ICE in trunc_int_for_mode
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compon
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47665
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.6.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47660
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P5
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47650
--- Comment #8 from joe at mcknight dot de 2011-02-09 16:23:44 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> See http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-01/msg00956.html for a patch
> (queued for 4.7, several tree-dump check testcases have to be adjusted).
Ri
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47665
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47324
--- Comment #27 from Jack Howarth 2011-02-09
16:28:55 UTC ---
Ian,
Just using...
Index: gcc/dwarf2out.c
===
--- gcc/dwarf2out.c(revision 169978)
+++ gcc/dwarf2out.c(worki
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47650
--- Comment #9 from rguenther at suse dot de
2011-02-09 16:33:30 UTC ---
On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, joe at mcknight dot de wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47650
>
> --- Comment #8 from joe at mcknight dot de 2011-02-09 16:23:44 UT
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47666
Summary: [4.6 Regression] ICE in dfs_walk_once
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47666
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|ada |c++
Target Milestone|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47666
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47324
--- Comment #28 from Ian Lance Taylor 2011-02-09 16:53:22
UTC ---
Then let's find out why that is.
The patch in comment #23 looks clearly incorrect to me.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47667
Summary: I/O for reals: READ waits for input after "i" and "n"
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
Assign
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47383
--- Comment #11 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-02-09
17:20:07 UTC ---
Author: hjl
Date: Wed Feb 9 17:20:00 2011
New Revision: 169979
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=169979
Log:
Disable ivopts for non-constant base with n
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47665
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47530
Richard Henderson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47667
--- Comment #1 from Tobias Burnus 2011-02-09
18:03:08 UTC ---
Other input which is handled specially is:
Input new value:
.e
3
ioerr = 5010 a = -999.0
Interestingly the following works:
Input new value:
.e4
ioerr =
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47646
--- Comment #7 from Dominique d'Humieres 2011-02-09
18:06:22 UTC ---
> > No. The problem is that two dg-warnings would be at the same line then.
>
> Then merge them, it's essentially the same warning issued twice.
1) I have noticed the failures
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47650
--- Comment #10 from joe at mcknight dot de 2011-02-09 18:08:32 UTC ---
Created attachment 23285
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=23285
A small test plugin that calls print_generic_decl()
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47463
--- Comment #11 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-02-09 18:08:45 UTC ---
The strange behavior of the test case in comment #9 can be cured by just
removing one peculiar line of code:
Index: gcc/fortran/resolve.c
===
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47650
--- Comment #11 from joe at mcknight dot de 2011-02-09 18:11:10 UTC ---
Created attachment 23286
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=23286
A C file that provokes wrong output of print_generic_decl()
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47650
--- Comment #12 from joe at mcknight dot de 2011-02-09 18:14:36 UTC ---
> > That could be related to the function pointer issue where
> > print_generic_decl()
> > also rather repeats the declaration instead of printing the new type.
>
> You shoul
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47614
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-02-09
18:30:29 UTC ---
Created attachment 23287
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=23287
gcc46-pr47614.patch
Actually, I can reproduce it, I've just been looking for pre_modify instead of
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47614
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-02-09
18:31:51 UTC ---
Created attachment 23288
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=23288
gcc46-pr47614-2.patch
Or simply reject side effects, similarly how we reject them elsewhere in
post
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47614
--- Comment #12 from Eric Botcazou 2011-02-09
18:42:01 UTC ---
> Or simply reject side effects, similarly how we reject them elsewhere in
> postreload.
Yes, I think that's good enough for now.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47668
Summary: missing 'typename' in debug-mode map
Product: gcc
Version: 4.3.5
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
AssignedTo: unassig...
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47614
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #23288|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47463
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pault at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #12
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47646
--- Comment #8 from Eric Botcazou 2011-02-09
18:58:16 UTC ---
> So any comment for obj-c++.dg/attributes/method-noreturn-1.mm applies as well
> to objc.dg/attributes/method-noreturn-1.m. Last point I don't have any commit
> right.
OK, will take
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47668
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-02-09
19:01:03 UTC ---
This certainly isn't high priority to fix, and I'm not sure what the best fix
is given that G++ has problems with parsing the required typename (PR 14258) so
I'm not going to change
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47646
--- Comment #9 from Eric Botcazou 2011-02-09
19:23:06 UTC ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Wed Feb 9 19:23:02 2011
New Revision: 169982
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=169982
Log:
PR middle-end/47646
* gnat.dg/uninit_fu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47666
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at redhat dot com
--- Comment #2 from H.J
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47658
--- Comment #2 from Michał Walenciak 2011-02-09
19:34:18 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> It works for me,
what do you mean by "works" ?:)
> the abstraction is completely eliminated by early inlining.
> At -Os we do not inline E::foo2 into E
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46710
Nicola Pero changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47646
--- Comment #10 from Dominique d'Humieres
2011-02-09 19:41:50 UTC ---
> OK, will take care of it, as well as the adjustment for Ada.
Thanks!-)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47664
--- Comment #1 from Richard Guenther 2011-02-09
20:05:01 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Feb 9 20:04:56 2011
New Revision: 169983
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=169983
Log:
2011-02-09 Richard Guenther
PR tree-op
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47664
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47658
--- Comment #3 from Richard Guenther 2011-02-09
20:12:20 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> (In reply to comment #1)
> > It works for me,
>
> what do you mean by "works" ?:)
works as "expected" ;) At -Os we inline to remove abstraction penalt
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47463
--- Comment #13 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-02-09 20:18:31 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #12)
> I do not see whether the line makes sense or not. The idea seems to be to fix
> not fully resolved TBP -- but it is not completely clear to me whe
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47669
Summary: bootstrap failure due to undefined references
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: lto
AssignedTo: unassi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47530
--- Comment #2 from Richard Henderson 2011-02-09
20:24:02 UTC ---
Author: rth
Date: Wed Feb 9 20:23:56 2011
New Revision: 169984
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=169984
Log:
PR 47530
* trans-mem.c (expand_block_edge
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47530
Richard Henderson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47463
--- Comment #14 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-02-09 20:30:23 UTC ---
Author: janus
Date: Wed Feb 9 20:30:20 2011
New Revision: 169985
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=169985
Log:
2011-02-09 Janus Weil
PR fortran/
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47668
--- Comment #2 from Paolo Carlini 2011-02-09
20:35:45 UTC ---
What if we remove the using altogether?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47463
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
1 - 100 of 140 matches
Mail list logo
