http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47775
--- Comment #10 from Tobias Burnus 2011-02-19
08:57:13 UTC ---
Author: burnus
Date: Sat Feb 19 08:57:10 2011
New Revision: 170309
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=170309
Log:
2011-02-19 Tobias Burnus
PR fortran/477
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47814
Summary: [4.6 Regression] Bootstrap fails on mingw32 by
undefined reference to 'lexer_line'
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priori
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47815
Summary: Tail call regression with GCC snapshot
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
AssignedT
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47805
janus 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=47800
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-02-19
11:23:06 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Sat Feb 19 11:23:02 2011
New Revision: 170311
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=170311
Log:
PR target/47800
* config/i386/i386.md (peep
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47815
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47800
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47775
--- Comment #11 from Tobias Burnus 2011-02-19
11:27:55 UTC ---
Author: burnus
Date: Sat Feb 19 11:27:52 2011
New Revision: 170312
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=170312
Log:
2011-02-19 Tobias Burnus
PR fortran/477
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47775
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44945
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot |pault at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47208
--- Comment #4 from Zdenek Sojka 2011-02-19 12:26:37
UTC ---
*** Bug 47300 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47300
Zdenek Sojka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44945
--- Comment #30 from Dominique d'Humieres
2011-02-19 12:43:04 UTC ---
The bus error reported in comment #21 has disappeared from my scope between
revisions 167584 and 167726;-(
I'll test the patch in comment #29 ASAP.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44945
--- Comment #31 from Tobias Burnus 2011-02-19
13:08:26 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #29)
> A candidate fix for the PR
Aha, you have taken the simple route of modifying trans-decl.c and not the
whole module reading apparatus :-)
I think the patc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47815
--- Comment #2 from Richard Guenther 2011-02-19
13:45:50 UTC ---
Hm, or rather it also is because
FOR_EACH_EDGE (e, ei, EXIT_BLOCK_PTR->preds)
{
/* Only traverse the normal exits, i.e. those that end with return
statement.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47815
--- Comment #3 from Adam Warner 2011-02-19
13:55:43 UTC ---
OK I finally understand. Tail call optimisation also disappears when the
noreturn attribute is added to the leaf functions when compiled with gcc-4.5.
>From my perspective this is a bug
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47805
--- Comment #3 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-02-19 13:57:09 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> One can get rid of this error message e.g. by ... (warning: not regtested)
Side note: This patch does not cause any regressions in the test suite.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47364
--- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu 2011-02-19 14:22:45
UTC ---
*** Bug 47812 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47812
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47813
Nicola Pero changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47364
--- Comment #5 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-02-19
14:53:24 UTC ---
Author: hjl
Date: Sat Feb 19 14:53:20 2011
New Revision: 170316
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=170316
Log:
Properly handle target not in Pmode when exp
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47348
--- Comment #6 from Paul Thomas 2011-02-19 15:03:30
UTC ---
Author: pault
Date: Sat Feb 19 15:03:27 2011
New Revision: 170317
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=170317
Log:
2011-02-19 Paul Thomas
PR fortran/47348
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44945
--- Comment #32 from paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com 2011-02-19 15:07:03 UTC ---
Dear Tobias,
>
> Aha, you have taken the simple route of modifying trans-decl.c and not the
> whole module reading apparatus :-)
Of course - otherwise, we sta
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47567
--- Comment #17 from Jerry DeLisle 2011-02-19
15:10:58 UTC ---
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Sat Feb 19 15:10:55 2011
New Revision: 170318
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=170318
Log:
2011-02-19 Jerry DeLisle
PR libgfortra
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47718
Ralf Wildenhues changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47816
Summary: GCC pedwarns about use of static inline functions from
system headers in extern inline functions
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47567
--- Comment #18 from Jerry DeLisle 2011-02-19
15:21:10 UTC ---
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Sat Feb 19 15:21:05 2011
New Revision: 170319
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=170319
Log:
2011-02-19 Jerry DeLisle
PR libgfortra
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47816
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47809
Uros Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47816
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Lennox 2011-02-19
15:38:04 UTC ---
Created attachment 23404
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=23404
Preprocessed source for test case
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47567
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47806
--- Comment #5 from Steven Bosscher 2011-02-19
15:48:45 UTC ---
sysroot, right. obviously I don't have AIX so that basically means I can't
build a cross-compiler to it, IIUC. Close as IBTK (aka INVALID)?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47778
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45592
--- Comment #2 from Dominique d'Humieres 2011-02-19
16:30:56 UTC ---
This pr seems to have been fixed at revision 170312, probably by revision
170291 (it looks like a duplicate of pr47789).
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45592
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47802
--- Comment #3 from Janne Blomqvist 2011-02-19 16:57:18
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> > Is there no way to get a posix compliant ctime? Alternatively, we'll need
> > autoconf magic to detect the extra arg. I know at one time it was
> > re
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47802
--- Comment #4 from John David Anglin 2011-02-19
17:23:08 UTC ---
Also, we have another problem:
libtool: compile: /xxx/gnu/gcc/objdir/./gcc/xgcc -B/xxx/gnu/gcc/objdir/./gcc/
-
B/opt/gnu/gcc/gcc-4.6/hppa1.1-hp-hpux10.20/bin/
-B/opt/gnu/gcc/gcc-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47802
--- Comment #5 from John David Anglin 2011-02-19
17:30:27 UTC ---
> Yes, so HP-UX 11 seems to do the right thing by default. So the problem is
> HP-UX 10, which only provides the 3-arg form and not the standard one, right?
I believe HP changed t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47809
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40959
Ralf Wildenhues changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rwild at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46723
Matthias Klose changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||doko at ubuntu dot com
--- Comment #13 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47647
--- Comment #1 from Richard Guenther 2011-02-19
19:50:40 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Sat Feb 19 19:50:36 2011
New Revision: 170321
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=170321
Log:
2011-02-18 Richard Guenther
PR lto/476
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47647
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47817
Summary: incorrectly working code generated with -O3
Product: gcc
Version: 4.4.4
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: critical
Priority: P3
Component: c++
AssignedTo: unassi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47817
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Aksyonoff
2011-02-19 20:51:23 UTC ---
Created attachment 23407
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=23407
the preprocessed .ii file built with -O3 -save-temps
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47817
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski 2011-02-19
20:56:45 UTC ---
I think you have some violation of the C/C++ aliasing rules where you access an
"unsigned int" via an "unsigned long long" which in turn causes undefined
behavior.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47809
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-02-19
20:57:15 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Sat Feb 19 20:57:12 2011
New Revision: 170323
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=170323
Log:
PR c/47809
* c-common.c (c_fully_fold_inter
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47620
--- Comment #17 from Alexandre Oliva 2011-02-19
20:59:27 UTC ---
Author: aoliva
Date: Sat Feb 19 20:59:23 2011
New Revision: 170324
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=170324
Log:
PR debug/47620
PR debug/47630
* haifa-sched.c (
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47630
--- Comment #3 from Alexandre Oliva 2011-02-19
20:59:27 UTC ---
Author: aoliva
Date: Sat Feb 19 20:59:23 2011
New Revision: 170324
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=170324
Log:
PR debug/47620
PR debug/47630
* haifa-sched.c (f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47817
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46620
--- Comment #6 from Alexandre Oliva 2011-02-19
21:02:39 UTC ---
Author: aoliva
Date: Sat Feb 19 21:02:35 2011
New Revision: 170325
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=170325
Log:
PR tree-optimization/46620
* gcc.dg/pr46620.c: N
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46620
--- Comment #9 from Alexandre Oliva 2011-02-19
21:15:09 UTC ---
Author: aoliva
Date: Sat Feb 19 21:15:01 2011
New Revision: 170328
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=170328
Log:
PR tree-optimization/46620
* tree-sra.c (try_ins
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46620
--- Comment #8 from Alexandre Oliva 2011-02-19
21:14:53 UTC ---
Author: aoliva
Date: Sat Feb 19 21:14:49 2011
New Revision: 170327
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=170327
Log:
PR tree-optimization/46620
* gcc.dg/pr46620.c: N
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46620
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47620
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15774
Kai Tietz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46620
--- Comment #7 from Alexandre Oliva 2011-02-19
21:08:51 UTC ---
Author: aoliva
Date: Sat Feb 19 21:08:40 2011
New Revision: 170326
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=170326
Log:
PR tree-optimization/46620
* gcc.dg/pr46620.c: N
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47809
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=47817
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Aksyonoff
2011-02-19 21:10:21 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> I think you have some violation of the C/C++ aliasing rules where you access
> an
> "unsigned int" via an "unsigned long long" which in turn causes undef
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47818
Summary: Pragma Assert is rejected with
No_Implementation_Pragmas restriction.
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47817
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski 2011-02-19
21:37:08 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> But given that reinterpret_cast does not, I would still suspect some tricky
> things happening inside gcc anyway..
No reinterpret_cast does not change the f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47819
Summary: [meta-bug] LTO debug information issues
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: debug
AssignedTo: unassig...
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47819
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||lto
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47503
--- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill 2011-02-19
22:39:53 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Sat Feb 19 22:39:50 2011
New Revision: 170330
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=170330
Log:
PR c++/47503
* semantics.c (cxx_eval_call_e
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47788
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47503
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44118
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||paolo.carlini at oracle dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47820
Summary: [4.6 Regression] LTO bootstrap failed with
bootstrap-profiled
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47820
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47624
--- Comment #4 from Alexandre Oliva 2011-02-20
02:19:42 UTC ---
Patch is at http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-02/msg00981.html
Deferred to 4.7.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47821
Summary: BUG: warning: left shift count >= width of type
Product: gcc
Version: 4.1.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
AssignedTo: unassi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47821
nfavaro at uwo dot ca changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
; targets.
Verified on:
gcc version 4.6.0 20110219
gcc version 4.5.3 20110219
This bug not exist now.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47753
Kai Tietz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44118
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5 f
75 matches
Mail list logo