http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46244
--- Comment #16 from paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com 2011-02-21 08:25:51 UTC ---
Dear Mikael,
snip
> Actually none of the gfc_compare_type/gfc_TK_compatible changes are absolutely
> necessary to fix this bug. It is just I found it o
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47796
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39029
--- Comment #3 from Olaf van der Spek 2011-02-21
09:37:03 UTC ---
g++ -o b.h.gch a.h
g++ c.cpp
a.h:
#pragma once // a.h:1:9: warning: #pragma once in main file
c.cpp:
#include "b.h"
#include "b.h" // c.cpp:2:15: error: b.h: No such file or di
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47830
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||build
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47822
--- Comment #15 from Richard Guenther 2011-02-21
09:44:34 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #11)
> Could you try building with the patch on a ppc box if you have one, without
> the
> "Fix" to tree.c in it, so that it will fail, if the problem isn't r
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47824
Olaf van der Spek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
Resolution|DUPLIC
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42722
--- Comment #12 from Peter A. Bigot 2011-02-21 09:45:15
UTC ---
Created attachment 23418
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=23418
Test case (requires msp430 back end)
Sorry, I don't speak dejagnu well enough yet to put target te
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42722
--- Comment #13 from Peter A. Bigot 2011-02-21 09:45:52
UTC ---
Created attachment 23419
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=23419
Generated code before patch applied
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42722
--- Comment #14 from Peter A. Bigot 2011-02-21 09:46:30
UTC ---
Created attachment 23420
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=23420
Generated code after patch applied
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39570
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #10
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42722
--- Comment #15 from Peter A. Bigot 2011-02-21 09:48:23
UTC ---
Created attachment 23421
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=23421
Fixes problem
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42722
--- Comment #16 from Peter A. Bigot 2011-02-21 09:50:00
UTC ---
I've now taken over the msp430 back end and created the attached patch and test
case. This is relative to the gcc trunk as of a couple weeks ago; still
present in all releases up to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31469
--- Comment #1 from Peter A. Bigot 2011-02-21 09:51:24
UTC ---
Created attachment 23422
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=23422
Fixes problem (resubmit, lost due to collision)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31469
Peter A. Bigot changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bigotp at acm dot org
--- Comment #2 fro
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47831
Summary: avoid if-convertion if the conditional instructions
and following conditional branch has the same
condition
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRME
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47822
--- Comment #16 from Dominique d'Humieres
2011-02-21 10:03:36 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #15)
> > Could you try building with the patch on a ppc box if you have one, without
> > the
> > "Fix" to tree.c in it, so that it will fail, if the probl
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47832
Summary: [4.6 Regression] ObjC errors on structures with
flexible data members
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47822
--- Comment #17 from Iain Sandoe 2011-02-21 10:08:51
UTC ---
there was no intention to create a hack (or any other form of expedient work);
... if it is wrong, then it is likely a mistake on my part when importing the
original implementation
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47348
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47832
--- Comment #1 from Nicola Pero 2011-02-21 10:37:10
UTC ---
Hi Jakub,
> @interface T
> {
> struct S *u;
> };
> @end
"struct S *" is a pointer, right ? So it's always the size of a pointer ?
In that case, I don't see any reason why it shouldn
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47830
--- Comment #2 from Kai-Uwe Eckhardt 2011-02-21 10:38:16
UTC ---
Hi,
> > There are two errors
>
> For those having - like me - problems to spot the second error:
>
> > static long double prechalf = nexafterl (0.5L, LDBL_MAX);
> >
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47825
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-*-*
Status|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47832
Nicola Pero changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47822
--- Comment #18 from Richard Guenther 2011-02-21
10:44:03 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #16)
> (In reply to comment #15)
> > > Could you try building with the patch on a ppc box if you have one,
> > > without the
> > > "Fix" to tree.c in it, so t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47827
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47830
--- Comment #3 from Tobias Burnus 2011-02-21
11:19:33 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> well besides the typo nexfaterl
Well, that was actually the problem I had - my brain magically added the "t"
;-)
(For NetBSD there is also PR 39570, which
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47832
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-02-21
12:02:58 UTC ---
As I said, I don't know ObjC, so if you could fix it, I'd appreciate it.
That said, ISO C99 allows:
struct A { int a; char b[]; };
struct A a; // Here sizeof (a) will be offsetof (s
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47833
Summary: ICE during GC in gt_ggc_mx_pending_template
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47348
--- Comment #8 from Paul Thomas 2011-02-21 12:06:42
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> Any plan to backport the fix in revision 170317?
I had not planned so to do but would respond positively to popular pressure how
far back would you want to go
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47833
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47487
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47834
Summary: Compiler uses unsafe math optimizations even
-funsafe-math-optimizations is not given
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35797
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47824
--- Comment #7 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2011-02-21
12:30:27 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
>
> I'll have a look.
> However, I still think an option to really enable (almost) all warnings should
> be added. I don't agree with the comments in th
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47834
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=323
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||stenedjo at gmail dot com
--- Comment #1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47824
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-02-21
12:39:28 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> (In reply to comment #5)
> > It is implicitly in the manual as those that are not mentioned as enabled by
> > Wall or Wextra.
>
> So "The list in the man
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47824
--- Comment #9 from Olaf van der Spek 2011-02-21
12:47:24 UTC ---
> > So "The list in the manual already." is false.
>
> The information is in the manual, even if not as an explicit list.
That's true, but not what was said.
> I expect adding a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38306
--- Comment #23 from Joost VandeVondele
2011-02-21 12:53:30 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #22)
> What is the performance with 4.3 -O2?
4.3:
> gfortran -O2 -march=native -funroll-loops -ffast-math test.f90 ; ./a.out
Time for evaluation [s]:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47824
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31573
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-02-21
12:55:51 UTC ---
*** Bug 47824 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40850
Mikael Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikael at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #12
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40850
--- Comment #13 from Mikael Morin 2011-02-21
13:01:23 UTC ---
Comment 5 is not affected by the double free as the allocatable components are
never allocated during the program, only the containing entity is.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47796
--- Comment #7 from qihua.dai at intel dot com 2011-02-21 13:02:41 UTC ---
Hi,
I used -Wall -O2. But no warning for this situation.
gcc will print strict-aliasing related warning.
struct tmp1_s tmp;
tmp.a = 0xc; // this code line is removed
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47832
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P2 |P4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47824
--- Comment #11 from Olaf van der Spek 2011-02-21
13:11:04 UTC ---
> Dup.
No kidding?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47567
Thomas Henlich changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47820
--- Comment #3 from Richard Guenther 2011-02-21
13:38:54 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Feb 21 13:38:48 2011
New Revision: 170359
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=170359
Log:
2011-02-21 Richard Guenther
PR lto/478
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47820
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47106
John David Anglin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||danglin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47825
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|hjl at gcc dot gnu.org |hjl.tools at gmail dot com,
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47567
--- Comment #21 from Jerry DeLisle 2011-02-21
14:22:51 UTC ---
OK, can you tell I am time slicing this one. ;)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47199
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47835
Summary: FAIL: gcc.dg/pr46909.c scan-tree-dump ifcombine
"optimizing two comparisons to x_[0-9]+\(D\) != 4"
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47567
--- Comment #22 from Jerry DeLisle 2011-02-21
14:32:14 UTC ---
On my system I get with:
print *, "--"
print "(F0.0)", -0.0 ! => -0.
print "(F3.0)", -0.0 ! => -0.
print "(F2.0)", -0.0 ! => **
print "(F1.0)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47832
--- Comment #4 from Nicola Pero 2011-02-21 14:33:14
UTC ---
> for ObjC I guess it depends if in @interface there are variables (then
> variables with flexible array members in theory could be treated there like
> ISO
> C99 treats variables), or
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42108
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2009-11-19 16:49:51 |2011-02-21 16:49:51
--- Comment #51 fr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47778
--- Comment #4 from Jerry DeLisle 2011-02-21
14:35:20 UTC ---
Status update. I have more or less isolated the problem in list-read.c. I do
not have an exact solution yet, but I am able to get the test case to work. I
just need now to find the ri
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47835
--- Comment #1 from John David Anglin 2011-02-21
14:37:14 UTC ---
Created attachment 23426
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=23426
Tree dump.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47836
Summary: Some Cross Compiler can't build target-libiberty or
target-zlib
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47837
Summary: FAIL: gcc.dg/uninit-pred-7_a.c bogus warning (test for
bogus messages, line 26)
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47487
--- Comment #3 from Peter Bergner 2011-02-21
15:02:40 UTC ---
I don't recall anyone adding GO support for powerpc{,64}-linux, so I'm guessing
such a patch should be added when that is submitted?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46321
--- Comment #2 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-02-21 15:06:10 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> Note: There are four cases where a polymorphic deallocate is needed - though
> some might end up in the same code path:
>
> - explicit DEALLOCATE (
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47207
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47838
Summary: FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/foldconst-2.c scan-tree-dump-not
optimized "fundamentals..0"
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priori
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47838
--- Comment #1 from John David Anglin 2011-02-21
15:12:18 UTC ---
Created attachment 23427
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=23427
Tree dump.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47835
Mikael Pettersson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikpe at it dot uu.se
--- Comment #2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47207
--- Comment #3 from Jason Merrill 2011-02-21
15:35:52 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Mon Feb 21 15:35:44 2011
New Revision: 170365
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=170365
Log:
PR c++/47207
* decl2.c (decl_constant_var_p
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38219
--- Comment #11 from John David Anglin 2011-02-21
15:51:59 UTC ---
Still fails on hppa1.1-hp-hpux10.20 with 4.6.0 revision 170207.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47106
--- Comment #17 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-02-21
15:53:54 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Feb 21 15:53:49 2011
New Revision: 170366
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=170366
Log:
PR debug/47106
* g++.dg/debug/pr47106.C: R
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47477
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.6.0 |4.7.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47839
Summary: ICE in dwarf2out.c:add_AT_specification
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: lto
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47839
--- Comment #1 from Richard Guenther 2011-02-21
16:19:20 UTC ---
--- a.f90
MODULE globalvar_mod
integer:: xstart, ystart, zstart, xstop, ystop, zstop
CONTAINS
END MODULE globalvar_mod
--- b.f90
MODULE PEC_mod
CONTAINS
SUBROUTINE PECapp
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47772
Jonathan 'Sky' Squirawski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||webmas...@sky-siteweb.com
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47802
--- Comment #6 from Jeffrey A. Law 2011-02-21 16:56:18
UTC ---
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 02/18/11 13:56, dave at hiauly1 dot hia.nrc.ca wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47802
>
> --- Comment #2 from da
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47838
Mikael Pettersson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikpe at it dot uu.se
--- Comment #2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47839
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47207
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46790
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-02-21
17:14:10 UTC ---
So, I've tried a few linkers from various RHEL/Fedora distros, and narrowed it
down to the fact that 20071102 ld still fails, while 20080208 ld already works.
There have been pretty bi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46831
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46790
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-02-21
17:23:02 UTC ---
Created attachment 23428
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=23428
gcc46-pr46790-configury.patch
Completely untested draft of a configury patch (still no code changes
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44737
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||rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46790
--- Comment #10 from Jan Hubicka 2011-02-21 17:30:00
UTC ---
Testing datestamp seems resonable to me. I can do the changes needed to avoid
.text subsections then
(basically the elf implementation should then return NULL)
Honza
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47833
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-02-21
17:32:22 UTC ---
Different testcase at https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=479920
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47802
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #7 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46178
--- Comment #2 from Jeffrey A. Law 2011-02-21 17:43:18
UTC ---
Author: law
Date: Mon Feb 21 17:43:15 2011
New Revision: 170370
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=170370
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/46178
* gcc.target/i386
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46002
--- Comment #2 from Jeffrey A. Law 2011-02-21 17:43:18
UTC ---
Author: law
Date: Mon Feb 21 17:43:15 2011
New Revision: 170370
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=170370
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/46178
* gcc.target/i386
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46178
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46790
--- Comment #11 from Steven Bosscher 2011-02-21
17:47:14 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
Interesting, I didn't know that :-)
Do you have an example?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46790
--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-02-21
17:51:00 UTC ---
HAVE_GAS_HIDDEN and HAVE_COMDAT_GROUP checks use ld --version date too.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47802
--- Comment #8 from Tobias Burnus 2011-02-21
18:08:13 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> Certain implementations pass in a buffer size
> parameter to deal with that problem, others (glibc) presumably do some
> checking before dumping results into
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47840
Summary: incorrect _mm256_insert_epi{32,64} implementations
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
AssignedTo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47802
--- Comment #9 from Jeffrey A. Law 2011-02-21 18:49:02
UTC ---
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 02/21/11 10:41, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47802
>
> Jakub Jelinek changed:
>
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47802
--- Comment #10 from Jeffrey A. Law 2011-02-21 18:51:09
UTC ---
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 02/21/11 11:09, burnus at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47802
>
> --- Comment #8 from Tobias
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47841
Summary: [4.6 Regression] New guality test failures
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: lto
AssignedTo: unassig..
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47841
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=47802
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-02-21
18:58:27 UTC ---
In libgfortran it is not the user, but libgfortran implementation, so it makes
sure it always passes buffer of at least 26 bytes. If there are OSes where we
can't trust ctime_r, we c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47841
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=47806
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
1 - 100 of 137 matches
Mail list logo
