http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48576
Mikael Pettersson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikpe at it dot uu.se
--- Comment #2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48519
--- Comment #8 from Dmitry Gorbachev
2011-04-12 19:32:16 UTC ---
"__Unwind_SjLj_Unregister clobbers return value". I can reproduce it with ver.
4.4.4; works with 4.4.6. See also: PR47490, PR30047 (of which this PR is a
dup).
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45174
--- Comment #29 from Donald Schlicht 2011-04-12
19:36:43 UTC ---
I found that there is a problem with the gcc compiler that shipps with
Ubuntu. If you build the gcc compiler from scratch for Linux, then the
build for the arm works.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30047
Kai Tietz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47490
Kai Tietz changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gcc at david dot
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47490
Kai Tietz changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hilmar.ackermann at
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48519
Kai Tietz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47490
Kai Tietz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47178
Kai Tietz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48580
--- Comment #1 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2011-04-12 20:18:13 UTC ---
On Tue, 12 Apr 2011, zackw at panix dot com wrote:
> To the best of my knowledge, this is the only safe way (without -fwrapv) to
> check whether the product of two sig
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48582
Summary: Template non-type arguments doesn't accept null
pointer constant value
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48580
--- Comment #2 from Zack Weinberg 2011-04-12 20:40:41
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
>
> Two signed integers given that they are known to be positive, anyway.
> This may return unexpected results if either or both arguments are
> negative o
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48580
--- Comment #3 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2011-04-12 20:52:48 UTC ---
On Tue, 12 Apr 2011, zackw at panix dot com wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48580
>
> --- Comment #2 from Zack Weinberg 2011-04-12
> 20:40:41 U
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48580
--- Comment #4 from Zack Weinberg 2011-04-12 21:03:01
UTC ---
On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 1:52 PM, joseph at codesourcery dot com
wrote:
>> In the code that this is cut down from, both arguments are known to be
>> strictly
>> positive, but neither
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48574
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-04-12
21:03:34 UTC ---
Reduced testcase (ICEs even with no options):
struct A
{
virtual void foo ();
};
template
void
bar (T x)
{
A &b = *x;
b.foo ();
}
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48580
--- Comment #5 from Zack Weinberg 2011-04-12 21:04:34
UTC ---
Addendum: what would *you* describe as the correct C idiom for
ensuring that the product of two signed integers was positive and did
not overflow the range of a same-sized signed integ
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48580
--- Comment #6 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2011-04-12 21:09:53 UTC ---
On Tue, 12 Apr 2011, zackw at panix dot com wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48580
>
> --- Comment #4 from Zack Weinberg 2011-04-12
> 21:03:01 U
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48580
--- Comment #7 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2011-04-12 21:16:41 UTC ---
On Tue, 12 Apr 2011, zackw at panix dot com wrote:
> Addendum: what would *you* describe as the correct C idiom for
> ensuring that the product of two signed integers
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20039
fabien at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |UNCONFIRMED
CC
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42636
--- Comment #1 from Joern Heissler
2011-04-12 21:51:30 UTC ---
New compiler output:
gcc version 4.5.2 (Debian 4.5.2-8) outputs a new message:
$ gcc-4.5 -O -Wuninitialized kr-1-17.c
#‘ssa_name’ not supported by pp_c_expression#]’kr-1-17.c: In fu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46076
--- Comment #28 from rguenther at suse dot de
2011-04-12 22:31:53 UTC ---
On Tue, 12 Apr 2011, matt at use dot net wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46076
>
> --- Comment #27 from Matt Hargett 2011-04-12 18:15:33
> UTC ---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44194
--- Comment #9 from Easwaran Raman 2011-04-12
22:39:23 UTC ---
Created attachment 23968
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=23968
Patch to dse.c to be less conservative with calls.
Currently dse kills all stores on a call since c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48576
--- Comment #3 from Mikael Pettersson 2011-04-12
22:41:14 UTC ---
Created attachment 23969
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=23969
standalone and reduced test case
Succeeds with no output, or segfaults.
I'll try a bisection la
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48583
Summary: Mismatch between CFG and IR after cfglayout
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: rtl-optimization
Assigne
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20039
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48583
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski 2011-04-12
23:56:56 UTC ---
IIRC cfglayout has implicit gotos in the IR.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28956
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||4.4.6, 4.5.3, 4.6.0
--- Comment #4 from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48583
Ian Lance Taylor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48583
--- Comment #3 from Easwaran Raman 2011-04-13
00:18:38 UTC ---
Sorry for the noise. I have a patch to DSE that fails with nrv5.C and I thought
this is somehow causing it.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48559
--- Comment #4 from Paolo Carlini 2011-04-13
02:02:32 UTC ---
Johannes, all -
if everything goes well, in a couple of days we'll have a very good
std::is_constructible in, contributed by Daniel, thus, it will be trivial,
std::is_copy_constructi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48584
Summary: [4.7 Regression] AVX testcase failures
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
AssignedTo: unassi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48524
Ryan Hill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48585
Summary: [4.7 Regression] 483.xalancbmk in SPEC CPU 2006 failed
to build
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Com
101 - 133 of 133 matches
Mail list logo
