http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48941
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|arm-elf |arm-elf, arm-eabi
Stat
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48973
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-05-12
07:20:30 UTC ---
extern void abort (void);
struct S { int f : 1; } s;
int v = -1;
void
foo (void)
{
s.f = (v & 1) > 0;
}
void
bar (unsigned int x)
{
if (x != -1U)
abort ();
}
int
main ()
{
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48941
rsand...@gcc.gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48973
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-05-12
07:29:37 UTC ---
extern void abort (void);
struct S { int f : 1; } s;
int v = -1;
void
foo (unsigned int x)
{
if (x != -1U)
abort ();
}
int
main ()
{
s.f = (v & 1) > 0;
foo (s.f);
return
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48973
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-05-12
07:36:07 UTC ---
And even more reduced:
extern void abort (void);
struct S { int f : 1; } s;
int v = -1;
int
main ()
{
s.f = (v & 1) > 0;
if ((unsigned int) s.f != -1U)
abort ();
return 0;
}
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48975
Summary: ICE in execute_cse_reciprocals() with
-fno-tree-slp-vectorize
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48743
--- Comment #3 from Zuxy 2011-05-12 08:27:56 UTC
---
Created attachment 24233
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24233
Proposed patch
For a brief time AMD produced K6-2+ and K6-3+ processors, targeting mobile
market. These proce
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48973
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48941
--- Comment #3 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-05-12 08:46:54 UTC ---
Created attachment 24234
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24234
Proposed patch
The attached patch seems to fix the testcase and doesn't
regress neon.e
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48973
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-05-12
08:29:09 UTC ---
Even smaller:
extern void abort (void);
struct S { int f : 1; } s;
int v = -1;
int
main ()
{
s.f = v < 0;
if ((unsigned int) s.f != -1U)
abort ();
return 0;
}
I'd say the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48947
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||iant at google dot com
--- Comment #5
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48969
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-05-12
08:56:57 UTC ---
it looks like tsubst recurses until it runs out of stack
clang also segfaults with -std=c++0x, and not without
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48975
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Keywords|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48973
--- Comment #6 from Richard Guenther 2011-05-12
09:00:59 UTC ---
"Fixed" with bitfield lowering where we expand from
v.0_1 = v;
BF.1_3 = MEM[(struct S *)&s];
D.2700_4 = BF.1_3 & -2;
D.2702_6 = v.0_1 < 0;
BF.1_7 = D.2702_6 | D.2700_4;
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48968
--- Comment #2 from Richard Guenther 2011-05-12
09:11:45 UTC ---
Well, XXXevent is scalarized by SRA (-fno-tree-sra gets rid of the error) and
I suppose nothing prevents that register to be propagated to other indirect
uses. So it might be indee
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48975
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-05-12
09:25:46 UTC ---
tree-if-conv.c fails to free_bb_predicate on some bbs, thus bb->aux is non-NULL
on entry to following passes.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48973
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48172
--- Comment #8 from Richard Guenther 2011-05-12
10:40:02 UTC ---
Created attachment 24236
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24236
patch
Patch I'm going to test.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48973
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-05-12
10:31:42 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> "Fixed" with bitfield lowering where we expand from
>
> v.0_1 = v;
> BF.1_3 = MEM[(struct S *)&s];
> D.2700_4 = BF.1_3 & -2;
> D.2702_6 = v.0_1 < 0;
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45823
--- Comment #2 from Tobias Burnus 2011-05-12
10:35:23 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> This bug basically makes the option -Wsurprising useless in combination with
> iso_fortran_env.
Well, you can still use ONLY - which is a decent work around,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48975
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-05-12
11:09:36 UTC ---
Created attachment 24237
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24237
gcc46-pr48975.patch
The problem was that combine_blocks removes most of the bbs in the loop, keeps
a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48952
--- Comment #3 from Jan Hubicka 2011-05-12
11:30:48 UTC ---
Author: hubicka
Date: Thu May 12 11:30:42 2011
New Revision: 173700
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=173700
Log:
PR lto/48952
* lto.c (do_whole_program_anal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48702
--- Comment #13 from Richard Guenther 2011-05-12
10:52:54 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #12)
> (In reply to comment #3)
> > I have a patch that makes it fail on trunk as well. IVOPTs generates
> >
> > for (p = &a; p != &a - 3; --p)
> > *(p
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48973
--- Comment #9 from Richard Guenther 2011-05-12
11:36:21 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> (In reply to comment #6)
> > "Fixed" with bitfield lowering where we expand from
> >
> > v.0_1 = v;
> > BF.1_3 = MEM[(struct S *)&s];
> > D.2700_4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48172
--- Comment #9 from Ira Rosen 2011-05-12 11:48:56 UTC
---
(In reply to comment #8)
> Created attachment 24236 [details]
> patch
>
> Patch I'm going to test.
So, segment_length = scalar_step * vf * scalar_niters?
I think we don't need vf here.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48967
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-05-12
11:59:34 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu May 12 11:59:32 2011
New Revision: 173702
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=173702
Log:
PR debug/48967
* var-tracking.c (use_narrow
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45823
Thomas Henlich changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||thenlich at users dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48976
Summary: INQUIRE with STREAM= not supported
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: rejects-valid
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48967
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-05-12
11:54:36 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu May 12 11:54:33 2011
New Revision: 173701
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=173701
Log:
PR debug/48967
* var-tracking.c (use_narrow
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48972
--- Comment #2 from Tobias Burnus 2011-05-12
12:39:32 UTC ---
Created attachment 24238
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24238
Test case
(In reply to comment #1)
> For the diagnostic, the following untested patch should do.
We
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48172
--- Comment #10 from Richard Guenther 2011-05-12
12:14:48 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu May 12 12:14:45 2011
New Revision: 173703
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=173703
Log:
2011-05-12 Richard Guenther
PR tree-o
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48968
--- Comment #3 from Andreas Schwab 2011-05-12 11:00:16
UTC ---
That function doesn't actually call setjmp.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48172
--- Comment #12 from Richard Guenther 2011-05-12
12:46:10 UTC ---
Like this?
Index: gcc/tree-vect-loop-manip.c
===
--- gcc/tree-vect-loop-manip.c (revision 173703)
+++ gcc/tree-vec
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48172
--- Comment #11 from Richard Guenther 2011-05-12
12:38:15 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #9)
> (In reply to comment #8)
> > Created attachment 24236 [details]
> > patch
> >
> > Patch I'm going to test.
>
> So, segment_length = scalar_step * vf *
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48172
--- Comment #13 from Ira Rosen 2011-05-12 13:02:39 UTC
---
(In reply to comment #12)
> Like this?
>
Yes, looks good to me.
>
> I also think that the re-alignment adjustment needs to be multiplied
> by DR_STEP (maybe we only support it for DR_
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48972
Janne Blomqvist changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jb at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3 fr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48972
--- Comment #4 from Tobias Burnus 2011-05-12
13:37:34 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> Wouldn't a standard-conforming way to support Unicode file names be for
> gfortran to
I am admittedly a bit lost.
> - Specify that the default character se
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48977
Summary: -fpe-trap=denormal on x86 GLIBC systems
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
AssignedTo: unassig
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48822
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.6.1
Summary|[4.5/4.6 Regr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48978
Summary: excessive hash table allocation for large lto build
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: lto
AssignedTo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48979
Summary: FRACTION und EXPONENT return invalid results for
infinity/NaN
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48822
--- Comment #8 from Richard Guenther 2011-05-12
14:08:05 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu May 12 14:08:00 2011
New Revision: 173705
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=173705
Log:
2011-05-12 Richard Guenther
Backpo
> I tried a large LTO build with gcc version 4.7.0 20110511 (experimental)
> (GCC)
> on a 18GB machine. It ended with
>
> lto1: out of memory allocating 8589934312 bytes after a total of 6827421696
> bytes
>
> Since a 7+GB single malloc seems somewhat excessive I put a break point
> on xmalloc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48980
Summary: Misleading error message when a conversion is invalid
while calling a protected base constructor
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: trivial
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48978
--- Comment #1 from Jan Hubicka 2011-05-12 15:29:42 UTC
---
> I tried a large LTO build with gcc version 4.7.0 20110511 (experimental)
> (GCC)
> on a 18GB machine. It ended with
>
> lto1: out of memory allocating 8589934312 bytes after a total
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48982
Summary: libgfortran on sysv never uses fpsetmask
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libfortran
AssignedTo: unas
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48981
Summary: bootstrap-lto -O3 produces miscompiled, broken gcc
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: other
AssignedTo:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45579
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48971
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot com,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48980
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-05-12
15:58:06 UTC ---
With 4.6 you just get:
d.cc: In constructor 'derived::derived(const int*)':
d.cc:6:39: error: invalid conversion from 'const int*' to 'int*' [-fpermissive]
d.cc:3:4: error: initia
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48979
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48978
--- Comment #2 from Andi Kleen 2011-05-12
16:16:19 UTC ---
I will try.
BTW this was a much larger test case (allyesconfig), the tarball I sent you
is a much more limited config.
Normally noone uses allyesconfig kernels (they barely boot), but t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48967
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48983
Summary: No diagnostic message about no space left on device
with LTO
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compon
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48978
--- Comment #3 from Andi Kleen 2011-05-12
16:22:30 UTC ---
looks like the revert is really needed, i just ran out of memory
even on the small config on the large memory system.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48983
--- Comment #1 from Dmitry Gorbachev
2011-05-12 16:30:22 UTC ---
Other not very informative messages (depending on the space and program size):
/usr/bin/ld: fatal error: lto-wrapper failed
collect2: ld returned 1 exit status
lto-wrapper: gcc re
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48972
--- Comment #5 from Tobias Burnus 2011-05-12
17:40:32 UTC ---
Author: burnus
Date: Thu May 12 17:40:29 2011
New Revision: 173708
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=173708
Log:
2011-05-12 Tobias Burnus
PR fortran/48
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48979
--- Comment #2 from Thomas Henlich
2011-05-12 17:34:27 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> (In reply to comment #0)
> >
> > Bug 1:
> > The program does not compile without -fno-range-check.
> >
>
> Can you explain why you think that this is a b
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48979
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48975
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-05-12
17:44:26 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu May 12 17:44:23 2011
New Revision: 173709
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=173709
Log:
PR tree-optimization/48975
* tree-if-conv.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48975
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48975
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-05-12
17:46:21 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu May 12 17:46:15 2011
New Revision: 173710
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=173710
Log:
PR tree-optimization/48975
* tree-if-conv.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48971
--- Comment #3 from Vladimir Makarov 2011-05-12
17:57:58 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> Vlad, this is an abort in setup_pressure_classes which apparently is totally
> broken for sparc -msoft-float.
I found the wrong code. It is pretty simp
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48972
--- Comment #6 from Tobias Burnus 2011-05-12
17:44:21 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> New Revision: 173708
Wrong PR number - supposed to go to PR 45823
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45823
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48979
--- Comment #4 from Steve Kargl
2011-05-12 18:21:46 UTC ---
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 05:53:10PM +, thenlich at users dot sourceforge.net
wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48979
>
> --- Comment #2 from Thomas Henlich
> 201
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48960
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot |jvdelisle at gcc dot
|g
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48981
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski 2011-05-12
17:59:56 UTC ---
Created attachment 24239
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24239
Patch which changes how vec base is done
Can you try this patch? I have not tested it and have not
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48976
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48972
--- Comment #7 from Jerry DeLisle 2011-05-12
18:39:19 UTC ---
Reply to comment#2, There are tags that are constants and some that are
variable expressions, so you have to resolve the correct one. I have not
looked for a while , but I think there
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48968
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48976
--- Comment #2 from Jerry DeLisle 2011-05-12
19:04:46 UTC ---
OK, I checked. We simply have not implemented this yet. I will do so.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48979
--- Comment #5 from Steve Kargl
2011-05-12 18:47:54 UTC ---
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 05:59:44PM +, burnus at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> > Whether this really is a bug or not depends on whether one thinks that a
> > standard-compliant Fortran pro
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48979
--- Comment #6 from Steve Kargl
2011-05-12 19:18:16 UTC ---
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 07:03:34PM +, sgk at troutmask dot
apl.washington.edu wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48979
>
> --- Comment #5 from Steve Kargl
> 2011
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48947
Ian Lance Taylor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ian at airs dot com
--- Comment #6 fro
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48977
--- Comment #1 from Uros Bizjak 2011-05-12 19:43:56
UTC ---
Why not just:
Index: configure.host
===
--- configure.host(revision 173705)
+++ configure.host(working copy)
@@ -
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48968
--- Comment #5 from eggert at gnu dot org 2011-05-12 19:52:20 UTC ---
A register may be live (after inlining), but the local variable XXXevent is not
live across the setjmp call, so surely the warning is wrong even if the
generated code is correct.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48984
Summary: [4.7 Regression] Many testsuite failures
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
AssignedTo: unas
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48979
--- Comment #7 from Steve Kargl
2011-05-12 20:10:19 UTC ---
Here's a better patch that gets the warning/error
messages correct.
Index: simplify.c
===
--- simplify.c (revision 17370
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48984
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski 2011-05-12
20:12:45 UTC ---
bool in fortran can be multiple sizes.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48979
--- Comment #8 from Tobias Burnus 2011-05-12
20:36:05 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> + return range_check (result, "FRACTION");
Can we additionally add to the range_check() error messages a note like "This
check can be disabled with the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48972
--- Comment #8 from Janne Blomqvist 2011-05-12 21:02:40
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> (In reply to comment #3)
> > - Specify that the default character set is UTF-8.
>
> What do you mean by that? I know 1 byte and 4 byte character variables
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48979
--- Comment #10 from Steve Kargl
2011-05-12 20:54:38 UTC ---
Forgot the diff
Index: simplify.c
===
--- simplify.c (revision 173705)
+++ simplify.c (working copy)
@@ -2328,6 +2328,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48979
--- Comment #9 from Steve Kargl
2011-05-12 20:53:37 UTC ---
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 08:40:48PM +, burnus at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> (In reply to comment #7)
> > + return range_check (result, "FRACTION");
>
> Can we additionally add to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44574
--- Comment #2 from Joseph S. Myers 2011-05-12
21:08:14 UTC ---
There are also uses of atol, atoll and atoq to eliminate. Also note some Ada
code using atoi (surely there must be a more idiomatic Ada way of doing this?).
It would be best to poi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46305
--- Comment #2 from Tobias Burnus 2011-05-12
21:37:08 UTC ---
The current plan according to Frédéric is to defer it until Bugzilla 4.2,
which should allow this feature without hacks - rather than introducing further
hacks.
(See attachments to PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46482
--- Comment #7 from Frédéric Buclin 2011-05-12
21:59:43 UTC ---
Is it still happening these days? Or can this bug be closed?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46305
Frédéric Buclin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46482
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-05-12
22:21:30 UTC ---
I pointed out some delays of up to an hour at
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2011-05/msg00138.html
I haven't seen any failing to arrive entirely, but I only monitor c++ bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48679
--- Comment #6 from Mikael Pettersson 2011-05-12
22:36:17 UTC ---
It's expand_call(), initialize_argument_information(),
precompute_register_parameters(), or load_register_parameters() that gets
miscompiled in stage2. expand_call() is an externa
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48956
--- Comment #6 from stevenj at alum dot mit.edu 2011-05-12 22:33:59 UTC ---
Thanks, I was somewhat aware of the additional requirements for applying
patches to the official tree (probably I should also file a copyright
assignment), but I wanted to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48956
--- Comment #7 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2011-05-12
23:06:14 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> Thanks, I was somewhat aware of the additional requirements for applying
> patches to the official tree (probably I should also file a copyright
> assi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48978
--- Comment #4 from Jan Hubicka 2011-05-12 22:53:39 UTC
---
> looks like the revert is really needed, i just ran out of memory
> even on the small config on the large memory system.
Yep, it is something with the last Richi's patch. Things has wor
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48985
Summary: bogus buffer overflow warning and abort on static
flexible array member
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48926
--- Comment #6 from Jack Howarth 2011-05-12
22:20:30 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> Dominique, I think you also have an x86_64-apple-darwin10. Do you also see
> failures - for instance with -m32?
>
> (In reply to comment #2)
> > - One failur
95 matches
Mail list logo
