http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48926
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48172
--- Comment #14 from Richard Guenther 2011-05-13
08:31:28 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri May 13 08:31:18 2011
New Revision: 173725
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=173725
Log:
2011-05-13 Richard Guenther
PR tree-o
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48981
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48172
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.7.0
Summary|[4.5/4.6/4.7
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48979
--- Comment #11 from Thomas Henlich
2011-05-13 09:13:01 UTC ---
Mind the change between F2003 and F2008:
F2003:
FRACTION(+Inf) = +Inf
FRACTION(-Inf) = -Inf
F2008:
FRACTION(+Inf) = NaN
FRACTION(-Inf) = NaN
And I think what "If X is an IEEE NaN,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48984
--- Comment #2 from Kai Tietz 2011-05-13 09:21:51
UTC ---
Author: ktietz
Date: Fri May 13 09:21:36 2011
New Revision: 173726
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=173726
Log:
2011-05-13 Kai Tietz
PR middle-end/48984
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48985
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Status|UNCONFIR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48979
--- Comment #12 from Tobias Burnus 2011-05-13
09:42:02 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #11)
> Mind the change between F2003 and F2008:
> F2003:
> FRACTION(+Inf) = +Inf
>
> F2008:
> FRACTION(+Inf) = NaN
See http://j3-fortran.org/doc/year/07/07-200r
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48984
Kai Tietz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48986
Summary: Missed optimization in atomic decrement on x86/x64
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Priority: P3
Component: rtl-optimization
A
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48987
Summary: Atomic update merging
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Priority: P3
Component: rtl-optimization
AssignedTo: unassig...@gcc.gnu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48978
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48978
--- Comment #5 from Richard Guenther 2011-05-13
11:02:32 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri May 13 11:02:28 2011
New Revision: 173730
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=173730
Log:
2011-05-13 Richard Guenther
PR lto/489
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48984
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46615
Paulo César Pereira de Andrade changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pcpa at mandriva dot com.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48965
--- Comment #6 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-05-13
13:44:08 UTC ---
Author: hjl
Date: Fri May 13 13:44:04 2011
New Revision: 173733
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=173733
Log:
Change edge_to_cases_cleanup to return true.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48979
--- Comment #13 from Steve Kargl
2011-05-13 14:49:52 UTC ---
On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 10:10:42AM +, burnus at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> + if (mpfr_nan_p (x->value.real) != 0 || mpfr_inf_p (x->value.real) != 0)
> +{
> + mpfr_set (re
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48986
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48982
--- Comment #1 from Nicolai Stange 2011-05-13
14:44:08 UTC ---
Created attachment 24240
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24240
Against 4.5.2
The remove and add of the comment line in fpu-sysv.h within this patch is
intentional
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48633
Vladimir Makarov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vmakarov at redhat dot com
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48971
--- Comment #4 from Vladimir Makarov 2011-05-13
15:34:39 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> (In reply to comment #2)
> > Vlad, this is an abort in setup_pressure_classes which apparently is totally
> > broken for sparc -msoft-float.
>
>
> I fou
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48988
Summary: powerpc-rtems ICE pred_chain_length_cmp at
tree-ssa-uninit.c:1624
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
C
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47793
--- Comment #2 from martinthuresson at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-05-13 15:57:25 UTC
---
Author: martinthuresson
Date: Fri May 13 15:57:20 2011
New Revision: 173735
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=173735
Log:
2011-05-13 Martin Th
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48990
Summary: MIPS wrong code error with -O1
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
Priority: P3
Component: target
AssignedTo: unassig...@gcc.gnu.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48989
Summary: [4.7 Regression] FAIL: gfortran.dg/lto/pr46036
f_lto_pr46036_0.o assemble
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48990
--- Comment #1 from Paul Koning 2011-05-13
16:40:55 UTC ---
GCC 4.6.0 gets it wrong also, in exactly the same way.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48969
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot |jason at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48969
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48978
Andi Kleen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
Resolution|FIXED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48989
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone|--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48990
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski 2011-05-13
17:49:28 UTC ---
>That clobbers $4 (A0) in the no-branch case
No it does not as beql is a branch likely instruction and the delay slot only
happens when the branch is taken.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48990
--- Comment #4 from Paul Koning 2011-05-13
18:16:11 UTC ---
Re comment 2: Sorry, my typo, I incorrectly transcribed the .s file. It's a
beq, not a beql.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48990
--- Comment #3 from Paul Koning 2011-05-13
18:14:00 UTC ---
The problem also shows up with -mabi=64, but it works correctly for -mabi=32
and -mabi=o64.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48972
--- Comment #9 from Tobias Burnus 2011-05-13
18:16:40 UTC ---
Author: burnus
Date: Fri May 13 18:16:37 2011
New Revision: 173736
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=173736
Log:
2011-05-12 Tobias Burnus
PR fortran/48
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48990
--- Comment #5 from Paul Koning 2011-05-13
18:20:42 UTC ---
Created attachment 24242
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24242
Assembly output from -mabi=n32 case, GCC 4.5.1
Here is the assembly file (with -dA so basic block boun
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48769
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42494
Arnaud Lacombe changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||lacombar at gmail dot com
--- Comment #1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42494
--- Comment #14 from Jing Yu 2011-05-13 19:34:35 UTC
---
I am on leave from 02/01/2011 to 05/30/2011. I may not reply your
email during this period.
If you have Android toolchain questions/issues/requests, please
contact Doug (dougk...@google.co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42494
--- Comment #15 from Arnaud Lacombe 2011-05-13
20:14:08 UTC ---
trunk from early May also fails with one more "if (outcnt == 1) func ();" line
at the end of the function:
% ./gcc/cc1 -Os -o - test.c
.file "test.c"
test
Analyzing comp
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48991
Summary: [4.7 Regression] FAIL: gfortran.dg/assign_8.f90
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
AssignedTo:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48988
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Keywords|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48990
--- Comment #6 from Paul Koning 2011-05-13
20:29:50 UTC ---
Created attachment 24243
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24243
debug dump from the pass before machdep
After some debugging, I see that the problem is that register
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48992
Summary: inline assembly "i" constraint does not accept
constexpr function return value
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Prior
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48972
--- Comment #10 from Tobias Burnus 2011-05-13
20:59:09 UTC ---
Author: burnus
Date: Fri May 13 20:59:07 2011
New Revision: 173738
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=173738
Log:
2011-05-13 Tobias Burnus
PR fortran/4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48991
--- Comment #1 from Tobias Burnus 2011-05-13
20:59:09 UTC ---
Author: burnus
Date: Fri May 13 20:59:07 2011
New Revision: 173738
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=173738
Log:
2011-05-13 Tobias Burnus
PR fortran/48
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48981
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski 2011-05-13
21:22:18 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> Confirmed. A patch similar to Andrews should work.
I will attach a patch which actually compiles :).
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48981
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #24239|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48993
Summary: segmentation fault when compiling this program with
constexpr
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48969
--- Comment #3 from Jason Merrill 2011-05-13
22:25:16 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Fri May 13 22:25:12 2011
New Revision: 173741
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=173741
Log:
PR c++/48969
* pt.c (deduction_tsubst_fntyp
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48994
--- Comment #1 from Nathan Ridge 2011-05-13
23:19:32 UTC ---
Further reduced to:
template
struct myvec
{
T* begin() const;
T* end() const;
};
void f(const myvec& v)
{
for (int i : v)
;
}
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48994
Summary: error for trivial use of range-based 'for'
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
AssignedTo: unassig..
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48995
Summary: Function called twice during initialization of an
allocated packed unconstrained array.
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48981
--- Comment #5 from Dmitry Gorbachev
2011-05-14 00:51:44 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
Then this comment in gengtype.c becomes no longer valid, and confusing:
/* Record the definition of a generic VEC structure, as if we had expanded
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48990
Paul Koning changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42775
Paul Koning changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pkoning at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #12
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48996
Summary: fixincl on Red Hat EL 5 breaks sys/stat.h fstat64()
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
Priority: P3
Component: c
AssignedTo: una
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48961
--- Comment #6 from Tobias Burnus 2011-05-14
06:35:21 UTC ---
Author: burnus
Date: Sat May 14 06:35:18 2011
New Revision: 173748
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=173748
Log:
2011-05-14 Tobias Burnus
PR fortran/48
57 matches
Mail list logo
