http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46655
--- Comment #31 from Michael Haubenwallner 2011-05-17 07:17:57 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #29)
> I'm now running AIX 6.1, oslevel -s returns 6100-06-03-1048 and the
> problem seems to persist with newer versions of gcc as well. I installed
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48986
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48986
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-05-17
07:42:38 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue May 17 07:42:30 2011
New Revision: 173817
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=173817
Log:
PR target/48986
* config/i386/sync.md (sync
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48986
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-05-17
07:38:03 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue May 17 07:37:59 2011
New Revision: 173816
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=173816
Log:
PR target/48986
* config/i386/sync.md (sync
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49000
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=49012
--- Comment #3 from Richard Guenther 2011-05-17
08:39:50 UTC ---
I suppose PR47278 might be related.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49000
--- Comment #5 from Richard Guenther 2011-05-17
09:40:20 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> TREE_ADDRESSABLE is cleared by maybe_optimize_var during
> execute_update_addresses_taken. If the debug stmt contains just the VAR_DECL,
> it will be ren
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49010
Janne Blomqvist changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jb at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6 fr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49000
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-05-17
10:03:08 UTC ---
Not always, it is fine to keep say &a around even when a is no longer
addressable - then we emit is as (debug_implicit_ptr a). So, if possible
ADDR_EXPR of the var should stay as is,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49018
Summary: Inline assembly block executed outside conditional
check with "-O1 -ftree-vrp"
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49013
--- Comment #2 from Richard Guenther 2011-05-17
10:29:39 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue May 17 10:29:36 2011
New Revision: 173827
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=173827
Log:
2011-05-17 Richard Guenther
PR boo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49013
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49018
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Status|UNCONFIR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49019
Summary: [4.4 Regression] Spurious aliasing warning with
boost:optional
Product: gcc
Version: 4.4.6
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Comp
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45853
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.4.5, 4.5.2, 4.6.0
--- Comment #6 from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49020
Summary: Invalid std::strchr prototype in cstring
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
AssignedTo: unas
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49010
--- Comment #7 from Thomas Henlich
2011-05-17 11:57:31 UTC ---
I suppose we could still use __builtin_fmod if we reset the sign bit if the
result is -0.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49020
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|major |normal
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wak
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49020
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49020
--- Comment #3 from __vic 2011-05-17 12:24:56 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> You haven't said which version of gcc or which platform.
>
Actually 3.4.3 on Linux and Windows (MinGW) but in SVN trunk version (r169421)
/trunk/libstdc++-v3/include
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33935
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-05-17
12:22:25 UTC ---
*** Bug 49020 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49021
--- Comment #1 from Mikael Pettersson 2011-05-17
12:37:52 UTC ---
Created attachment 24260
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24260
test case, preprocessed on x86_64-linux
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49020
--- Comment #4 from __vic 2011-05-17 12:31:50 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> With a recent GCC and recent glibc I get:
>
In which version of GCC can I find valid implementation?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49020
__vic changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|unknown |4.1.1
--- Comment #5 from __vic 2011-05-17 12:41
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49021
Summary: [4.6 regression] BOOST_FOREACH over vector segfaults
at runtime
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49021
--- Comment #2 from Mikael Pettersson 2011-05-17
12:38:38 UTC ---
Created attachment 24261
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24261
test case, non-preprocessed
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49013
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49013
--- Comment #5 from Richard Guenther 2011-05-17
13:04:47 UTC ---
LTO bootstrap passed for me with the revert and the previously applied patch.
I didn't try LTO profiled-bootstrap.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49013
--- Comment #6 from Richard Guenther 2011-05-17
13:12:17 UTC ---
Try again with rev. 173829.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49020
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49020
__vic changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|CLOSED
--- Comment #7 from __vic 2011-05-17 13:2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49022
Summary: [C++0x] std::begin and std::end specialized for
std::valarray with some operators are missing.
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49016
--- Comment #6 from Lee Merrill 2011-05-17
13:29:56 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> Yeah, 128 bytes below %rsp can be freely used on x86_64, interrupts must not
> clobber those.
I should have mentioned that this is kernel driver code, so then
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49020
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-05-17
13:38:57 UTC ---
3.4 and 4.1 are ancient history, active release series are listed on the home
page, http://gcc.gnu.org/
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49022
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49023
Summary: ICE on invalid code with C_ASSOCIATED
Product: gcc
Version: 4.4.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
AssignedTo: unassig...
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49016
--- Comment #7 from Lee Merrill 2011-05-17
13:42:23 UTC ---
I think what is happening in the compiler BTW is that a "sub $XX, %rsp" is
dropping out, perhaps as an optimization. If for example, you comment out the
"#define inline" line in the test
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49021
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-05-17
13:52:40 UTC ---
The temporary returned by getv() seems to be destroyed too early, before the
printf that uses it
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49014
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49016
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-05-17
14:01:51 UTC ---
It is of course fine if an interrupt uses the same stack, after all, user
interrupts do that too. But the ABI says that 128 bytes below the %rsp are
reserved, so the interrupt code fi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49024
Summary: REAL*16 ERFC_SCALED inaccuracy
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libfortran
AssignedTo: unassig...@gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49010
--- Comment #8 from Janne Blomqvist 2011-05-17 14:02:07
UTC ---
So does the fallback path actually ever get used? AFAICS the builtins are
always available, and if the builtin results in a call to fmod{f,,l,Q} we have
fallback implementations in c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49014
--- Comment #2 from Andrey Belevantsev 2011-05-17
14:20:52 UTC ---
That patch is most likely just exposed a sel-sched bug or a target bug. I will
be looking at it tomorrow.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46072
David Edelsohn changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49010
--- Comment #9 from Steve Kargl
2011-05-17 14:02:11 UTC ---
On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 06:05:50AM +, thenlich at users dot sourceforge.net
wrote:
> --- Comment #5 from Thomas Henlich
> 2011-05-17 05:51:56 UTC ---
> The fmod behaviour is correc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49022
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||g...@integrable-solutions.ne
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49022
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jwakely.gcc at gmail dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49016
--- Comment #10 from Lee Merrill 2011-05-17
14:49:33 UTC ---
And the compile (and the compile in the "rc" script here) is indeed specifying
-mcmodel=kernel in the flags.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46072
--- Comment #26 from Michael Haubenwallner 2011-05-17 14:52:36 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #25)
> The fixed assembler is available as an efix for customers who ask.
We did do this here, but the efix'ed assembler just dumps core upon some C++
con
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49022
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-05-17
14:52:41 UTC ---
[valarray.syn] paragraph 4
for every function taking a const valarray&, identical functions
taking the replacement types shall be added;
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49010
--- Comment #10 from Steve Kargl
2011-05-17 14:50:52 UTC ---
On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 02:17:22PM +, jb at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> So does the fallback path actually ever get used? AFAICS the builtins are
> always available, and if the built
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49016
--- Comment #9 from Lee Merrill 2011-05-17
14:47:34 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> ... the ABI says that 128 bytes below the %rsp are
> reserved, so the interrupt code first needs to subtract 128 from %rsp before
> calling any functions and m
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49022
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot |paolo.carlini at oracle dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49022
--- Comment #6 from Paolo Carlini 2011-05-17
15:09:44 UTC ---
Double Sigh! I was hoping very few overloads would be enough... If we are
really talking about many I would be in favor of raising the issue, indeed.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49022
Gabriel Dos Reis changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gdr at gcc dot gnu.org
Assigne
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49022
--- Comment #7 from Gabriel Dos Reis 2011-05-17
15:14:04 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> Double Sigh! I was hoping very few overloads would be enough... If we are
> really talking about many I would be in favor of raising the issue, indeed.
T
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49022
--- Comment #8 from Paolo Carlini 2011-05-17
15:17:01 UTC ---
Ok, I'll follow the discussion...
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46072
--- Comment #27 from Dr. David Kirkby
2011-05-17 15:25:50 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #25)
> The fixed assembler is available as an efix for customers who ask.
Can you give me more precise details about how to get this. Who do I ask - I
don't
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45221
Navin Kumar changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|4.5.0 |4.6.0
--- Comment #11 from Navin Kumar 201
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48417
licheng.1...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
Resolution|I
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49025
Summary: gfortran bug: Local variable does not hide generic
procedure.
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49022
--- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-05-17
15:27:01 UTC ---
The workaround for users is to construct a valarray from the expr:
std::valarray result(x + y);
std::begin( result );
That avoids the problem of returning an iterator into
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49022
--- Comment #10 from Paolo Carlini 2011-05-17
15:49:25 UTC ---
For sure that works.
Gaby, just to make sure we are on the same page: did you send a message to the
reflector about this issue already? Or do you want me (us) to do that? Shall we
su
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49022
--- Comment #11 from Paolo Carlini 2011-05-17
15:54:19 UTC ---
All in all, now that I understand the issue with the temporary, this seems
really sort of a NAD, maybe the wording needs only clarifying that you don't
want to add std::begin and std:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49026
Summary: [4.7 Regression] FAIL:
gcc.target/i386/sse4_1-(ceil|floor)-vec.c execution
test at r173809 on x86_64-apple-darwin10
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UN
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26007
licheng.1...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||licheng.1212 at gmail dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49010
--- Comment #11 from Janne Blomqvist 2011-05-17
16:18:41 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #10)
> On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 02:17:22PM +, jb at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> >
> > So does the fallback path actually ever get used? AFAICS the builtins are
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26007
--- Comment #4 from licheng.1212 at gmail dot com 2011-05-17 16:12:07 UTC ---
can anybody tell me how to change the final form .data to .rodata.
which files have the check in gcc?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49025
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49013
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49022
--- Comment #13 from Gabriel Dos Reis 2011-05-17
16:24:57 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #11)
> All in all, now that I understand the issue with the temporary, this seems
> really sort of a NAD, maybe the wording needs only clarifying that you don'
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49000
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49022
--- Comment #12 from Gabriel Dos Reis 2011-05-17
16:23:37 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #10)
> For sure that works.
>
> Gaby, just to make sure we are on the same page: did you send a message to the
> reflector about this issue already? Or do you
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49027
Summary: g++ ignores -fno-exceptions in uninstantiated template
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
AssignedT
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48417
Mikael Pettersson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikpe at it dot uu.se
--- Comment #5
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49000
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-05-17
17:03:00 UTC ---
Needs to be guarded additionally with && gimple_debug_bind_has_value_p (stmt)
otherwise it doesn't get too far.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49022
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |SUSPENDED
--- Comment #14 from Paolo Carl
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49016
--- Comment #11 from Mikael Pettersson 2011-05-17
16:58:02 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #10)
> And the compile (and the compile in the "rc" script here) is indeed specifying
> -mcmodel=kernel in the flags.
-mcmodel=kernel isn't enough, you're st
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49028
Summary: Missed optimization of pointer arithmetic
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Priority: P3
Component: rtl-optimization
AssignedTo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48702
--- Comment #14 from davidxl 2011-05-17 17:17:11
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #13)
> (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
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49028
--- Comment #1 from Piotr Wyderski 2011-05-17
17:24:03 UTC ---
If I change the function to:
template void R::xxx_release(void* p) {
char* q = reinterpret_cast(m_Cursor);
char* b = reinterpret_cast(m_Data);
q = ((q + sizeof(v
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49021
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49021
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-05-17
17:28:44 UTC ---
slightly more reduced
#include
struct vector
{
typedef int* const* const_iterator;
~vector() { data = 0; }
int* data;
const_iterator begin() const { return &dat
bmudflap --disable-libssp
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.7.0 20110517 (experimental) [trunk revision 173832] (GCC)
$ ./xgcc -B. ~/ice.i
/home/ryan/ice.i: In function 'bar':
/home/ryan/ice.i:19:29: internal compiler error: in simplify_subreg, at
simplify-rtx.c:5266
Please submit a ful
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46072
--- Comment #28 from Daniel Richard G. 2011-05-17
18:12:26 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #25)
> An upgrade to the AIX assembler has introduced a bug that can generate invalid
> object files. The is an AIX bug, not a GCC bug.
I'm not yet convince
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49029
Ryan Mansfield changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||arm-unknown-linux-gnueabi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49016
--- Comment #12 from Lee Merrill 2011-05-17
18:42:47 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #11)
> (In reply to comment #10)
> > And the compile (and the compile in the "rc" script here) is indeed
> > specifying
> > -mcmodel=kernel in the flags.
>
> -mcm
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49026
--- Comment #1 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2011-05-17 18:48:26 UTC ---
Before-and-after .s output might be useful.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33049
--- Comment #10 from Georg-Johann Lay 2011-05-17
18:57:39 UTC ---
Created attachment 24264
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24264
Proposed patch.
Proposed Patch (also compatible with older versions of GCC).
The insn needs at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33049
--- Comment #11 from Georg-Johann Lay 2011-05-17
19:00:05 UTC ---
Created attachment 24265
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24265
Assembler output from 4.7.0 (r173832) with patch applied.
Assembler output from 4.7.0 (r173832)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49026
--- Comment #3 from Dominique d'Humieres 2011-05-17
19:05:21 UTC ---
Created attachment 24267
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24267
assembly for r173809 (not working)
ble-languages=c++ --disable-shared
--disable-libmudflap --disable-libssp
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.7.0 20110517 (experimental) [trunk revision 173832] (GCC)
$ ./xgcc -B. -O1 ~/ice.i
/home/ryan/ice.i: In function 'bar':
/home/ryan/ice.i:33:1: internal compiler error: in get_arm_c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49026
--- Comment #2 from Dominique d'Humieres 2011-05-17
19:03:55 UTC ---
Created attachment 24266
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24266
assembly for r173808 (working)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48702
--- Comment #15 from rakdver at kam dot mff.cuni.cz 2011-05-17 19:26:18 UTC ---
Hi,
> The following patch fixes the problem. Is it ok?
as a heuristic, this probably makes sense. Still, it does
not fix the problem, just masks it and makes it har
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49032
Summary: -gstabs generates reference to deleted static variable
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: debug
Assigne
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42210
--- Comment #3 from Georg-Johann Lay 2011-05-17
19:16:45 UTC ---
Created attachment 24269
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24269
Patch against 4.7.0 (r173832)
See also
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-04/msg02099.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49031
Summary: powl() function gives wrong results in some situations
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: other
Assigne
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33050
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33050
--- Comment #5 from Georg-Johann Lay 2011-05-17
19:28:11 UTC ---
Created attachment 24271
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24271
Assembler output with 4.7.0 r173649
This code is as you expected.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48702
--- Comment #16 from davidxl 2011-05-17 19:57:01
UTC ---
This is not really heuristic -- it prevents compiler from generating code in
ivopt that violates the aliasing assumption.
David
(In reply to comment #15)
> Hi,
>
> > The following patch
1 - 100 of 129 matches
Mail list logo
