http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48906
--- Comment #10 from Thomas Henlich
2011-05-27 07:15:16 UTC ---
The test cases from above still fail (but with a different result):
print "(ru,g15.2)", .099d0 ! 1.0E-01 expected 0.10
print "(rc,g15.1)", .095d0 ! 1.E-01 expected 0.1
pr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49184
Bernd Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49173
Bernd Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||howarth at nitro dot
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49173
--- Comment #10 from Dominique d'Humieres
2011-05-27 07:26:30 UTC ---
I am still investigating what caused the breakage reported in comment #5,
likely revision 174286, but it has nothing to do with this pr that is fixed
with the patch in comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49186
Summary: optimize problem with unsigned long long value.
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
AssignedTo: unassi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49173
--- Comment #11 from Bernd Schmidt 2011-05-27
07:53:53 UTC ---
Author: bernds
Date: Fri May 27 07:53:51 2011
New Revision: 174321
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=174321
Log:
PR bootstrap/49173
* config/t-slibgcc-dar
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49176
fabien at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot |fabien at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49165
--- Comment #11 from Vijay Rao 2011-05-27 07:58:25
UTC ---
Does this fix the situation when the 2nd operand of the conditional operator is
of type int?
extern "C" void abort ();
int bar (bool x, int y)
{
if (y < 10 && (x ? 1 : throw 1))
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49173
Bernd Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49187
Summary: parallel mode compilation broken - unqualified lookup?
(bisected)
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
C
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49176
--- Comment #4 from fabien at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-05-27 08:23:35 UTC ---
Is it broken in 4.6.0 before r174239 ?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48906
--- Comment #11 from Thomas Henlich
2011-05-27 08:55:14 UTC ---
The scale factor is applied to F editing, but it shouldn't. See Fortran 2008:
NOTE 10.20
The scale factor has no effect on output unless the magnitude of the datum to
be edited is o
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49186
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c |target
--- Comment #1 from Richard Gue
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49176
--- Comment #5 from Paolo Carlini 2011-05-27
08:58:27 UTC ---
Just tried -r174238: was already broken.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49176
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49177
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49047
--- Comment #4 from dodji at seketeli dot org
2011-05-27 09:09:35 UTC ---
A candidate patch was posted to
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-05/msg02044.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49187
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-05-27
09:34:45 UTC ---
yes, the change was intentional but these parts must have been missed, see the
thread beginning at http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/libstdc++/2011-05/msg00072.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49170
--- Comment #4 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-05-27 10:05:28 UTC ---
> --- Comment #3 from William J. Schmidt
> 2011-05-26 13:24:31 UTC ---
> Rainer, please try:
[...]
> and let me know if it solves the problem.
It does: I've boot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49170
--- Comment #5 from Dominique d'Humieres 2011-05-27
10:15:37 UTC ---
> + /* Make sure we have either sincos or cexp. */
> + if (!TARGET_HAS_SINCOS && !TARGET_C99_FUNCTIONS)
> +break;
> +
Could you please have a loo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49177
--- Comment #3 from Richard Guenther 2011-05-27
10:32:18 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri May 27 10:32:14 2011
New Revision: 174326
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=174326
Log:
2011-05-27 Richard Guenther
PR middle-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49177
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49095
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49188
Summary: Mismatch between -fsign-zero documentation and
formatted output
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49189
Summary: [4.7 regression] infinite recursion in constant folder
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
As
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49189
--- Comment #1 from Eric Botcazou 2011-05-27
10:56:33 UTC ---
Created attachment 24367
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24367
Concatenated testcase
Run gnatchop on the file. Suitable for inclusion in the gnat.dg testsuite.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48887
--- Comment #2 from Daniel Kraft 2011-05-27 10:59:01
UTC ---
In match.c:select_type_set_tmp we have around line 4536:
if (select_type_stack->selector->ts.type == BT_CLASS &&
CLASS_DATA (select_type_stack->selector)->attr.allocatable)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49187
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49189
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49189
--- Comment #3 from Richard Guenther 2011-05-27
11:13:11 UTC ---
fold_truth_not_expr canonicalizes !(A & 1) to (A & 1) == 0 but fold_binary
canonicalizes bool == 0 to !bool. A recipie for recursion.
fold_truth_not_expr
doesn't re-fold its resul
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49189
--- Comment #4 from Richard Guenther 2011-05-27
11:21:09 UTC ---
The old code did not re-fold in
/* If we have (type) (a CMP b) and type is an integral type, return
new expression involving the new type. */
if (COMPARISON_C
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49095
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #24366|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49165
--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-05-27
12:30:29 UTC ---
Created attachment 24369
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24369
gcc46-pr49165.patch
Indeed, c_common_truthvalue_conversion needs to be aware of it too.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49188
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48529
--- Comment #8 from H.J. Lu 2011-05-27 12:36:21
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> Objective C failures:
>
> FAIL: objc.dg/torture/forward-1.m -O0 -fgnu-runtime execution test
> FAIL: objc.dg/torture/forward-1.m -O1 -fgnu-runtime execution t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49190
Summary: [4.7 Regression] Bootstrap failure at revision 174286
on x86_64-apple-darwin10
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48906
--- Comment #12 from Thomas Henlich
2011-05-27 13:12:32 UTC ---
The following examples fail:
print "(rc,g10.2,'<')", 99.5 ! 10. expected 0.10E+03
print "(rc,g10.2,'<')", 995. ! 1.0E+03 expected 0.10E+04
print "(rc,g10.3,'<')", 999.5
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49189
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49189
--- Comment #5 from Richard Guenther 2011-05-27
13:13:34 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri May 27 13:13:28 2011
New Revision: 174330
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=174330
Log:
2011-05-27 Richard Guenther
PR middle-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49190
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-apple-darwin10,
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49170
--- Comment #6 from William J. Schmidt 2011-05-27
13:30:01 UTC ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Fri May 27 13:29:57 2011
New Revision: 174331
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=174331
Log:
Index: gcc/ChangeLog
==
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49189
--- Comment #7 from William J. Schmidt 2011-05-27
13:30:03 UTC ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Fri May 27 13:29:57 2011
New Revision: 174331
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=174331
Log:
Index: gcc/ChangeLog
==
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49088
--- Comment #10 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-05-27
13:38:45 UTC ---
Author: hjl
Date: Fri May 27 13:38:41 2011
New Revision: 174332
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=174332
Log:
Properly handle CONST_INT operands.
2011-0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49114
--- Comment #5 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-05-27
13:39:28 UTC ---
Author: hjl
Date: Fri May 27 13:39:25 2011
New Revision: 174333
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=174333
Log:
Properly handle (set reg:X (plus:X (subreg:X
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49191
Summary: gcc.dg/memcpy-3.c FAILs on SPARC
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
AssignedTo: unassig...@g
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48464
--- Comment #6 from Jan-Benedict Glaw 2011-05-27 13:49:51
UTC ---
It seems r174123 (= 59813b406b20d7b) not only fixed PR rtl-optimization/48971,
but also this issue:
2011-05-13 Vladimir Makarov
PR rtl-optimization/48971
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49191
--- Comment #1 from richard.guenther at gmail dot com 2011-05-27 13:53:57 UTC ---
On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 3:50 PM, ro at gcc dot gnu.org
wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49191
>
> Summary: gcc.dg/memcpy-3.c FAILs on
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49130
--- Comment #2 from Jan Kratochvil
2011-05-27 13:55:45 UTC ---
Those Comment 0 samples are instead from:
/usr/lib/debug/usr/lib64/libwebkitgtk-1.0.so.0.5.2.debug
webkitgtk-debuginfo-1.3.10-1.fc14.x86_64
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49191
--- Comment #2 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-05-27 13:59:11 UTC ---
> Is sparc a strict-alignment target? Then that's expected.
It is.
> Hmm. Not sure we have a dg-effective-target strict-align ...
> so you probably have to add
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48464
Jan-Benedict Glaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49192
Summary: Misleading error message about unknown discriminant
Product: gcc
Version: 4.4.5
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Component: ada
Assigne
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49095
--- Comment #6 from Linus Torvalds 2011-05-27
14:15:25 UTC ---
Jakub - the patch looks sane, although I don't currently have a gcc build
environment to actually test it with, and there is no way I'm going to claim
that I follow all the matches an
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42056
--- Comment #8 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-05-27 14:21:39 UTC ---
Author: paolo
Date: Fri May 27 14:21:33 2011
New Revision: 174337
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=174337
Log:
/cp
2011-05-27 Paolo Carlini
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42056
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48906
--- Comment #13 from Jerry DeLisle 2011-05-27
14:32:12 UTC ---
OK, thanks for test cases, these are very helpful.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49139
chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot |chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49139
--- Comment #7 from chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-05-27 14:37:42 UTC ---
Created attachment 24373
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24373
testcase 1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49139
--- Comment #8 from chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-05-27 14:38:13 UTC ---
Created attachment 24374
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24374
testcase 2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49193
Summary: __sync_ builtins aren't used in sysdep/*/locks.h
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libgcj
Assigned
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49181
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49095
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-05-27
14:47:08 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> Jakub - the patch looks sane, although I don't currently have a gcc build
> environment to actually test it with, and there is no way I'm going to claim
> th
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48284
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47687
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48981
--- Comment #7 from Dmitry Gorbachev
2011-05-27 15:00:04 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
I think there should be a space after "}" in vec.h:
> +}vec_prefix;
Thanks!
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49139
--- Comment #9 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2011-05-27
15:08:17 UTC ---
You patch looks fine to me but I cannot approve it. You'll need to submit it to
gcc-patches for review and approval. You'll need also a Changelog. If you don't
have svn access, y
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48078
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-05-27
15:11:29 UTC ---
This bug is probably the reason why g++ only rejects half of the testcase for
http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=8058
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49194
Summary: Trivially stupid inlining decisions
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: other
AssignedTo: unassig...@gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49095
--- Comment #8 from Linus Torvalds 2011-05-27
15:32:21 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
>
> BTW, the patch bootstrapped/regtested on both x86_64-linux and i686-linux, I'm
> just running second set of bootstrap without the patch to be able to comp
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49194
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49194
Michael Matz changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||matz at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 fro
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49194
--- Comment #3 from Jan Hubicka 2011-05-27 16:15:02 UTC
---
> I agree if the called function is big and it is very unlikely (most probably
> just in PROB_VERY_UNLIKELY cases) -finline-functions-called-once shouldn't
> inline.
-finline-functions-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49194
--- Comment #4 from Jan Hubicka 2011-05-27
16:19:04 UTC ---
BTW mainline won't inline foo in that testcase:
Deciding on functions called once:
not inlinable: bar/1 -> foo/0, --param large-stack-frame-growth limit reached
I fixed some stack-gr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49194
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-05-27
16:24:45 UTC ---
Oops, s/65536/128/, I've changed the testcase too late without retesting.
Anyway, the point is that the limits should be adjusted somewhat if the call is
PROB_VERY_UNLIKELY.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49176
fabien at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49195
Summary: Error building libgcc for powerpc64 since r174305
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: bootstrap
Assigned
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49095
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-05-27
16:33:33 UTC ---
.text sizes before/after the patch (in each case on identical sources, for
cc1plus I've reverted the patch afterwards and did make -j64 cc1plus in gcc/
subdir), the size changes aren't
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49187
--- Comment #3 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-05-27 16:35:43 UTC ---
Author: paolo
Date: Fri May 27 16:35:36 2011
New Revision: 174342
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=174342
Log:
2011-05-27 Paolo Carlini
PR libs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49187
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49194
--- Comment #6 from Linus Torvalds 2011-05-27
16:38:22 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
>
> -finline-functions-called-once is trottled down by the large-function-growth
> and large-stack-frame-growth limits. The Kernel case coupld proably be
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48529
--- Comment #9 from H.J. Lu 2011-05-27 16:44:42
UTC ---
Therre is only one failure:
FAIL: libgomp.fortran/strassen.f90 -O execution test
with C, C++, Fortran and Objective C on x32 branch at revision 174333.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49095
--- Comment #10 from Linus Torvalds 2011-05-27
16:48:52 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #9)
>
> 32-bit before32-bit after64-bit before64-bit after
> libstdc++.so.60x717080x716e80x67ee60x67ec6
> libgcj
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47277
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49130
--- Comment #3 from Tom Tromey 2011-05-27 16:59:57
UTC ---
Here is another case:
template
class S2
{
};
template void f(S2) { }
int main()
{
S2 s;
f (s);
}
This generates:
<1><29>: Abbrev Number: 2 (DW_TAG_class_type)
<2a> DW_AT_
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49130
--- Comment #4 from Tom Tromey 2011-05-27 17:03:09
UTC ---
I forgot to mention -- you can construct many more such cases
using the expressions feature of the mangling:
http://www.codesourcery.com/public/cxx-abi/abi.html#expressions
This also af
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49176
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49196
Summary: GCC 4.2.1 [FreeBSD] segfaults with certain use of void
typedefs with debugging symbols
Product: gcc
Version: 4.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49196
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47687
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||a71104 at gmail dot com
--- Comment #2 fr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47212
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49130
--- Comment #5 from dodji at seketeli dot org
2011-05-27 17:27:43 UTC ---
In the example below, I could reproduce a case of difference between the
mangled name and the content of DW_AT_name.
Basically the content of the DW_AT_name property of th
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47132
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47169
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49190
--- Comment #2 from Dominique d'Humieres 2011-05-27
17:51:07 UTC ---
I have bootstrapped revision 174339 after reverting revision 174286.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49197
Summary: Crash compiling arm-unknown-linux-gnueabi libgcc
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
Assigned
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49190
Nathan Froyd changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||froydnj at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49197
--- Comment #1 from Ryan Mansfield 2011-05-27
18:08:04 UTC ---
Reduced tescase:
float
__powisf2 (float x, int m)
{
unsigned int n = m < 0 ? -m : m;
while (n >>= 1) { }
}
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48657
--- Comment #7 from Jason Merrill 2011-05-27
18:10:52 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Fri May 27 18:10:48 2011
New Revision: 174346
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=174346
Log:
PR c++/48657
PR c++/49176
* decl.c (cp_
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49176
--- Comment #8 from Jason Merrill 2011-05-27
18:10:52 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Fri May 27 18:10:48 2011
New Revision: 174346
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=174346
Log:
PR c++/48657
PR c++/49176
* decl.c (cp_
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49190
--- Comment #4 from Jack Howarth 2011-05-27
18:29:53 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> Ugh. I do not have time to deal with this problem at the moment.
>
> But I don't understand how ASM_OUTPUT_WEAKREF isn't defined at that point. We
> have a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49195
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||build, ice-on-valid-code
Target Milesto
1 - 100 of 160 matches
Mail list logo
