http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49324
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Wrong result with |Deep copy missing for array
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49308
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-06-09
07:46:32 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Jun 9 07:46:28 2011
New Revision: 174839
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=174839
Log:
PR middle-end/49308
* dce.c (reset_unmarke
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49308
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48062
--- Comment #3 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2011-06-09
07:55:37 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> Produces no warning. So for me it is a bit confusing, since the warning
> setting
> refers to pieces of code and not to variables.
You are right and
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49338
Summary: wrong code with -O2 and -O3
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
AssignedTo: unassig...@gcc.gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49338
--- Comment #1 from Paolo Carlini 2011-06-09
08:10:06 UTC ---
What happens if you add -fno-strict-aliasing to the command line?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49331
--- Comment #1 from Tobias Burnus 2011-06-09
08:17:30 UTC ---
The examples of the IR 11-101 do not work for me as the examples do not involve
constant expressions when defining the kind value (unless I am seriously
mistaken).
Better/shorter exam
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49339
Summary: [C++0x][lambda][unused-parameter]g++ reports unused
parameter even it's referenced in function
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49338
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49338
--- Comment #3 from Hans Meier 2011-06-09 08:24:07
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> What happens if you add -fno-strict-aliasing to the command line?
Problem disappears (tested all 4.5.x both with -O2 and -O3).
Thanks! We can probbly live wit
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49338
--- Comment #4 from Hans Meier 2011-06-09 08:42:31
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> is an obvious aliasing violation.
yes, but why does this lead to read from other objects than it is intended? -
The "[1..1]" comes from m_ppSelect[i] when read
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49338
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-06-09
08:47:44 UTC ---
You should read the standard or at least
http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-4.6.0/gcc/Optimize-Options.html#index-fstrict_002daliasing-824
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49338
--- Comment #6 from Hans Meier 2011-06-09 08:59:11
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> is an obvious aliasing violation.
... and if so, shouldn't -Wstrict-aliasing emit a warning? None of the
mentioned compilers (4.4.6 - 4.6.0) does it.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49338
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-06-09
09:08:51 UTC ---
Try -Wstrict-aliasing=2 or -Wstrict-aliasing=1 if -Wstrict-aliasing doesn't
report anything. Anyway, why are you fighting so hard to avoid fixing your
buggy code? It isn't hard to re
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49337
--- Comment #1 from Richard Guenther 2011-06-09
09:23:49 UTC ---
Please post patches to gcc-patc...@gcc.gnu.org.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49330
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Status|UNCONFIR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29003
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=49338
--- Comment #8 from Hans Meier 2011-06-09 09:44:28
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> It isn't hard to rewrite it using an union:
a similar solution with a union was one of my earlier attempts to
performance-optimize our code. unfortunately this
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49339
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49330
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49330
--- Comment #4 from rguenther at suse dot de
2011-06-09 10:08:55 UTC ---
On Thu, 9 Jun 2011, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49330
>
> Jakub Jelinek changed:
>
>What|Removed
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49330
--- Comment #5 from Richard Guenther 2011-06-09
10:22:57 UTC ---
The testcase also fails similarly without the volatile qualification of d
when compiling with -O -fno-tree-fre -fno-tree-forwprop -fno-tree-reassoc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49335
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Known to work|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49335
--- Comment #3 from Ramana Radhakrishnan 2011-06-09
10:25:15 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> The problem is that *arith_shiftsi allows *all* shiftable operators to have
> the
> stack pointer as Rn .
>
> In Thumb2 only the add and sub instru
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49330
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-06-09
10:38:37 UTC ---
find_base_value/find_base_term seem to be overly optimistic, prefer to return
something over being conservative. E.g. if both operands of PLUS or MINUS
return non-NULL find_base_term,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49338
--- Comment #9 from Hans Meier 2011-06-09 10:38:45
UTC ---
final note: code from comment 7 performs well in contrast to the old code shown
in comment 8, so this problem is solved for us. thanks again!
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48429
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
St
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44436
Kira Backes changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||Kira.Backes at NRWsoft dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44436
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
AssignedTo|paolo.carlini at o
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49329
Swante changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44436
--- Comment #17 from Paolo Carlini 2011-06-09
11:46:12 UTC ---
Eg, this works perfectly well already, since I added the insert members:
set> s;
unique_ptr up;
s.insert(std::move(up));
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49340
Summary: read_couts_file() not called for
-fbranch-probabilities
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49329
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-06-09
11:48:40 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> I wasn't aware that the pointer-to-bool conversion is considered by gcc to be
> better than a char*-to-std::string conversion.
A standard conversion seque
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44436
--- Comment #18 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-06-09
11:51:34 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #15)
> Is it really so hard to code emplace methods? Can we somehow help?
It's not so hard, but we have limited resources and other priorities.
Patches welcom
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44436
--- Comment #19 from Kira Backes 2011-06-09
11:59:29 UTC ---
Because the usual add functions would have to copy the unique_ptr and that
doesn't work. As I see it in a map there are only insert functions for pairs.
So if this works I'd have to cre
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44436
--- Comment #20 from Paolo Carlini 2011-06-09
12:08:01 UTC ---
For sure the rationale behind emplace isn't inserting a pair of unique_ptrs in
a map: maybe it can be a little more convenient in terms of lines of user code,
but isn't the reason emp
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44436
--- Comment #21 from Kira Backes 2011-06-09
12:21:07 UTC ---
Hi,
I don't mean a pair of unique_ptr, just any combination with a unique_ptr.
I for example very often need:
std::map> instancesByIds_;
Now if I want to insert a User, with a sh
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44436
--- Comment #22 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-06-09
12:25:15 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #21)
> Now with a unique_ptr I'd like to do the same:
>
>
> instancesByIds_[id] = user;
> instancesByIds_[id] = std::move(user);
>
> Both doesnt work.
Nonse
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44436
--- Comment #23 from Kira Backes 2011-06-09
12:27:31 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #22)
> Nonsense. The second one works fine.
Nope, it really doesn't! Or was this fixed in GCC 4.6.0 (I'm on 4.5.0 and this
bug report is tagged to 4.5.0)
Do you j
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44436
--- Comment #24 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-06-09
12:35:15 UTC ---
I tested it. It works.
Just because the PR was reported against 4.5 doesn't mean it'll be fixed in
that release series. Note there's no Target Milestone set for this PR. I can
as
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49341
Summary: [4.7 Regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/20051207-3.c and
gcc.dg/tls/section-1.c
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44436
--- Comment #25 from Kira Backes 2011-06-09
12:41:42 UTC ---
I'm sorry, don't misunderstand me, I'm willing to upgrade. I'm right now
upgrading to 4.6
When I googled for this problem a year ago I've read that the second line
doesn't work by *spe
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49342
Summary: asm goto documentation error in code snippet
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: other
AssignedTo: unass
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49341
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||andi-gcc at firstfloor dot
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49343
Summary: [4.7 regression] ICE on field with variable offset
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44436
--- Comment #26 from Haakan Younes 2011-06-09
13:03:19 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #18)
> (In reply to comment #15)
> > Is it really so hard to code emplace methods? Can we somehow help?
>
> It's not so hard, but we have limited resources and o
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49343
--- Comment #1 from Eric Botcazou 2011-06-09
13:03:28 UTC ---
Created attachment 24474
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24474
Concatenated testcase
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44436
--- Comment #27 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-06-09
13:13:36 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #25)
> When I googled for this problem a year ago I've read that the second line
> doesn't work by *specification* and that you *have* to use emplace.
No, that
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44436
--- Comment #28 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-06-09
13:27:56 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #26)
> For map, the first argument to emplace is going to be the key (I believe). We
> can therefore determine if the key is already present in the map before
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49344
Summary: ICE in tree-flow-inline.h:745 while bootstrap
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: bootstrap
AssignedTo:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48673
--- Comment #8 from Bernd Schmidt 2011-06-09
13:55:44 UTC ---
Author: bernds
Date: Thu Jun 9 13:55:41 2011
New Revision: 174844
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=174844
Log:
PR target/48673
* config/ia64/ia64.c (ia64
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48673
Bernd Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49343
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Mi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48459
Anitha Boyapati changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anitha.boyapati at atmel
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48459
--- Comment #4 from Jason Merrill 2011-06-09
14:17:45 UTC ---
Created attachment 24475
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24475
patch
Here's an untested patch. Does this fix the problem for you? Naturally you'll
want to revert
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49344
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|ppc64-redhat-linux |ppc*-*-*
Status|UNCONF
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49344
--- Comment #2 from Dominique d'Humieres 2011-06-09
14:42:37 UTC ---
Created attachment 24476
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24476
preprocessed file strtod.i
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29003
--- Comment #5 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-06-09 15:07:05 UTC ---
Author: paolo
Date: Thu Jun 9 15:06:59 2011
New Revision: 174846
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=174846
Log:
/cp
2011-06-09 Paolo Carlini
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29003
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49344
--- Comment #3 from Richard Guenther 2011-06-09
15:13:18 UTC ---
Sounds a bit strange. It must be (my tree doesn't match the lines exactly):
/* Make sure the negate statement becomes dead with this
single transformation.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49344
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||andi-gcc at firstfloor dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49257
--- Comment #17 from Richard Henderson 2011-06-09
15:39:33 UTC ---
The Problem here is that using the 387 for these conversions is
normally a Good Thing. Even when we're not mixing 387 and SSE math,
the 387 can do the conversion in 1 insn. Add
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49344
--- Comment #5 from Andi Kleen 2011-06-09
16:06:34 UTC ---
Hmm, it's hard to see how my patch could have caused this.
It doesn't really change any RTL.
Does the test case even use global registers?
I don't see any in native/fdlibm/strtod.c
The
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38646
--- Comment #11 from Paolo Carlini 2011-06-09
16:14:50 UTC ---
Likewise, close as fixed in 4.5+?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38089
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||
Known to fail|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43081
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||
Known to fail|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34491
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30298
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34756
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42054
--- Comment #5 from Paolo Carlini 2011-06-09
16:15:29 UTC ---
Fixed in 4.5+?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35112
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49341
--- Comment #2 from Dominique d'Humieres 2011-06-09
16:18:07 UTC ---
For gcc.dg/20051207-3.c the excess error on x86_64-apple-darwin10 is
/opt/gcc/work/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/20051207-3.c:6:5: note: 'a' was declared
here
gcc.dg/tls/section-1.c is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45043
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Known to work|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43630
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49344
--- Comment #6 from Dominique d'Humieres 2011-06-09
16:32:47 UTC ---
> Are you sure you bisected right?
I should have looked at
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-regression/2011-06/msg00092.html where the range is
given by
> With your recent patch, GCC
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48459
--- Comment #5 from Anitha Boyapati
2011-06-09 16:54:11 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> Created attachment 24475 [details]
> patch
>
> Here's an untested patch. Does this fix the problem for you? Naturally
> you'll
> want to revert it once
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48459
--- Comment #6 from Anitha Boyapati
2011-06-09 17:00:20 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> Created attachment 24475 [details]
> patch
>
> Here's an untested patch. Does this fix the problem for you?
I'll try and let you know.
> Naturally you
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46003
Yufeng Zhang changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|yufeng.zhang at arm dot com |
--- Comment #8 from Yufeng Zhang 2011-06
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49345
Summary: Proper casting needed when assigning '-1' to unsigned
variables.
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Priority: P3
Com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49346
Summary: GNAT fails to compile combination of c23006e and
c32107a ACATS tests
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49345
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski 2011-06-09
17:47:05 UTC ---
Hmm, -1 is really two tokens - and 1.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49345
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49347
Summary: G++-4.6 Solaris incorrectly defines _RESTRICT_KYWD to
__restrict
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48459
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #24475|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49347
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49347
--- Comment #2 from Török Edwin 2011-06-09
18:29:22 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> (In reply to comment #0)
> >
> > Don't know where the #define to __restrict on __cplusplus comes from, but
> > it is
> > wrong.
>
> No, it's correct, see
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49347
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-06-09
18:35:15 UTC ---
you only reported the bug a few minutes ago, so no, nothing's planned yet!
reduced:
int f( int envp[__restrict] );
p.cc:1:17: error: expected primary-expression before '__restrict
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49348
Summary: DW_TAG_template_* DIEs missing from template
specializations
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Comp
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49348
Dodji Seketeli changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49344
--- Comment #7 from Pat Haugen 2011-06-09
18:44:29 UTC ---
Four cpu2000 benchmarks (eon,fma3d,sixtrack,apsi) also fail to build with the
same ICE starting with the following revision.
-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49349
Summary: gfortran.dg/char_result_3.f90 fails with -O3
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
AssignedTo: unas
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49350
Summary: [4.7 Regression] Many C++ testsuite failures
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=49343
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49348
--- Comment #1 from Dodji Seketeli 2011-06-09
21:46:17 UTC ---
Created attachment 24479
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24479
Candidate patch
For a given template instantiation, the dwarf backends emits debug
info that descri
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41736
--- Comment #7 from Dodji Seketeli 2011-06-09
21:50:01 UTC ---
Another instance of bug that resembles this one is PR debug/49348
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49348
--- Comment #2 from Dodji Seketeli 2011-06-09
21:50:21 UTC ---
This bug resembles PR debug/41736
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41736
--- Comment #8 from Dodji Seketeli 2011-06-09
21:53:22 UTC ---
Note that I am going to re-submit the fix to this bug now that I am about to
remove template arguments from DW_AT_name for template specializations (PR
debug/49312)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49350
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||davidxl at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone|-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48660
Mikael Pettersson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49307
--- Comment #3 from Kazumoto Kojima 2011-06-09
22:19:23 UTC ---
Author: kkojima
Date: Thu Jun 9 22:19:20 2011
New Revision: 174861
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=174861
Log:
PR target/49307
* config/sh/sh.md (UNSP
1 - 100 of 131 matches
Mail list logo
