http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48459
--- Comment #23 from Richard Henderson 2011-06-14
19:13:04 UTC ---
Author: rth
Date: Tue Jun 14 19:13:00 2011
New Revision: 175049
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=175049
Log:
PR debug/48459
* dwarf2out.c (frame_poin
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49408
--- Comment #1 from Jan Kratochvil
2011-06-14 19:14:19 UTC ---
This Bug may not longer make sense due to:
Bug 49312 - Make DW_AT_name contain only simple name, no template-id
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49409
Summary: some possible new warnings for strange code
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Component: c++
AssignedTo: una
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48459
Richard Henderson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49107
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #21 from Jason Merri
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48727
--- Comment #1 from Steve Ellcey 2011-06-14 20:26:13
UTC ---
Author: sje
Date: Tue Jun 14 20:26:08 2011
New Revision: 175055
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=175055
Log:
2011-06-14 Steve Ellcey
PR testsuite/48727
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48613
--- Comment #5 from Martin Jambor 2011-06-14
20:51:53 UTC ---
Patch posted to mailing list:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-06/msg01108.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49396
--- Comment #4 from dcb 2011-06-14 21:13:11 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> Same error on all branches back to 4.4.
Interesting. Worth generalising so that source code pattern
if (X)
{
}
else if (X)
{
}
would cause a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49410
Summary: Internal compiler error in change-stack at
reg-stack.c:2540
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49290
--- Comment #3 from Jason Merrill 2011-06-14
22:13:24 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Tue Jun 14 22:13:19 2011
New Revision: 175058
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=175058
Log:
PR c++/49290
* semantics.c (cxx_eval_indire
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49117
--- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill 2011-06-14
22:13:39 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Tue Jun 14 22:13:36 2011
New Revision: 175060
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=175060
Log:
PR c++/49117
* call.c (perform_implicit_con
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49369
--- Comment #6 from Jason Merrill 2011-06-14
22:13:32 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Tue Jun 14 22:13:29 2011
New Revision: 175059
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=175059
Log:
PR c++/49369
* class.c (build_base_path): F
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49390
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49103
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49365
--- Comment #5 from Changpeng Fang 2011-06-14
22:22:11 UTC ---
It seems there is a prefetch generation bug on Bulldozer.
With -O3 -ffast-math -funroll-loops -fpeel-loops -march=bdver1
-fprefetch-loop-arrays, I got a normal timing of 795s.
Howev
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49409
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-06-14
22:34:34 UTC ---
some warnings would seem sensible to me
I tried clang++ which only warns about the first two, via
-Wtautological-compare
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49411
Summary: [4.6/4.7] ICE: unrecognizable insn with -mxop in
_mm_roti_epi8 with negative number
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prior
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44194
--- Comment #19 from eraman at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-06-14 22:58:24 UTC ---
Author: eraman
Date: Tue Jun 14 22:58:20 2011
New Revision: 175063
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=175063
Log:
2011-06-14 Easwaran Raman
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49411
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49290
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49412
Summary: __dso_handle should be hidden
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
AssignedTo: unassig...@gcc.gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49413
Summary: over-optimization that causes valid code to segfault
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
AssignedTo: u
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49413
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski 2011-06-15
00:34:37 UTC ---
I think this code is undefined as the alignment requirements of double is 8
bytes but the original (t->xyz->va/t->xyz->vb) is packed so it has a alignment
of 4 bytes.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49413
--- Comment #2 from Matt Gattis 2011-06-15 00:38:29
UTC ---
Created attachment 24530
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24530
verbose gcc output
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49413
--- Comment #3 from Matt Gattis 2011-06-15 00:39:06
UTC ---
Created attachment 24531
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24531
verbose gcc output
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49414
Summary: gcc.dg/pr44194-1.c failed
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: rtl-optimization
AssignedTo: unassig...@gc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49413
--- Comment #4 from Paolo Carlini 2011-06-15
01:00:34 UTC ---
Personally, I find the expression "over-optimization" misleading: either we
have a compiler *bug*, which therefore is performing an incorrect
transformation, or we don't, thus the code
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49413
--- Comment #5 from Matt Gattis 2011-06-15 01:10:35
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> I think this code is undefined as the alignment requirements of double is 8
> bytes but the original (t->xyz->va/t->xyz->vb) is packed so it has a alignment
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49413
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski 2011-06-15
01:13:14 UTC ---
The problem is:
double *v = (qp == &(t->q)) ? t->xyz->va : t->xyz->vb;
the pointer v is a pointer to a 8 byte aligned data but you supply it with
something which is only 4 byte alig
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49413
--- Comment #7 from Matt Gattis 2011-06-15 01:19:57
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> The problem is:
> double *v = (qp == &(t->q)) ? t->xyz->va : t->xyz->vb;
>
> the pointer v is a pointer to a 8 byte aligned data but you supply it with
> so
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48459
--- Comment #25 from Anitha Boyapati
2011-06-15 02:37:59 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #24)
> The testcase at the head of the PR is now fixed.
>
> For the 4.6 branch, this required also backporting
>
(Assuming that backporting implies the emis
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49371
--- Comment #28 from Jack Howarth 2011-06-15
03:15:44 UTC ---
Created attachment 24532
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24532
patch to fix pie handling for darwin11
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49371
--- Comment #29 from Jack Howarth 2011-06-15
03:21:04 UTC ---
While we are fixing the pie/PIE handling on darwin, we should also address a
change required for darwin11 which defaults its linker to -pie. This causes
breakage in gcj and pch since F
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49107
--- Comment #22 from Jason Merrill 2011-06-15
03:52:02 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Wed Jun 15 03:51:59 2011
New Revision: 175073
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=175073
Log:
PR c++/49107
* cp-tree.h (DEFERRED_NOEXCEP
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49117
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49369
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49389
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|jason at redh
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49107
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49412
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49415
Summary: [4.7 Regression] Revision 175071 fails to bootstrap on
x86_64-apple-darwin10
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49411
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49411
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-06-15
06:32:20 UTC ---
Created attachment 24533
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24533
gcc47-pr49411.patch
Untested fix. Alternatively, we could for the rotation instead just always
mask
101 - 142 of 142 matches
Mail list logo
