http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36884
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Status
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49584
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49003
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49572
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot com
--- Comment #6 fro
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49555
--- Comment #7 from Bryan Hundven 2011-06-29
19:30:03 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> > I had a discussion with Yann E. Morin, and it sounds like this option was
> > ported forward from the legacy options in Dan Kegel's crosstool.
> >
> > The
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49555
--- Comment #8 from Bryan Hundven 2011-06-29
19:30:42 UTC ---
Created attachment 24639
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24639
libjava-version_script-consistency.diff
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49230
gee changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
Resolution|INVALID
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49576
--- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-06-29
19:35:52 UTC ---
It's not about being smart enough, most gcc devs have plenty of things to work
on so if you want to convince someone yours is worth implementing you should
spend a few minutes descri
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49230
--- Comment #8 from gee 2011-06-29 19:37:35 UTC ---
Created attachment 24640
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24640
preprocessed source and generated code
verbose log
i686-pc-mingw32-gcc -O4 -mfpmath=sse -march=native -mtune=n
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49575
--- Comment #2 from Duncan 2011-06-29 19:38:00
UTC ---
I am new to OpenMP so I do not know the details, but as far as I know, variable
k is defined as firstprivate, so each thread will have an independent local
copy. Why does it need defining con
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49579
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47700
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49575
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-06-29
19:49:47 UTC ---
With firstprivate of course you get a copy of the variable, but it is still a
variable. The *.omp_fn* function which is created from the #omp parallel
region will load it from paramet
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49584
--- Comment #2 from Mikael Pettersson 2011-06-29
19:52:35 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> This is stage 1 though.
Hmm, strange.
> > I'll try a new bootstrap with r175603 reverted.
>
> How do you build the stage 1 compiler? With optimizatio
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49579
--- Comment #4 from Olaf van der Spek 2011-06-29
19:59:57 UTC ---
Aren't 1 and 2 the same thing?
I'm not sure what 3 is, but it's about a Hello World example using AM and PCH.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47700
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49216
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|ASSIGNED
Resolution|FIXED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48109
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #23655|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49230
Kai Tietz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46170
--- Comment #29 from David Fang 2011-06-29
20:21:52 UTC ---
re-ping for backport?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49421
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
St
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49415
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48851
--- Comment #11 from Jonathan Gray 2011-06-29 21:01:45
UTC ---
There is some problem with the gcc headers it would seem, placing #include
at the start of lto-plugin.c the correct definition of NULL gets
picked up. I am still trying to figure ou
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49460
--- Comment #4 from Roger Jarrett 2011-06-29
21:13:49 UTC ---
Confirmed -fno-tree-pre worked around the issue using the initial source
--Roger
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49572
--- Comment #7 from Eric Botcazou 2011-06-29
21:14:55 UTC ---
> ISTM that DOM considering those two accesses equivalent, even though they had
> different types is arguably incorrect behaviour.
The accesses themselves have the same type, since th
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48851
--- Comment #12 from Jonathan Gray 2011-06-29 21:17:31
UTC ---
The problem appears to be in the "fixed" version of string.h
before:
#ifndef NULL
#ifdef __GNUG__
#define NULL__null
#else
#define NULL((void *)0)
#endif
#endif
after:
#i
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47653
--- Comment #7 from Sebastian Pop 2011-06-29 21:18:09
UTC ---
Patch http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-06/msg02283.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49003
--- Comment #4 from Jason Merrill 2011-06-29
21:19:35 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Wed Jun 29 21:19:31 2011
New Revision: 175671
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=175671
Log:
DR 1207
PR c++/49003
* cp-tree.h (struc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49003
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48725
Ian Lance Taylor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49003
--- Comment #6 from Nathan Ridge 2011-06-29
21:50:06 UTC ---
Thanks Jason! Is there any chance of getting this into 4.6.2?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49003
--- Comment #7 from Jason Merrill 2011-06-29
22:20:26 UTC ---
Created attachment 24642
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24642
patch for 4.6
I've been pretty free about applying non-regression fix patches to the 4.6
branch, but
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49216
--- Comment #5 from Jason Merrill 2011-06-29
22:28:18 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Wed Jun 29 22:28:15 2011
New Revision: 175674
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=175674
Log:
PR c++/49216
* init.c (build_new_1): Pass {
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49216
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38752
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski 2011-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48384
Ian Lance Taylor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49585
Summary: need a warning about new/malloc returning
unsufficiently aligned memory
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49585
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Version|unknown
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36159
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sergey.v.maslov at intel
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49586
Summary: Multiple initialization with DATA: Warning and
initialization order
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: diagnostic
Severity: normal
101 - 140 of 140 matches
Mail list logo