http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49586
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=49587
Summary: Code generation error with dynamic libraries.
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
AssignedTo: unas
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38752
--- Comment #6 from Richard Guenther 2011-06-30
08:44:23 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu Jun 30 08:44:18 2011
New Revision: 175684
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=175684
Log:
2011-06-30 Richard Guenther
PR tree-op
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38752
--- Comment #7 from Richard Guenther 2011-06-30
08:49:37 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu Jun 30 08:49:30 2011
New Revision: 175685
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=175685
Log:
2011-06-30 Richard Guenther
PR tree-op
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38752
--- Comment #8 from Richard Guenther 2011-06-30
08:51:27 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu Jun 30 08:51:23 2011
New Revision: 175686
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=175686
Log:
2011-06-30 Richard Guenther
PR tree-op
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49588
Summary: DATA statement with vector sections rejected (ICE:
TODO)
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: rejects-valid
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38752
--- Comment #9 from Richard Guenther 2011-06-30
08:56:04 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu Jun 30 08:56:02 2011
New Revision: 175687
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=175687
Log:
2011-06-30 Richard Guenther
PR tree-op
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38752
--- Comment #10 from Richard Guenther 2011-06-30
09:00:28 UTC ---
Oops. Fixed.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49572
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #8
c/gcc-svn/configure
--prefix=/home/jarrydb/current/soft/install-latest --disable-multilib
--enable-languages=c,c++,go
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.7.0 20110630 (experimental) (GCC)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49572
--- Comment #9 from rguenther at suse dot de
2011-06-30 09:54:49 UTC ---
On Thu, 30 Jun 2011, ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49572
>
> Eric Botcazou changed:
>
>What|Removed
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49587
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36610
--- Comment #26 from Rainer Orth 2011-06-30 10:02:48
UTC ---
Author: ro
Date: Thu Jun 30 10:02:45 2011
New Revision: 175689
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=175689
Log:
2011-06-28 Dominique d'Humieres
Iain Sandoe
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49511
--- Comment #5 from Rainer Orth 2011-06-30 10:04:54 UTC
---
Author: ro
Date: Thu Jun 30 10:04:52 2011
New Revision: 175690
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=175690
Log:
PR ada/49511
* ada/acats/run_acats (which): Use
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48851
--- Comment #13 from Richard Guenther 2011-06-30
10:05:34 UTC ---
There seem to be two NULL fixincludes, one for openBSD and one for AIX, both
look suspicious (though I'd have to lookup the exact working of
fixincludes/inclhack.def):
/*
* Fix O
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49584
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.4.7
Summary|[4.4.7 regres
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49511
--- Comment #7 from Rainer Orth 2011-06-30 10:06:46 UTC
---
Author: ro
Date: Thu Jun 30 10:06:44 2011
New Revision: 175692
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=175692
Log:
PR ada/49511
* ada/acats/run_acats (which): Use
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49583
--- Comment #1 from Richard Guenther 2011-06-30
10:07:40 UTC ---
Reload doesn't really know how to deal with the register stack.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49511
--- Comment #6 from Rainer Orth 2011-06-30 10:05:46 UTC
---
Author: ro
Date: Thu Jun 30 10:05:43 2011
New Revision: 175691
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=175691
Log:
PR ada/49511
* ada/acats/run_acats (which): Use
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49511
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
URL|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48851
--- Comment #14 from Jonathan Gray 2011-06-30 10:13:20
UTC ---
Created attachment 24644
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24644
unfixed string.h
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49587
--- Comment #2 from Jarryd Beck 2011-06-30
10:16:58 UTC ---
I wish that I could give you a test case. I can't reproduce it on any small
piece of code. The only code that I can get it to break on is my project which
has about 20,000 lines of code.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49540
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-06-30
10:25:43 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Jun 30 10:25:40 2011
New Revision: 175693
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=175693
Log:
PR fortran/49540
* gfortran.h (gfc_constru
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49364
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-06-30
10:26:38 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Jun 30 10:26:32 2011
New Revision: 175694
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=175694
Log:
PR debug/49364
* dwarf2out.c (output_abbrev
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49572
--- Comment #10 from Eric Botcazou 2011-06-30
10:30:28 UTC ---
> For loads yes.
OK, what's the right predicate to use on the RHS here? !is_gimple_val?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49572
--- Comment #11 from rguenther at suse dot de
2011-06-30 10:42:21 UTC ---
On Thu, 30 Jun 2011, ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49572
>
> --- Comment #10 from Eric Botcazou 2011-06-30
> 10:30:2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49572
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48851
--- Comment #15 from Richard Guenther 2011-06-30
11:13:13 UTC ---
Can you try deleting the AIX/Interix fix? It seems to be broken (and your
original string.h doesn't seem to be prepared for C++ inclusion).
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49586
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-06-30
11:43:24 UTC ---
The order apparently changed with
http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?view=revision&revision=114406
which doesn't change the order actually, but only wouldn't overwrite anything.
So, even back
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49587
--- Comment #3 from Jarryd Beck 2011-06-30
11:52:52 UTC ---
Sorry I better get that function in the dynamic loading correct. It calls the
actual function which goes to _dl_runtime_resolve which calls _dl_fixup, then
it bombs at the end of _dl_run
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48851
--- Comment #16 from Jonathan Gray 2011-06-30 12:18:43
UTC ---
Yes, it appears to be the AIX/Interix part which is causing the problem. I
removed just the OpenBSD part and it still happened and then further removed
the AIX/Interix one and it was
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49278
Thomas Henlich changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||thenlich at users dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49586
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-06-30
12:30:51 UTC ---
Created attachment 24645
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24645
gcc47-pr49586.patch
Untested fix for the order.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49278
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|ice-on-valid-code |ice-on-invalid-code
Status|UN
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49590
Summary: ENTRY: Reject combining USE associated variable with
RESULT variable
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: accepts-invalid, diagnostic
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49591
Summary: [OOP] Multiple identical specific procedures in
type-bound generic not detected
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: accepts-invalid
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49592
Summary: [OOP] Non-polymorphic ALLOCATE with polymorphic
SOURCE= rejected
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: rejects-valid
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48851
--- Comment #17 from Richard Guenther 2011-06-30
12:57:10 UTC ---
#ifndef NULL
#ifdef __GNUG__
#define NULL__null
#else
#define NULL((void *)0)
#endif
#endif
isn't providing a C++ conforming NULL for non-GCC C++ compilers (who
do not de
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49516
--- Comment #7 from Diego Novillo 2011-06-30
13:24:06 UTC ---
Author: dnovillo
Date: Thu Jun 30 13:24:00 2011
New Revision: 175702
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=175702
Log:
ChangeLog.google-4_6
2011-06-29 Diego Novillo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49094
--- Comment #6 from Martin Jambor 2011-06-30
13:24:23 UTC ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Thu Jun 30 13:24:19 2011
New Revision: 175703
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=175703
Log:
2011-06-30 Martin Jambor
PR tree-optimiza
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46787
--- Comment #3 from Richard Guenther 2011-06-30
13:27:47 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu Jun 30 13:27:43 2011
New Revision: 175704
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=175704
Log:
2011-06-30 Richard Guenther
PR tree-op
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46787
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34734
--- Comment #7 from Georg-Johann Lay 2011-06-30
13:28:46 UTC ---
Author: gjl
Date: Thu Jun 30 13:28:43 2011
New Revision: 175705
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=175705
Log:
PR target/34734
Backport from mainline
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34734
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34734
--- Comment #9 from Georg-Johann Lay 2011-06-30
13:45:08 UTC ---
Author: gjl
Date: Thu Jun 30 13:45:04 2011
New Revision: 175706
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=175706
Log:
PR target/34734
Backport from mainline
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49540
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.7.0
Summary|[4.6/4.7 Regress
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49442
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-06-30
13:56:46 UTC ---
__builtin_assume_aligned is now supported on the trunk. Leaving this open even
there so that the default cost model is adjusted.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49586
--- Comment #4 from Tobias Burnus 2011-06-30
13:57:21 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> Untested fix for the order.
For the example of comment 0, gfortran + patch gives the gfortran 4.1 et al.
result.
For the example which is contained in the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48532
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gjl at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49593
Summary: [C++0x] cannot use T{t}... as pack expansion
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: rejects-valid
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Componen
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49590
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49519
--- Comment #6 from Yukhin Kirill 2011-06-30
15:11:41 UTC ---
I've looked into tail-call opt. Seems we need not call it at all if we have
new/old stack addresses for parameters overlap. BTW, I think it is to
conservative, anyway...
We have call t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49519
--- Comment #7 from Yukhin Kirill 2011-06-30
15:22:58 UTC ---
Expanding arguments in different ways occurs because corresponding GIMPLE
statements are of different types.
For 'good' case we have expression of type
COMPONENT_REF
While for 'bad'
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49519
--- Comment #8 from Yukhin Kirill 2011-06-30
15:26:36 UTC ---
If someone really need a quick fix, it may be done like this:
gcc/expor.s:
static bool
mem_overlaps_already_clobbered_arg_p (rtx addr, unsigned HOST_WIDE_INT size)
{
HOST_WI
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49519
--- Comment #9 from Yukhin Kirill 2011-06-30
15:37:04 UTC ---
One more point for FE guys.
Function definition have no difference between 4 args. Here it is
include/base/thread_management.h:
template
static inline void do_call (P
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49594
Summary: bootstrap failure in libffi:darwin_closure for
powerpc-darwin8
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Comp
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48385
--- Comment #2 from Martin Decky 2011-06-30 16:03:08
UTC ---
Created attachment 24646
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24646
Initial proposed patch
The attached patch works as a temporary workaround and might also hint where
e
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49586
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-06-30
16:10:18 UTC ---
Unfortunately, this patch breaks gfortran.fortran-torture/execute/data.f90
compilation, it fails with a cryptic error.
No idea if it is a bug in the testcase that just relied on the ol
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49461
--- Comment #11 from mrs at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-06-30
16:14:36 UTC ---
Author: mrs
Date: Thu Jun 30 16:14:30 2011
New Revision: 175710
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=175710
Log:
2011-06-30 Jack Howarth
PR targe
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49461
--- Comment #12 from mrs at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-06-30
16:21:44 UTC ---
Ok, the libjava problem is now fixed in 4.5.4.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42333
--- Comment #58 from mrs at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-06-30
16:31:29 UTC ---
Author: mrs
Date: Thu Jun 30 16:31:23 2011
New Revision: 175711
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=175711
Log:
2011-06-30 Jack Howarth
Backpor
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42333
m...@gcc.gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.5.4
Known to fail|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49538
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Target Milestone|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49587
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski 2011-06-30
16:43:08 UTC ---
Most likely a dup of bug 49538.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49595
Summary: on amd64, sizeof(__int128_t) > sizeof(intmax_t)
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
AssignedTo: unassi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49595
brian m. carlson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #24647|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49586
--- Comment #6 from Dominique d'Humieres 2011-06-30
17:28:48 UTC ---
> Unfortunately, this patch breaks gfortran.fortran-torture/execute/data.f90
> compilation, it fails with a cryptic error.
Confirmed. A reduced test is
! Program to te
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49595
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-06-30
17:42:59 UTC ---
sizeof(intmax_t) is fixed by various LP64 ABIs and cannot be changed
I believe the stock answer is that __int128 is not a C99 extended integer type,
so isn't one of the types that i
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49596
Summary: [4.7 Regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/torture/pr43879_1.c
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
Assigne
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49595
--- Comment #3 from brian m. carlson
2011-06-30 18:12:39 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> sizeof(intmax_t) is fixed by various LP64 ABIs and cannot be changed
That does sound potentially problematic. I don't see how that solves the
standard c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49595
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-06-30
18:29:02 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> Since the standard specifies intmax_t in terms of a "signed integer type", it
> therefore includes any implementation-defined extended signed integer types
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49595
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-06-30
18:33:27 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> suppose the only appropriate behavior is not to provide any integer types
> larger
> than intmax_t with -std=c99.
Use -pedantic-errors if you want to reje
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49572
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|regression |tree-optimization
--- Comment #13 from Er
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49597
Summary: gfortran namelist read bug
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
AssignedTo: unassig...@gcc.gnu.or
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49584
Mikael Pettersson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49597
--- Comment #1 from Dominique d'Humieres 2011-06-30
19:31:46 UTC ---
I see 'iostat = 5010' with gcc version 4.5.0 20100404 (experimental) [trunk
revision 157958] (GCC), but not (i.e., iostat = 0) with versions 4.4.6, 4.5.2
20101122 (prerelease) [
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49572
--- Comment #14 from Eric Botcazou 2011-06-30
19:32:29 UTC ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Thu Jun 30 19:32:23 2011
New Revision: 175721
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=175721
Log:
PR tree-optimization/49572
* tree-ssa-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49595
--- Comment #6 from Andreas Schwab 2011-06-30 19:33:55
UTC ---
By (directly) using an identifier starting with two underscores you are leaving
the territory of the C standard.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49572
--- Comment #15 from Eric Botcazou 2011-06-30
19:35:49 UTC ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Thu Jun 30 19:35:45 2011
New Revision: 175722
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=175722
Log:
PR tree-optimization/49572
* tree-ssa-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49572
--- Comment #16 from Eric Botcazou 2011-06-30
19:37:43 UTC ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Thu Jun 30 19:37:41 2011
New Revision: 175723
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=175723
Log:
PR tree-optimization/49572
* tree-ssa-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44589
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49572
--- Comment #17 from Eric Botcazou 2011-06-30
19:39:47 UTC ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Thu Jun 30 19:39:41 2011
New Revision: 175724
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=175724
Log:
PR tree-optimization/49572
* tree-ssa-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47425
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49498
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xinliangli at gmail dot com
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49572
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49595
--- Comment #7 from brian m. carlson
2011-06-30 20:16:50 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> (In reply to comment #3)
> > suppose the only appropriate behavior is not to provide any integer types
> > larger
> > than intmax_t with -std=c99.
>
> Us
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49595
--- Comment #8 from brian m. carlson
2011-06-30 20:22:37 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> By (directly) using an identifier starting with two underscores you are
> leaving
> the territory of the C standard.
I don't agree. The footnote to the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49598
Summary: Ice on lambda with implicit capture by value.
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
AssignedTo: unassi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49498
--- Comment #4 from davidxl 2011-06-30 20:37:36
UTC ---
I can to reproduce the problem on x86-64 linux. Can you help provide the
following dump:
-fdump-tree-uninit-blocks-details?
Thanks,
David
(In reply to comment #3)
> Frankly, I'm just
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49598
--- Comment #1 from Ed Smith-Rowland <3dw4rd at verizon dot net> 2011-06-30
20:43:39 UTC ---
Reduced testcase:
-
int
main()
{
int i = 10;
int& ir = i;
[=] // [i, ir] explicit capture works.
{
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49587
--- Comment #5 from Jarryd Beck 2011-06-30
20:56:32 UTC ---
Ah, yes I think it is.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48481
--- Comment #10 from Jason Merrill 2011-06-30
21:10:07 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Thu Jun 30 21:10:03 2011
New Revision: 175732
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=175732
Log:
PR c++/48481
* name-lookup.c (struct arg_l
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49595
--- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-06-30
21:23:55 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> The conformance issue, while important, is secondary. I do expect GCC to
> comply with the standard in standards mode, and I do expect any deviation from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49355
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49595
--- Comment #10 from brian m. carlson
2011-06-30 21:47:15 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #9)
> What do you mean by standards mode?
> It's clearly documented in the manual that -std=c99 does NOT mean non-standard
> extensions are rejected, for that
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49569
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49599
Summary: FRE/DSE not performing well on aggregates
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
Ass
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49595
--- Comment #11 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2011-06-30 22:27:57 UTC ---
On Thu, 30 Jun 2011, sandals at crustytoothpaste dot net wrote:
> Your only out here is if you claim that the type in question (however named,
> unnamed, or specified
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49600
Summary: Bad int->float split in i386.md
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
AssignedTo: unassig...@gcc.gn
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49387
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
1 - 100 of 125 matches
Mail list logo
