http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18918
--- Comment #65 from Tobias Burnus 2011-07-11
08:14:13 UTC ---
Author: burnus
Date: Mon Jul 11 08:14:05 2011
New Revision: 176137
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=176137
Log:
2011-07-11 Tobias Burnus
PR fortran/1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49698
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49700
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49699
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49697
--- Comment #1 from Richard Guenther 2011-07-11
09:26:31 UTC ---
It uses your umask, similar to what it uses for the generated assembly.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49686
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.7.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49700
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49684
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.7.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49685
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49680
--- Comment #17 from Richard Guenther 2011-07-11
09:31:07 UTC ---
Fixed?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49700
--- Comment #3 from Richard Guenther 2011-07-11
09:33:36 UTC ---
Oh, so it's a sum ...
Well, the I suppose you run into the usual array-prefetching compile-time hog.
Try -fno-prefetch-loop-arrays.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49698
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-07-11
09:36:43 UTC ---
Created attachment 24736
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24736
gcc47-pr49698.patch
Patch I'm going to bootstrap/regtest.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44707
--- Comment #12 from Dominique d'Humieres
2011-07-11 09:44:00 UTC ---
> Hi, I see this test failing on powerpc-darwin8 (I know, not a critical
> platform).
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2011-07/msg01092.html
> What information can I pr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49699
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=39633
--- Comment #12 from Georg-Johann Lay 2011-07-11
10:13:33 UTC ---
Author: gjl
Date: Mon Jul 11 10:13:30 2011
New Revision: 176141
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=176141
Log:
gcc/
PR target/39633
* config/avr/avr.c (
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49680
--- Comment #18 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-07-11 10:19:24 UTC ---
> --- Comment #12 from Richard Henderson 2011-07-08
> 23:36:57 UTC ---
> Rainer, please give me the command-line for this. I can't seem to
> reproduce the assem
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49568
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39633
--- Comment #13 from Georg-Johann Lay 2011-07-11
10:24:48 UTC ---
Author: gjl
Date: Mon Jul 11 10:24:46 2011
New Revision: 176143
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=176143
Log:
PR target/39633
Backport from mainline r
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39633
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Known to work|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49701
Summary: Parser confusion between operator< and template
specialization
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Comp
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49701
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49702
Summary: Undefined static functions resolve to external
definitions
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: accepts-invalid, wrong-code
Severity:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49702
--- Comment #1 from Richard Guenther 2011-07-11
11:53:06 UTC ---
Warning code in question:
toplev.c:
void
check_global_declaration_1 (tree decl)
{
/* Warn about any function declared static but not defined. We don't
warn about variables,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49519
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49703
Summary: -flto makes stack executable by default
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: critical
Priority: P3
Component: lto
AssignedTo: unassig...
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49680
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49703
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49703
--- Comment #2 from marcus at jet dot franken.de 2011-07-11 12:11:35 UTC ---
Created attachment 24738
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24738
xx.c
gcc -O2 -flto -o xx xx.c
readelf -a xx|grep GNU_STACK
should NOT show "RWE" but o
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49703
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |UNCONFIRMED
Ever Confirmed|1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49703
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|2011-07-11 12:0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49676
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-07-11
13:00:57 UTC ---
Created attachment 24739
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24739
gcc47-pr49676-const.patch
I've noticed that int_loc_descriptor sometimes emits too large ops to buil
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49139
chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49704
Summary: gcc/cp/semantics.c: "unexpected ast"
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: translation
AssignedTo: unassig
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49704
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-07-11
14:01:35 UTC ---
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstract_syntax_tree
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49704
--- Comment #2 from Roland Stigge 2011-07-11 14:08:30
UTC ---
Thanks!
Can we please write upper case "AST" to make it clear that it's an acronym?
E.g. "ast" is also a German word, similar to the English word "branch", and I
guess many English sp
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49498
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Severity|normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48220
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #23739|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49094
--- Comment #7 from will_lentz at trimble dot com 2011-07-11 16:29:52 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> Author: jamborm
> Date: Thu Jun 30 13:24:19 2011
> New Revision: 175703
>
Thanks for fixing this! Do you know if this fix will get into a 4.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45098
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Version|4.6
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49324
Joshua Cogliati changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||4.6.1
--- Comment #11 from Joshua Cogli
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43920
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48220
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #8
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49698
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-07-11
16:42:33 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Jul 11 16:42:29 2011
New Revision: 176164
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=176164
Log:
PR fortran/49698
* trans-stmt.c (gfc_trans_
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49698
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-07-11
16:43:27 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Jul 11 16:43:23 2011
New Revision: 176165
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=176165
Log:
PR fortran/49698
* trans-stmt.c (gfc_trans_
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49698
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49324
--- Comment #12 from Tobias Burnus 2011-07-11
16:52:54 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #11)
> Still in 4.6.1, using original test case.
Well, that's the reason that this PR is not closed.
Fixed (in 4.6 and 4.7-trunk): Deep copy of array constructo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49094
--- Comment #8 from Martin Jambor 2011-07-11
16:54:46 UTC ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Mon Jul 11 16:54:42 2011
New Revision: 176166
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=176166
Log:
2011-07-11 Martin Jambor
PR tree-optimiza
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49676
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-07-11
16:57:29 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Jul 11 16:57:25 2011
New Revision: 176167
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=176167
Log:
PR debug/49676
* dwarf2out.c (int_shift_loc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49094
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49423
--- Comment #6 from Martin Jambor 2011-07-11
17:39:09 UTC ---
I have just committed a fix for PR 49094 to the 4.6 branch. Please
try again now. Thanks.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39212
Eric Weddington changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49705
Summary: -Wstrict-overflow should not diagnose unevaluated
expressions
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49703
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
URL|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49559
--- Comment #20 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-07-11 18:39:03 UTC ---
Author: paolo
Date: Mon Jul 11 18:38:54 2011
New Revision: 176174
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=176174
Log:
2011-07-11 Paolo Carlini
PR lib
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49559
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44609
--- Comment #8 from Jason Merrill 2011-07-11
18:52:15 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Mon Jul 11 18:52:12 2011
New Revision: 176176
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=176176
Log:
PR c++/44609
* cp-tree.h (struct tinst_leve
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49017
Eric Weddington changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49017
--- Comment #3 from stefan.hladnik at gmail dot com 2011-07-11 19:02:13 UTC ---
Yes. I guess this feature will become obsolete when -flto gets stable, but I
don't how far that is.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44609
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49533
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[4.7 regression] Firefox|[4.7 regression] Revision
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49672
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49700
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski 2011-07-11
19:56:55 UTC ---
> Extra diagnostic checks enabled; compiler may run slowly.
> Configure with --enable-checking=release to disable checks.
Also try to build the compiler with that option passed to con
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48660
Michael K. Edwards changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||m.k.edwards at gmail dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49017
Eric Weddington changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |UNCONFIRMED
Ever Confirmed|1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49672
--- Comment #1 from Jason Merrill 2011-07-11
21:03:23 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Mon Jul 11 21:03:19 2011
New Revision: 176183
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=176183
Log:
PR c++/49672
* pt.c (extract_fnparm_pack):
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49672
--- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill 2011-07-11
22:04:39 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Mon Jul 11 22:04:36 2011
New Revision: 176187
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=176187
Log:
PR c++/49672
* pt.c (extract_fnparm_pack):
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49672
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49474
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Host|powerpc-gnu-linux-uclibc|
Known to fail|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49500
--- Comment #9 from Hans-Peter Nilsson 2011-07-11
22:06:29 UTC ---
Honza, can you post and commit the patch so we can close this? Thanks.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48835
--- Comment #19 from Mikael Pettersson 2011-07-11
22:27:53 UTC ---
I have type-correct s-memory-m68k.ad{b,s} written and tested on x86 (by adding
s-memory.adb
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49474
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49706
Summary: No warning for (!x > 1) which is always false
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=45697
--- Comment #4 from Evan Martin 2011-07-11 22:38:49
UTC ---
Sorry, I should have linked to the bug that prompted this bug report.
http://code.google.com/p/skia/issues/detail?id=63
Briefly, the Skia library (used by Google Chrome and Android) has
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48835
--- Comment #20 from Thorsten Glaser 2011-07-11 22:52:04
UTC ---
Have you applied the patch I attached to this bugreport before?
The sections in Makefile.in are actually target specific, and
my patch added one for m68k-linux as:
+ifeq ($(strip
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49707
Summary: GCC sends incorrect flags to native IRIX ld
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: bootstrap
AssignedTo: un
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49708
Summary: internal compiler error with allocate and no
dimensions
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49709
Summary: Bad code gen with -fipa-sra
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: wrong-code
Severity: major
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49709
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gmail dot com
2011-07-12 00:58:13 UTC ---
Hmmm. There was just a recent patch to the tail call area which was supposed to
fix a testcase like this.
Sent from my Palm Pre on AT&T
On Jul 11, 2011 17:51, ian at airs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49709
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski 2011-07-12
01:25:00 UTC ---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49519
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14118
Eric Weddington changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||eric.weddington at atmel
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43690
--- Comment #9 from Eric Weddington
2011-07-12 02:58:20 UTC ---
Patches were committed some time ago. Does this bug need to be marked as
RESOLVED FIXED?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49519
Ian Lance Taylor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ian at airs dot com
--- Comment #27 fr
with: ../configure --with-libelf=/usr/local --enable-lto
--prefix=/home/regehr/z/compiler-install/gcc-r176182-install
--program-prefix=r176182- --enable-languages=c,c++
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.7.0 20110711 (experimental) (GCC)
[regehr@gamow tmp037]$ current-gcc -Ofast -funroll-loops
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49711
Summary: [4.7 Regression] 186.crafty in SPEC CPU 2000 failed to
build
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compon
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49709
Ian Lance Taylor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49519
--- Comment #28 from Ian Lance Taylor 2011-07-12 04:54:14
UTC ---
*** Bug 49709 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
ges=c,c++
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.7.0 20110711 (experimental) (GCC)
[regehr@gamow tmp040]$ cat small.c
int safe_14 (int si1, int si2) {
return 0;
}
struct S0 {
int f5;
};
struct S1 {
};
int g_60[100];
int g_61;
int g_62;
struct S0 g_74;
int g_104;
struct S1 g_660;
int func_75
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49711
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||krebbel1 at de dot ibm.com
Target Milestone|-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49712
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski 2011-07-12
05:15:55 UTC ---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49711
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49711
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski 2011-07-12
05:16:01 UTC ---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49712
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43690
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49712
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
92 matches
Mail list logo
