http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49597
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
Known to w
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49860
--- Comment #1 from Uros Bizjak 2011-07-27 08:09:13
UTC ---
Assembler should accept R_X86_64_64 and zero-extend it to 8 bytes. It is the
same issue as [1].
[1] http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-07/msg01825.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49862
Summary: bfin.c warnings
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: build
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
AssignedTo: unassig
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49863
Summary: -Wunused-result not behaving correctly
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
AssignedTo: unassig...@gcc.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49859
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49755
--- Comment #1 from dcarrera at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-07-27 10:10:10 UTC ---
Author: dcarrera
Date: Wed Jul 27 10:10:06 2011
New Revision: 176822
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=176822
Log:
2011-07-26 Daniel Carrera
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49863
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33475
Stefan Eilemann changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||eilemann at gmail dot com
--- Comment #
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49863
--- Comment #2 from antomicx at gmail dot com 2011-07-27 10:29:46 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> Because glibc annotates system with the attribute only if you use
> -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=1 or higher, and then only if optimization is enabled:
I got
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49864
Summary: ICE: in maybe_record_trace_start, at dwarf2cfi.c:2439
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=43513
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26388
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||carrot at google dot com
--- Comment #
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49820
--- Comment #14 from Eric Botcazou 2011-07-27
11:23:25 UTC ---
> My example does indeed give a warning when compiled with -Wstrict-overflow=2.
> Unfortunately, -Wall implies only -Wstrict-overflow=1 so I got no warning in
> the first place. I thi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49865
Summary: Unneccessary reload causes small size regression from
4.6.1
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49865
--- Comment #1 from sgunderson at bigfoot dot com 2011-07-27 11:38:57 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #0)
> Of course, the _most_ efficient code sequence here would be doing the i = 0
> before the memset, but I'm not sure if this is legal. However, ea
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49866
Summary: [4.6 Regression] -mcmodel=large tail call fails to
assemble
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49866
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.7.0
Target Milestone|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49866
--- Comment #1 from Uros Bizjak 2011-07-27 11:46:50
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #0)
> This got fixed on the trunk with
> http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=173797
> but for the backport it would be certainly preferrable if we got
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49866
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-07-27
12:09:11 UTC ---
Wouldn't it be safer to just introduce the z constraint and replace all s
constraints with z constraints in *call_insn_operand predicated operands?
No call insn pattern reorganization/
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49866
--- Comment #3 from Uros Bizjak 2011-07-27 12:14:49
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> Wouldn't it be safer to just introduce the z constraint and replace all s
> constraints with z constraints in *call_insn_operand predicated operands?
It depen
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49867
Summary: [C++0x] ICE on lambda inside switch with case labels
in the lambda
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18437
--- Comment #5 from Richard Guenther 2011-07-27
12:38:20 UTC ---
The initial testcase is probably a bad example (3x3 matrix). The following
testcase is borrowed from Polyhedron rnflow and is vectorized by ICC but
not by GCC (the ICC variant is 1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49860
--- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu 2011-07-27 12:39:39
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> Assembler should accept R_X86_64_64 and zero-extend it to 8 bytes. It is the
> same issue as [1].
>
> [1] http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-07/msg01825.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49868
Summary: Implement named address space to place/access data in
flash memory
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49860
Uros Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3 from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49866
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49866
--- Comment #5 from Uros Bizjak 2011-07-27 12:55:40
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> Created attachment 24842 [details]
> gcc46-pr49866.patch
>
> Well, you are the i386 maintainer, not me.
> Anyway, if you don't disagree here is what I'd try t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49860
--- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu 2011-07-27 12:56:01
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> (In reply to comment #2)
>
> > > Assembler should accept R_X86_64_64 and zero-extend it to 8 bytes. It is
> > > the
> > > same issue as [1].
> > >
> > > [1] htt
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49867
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-07-27
13:03:35 UTC ---
void
foo ()
{
switch (3)
{
struct S
{
void bar ()
{
case 3: break;
}
};
}
}
doesn't ICE, but is accepted while IMHO it sh
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49597
--- Comment #4 from david.sagan at gmail dot com 2011-07-27 13:43:18 UTC ---
Yes a later version does not show the bug. Much thanks.
-- David
(In reply to comment #3)
> (In reply to comment #2)
> > I will tke this one.
>
> Jerry: Judging from c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49597
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47407
--- Comment #2 from Martin Jambor 2011-07-27
14:18:12 UTC ---
Like for many other targets that skip this test, the value of
MOVE_RATIO of the target can simply be too small for SRA to consider
total scalarization profitable.
With the current tru
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49869
Summary: Excessive loop versioning done by vectorization +
predictive commoning
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
Sever
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49820
--- Comment #15 from Agner Fog 2011-07-27 14:27:33 UTC
---
How do you define "clever things"? Checking that a variable is within the
allowed range is certainly a standard thing that every SW teacher tells you to
do. I think it is reasonable to ex
code that used to compile under gcc 4.1.2 now won't compile under gcc 4.4.5
I am getting errors such as:
error: 'timeval' does not name a type
error: '::exit' has not been declared
error: 'atof' was not declared in this scope
has anyone experienced this before?
thanks
Chris
--
View this messa
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48802
Marc Glisse changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49860
--- Comment #5 from Uros Bizjak 2011-07-27 15:10:13
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> > Can you prevent x32 to generate DImode symbols? No, since Pmode is still in
> > DImode and DImode addresses are *valid* addresses. For the testcase from PR,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49860
--- Comment #6 from H.J. Lu 2011-07-27 15:42:37
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> (In reply to comment #4)
>
> > > Can you prevent x32 to generate DImode symbols? No, since Pmode is still
> > > in
> > > DImode and DImode addresses are *valid*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49860
--- Comment #7 from Uros Bizjak 2011-07-27 16:04:47
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> > > This testcase is about valid address for x86_64_immediate_operand
> > > and x86_64_zext_immediate_operand. If it is valid for TARGET_32BIT,
> > > it shou
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49870
Summary: regex_match vs. "^"
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
AssignedTo: unassig...@gcc.gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49860
--- Comment #8 from H.J. Lu 2011-07-27 16:14:39
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> (In reply to comment #6)
>
> > > > This testcase is about valid address for x86_64_immediate_operand
> > > > and x86_64_zext_immediate_operand. If it is valid fo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49860
--- Comment #9 from H.J. Lu 2011-07-27 16:16:54
UTC ---
Let's punt it for now. We will investigate it later.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47407
--- Comment #3 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-07-27 16:24:19 UTC ---
> --- Comment #2 from Martin Jambor 2011-07-27
> 14:18:12 UTC ---
> Like for many other targets that skip this test, the value of
> MOVE_RATIO of the target can s
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49871
Summary: -gdwarf-3 creates invalid DWARF3 with
DW_AT_data_member_location attribute
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: wrong-debug
Severity:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49313
--- Comment #5 from Georg-Johann Lay 2011-07-27
16:39:18 UTC ---
Author: gjl
Date: Wed Jul 27 16:39:13 2011
New Revision: 176835
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=176835
Log:
PR target/49313
* config/avr/libgcc.S (__
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48789
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comm
On Wed, 2011-07-27 07:46:55 -0700, XS8J9 wrote:
> code that used to compile under gcc 4.1.2 now won't compile under gcc 4.4.5
>
> I am getting errors such as:
>
> error: 'timeval' does not name a type
> error: '::exit' has not been declared
> error: 'atof' was not declared in this scope
>
> has
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49313
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49864
Richard Henderson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49813
--- Comment #45 from Paolo Carlini 2011-07-27
16:48:55 UTC ---
I have just noticed that with -m32 the isinf overloads for float and double are
also affected, that is:
constexpr bool
isinf(float __x)
{ return __builtin_isinf(__x); }
constexpr bo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49872
Summary: Missed optimization: Could coalesce neighboring
memsets
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Compon
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47691
--- Comment #5 from Sebastian Pop 2011-07-27 16:52:58
UTC ---
Author: spop
Date: Wed Jul 27 16:52:52 2011
New Revision: 176836
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=176836
Log:
Fix PR47691: do not abort compilation when code gene
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49471
--- Comment #7 from Sebastian Pop 2011-07-27 16:53:15
UTC ---
Author: spop
Date: Wed Jul 27 16:53:09 2011
New Revision: 176838
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=176838
Log:
Fix PR49471: canonicalize_loop_ivs should not genera
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47691
Sebastian Pop changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45450
--- Comment #2 from Sebastian Pop 2011-07-27 16:53:06
UTC ---
Author: spop
Date: Wed Jul 27 16:53:02 2011
New Revision: 176837
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=176837
Log:
PR45450: disable legality check after an openscop re
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49873
Summary: Optimizer regression
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
AssignedTo: unassig...@gcc.gn
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49471
Sebastian Pop changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49873
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski 2011-07-27
17:00:06 UTC ---
I think this code is undefined because you are subtracting two "arrays" which
produces an undefined result in C.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49813
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ghazi at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #46
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49844
--- Comment #3 from PcX 2011-07-27 17:22:39 UTC
---
I found that if I add the option "-flto-partition=none", the problem will
disappear.
As is :
-
g++.exe -shared
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47372
Uros Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x32
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49871
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49874
Summary: [h8300] ICE in
compute_frame_pointer_to_fb_displacement, at
dwarf2out.c:16312
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.5
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49865
--- Comment #2 from sgunderson at bigfoot dot com 2011-07-27 17:28:19 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> Actually, thinking about it, the most efficient code sequence would be just
> giving 4100 to memset instead of 4096, but that's for an enhancem
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49755
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47958
Uros Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||49860
--- Comment #3 from Uros Bizjak 2011
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49791
--- Comment #15 from Tobias Burnus 2011-07-27
17:45:10 UTC ---
Author: burnus
Date: Wed Jul 27 17:45:01 2011
New Revision: 176839
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=176839
Log:
2011-07-27 Tobias Burnus
Backport fro
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49874
--- Comment #1 from Arnaud Lacombe 2011-07-27
17:46:18 UTC ---
gcc version 4.6.2 20110726 (prerelease) (GCC) is affected too.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49874
--- Comment #2 from Arnaud Lacombe 2011-07-27
17:48:53 UTC ---
as is version 4.7.0 20110609 (experimental)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49875
Summary: FAIL: c-c++-common/cxxbitfields-4.c
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
AssignedTo: unassig..
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49547
Yukhin Kirill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49547
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49547
Yukhin Kirill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33255
Dodji Seketeli changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #24833|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47594
Sebastian Pop changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zsojka at seznam dot cz
--- Comment #7 fr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=7263
--- Comment #39 from Dodji Seketeli 2011-07-27
18:12:44 UTC ---
Just so that I don't forget the link, a second version of the patch set for
this was submitted for review to
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-07/msg01316.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47092
Sebastian Pop changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47594
Sebastian Pop changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49866
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-07-27
18:17:20 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Jul 27 18:17:15 2011
New Revision: 176841
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=176841
Log:
PR target/49866
* config/i386/i386.md (*cal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49866
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-07-27
18:19:44 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Jul 27 18:19:40 2011
New Revision: 176842
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=176842
Log:
PR target/49866
* gcc.target/i386/pr49866.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49876
Summary: [4.7 Regression] FAIL: gfortran.dg/graphite/pr43097.f
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
Ass
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46194
Sebastian Pop changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49876
Sebastian Pop changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49877
Summary: [h8300] ICE in in reload_cse_simplify_operands: insn
does not satisfy its constraints
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49878
Summary: [h8300] ICE in based_loc_descr, at dwarf2out.c:10478
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
AssignedTo: u
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49877
--- Comment #1 from Arnaud Lacombe 2011-07-27
18:45:26 UTC ---
also triggering:
/src/linux/linux/drivers/input/mouse/synaptics.c:679:1: error: insn does not
satisfy its constraints:
(insn 274 1532 1533 23 (set (mem/c:QI (plus:SI (reg/f:SI 7 sp)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49879
Summary: [h8300] ICE in maybe_record_trace_start, at
dwarf2cfi.c:2439
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compon
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49879
--- Comment #1 from Arnaud Lacombe 2011-07-27
18:47:41 UTC ---
testcase to come
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49876
--- Comment #2 from Sebastian Pop 2011-07-27 18:50:32
UTC ---
Patch:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-07/msg02453.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49878
--- Comment #1 from Arnaud Lacombe 2011-07-27
18:51:21 UTC ---
Created attachment 24846
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24846
reduced testcase.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49875
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49866
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49813
--- Comment #47 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-07-27 19:33:55 UTC ---
Author: paolo
Date: Wed Jul 27 19:33:51 2011
New Revision: 176847
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=176847
Log:
2011-07-27 Paolo Carlini
PR c++
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20072
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49875
--- Comment #2 from Aldy Hernandez 2011-07-27
19:51:09 UTC ---
Author: aldyh
Date: Wed Jul 27 19:51:04 2011
New Revision: 176848
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=176848
Log:
PR middle-end/49875
* c-c++-common/
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49112
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #17
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49791
--- Comment #16 from Tobias Burnus 2011-07-27
21:35:15 UTC ---
Author: burnus
Date: Wed Jul 27 21:35:08 2011
New Revision: 176850
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=176850
Log:
2011-07-27 Tobias Burnus
Backport fro
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49112
--- Comment #18 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-07-27 21:56:36 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #17)
> Janus, this regression (comment 6 remains to be done) is assigned to you. Are
> you still working on it?
Well, at least it's on my (unfortunately
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49864
--- Comment #2 from Richard Henderson 2011-07-27
22:17:47 UTC ---
Created attachment 24847
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24847
proposed patch
This appears to fix the problem for this testcase.
Please run through a complete
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49813
--- Comment #48 from Kaveh Ghazi 2011-07-27 22:32:57
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #41)
> The testcase in Comment #30 has the types wrong, the below is a corrected
> version (the substance of the issue doesn't change at all). I'm also thinking
> o
1 - 100 of 120 matches
Mail list logo
