http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50133
Ira Rosen changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||irar at il dot ibm.com
--- Comment #1 from Ir
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50133
Ira Rosen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50141
Bug #: 50141
Summary: ICE: tree check: expected var_decl, have parm_decl in
get_bit_range, at expr.c:4357 with --param
allow-store-data-races=0 and bitfields
Classification: Unclas
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50131
--- Comment #4 from Richard Guenther 2011-08-21
09:19:28 UTC ---
I'm sure or $-1,reg doesn't avoid the data dependence on reg and may even
result in hitting partial reg stall issues. Surely xor reg,reg; not reg
might be another alternative?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50136
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50135
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-*-*, i?86-*-*
Componen
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50010
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.7.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50138
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||irar at gcc dot gnu.org,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50137
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.7.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50135
Uros Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |SUSPENDED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50139
--- Comment #1 from Ruben Van Boxem
2011-08-21 10:47:56 UTC ---
Created attachment 25064
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25064
patch for 4.5 branch
Attached congruent patch for 4.5 branch
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50139
--- Comment #2 from Ruben Van Boxem
2011-08-21 10:48:32 UTC ---
Created attachment 25065
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25065
Patch for 4.6 branch
Attached congruent patch for 4.6 branch.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50142
Bug #: 50142
Summary: There is bug when swap elements of an array via chain
expression.
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.0.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50130
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50142
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
> I bet we have a duplicate report for not using the x86 loop instruction.
Well, we used to generate it until we concluded it is pointless...
Honza
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50135
--- Comment #3 from Jan Hubicka 2011-08-21 12:01:20 UTC
---
> I bet we have a duplicate report for not using the x86 loop instruction.
Well, we used to generate it until we concluded it is pointless...
Honza
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50130
--- Comment #5 from Thomas Koenig 2011-08-21
12:02:16 UTC ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Sun Aug 21 12:02:12 2011
New Revision: 177940
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=177940
Log:
2011-08-21 Thomas Koenig
PR fortran/50130
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50143
Bug #: 50143
Summary: Doxygen API documentation is invalid
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.1
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/libstdc++/latest-doxygen
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50143
--- Comment #1 from Paolo Carlini 2011-08-21
15:03:38 UTC ---
And the page has been *generated* by Doxygen (1.7.4, in particular), right? So,
why do you think that, if anything, this is a libstdc++ bug?!?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50144
Bug #: 50144
Summary: cc1plus double free / out of bounds read
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49844
--- Comment #6 from PcX 2011-08-21 15:28:43 UTC
---
I update to gcc 4.6.2 (20110819) and binutils 2.21.53.20110820, and it also has
the problem.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50145
Bug #: 50145
Summary: FAIL: gcc.dg/torture/pr50067-*.c -O* execution test on
powerpc*-*-*
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49677
PcX changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xunxun1982 at gmail dot com
--- Comment #1 from PcX
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50144
--- Comment #1 from Török Edwin 2011-08-21
15:52:33 UTC ---
And here is a stacktrace from a local GCC build so you have line numbers:
$ valgrind --trace-children=yes
/home/edwin/gcc-4.6-4.6.1/src/host-x86_64-linux-gnu/gcc/xgcc
-B/home/edwin/gcc-4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50144
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=47659
--- Comment #6 from Thomas Koenig 2011-08-21
16:35:31 UTC ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Sun Aug 21 16:35:28 2011
New Revision: 177942
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=177942
Log:
2011-08-21 Thomas Koenig
PR fortran/47659
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50144
--- Comment #3 from Török Edwin 2011-08-21
16:41:19 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> The valgrind errors about search_line_sse2 are valgrind bugs rather than gcc
> bugs. Just ignore them.
OK, I'll try to find some other valgrind trace.
(In r
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50146
Bug #: 50146
Summary: [4.7 regression] unused variable saved_nregs in
ira-color.c broke arm-linux-gnueabi bootstrap
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50133
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=49901
--- Comment #8 from Dominique d'Humieres 2011-08-21
18:08:39 UTC ---
Could the patch in comment #3 be applied without waiting for an answer about
what to do with the -gno-strict-dwarf option on strict-dwarf platforms?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50143
--- Comment #2 from Christopher Yeleighton
2011-08-21 19:33:07 UTC ---
Please tell me if you find the following argument invalid:
1.
It is the responsibility of the library to provide API documentation for the
developers using the library.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50146
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.7.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50145
--- Comment #1 from Richard Guenther 2011-08-21
19:37:26 UTC ---
Can you please check why? I suppose it's a big/little-endian issue with the
testcase, so the expected array contents change? Making the short input
array values duplicated in both
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50144
Török Edwin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50143
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-08-21
19:54:15 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> Please tell me if you find the following argument invalid:
>
> 1.
> It is the responsibility of the library to provide API documentation for the
> deve
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50143
--- Comment #4 from Paolo Carlini 2011-08-21
20:07:27 UTC ---
Bah, in my opinion, if Doxygen otherwise suits our needs we should just keep
using it and ask users interested in HTML Validator results to file PR with
Doxygen. But certainly I don't
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50145
--- Comment #2 from Dominique d'Humieres 2011-08-21
20:21:04 UTC ---
> Can you please check why?
Using (note that I am C illiterate;-)
for (i = 0; i < 32; ++i)
printf("%hd ", * (&a[i]));
printf("\n");
before and after
for (i = 0; i
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48259
Dmitry Gorbachev changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #23782|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50147
Bug #: 50147
Summary: LTO: Segmentation fault in infinite_empty_loop_p
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50143
--- Comment #5 from Christopher Yeleighton
2011-08-21 20:41:56 UTC ---
Created attachment 25069
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25069
documentation screen shot
The documentation window contains two frames: the index frame and
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50143
--- Comment #6 from Christopher Yeleighton
2011-08-21 20:45:29 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> Of course building gcc isn't necessary to run doxygen.
>
I unpacked gcc and I said { make make doc-html-doxygen; }.
Make said "No such target."
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48875
--- Comment #3 from Dmitry Gorbachev
2011-08-21 20:46:21 UTC ---
I can't reproduce it now.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50143
--- Comment #7 from Christopher Yeleighton
2011-08-21 20:49:10 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> Bah, in my opinion, if Doxygen otherwise suits our needs we should just keep
> using it and ask users interested in HTML Validator results to file P
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50143
--- Comment #8 from Paolo Carlini 2011-08-21
20:50:06 UTC ---
I don't know which browser you are using, but with Firefox 6 the documentation
is definitely readable. Also, I don't know if you are an HTML expert, I'm not,
but I would not be **so**
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50143
--- Comment #9 from Christopher Yeleighton
2011-08-21 20:54:33 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> I don't know which browser you are using, but with Firefox 6 the documentation
> is definitely readable.
Konqueror 4.6
> Also, I don't know if yo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50143
--- Comment #10 from Dominique d'Humieres
2011-08-21 20:56:00 UTC ---
> I don't know which browser you are using, but with Firefox 6 the documentation
> is definitely readable.
This is the same with Safari. Note that on both Safari and Firefox,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50143
--- Comment #11 from Paolo Carlini 2011-08-21
20:59:51 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #10)
> This is the same with Safari. Note that on both Safari and Firefox, I first
> get
> a widow as displayed in the attachment in comment #5 then the right pa
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50143
--- Comment #12 from Paolo Carlini 2011-08-21
21:04:06 UTC ---
By the way, I just tried Safari 5.1 and it also works fine for me (as long as
the above link and a few others are concerned, at least)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50143
--- Comment #13 from Christopher Yeleighton
2011-08-21 21:05:11 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #11)
> Doesn't happen here. Anyway, I still believe that a sensible way to go is
> filing a Bug Report with Doxygen.
Apparently. However, the problem
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50148
Bug #: 50148
Summary: GCC fails to bootstrap with -O3 due to "may be used
uninitialized" errors
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCON
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50148
--- Comment #1 from Dmitry Gorbachev
2011-08-21 21:12:23 UTC ---
Created attachment 25071
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25071
Patch for sched-deps.c
Also fails during -O3 LTO bootstrap in sched-deps.c.
(Another solution wo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49638
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50143
--- Comment #14 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-08-21
21:26:02 UTC ---
fine, I'll reproduce it and report a bug to Doxygen
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50143
--- Comment #15 from Paolo Carlini 2011-08-21
21:48:14 UTC ---
If you can Jon, it would be great. I tried with the browsers I have at hand to
no avail, so far. Anyway, if trustworthy html validators report errors for the
pages generated by Doxyge
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1773
--- Comment #116 from Paolo Carlini
2011-08-21 22:02:23 UTC ---
Thank you Rainer, and Marc, for the huge analysis and programming and testing
effort.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50142
--- Comment #2 from ZHAO Xiaogang 2011-08-22
00:36:34 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> Evaluation order is undefined since there is no sequence point involved.
I don't think so.
The associativity of operator ^= is Right to Left.
I have build
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50146
Vladimir Makarov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vmakarov at redhat dot com
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50105
--- Comment #10 from Jerry DeLisle 2011-08-22
03:37:30 UTC ---
I just returned from travel and will have a look at this.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50142
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=50149
Bug #: 50149
Summary: loader error with source containing common blocks
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
P
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48722
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
62 matches
Mail list logo
