[Bug tree-optimization/50596] Problems in vectorization of condition expression

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50596 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||irar at gcc dot gnu.org,

[Bug bootstrap/50461] mpfr.h found in mpfr-3.1.0/src instead of mpfr-3.0.1/. as previously

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50461 --- Comment #2 from Denis Excoffier 2011-10-04 07:07:20 UTC --- Also with mpfr-3.1.0 and also on Cygwin.

[Bug target/50566] [avr]: Add support for better logging similar to -mdeb

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50566 --- Comment #5 from Georg-Johann Lay 2011-10-04 08:23:08 UTC --- Author: gjl Date: Tue Oct 4 08:23:03 2011 New Revision: 179494 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=179494 Log: PR target/50566 * config/avr/avr-protos.h

[Bug tree-optimization/50576] Recent vector comparison changes cause an ICE

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50576 Matthew Gretton-Dann changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |RESOLVED Resolution|

[Bug bootstrap/50461] mpfr.h found in mpfr-3.1.0/src instead of mpfr-3.0.1/. as previously

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50461 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug middle-end/49801] df_live_verify_transfer_functions fails with to use of CC_REGNUM and checking enabled in rx backend

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49801 Nick Clifton changed: What|Removed |Added CC||nickc at redhat dot com --- Comment #2 fro

[Bug tree-optimization/50596] Problems in vectorization of condition expression

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50596 --- Comment #3 from vincenzo Innocente 2011-10-04 09:11:53 UTC --- for (int i = 0; i < 1024; i++) a[i] = b[i] < c[i] ? d[i] : e[i]; DOES vectorize with -ftree-loop-if-convert-stores even with float * a; float * b; float * c; float * d; floa

[Bug gcov-profile/45890] Coverage may be weakened by r164986

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45890 --- Comment #3 from rguenther at suse dot de 2011-10-04 09:14:42 UTC --- On Sat, 1 Oct 2011, singhai at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45890 > > --- Comment #2 from Sharad Singhai 2011-10-01 > 19:42:48 UT

[Bug gcov-profile/45890] Coverage may be weakened by r164986

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45890 --- Comment #4 from Jan Hubicka 2011-10-04 09:18:56 UTC --- > > gcc --coverage -O2 -fno-early-inlining foo.c > > ./a.out > > gcov -b foo.c > > > > Adding the following patch mitigates the issue. > > That's surely not the way to go. Why do you

[Bug c++/50594] Option -fwhole-program discards replaced new operator for std::string

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50594 Richard Guenther changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c++/50608] [4.6/4.7 Regression] cannot apply 'offsetof' to a non constant address

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50608 Paolo Carlini changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c++/50594] Option -fwhole-program discards replaced new operator for std::string

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50594 Paolo Carlini changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org,

[Bug gcov-profile/45890] Coverage may be weakened by r164986

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45890 --- Comment #5 from rguenther at suse dot de 2011-10-04 09:50:55 UTC --- On Tue, 4 Oct 2011, hubicka at ucw dot cz wrote: > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45890 > > --- Comment #4 from Jan Hubicka 2011-10-04 09:18:56 > UTC --- >

[Bug target/50038] redundant zero extensions

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50038 --- Comment #5 from tocarip.intel at gmail dot com 2011-10-04 09:52:03 UTC --- This patch is experimental and before sending it to patches mail-list i wanted to verify that at least the approach (modify implicit-zee pass and later enable it on 32bi

[Bug c++/50594] Option -fwhole-program discards replaced new operator for std::string

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50594 --- Comment #16 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-10-04 09:54:57 UTC --- I don't think they're special to the front end either, it transforms "new T" into a call to the relevant library allocation function and then invokes a constructor. The allocation

[Bug target/50038] redundant zero extensions

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50038 --- Comment #6 from Uros Bizjak 2011-10-04 10:03:32 UTC --- (In reply to comment #5) > This patch is experimental and before sending it to patches mail-list i wanted > to verify that at least the approach (modify implicit-zee pass and later > en

[Bug gcov-profile/45890] Coverage may be weakened by r164986

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45890 --- Comment #6 from Jan Hubicka 2011-10-04 10:04:37 UTC --- > Where do we do it right now? At profile instrumentation stage, right? > I'd say if we don't need SSA form we should do coverage instrumentation > right after CFG construction, no? Be

[Bug c++/50594] Option -fwhole-program discards replaced new operator for std::string

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50594 --- Comment #17 from rguenther at suse dot de 2011-10-04 10:03:36 UTC --- On Tue, 4 Oct 2011, redi at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50594 > > --- Comment #16 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-10-04 > 09:54:57 UT

[Bug c++/50594] Option -fwhole-program discards replaced new operator for std::string

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50594 --- Comment #18 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-10-04 10:12:25 UTC --- Ah yes, my mistake, is not required for all of them, [basic.stc.dynamic] says The following allocation and deallocation functions (18.6) are implicitly declared in global scope in

[Bug gcov-profile/45890] Coverage may be weakened by r164986

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45890 --- Comment #7 from rguenther at suse dot de 2011-10-04 10:18:18 UTC --- On Tue, 4 Oct 2011, hubicka at ucw dot cz wrote: > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45890 > > --- Comment #6 from Jan Hubicka 2011-10-04 10:04:37 > UTC --- >

[Bug c++/50593] improve __attribute__((format(printf)))

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50593 --- Comment #2 from Paolo Carlini 2011-10-04 10:30:44 UTC --- Created attachment 25408 --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25408 hacked patchlet Indeed, this kind of hacked (*) patch fixes tests 2 and 6 here (doesn't fix tests 7

[Bug other/50610] G++ 4.4.3: Incorrect code at -O2 (-fwrapv, SafeInt, c++ templates, template class files)

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50610 Richard Guenther changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|

[Bug middle-end/50609] [4.7 Regression] FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/pr23135.c compilation, -O2 -flto (ICE)

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50609 Richard Guenther changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |WAITING --- Comment #3 from Richard Gu

[Bug middle-end/50607] [4.7 Regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/bconstp-3.c

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50607 Richard Guenther changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org Target Mi

[Bug tree-optimization/50602] ICE in tree_nrv, at tree-nrv.c:155 during large LTO build

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50602 --- Comment #2 from Richard Guenther 2011-10-04 11:03:58 UTC --- #7 0x0075ac05 in tree_nrv () at ../../gcc/gcc/tree-nrv.c:155 155 gcc_assert (ret_val == result); (gdb) p ret_val $3 = (tree_node *) 0x0 but ...

[Bug tree-optimization/50599] -ftree-vectorize generating incorrect code

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50599 Richard Guenther changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING Last reconfirmed|

[Bug middle-end/50598] [4.7 Regression] Undefined symbols: "___emutls_v.*", ... on *-apple-darwin*

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50598 Richard Guenther changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |4.7.0

[Bug fortran/48706] Type extension inside subroutine

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48706 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #8 f

[Bug tree-optimization/50596] Problems in vectorization of condition expression

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50596 Richard Guenther changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug tree-optimization/50596] Problems in vectorization of condition expression

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50596 --- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-10-04 11:13:58 UTC --- (In reply to comment #4) > I agree with the need to at least support vectorizing loads and stores of > 1-bit unsigned precision values. We need to be careful with arithmetic > and con

[Bug tree-optimization/50596] Problems in vectorization of condition expression

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50596 --- Comment #6 from rguenther at suse dot de 2011-10-04 11:26:51 UTC --- On Tue, 4 Oct 2011, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50596 > > --- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-10-04 > 11:13:58 UTC -

[Bug tree-optimization/50596] Problems in vectorization of condition expression

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50596 --- Comment #7 from rguenther at suse dot de 2011-10-04 11:28:18 UTC --- On Tue, 4 Oct 2011, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50596 > > --- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-10-04 > 11:13:58 UTC -

[Bug c++/50594] Option -fwhole-program discards replaced new operator for std::string

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50594 --- Comment #19 from Kerrek SB 2011-10-04 11:59:39 UTC --- > The following allocation and deallocation functions (18.6) are implicitly declared in global scope in each translation unit of a program. If those functions are declared implicitly, co

[Bug c++/50611] New: Error reporting routines re-entered

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50611 Bug #: 50611 Summary: Error reporting routines re-entered Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.6.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: diagnostic, ice-on-invalid-code

[Bug fortran/50612] New: C_FUNLOC takes the wrong address (result variable not function address)

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50612 Bug #: 50612 Summary: C_FUNLOC takes the wrong address (result variable not function address) Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.7.0 Status: UNCONFI

[Bug fortran/43829] Scalarization of reductions

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43829 Michael Matz changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #23268|0 |1 is obsolete|

[Bug tree-optimization/50602] ICE in tree_nrv, at tree-nrv.c:155 during large LTO build

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50602 --- Comment #3 from Andi Kleen 2011-10-04 13:22:09 UTC --- Hmm, are you saying gdb fooled me? Any other suggestions how to debug it?

[Bug tree-optimization/50522] C++ std::valarray vectorization missed optimization

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50522 --- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-10-04 13:36:29 UTC --- Author: jakub Date: Tue Oct 4 13:36:24 2011 New Revision: 179502 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=179502 Log: PR tree-optimization/50522 * tree-ssa-alias

[Bug bootstrap/50237] [4.7 regression] bootstrap comparison failure for libcpp/lex.o

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50237 Rainer Orth changed: What|Removed |Added Target|x86_64-suse-linux |x86_64-suse-linux, |

[Bug middle-end/50609] [4.7 Regression] FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/pr23135.c compilation, -O2 -flto (ICE)

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50609 Hans-Peter Nilsson changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |NEW --- Comment #4 from Hans-Peter N

[Bug tree-optimization/50602] ICE in tree_nrv, at tree-nrv.c:155 during large LTO build

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50602 --- Comment #4 from Richard Guenther 2011-10-04 14:19:56 UTC --- (In reply to comment #3) > Hmm, are you saying gdb fooled me? Yes. > Any other suggestions how to debug it? Can you provide the output of (gdb) call debug_function (cfun->decl,

[Bug c++/39950] __unix__ macro is not predefined on AIX platform (C and C++)

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39950 David Edelsohn changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug middle-end/50607] [4.7 Regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/bconstp-3.c

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50607 Greta Yorsh changed: What|Removed |Added CC||Greta.Yorsh at arm dot com --- Comment #5 f

[Bug middle-end/50609] [4.7 Regression] FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/pr23135.c compilation, -O2 -flto (ICE)

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50609 Richard Guenther changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|unassigned

[Bug middle-end/50607] [4.7 Regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/bconstp-3.c

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50607 --- Comment #6 from Artem Shinkarov 2011-10-04 15:12:54 UTC --- Created attachment 25410 --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25410 Fixes the failure caused by non-preserving original_code of c_expr. Bootstrapped and regteted on a

[Bug fortran/50612] C_FUNLOC takes the wrong address (result variable not function address)

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50612 Tobias Burnus changed: What|Removed |Added CC||janus at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #1 f

[Bug middle-end/50604] [4.7 Regression] verify_gimple failed: type mismatch in binary expression

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50604 --- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-10-04 15:26:02 UTC --- Author: jakub Date: Tue Oct 4 15:25:53 2011 New Revision: 179508 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=179508 Log: PR tree-optimization/50604 * builtins.c (fo

[Bug tree-optimization/50522] C++ std::valarray vectorization missed optimization

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50522 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|

[Bug middle-end/50609] [4.7 Regression] FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/pr23135.c compilation, -O2 -flto (ICE)

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50609 --- Comment #6 from Hans-Peter Nilsson 2011-10-04 15:32:22 UTC --- Created attachment 25411 --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25411 Same patch, just as an attachment, for those that want to re-use it. In testing now. Will know

[Bug middle-end/50604] [4.7 Regression] verify_gimple failed: type mismatch in binary expression

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50604 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|

[Bug middle-end/50609] [4.7 Regression] FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/pr23135.c compilation, -O2 -flto (ICE)

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50609 --- Comment #7 from rguenther at suse dot de 2011-10-04 15:50:37 UTC --- On Tue, 4 Oct 2011, hp at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50609 > > --- Comment #6 from Hans-Peter Nilsson 2011-10-04 > 15:32:22 UTC

[Bug fortran/43829] Scalarization of reductions

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43829 --- Comment #36 from paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com 2011-10-04 16:04:48 UTC --- Dear Michael, I agree - we need the most up to date version to be (re-)submitted. I will review it. Cheers Paul On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 3:17 PM, matz at gcc

[Bug bootstrap/49804] [4.7 regression] 20110709 to 20110716 on sparc64 freebsd9.0 Configuration mismatch! [libgcc-extra-parts] Error

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49804 Rainer Orth changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|unassigned at g

[Bug tree-optimization/49279] [4.5/4.6/4.7 Regression] Optimization incorrectly presuming constant variable inside loop in g++ 4.5 and 4.6 with -O2 and -O3 for x86_64 targets

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49279 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #5 f

[Bug tree-optimization/49279] [4.5/4.6/4.7 Regression] Optimization incorrectly presuming constant variable inside loop in g++ 4.5 and 4.6 with -O2 and -O3 for x86_64 targets

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49279 --- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-10-04 16:57:36 UTC --- Short testcase that is miscompiled: struct S { int a; int *__restrict p; }; struct S *bar (struct S *); int foo (int *p, int *q, int z) { struct S s, *t; s.a = 1; s.p = p; t

[Bug tree-optimization/50613] New: ICE: tree check: expected ssa_name, have addr_expr in find_equal_ptrs, at tree-ssa-strlen.c:712 with -foptimize-strlen -fno-tree-ccp

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50613 Bug #: 50613 Summary: ICE: tree check: expected ssa_name, have addr_expr in find_equal_ptrs, at tree-ssa-strlen.c:712 with -foptimize-strlen -fno-tree-ccp Classification: Unclassif

[Bug c++/50614] New: [C++0x] ICE: tree check: expected field_decl, have identifier_node in component_ref_field_offset, at expr.c:6697 with -fcompare-debug and a non-static inilializer

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50614 Bug #: 50614 Summary: [C++0x] ICE: tree check: expected field_decl, have identifier_node in component_ref_field_offset, at expr.c:6697 with -fcompare-debug and a non-static

[Bug rtl-optimization/50615] New: [4.7 Regression] ICE: in distribute_notes, at combine.c:13282 with -O --param max-cse-insns=1

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50615 Bug #: 50615 Summary: [4.7 Regression] ICE: in distribute_notes, at combine.c:13282 with -O --param max-cse-insns=1 Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.7.0

[Bug lto/50616] New: lto1.exe: internal compiler error: invalid resolution in the resolution file

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50616 Bug #: 50616 Summary: lto1.exe: internal compiler error: invalid resolution in the resolution file Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.7.0 Status: UN

[Bug lto/50616] lto1.exe: internal compiler error: invalid resolution in the resolution file

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50616 --- Comment #1 from niXman 2011-10-04 18:35:30 UTC --- Created attachment 25416 --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25416 LTO test sources

[Bug c++/50594] Option -fwhole-program discards replaced new operator for std::string

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50594 --- Comment #20 from Jason Merrill 2011-10-04 18:37:09 UTC --- (In reply to comment #19) > could you just amend that implicit declaration to include the visibility > attribute? Certainly. They're declared in cxx_init_decl_processing: pus

[Bug lto/50616] lto1.exe: internal compiler error: invalid resolution in the resolution file

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50616 niXman changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |critical

[Bug fortran/35831] [F95] Shape mismatch check missing for dummy procedure argument

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35831 --- Comment #13 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-04 18:37:22 UTC --- Author: janus Date: Tue Oct 4 18:37:13 2011 New Revision: 179520 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=179520 Log: 2011-10-04 Janus Weil PR fortran/

[Bug fortran/35831] [F95] Shape mismatch check missing for dummy procedure argument

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35831 --- Comment #14 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-04 18:52:37 UTC --- r179520 should pretty much fix the shape checking for dummy arguments. Related ToDos: 1) check shape of dummy function results (in 'gfc_compare_interfaces') 2) check shape o

[Bug lto/50617] New: [4.7 Regression] ICE: RTL flag check: INSN_ANNULLED_BRANCH_P used with unexpected rtx code 'simplify_immed_subreg' in output_bb, at config/pa/pa.c:6631

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50617 Bug #: 50617 Summary: [4.7 Regression] ICE: RTL flag check: INSN_ANNULLED_BRANCH_P used with unexpected rtx code 'simplify_immed_subreg' in output_bb, at config/pa/

[Bug middle-end/50609] [4.7 Regression] FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/pr23135.c compilation, -O2 -flto (ICE)

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50609 --- Comment #8 from Hans-Peter Nilsson 2011-10-04 20:05:17 UTC --- (In reply to comment #7) > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-10/msg00230.html This patch fixed the gcc.c-torture/execute/pr23135.c regression for cris-elf. Thanks! (So did

[Bug c++/50618] New: Virtual inheritance segfault

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50618 Bug #: 50618 Summary: Virtual inheritance segfault Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.6.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug fortran/48706] Type extension inside subroutine

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48706 --- Comment #9 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-04 20:44:14 UTC --- Author: janus Date: Tue Oct 4 20:44:10 2011 New Revision: 179524 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=179524 Log: 2011-10-04 Janus Weil PR fortran/4

[Bug c++/50618] [4.4/4.5/4.6/4.7 Regression] Virtual inheritance segfault

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50618 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Known to work|

[Bug fortran/48706] Type extension inside subroutine

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48706 --- Comment #10 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-04 20:45:52 UTC --- (In reply to comment #8) > This ICEs also on the 4.6 branch. Could you please apply it there too? Sure thing. Committed as r179524.

[Bug fortran/43829] Scalarization of reductions

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43829 --- Comment #37 from Mikael Morin 2011-10-04 21:56:15 UTC --- (In reply to comment #35) > Created attachment 25409 [details] > Even more up-to-date patch > Sorry, you should have asked for the latest patch. I'll post a more up-to-date than the m

[Bug fortran/50619] New: Surprising interaction between -finit-real=NAN and the associate construct

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50619 Bug #: 50619 Summary: Surprising interaction between -finit-real=NAN and the associate construct Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.6.1 Status: UNC

[Bug libstdc++/49561] [C++0x] std::list::size complexity

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49561 --- Comment #5 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-04 22:19:48 UTC --- Author: paolo Date: Tue Oct 4 22:19:44 2011 New Revision: 179528 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=179528 Log: 2011-10-04 Paolo Carlini PR libs

[Bug libstdc++/49561] [C++0x] std::list::size complexity

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49561 Paolo Carlini changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|

[Bug libstdc++/49561] [C++0x] std::list::size complexity

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49561 --- Comment #7 from Bryce Lelbach (wash) 2011-10-04 23:06:01 UTC --- Thanks - I'll give it a whirl!

[Bug tree-optimization/50613] ICE: tree check: expected ssa_name, have addr_expr in find_equal_ptrs, at tree-ssa-strlen.c:712 with -foptimize-strlen -fno-tree-ccp

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50613 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug tree-optimization/50613] [4.7 Regression] ICE: tree check: expected ssa_name, have addr_expr in find_equal_ptrs, at tree-ssa-strlen.c:712 with -foptimize-strlen -fno-tree-ccp

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50613 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |4.7.0 Summary|ICE: tree check:

[Bug fortran/43829] Scalarization of reductions

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43829 --- Comment #38 from paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com 2011-10-05 06:40:45 UTC --- Dear Mikael, Very good - I'll give it urgent attention as soon as it appears. Cheers Paul On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 11:56 PM, mikael at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: