http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50778
Bug #: 50778
Summary: [4.7 Regression] Bootstrap failure on
powerpc-apple-darwin9
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50678
--- Comment #48 from Dominique d'Humieres
2011-10-18 17:06:44 UTC ---
I have bootstrapped gcc on x86_64-apple-darwin10 at revision 180138 with the
patch at http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-10/msg01617.html. All the Ada
tests pass with it.
T
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50763
--- Comment #5 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-18 17:14:28 UTC ---
Created attachment 25545
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25545
updated patch
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50769
--- Comment #3 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-18 17:16:15 UTC ---
Created attachment 25546
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25546
update patch
currently testing on x86_64.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50737
--- Comment #15 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-18 17:26:42 UTC ---
Author: uros
Date: Tue Oct 18 17:26:32 2011
New Revision: 180157
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=180157
Log:
gcc/ChangeLog:
2011-10-18 Uros Bizjak
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50678
--- Comment #49 from Iain Sandoe 2011-10-18 17:26:28
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #48)
> I have one question: how this unwinder problem relates to the other ones
> reported in bugzilla?
To the bugs I am aware of, totally unrelated ...
This pro
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50737
--- Comment #16 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-18 17:30:27 UTC ---
Author: uros
Date: Tue Oct 18 17:30:12 2011
New Revision: 180158
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=180158
Log:
gcc/ChangeLog:
2011-10-18 Uros Bizjak
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50737
Uros Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|dwarf2 EH targets |alphaev68-pc-linux-gnu
|(
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50742
--- Comment #3 from Jason Merrill 2011-10-18
17:39:39 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Tue Oct 18 17:39:31 2011
New Revision: 180160
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=180160
Log:
PR c++/50742
* decl.c (check_previous_goto_
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50500
--- Comment #1 from Jason Merrill 2011-10-18
17:39:26 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Tue Oct 18 17:39:15 2011
New Revision: 180159
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=180159
Log:
PR c++/50500
DR 1082
* class.c (type_ha
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50500
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50742
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50771
--- Comment #2 from CM 2011-10-18 18:20:18 UTC
---
It is RedHat Linux 64bit, platform x86_64:
emdhouapd07 (energy2) hoops: uname -a
Linux emdhouapd07 2.6.18-238.9.1.el5 #1 SMP Fri Mar 18 12:42:39 EDT 2011 x86_64
x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux
> Becau
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50779
Bug #: 50779
Summary: always_inline function fails to inline
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50779
--- Comment #1 from Ruben Van Boxem
2011-10-18 18:43:39 UTC ---
Created attachment 25547
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25547
Compile with "g++ -O[012] -c profileparser.ii" to trigger the error
(preprocessed with x86_64-w64-m
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50778
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50754
Joost VandeVondele changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50678
--- Comment #50 from Iain Sandoe 2011-10-18 19:18:38
UTC ---
well I've hit a few issues.
1. _Unwind_Find_FDE is not part of the public interface (nor are the types it
needs).
2. if the vendor decides to 'fix' libunwind .. we won't detect this ..
|
--- Comment #5 from Joost VandeVondele
2011-10-18 19:22:04 UTC ---
No, not quite. With the original commandline I still see a failure here for
gcc version 4.7.0 20111018 (experimental) [trunk revision 180161] (GCC)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50531
--- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill 2011-10-18
19:36:34 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Tue Oct 18 19:36:29 2011
New Revision: 180163
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=180163
Log:
PR c++/50531
* pt.c (instantiate_decl): Rec
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50531
--- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill 2011-10-18
19:36:34 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Tue Oct 18 19:36:29 2011
New Revision: 180163
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=180163
Log:
PR c++/50531
* pt.c (instantiate_decl): Rec
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50780
Bug #: 50780
Summary: [4.7 Regression] ICE: verify_gimple failed: invalid
operands in ternary operation with -ftree-vectorize
-fnon-call-exceptions
Classification: Unclassified
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50754
--- Comment #6 from Dominique d'Humieres 2011-10-18
19:43:39 UTC ---
> does solve the problem.
Oops!-( I ment "does not solve the problem": when the fingers don't follow the
brain;-).
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50781
Bug #: 50781
Summary: ICE: in expand_vec_perm_broadcast_1, at
config/i386/i386.c:35998 with -mavx and
__builtin_shuffle()
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50717
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Stubbs 2011-10-18 19:57:19
UTC ---
Author: ams
Date: Tue Oct 18 19:57:15 2011
New Revision: 180164
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=180164
Log:
2011-10-18 Andrew Stubbs
PR tree-optimization
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50678
--- Comment #51 from Eric Botcazou 2011-10-18
20:04:38 UTC ---
> 2. if the vendor decides to 'fix' libunwind .. we won't detect this ...
> (although I still think this idea is worth pursuing, on the grounds that 'no
> fix' or a fix to Libc are m
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48087
--- Comment #10 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2011-10-18
20:22:52 UTC ---
The gimple generated with -Wreturn-type and with -Werror=return-type is even
different. At least at revision 164549.
*** pr48087.cc.004t.gimple-Wreturn-type 2011-10-18 22:17:16
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50760
Dodji Seketeli changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50782
Bug #: 50782
Summary: optimize pragma not applying fast-math
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50777
--- Comment #3 from Ian Lance Taylor 2011-10-18 21:07:12
UTC ---
I would advise handling madvise in the same way that we handle AM_ICONV in
gcc/configure.ac, to work around a similar issue.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50724
--- Comment #35 from Ethan Tira-Thompson 2011-10-18
21:09:07 UTC ---
Thanks all for the info!
I should have realized there was literally an attribute/pragma called
'optimize' (duh), and it's already in the docs... for some reason I had gotten
th
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50782
--- Comment #1 from Ethan Tira-Thompson 2011-10-18
21:16:23 UTC ---
I'm sorry, apparently I messed something up in my testing.
The output of -O3 is actually:
000
111
The output of -O0 is:
100
111
So the optimize attribute is being applied afte
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50782
--- Comment #2 from Ethan Tira-Thompson 2011-10-18
21:28:42 UTC ---
Argh, sorry for the spastic updates, but I checked again and I definitely have
these lines in my console history:
$ g++ test.cc -o test -Wall -g -O3 && ./test
100
111
But now I'
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50694
--- Comment #3 from Oleg Endo 2011-10-18 21:33:06 UTC
---
(In reply to comment #2)
> Ah. One liner
>
> -#define DRIVER_SELF_SPECS "%{m2a:%{ml:%eSH2a does not support
> little-endian}}"
> +#define DRIVER_SELF_SPECS "%{m2a*:%{ml:%eSH2a does not
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50754
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50770
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50694
--- Comment #4 from Kazumoto Kojima 2011-10-18
22:24:32 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
There are no real uses of SH1/SH2/SH2E/SH3E cores anymore, I think.
I agree that taking care of -m2e is not worth. Perhaps same for
-m1. Anyway, your chang
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50743
Mikael Pettersson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50694
--- Comment #5 from Oleg Endo 2011-10-18 22:37:13 UTC
---
(In reply to comment #4)
> There are no real uses of SH1/SH2/SH2E/SH3E cores anymore, I think.
True. But the SH7020 (SH1) is still listed on digikey for an amazing
collector's price ;)
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50694
--- Comment #6 from Kazumoto Kojima 2011-10-18
22:50:19 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> I'll send in a patch with a couple of other cosmetic changes later, OK?
Please go for it.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50746
--- Comment #9 from Iain Sandoe 2011-10-18 23:05:06
UTC ---
pr37482 and vect114 seem OK now on powerpc-darwin9 (we have had bootstrap
problems - which are not cleared yet for some languages).
We also now have a large number of struct-layout-1, v
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48087
--- Comment #11 from Paolo Carlini 2011-10-18
23:42:43 UTC ---
Manuel, we need you help for some of these nasty diagnostic issues.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50782
--- Comment #3 from Ethan Tira-Thompson 2011-10-18
23:55:47 UTC ---
I figured out what I did differently, I did some 'minor cleanup' and moved n
out of the function scope. This actually changes the optimization results.
This is just for referen
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50783
Bug #: 50783
Summary: builtin c++ demanger does not handle clones
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priori
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50749
--- Comment #3 from Oleg Endo 2011-10-19 00:00:01 UTC
---
Kaz,
do you happen to know why the following is defined in sh.h?
#define USE_LOAD_POST_INCREMENT(mode)((mode == SImode || mode == DImode) \
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50783
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40831
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||andi-gcc at firstfloor dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40831
--- Comment #17 from Andrew Pinski 2011-10-19
00:01:54 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #13)
> It would be nice to fix it in binutils and in gdb as well.
libiberty should be merged automatically ...
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38761
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jsm28 at gcc dot gnu.org,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39409
--- Comment #3 from Paolo Carlini 2011-10-19
00:14:07 UTC ---
David, any take on this one? Thanks in advance.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41103
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu.org |
Known to fail|
in the range of [0,
4294967295]
GNU C++ (GCC) version 4.7.0 20111018 (experimental) (i686-pc-cygwin)
compiled by GNU C version 4.7.0 20111014 (experimental), GMP version
5.0.2, MPFR version 3.2.0-dev, MPC version 0.9
GGC heuristics: --param ggc-min-expand=30 --param ggc-min-heaps
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50785
Bug #: 50785
Summary: [C++0x][constexpr] static constexpr double undefined
reference
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50785
--- Comment #1 from Paolo Carlini 2011-10-19
01:34:50 UTC ---
What happens if you add a definition: constexpr double test::value; after your
struct like you would for any non-constrexpr static data member?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48087
--- Comment #12 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2011-10-19
01:44:12 UTC ---
I think the problem is the seen_error() test in gimple_push_cleanup. I am
guessing that it does some kind of "folding" that is skipped when an error has
been issued. There are t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39777
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|gcc-bugs at g
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50531
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50786
Bug #: 50786
Summary: temporary files not cleaned up on LTO errors
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prior
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50787
Bug #: 50787
Summary: [4.6 Regression] reference fails to bind directly to
variable
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50787
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50788
Bug #: 50788
Summary: [4.7 Regression] ICE: in merge_overlapping_regs, at
regrename.c:318 with -mavx -fpeel-loops
-fstack-protector-all and __builtin_ia32_maskloadpd256
Classificat
101 - 161 of 161 matches
Mail list logo
