http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48818
--- Comment #7 from vincenzo Innocente
2011-10-20 07:27:30 UTC ---
no side effects for the time being.
I've tried only small applications though.
I would suggest to rename --disable-visibility
--disable-std-visibility or similar as, applied to to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49485
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-10-20
07:36:40 UTC ---
For me the trunk with vectorization is certainly faster than 4.3, it is true
that 4.6 is slower.
4.3 -O3 -ffast-math 0m0.144s
4.3 -O3 -ffast-math -fno-tree-vectorize 0m0.167s
4.6 -O3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23855
--- Comment #24 from rguenther at suse dot de
2011-10-20 07:43:44 UTC ---
On Wed, 19 Oct 2011, pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23855
>
> --- Comment #23 from Andrew Pinski 2011-10-19
> 19:10:38
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49485
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-10-20
07:57:10 UTC ---
BTW, 4.6 numbers can be improved to the trunk numbers by applying
http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=179460
(aka a subset of Eric's r179165 change) - C++ references here
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50806
Bug #: 50806
Summary: dwarf2out crash: missing GTY?
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50801
--- Comment #3 from dodji at seketeli dot org
2011-10-20 08:05:18 UTC ---
Patch posted to http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-10/msg01821.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50644
--- Comment #8 from Michael Matz 2011-10-20 08:14:45
UTC ---
Andi, the patch you bisected transformed a pre-existing bug into a segfault.
Reverting it wouldn't fix anything.
You could try the stab-in-the-dark patch from PR50741, but if that does
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49485
--- Comment #9 from Paolo Carlini 2011-10-20
08:19:28 UTC ---
Ah great. Then I wonder if at this point we couldn't even resolve this..
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45385
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50801
Ulrich Weigand changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||uweigand at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48818
--- Comment #8 from Paolo Carlini 2011-10-20
08:23:01 UTC ---
Vincenzo, I agree about the name, yesterday had the same thought. Then we have
the usual annoyances with configure options and switches, we normally don't
want to just rename in order
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45333
--- Comment #2 from dodji at seketeli dot org
2011-10-20 08:25:20 UTC ---
Yes, it's related. With the infrastructure that is in right now, the
results are not super for template instantiate backtraces though:
$ cat -n test.cc
1#define
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45385
--- Comment #4 from Paolo Carlini 2011-10-20
08:27:38 UTC ---
Thanks a lot. If I understand correctly this is a regression affecting a very
sensible warning which we want to fix for 4.7, at least. We should mark it as
such.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45333
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49485
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-10-20
08:42:55 UTC ---
Certainly not right now, this isn't a kind of change that should be added in
between 4.6.2-RC and 4.6.2. Maybe later.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50781
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45333
--- Comment #4 from dodji at seketeli dot org
2011-10-20 08:57:06 UTC ---
> So we can track the origin of the instantation to the macro definition, but
> then we don't show where the macro is invoked from, which is shown without
> -ftrack-macro-e
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50396
--- Comment #1 from Mathias Gaunard 2011-10-20
08:58:19 UTC ---
This bug has stayed as unconfirmed for a while.
Is there anything that I could do to help?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50803
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50802
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.7.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50799
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.7.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50806
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50805
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50795
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||danglin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50795
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.7.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50106
--- Comment #8 from Ramana Radhakrishnan 2011-10-20
09:07:36 UTC ---
Author: ramana
Date: Thu Oct 20 09:07:30 2011
New Revision: 180240
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=180240
Log:
2011-10-20 Ramana Radhakrishnan
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50801
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50396
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45333
--- Comment #5 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2011-10-20
09:11:42 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
>
> Agreed again. I suspect this is related to our (ab)use of the global
> input_location instead of relying on the precise location of the tokens
> we
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50396
--- Comment #3 from Richard Guenther 2011-10-20
09:13:21 UTC ---
case DIV:
/* Handle floating point and integers separately. */
if (SCALAR_FLOAT_MODE_P (mode))
{
should probably be FLOAT_MODE_P (mode).
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50778
--- Comment #6 from dodji at seketeli dot org
2011-10-20 09:15:31 UTC ---
FWIW, this is maybe related to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50801 that got fixed in
commit r180239
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50106
--- Comment #9 from Ramana Radhakrishnan 2011-10-20
09:24:10 UTC ---
Author: ramana
Date: Thu Oct 20 09:24:06 2011
New Revision: 180241
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=180241
Log:
Backport from mainline fix for PR target/5
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50106
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50778
--- Comment #7 from dodji at seketeli dot org
2011-10-20 09:26:31 UTC ---
> I can give you access to my (slowww) G5 if you mail me your ssh key.
Thank you for giving me access to the box.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49485
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50807
Bug #: 50807
Summary: [avr]
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: accepts-invalid
Severity: normal
Priority
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50806
--- Comment #2 from Jan Kratochvil
2011-10-20 10:15:27 UTC ---
OK, thanks, posted:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-10/msg01850.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50807
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P5
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50808
Bug #: 50808
Summary: Diagnostic output at expansion time should be moved
earlier.
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50808
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50808
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50806
Jan Kratochvil changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50808
--- Comment #2 from Paolo Carlini 2011-10-20
10:52:49 UTC ---
I think we have already in Bugzilla an old PR about a related issue, for a
specific warning.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50106
--- Comment #11 from Sebastian Huber
2011-10-20 11:07:09 UTC ---
Thank you very much. With this change the GCC 4.6.2-RC-20111019 produces now
correct code in this case.
I know understand why the unused volatile registers are saved and restored.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50808
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=50759
Dodji Seketeli changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50709
--- Comment #5 from Jan Hubicka 2011-10-20
11:46:11 UTC ---
Author: hubicka
Date: Thu Oct 20 11:46:08 2011
New Revision: 180247
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=180247
Log:
PR bootstrap/50709
* ipa-inline.c (inline_
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50759
--- Comment #2 from dodji at seketeli dot org
2011-10-20 11:48:24 UTC ---
> It looks like support for @quotation/@end quotation pairs needs adding to
> texi2pod.pl.
That, or I could just use @smallexample/@end smallexample as in the
other places
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50659
--- Comment #17 from Dodji Seketeli 2011-10-20
12:37:02 UTC ---
Author: dodji
Date: Thu Oct 20 12:36:55 2011
New Revision: 180250
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=180250
Log:
Use @smallexample instead of @quotation in cppopt
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50759
Dodji Seketeli changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50809
Bug #: 50809
Summary: driver-arm.c:55:11: error: anonymous type with no
linkage used to declare variable '
vendors []' with linkage [-Werror]
Classification: Unclassified
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50810
Bug #: 50810
Summary: c++0x-compat does not warn about narrowing conversions
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50810
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIRM
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50719
Sean McGovern changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50644
--- Comment #9 from Andi Kleen 2011-10-20
14:05:49 UTC ---
Previously the builds produced working code. Now they just segfault.
If I revert the patches (plus the ones depending on it) I get working
code again.
In my book that's a "fix". I don't
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50778
--- Comment #8 from Iain Sandoe 2011-10-20 14:29:12
UTC ---
Unfortunately, as of r180241, I still have the bootstrap fail in building
libgfortran (Java untested) and the ICEs in struct-layout-1.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49868
--- Comment #5 from Eric Weddington
2011-10-20 14:36:01 UTC ---
Hi Johann,
I would prefer if the name of the address space for program memory be named
"__flash" so that way it is the same name as what the IAR compiler uses. Using
the same name a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50811
Bug #: 50811
Summary: G++ rejects class-virt-specifier if class-head-name
includes nested-name-specifier
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Stat
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47989
--- Comment #4 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-20 15:13:39 UTC ---
Author: uros
Date: Thu Oct 20 15:13:30 2011
New Revision: 180256
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=180256
Log:
PR target/47989
* config/i386/i386.h
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49868
--- Comment #6 from Georg-Johann Lay 2011-10-20
15:18:51 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> Hi Johann,
>
> I would prefer if the name of the address space for program memory be named
> "__flash" so that way it is the same name as what the IAR co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50812
Bug #: 50812
Summary: libbid build fails with ICE on bid128_div.c
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: build, ice-on-valid-cod
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50812
--- Comment #1 from Francois-Xavier Coudert
2011-10-20 15:25:20 UTC ---
I should have added that I am using trunk revision 180247.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47989
Uros Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
URL|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50812
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50644
--- Comment #10 from Michael Matz 2011-10-20 16:15:36
UTC ---
Why is it so difficult to just fire up gdb? This all could be solved in a
couple of minutes.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50644
--- Comment #11 from Andi Kleen 2011-10-20
16:30:27 UTC ---
I did fire gdb up of course, the output is in the initial report.
I also tracked it down to exactly your commit.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50644
--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-10-20
16:39:15 UTC ---
It doesn't contain enough info though.
In particular, it would be nice to see
p debug_tree (*(tree *)0x2b11d2f00c00)
(the first argument for the innermost walk_tree_1)
and possibly fo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50644
--- Comment #13 from Andi Kleen 2011-10-20
16:44:42 UTC ---
I only have a core file. It's really hard to catch the correct lto1
in gdb in a complex LTO build. The only sane way I found to at least
get some gdb information is to use -dH and use th
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50799
--- Comment #1 from Alexandre Oliva 2011-10-20
16:46:29 UTC ---
On it. FWIW, I don't get these failures with rev 180136, with or without the
patch, and I can't trigger them at 180194 either. Can you get more info on
what the failure is (say, de
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50407
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50524
--- Comment #2 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-20 17:15:23 UTC ---
Author: kargl
Date: Thu Oct 20 17:15:06 2011
New Revision: 180262
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=180262
Log:
2011-10-15 Steven G. Kargl
PR fort
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50524
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50799
--- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu 2011-10-20 17:30:07
UTC ---
I saw them on Fedora 15 with gdb-7.3-43.fc15.x86_64.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50778
--- Comment #9 from Iain Sandoe 2011-10-20 17:44:56
UTC ---
This might be the easier one to debug:
Running /GCC/gcc-live-trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/compat/struct-layout-1.exp ...
FAIL: tmpdir-gcc.dg-struct-layout-1/t002 c_compat_main_tst.o compi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50514
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50694
--- Comment #7 from Oleg Endo 2011-10-20 18:44:32 UTC
---
(In reply to comment #6)
> (In reply to comment #5)
> > I'll send in a patch with a couple of other cosmetic changes later, OK?
>
> Please go for it.
..or maybe just leave it as it is :T
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50799
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50407
--- Comment #15 from Uros Bizjak 2011-10-20 18:53:12
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #14)
> Fixed on trunk at revision 180261. Forgot to include PR number
> in ChangeLog, so commit message won't show up in audit trail.
This can be solved by copyin
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41449
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41449
--- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill 2011-10-20
19:13:54 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Thu Oct 20 19:13:51 2011
New Revision: 180267
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=180267
Log:
PR c++/41449
* typeck2.c (split_nonconstant
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50799
--- Comment #4 from Alexandre Oliva 2011-10-20
19:15:51 UTC ---
Just tried with ld.gold instead, still no failure.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41449
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50799
--- Comment #5 from H.J. Lu 2011-10-20 19:24:55
UTC ---
You should try gdb 7.3 to see if it makes a difference.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50572
--- Comment #1 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-20
19:29:57 UTC ---
Author: hjl
Date: Thu Oct 20 19:29:52 2011
New Revision: 180268
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=180268
Log:
Change Atom align_loops_max_skip to 15.
201
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50813
Bug #: 50813
Summary: gcc.dg/torture/vshuf-{v4di,v8si}.c fail on AVX target
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50813
Uros Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50813
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-10-20
19:52:45 UTC ---
Strange, wonder how I've missed this.
I guess easiest would be probably just to
if (!TARGET_AVX2)
{
struct expand_vec_perm_d d_copy = *d;
d_copy.target = gen_lowpart (V{4DF,8
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50799
--- Comment #6 from Alexandre Oliva 2011-10-20
19:57:41 UTC ---
What kind of error are you getting from gdb 7.3? Since 7.2 is getting the
correct info, that's the bug report that ought to be submitted to GDB.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50800
--- Comment #3 from Mathias Gaunard 2011-10-20
20:07:24 UTC ---
Created attachment 25562
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25562
Reduced testcase
Original testcase reduced using automated delta tools
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50812
Francois-Xavier Coudert changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jh at suse dot cz
--- Comment #
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50766
--- Comment #7 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-20
20:37:37 UTC ---
Author: hjl
Date: Thu Oct 20 20:37:32 2011
New Revision: 180271
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=180271
Log:
Fix operands order in BMI2 patterns.
gcc/
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50690
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned at
figured with: ../gcc-trunk/configure --target=sh-elf --prefix=/usr/local
--enable-languages=c,c++ --enable-multilib --disable-libssp --disable-nls
--disable-werror --enable-lto --with-newlib --with-gnu-as --with-gnu-ld
--with-system-zlib
Thread model: single
gcc version 4.7.0 20111020 (experimental)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50812
--- Comment #4 from Dominique d'Humieres 2011-10-20
20:50:16 UTC ---
AFAICT this is now fixed (probably r180249):
Author:hubicka
Date:Thu Oct 20 12:18:56 2011 UTC (8 hours, 29 minutes ago)
Changed paths:2
Log Message:
* ipa-i
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50799
--- Comment #7 from H.J. Lu 2011-10-20 21:04:59
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> What kind of error are you getting from gdb 7.3? Since 7.2 is getting the
> correct info, that's the bug report that ought to be submitted to GDB.
My understandi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50722
--- Comment #1 from Steve Ellcey 2011-10-20 21:26:05
UTC ---
Author: sje
Date: Thu Oct 20 21:26:01 2011
New Revision: 180277
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=180277
Log:
2011-10-20 Steve Ellcey
PR testsuite/50722
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50722
Steve Ellcey changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50799
--- Comment #8 from Alexandre Oliva 2011-10-20
21:45:42 UTC ---
Err, that doesn't seem to tell what errors you're getting from gdb. I know
older GDB might cause tests to be skipped, but that's not the case here. I'm
getting the expected 48 pass
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50694
--- Comment #8 from Kazumoto Kojima 2011-10-20
22:40:27 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
This problem doesn't require the theoretical/mathematical
completeness. There are many inappropriate combinations
of options which don't get any warning wh
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50799
--- Comment #9 from H.J. Lu 2011-10-20 22:41:19
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> What kind of error are you getting from gdb 7.3? Since 7.2 is getting the
> correct info, that's the bug report that ought to be submitted to GDB.
I got
Breakpo
1 - 100 of 117 matches
Mail list logo
