http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40678
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||janus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50975
Bug #: 50975
Summary: Logical operators evaluated in wrong order if no side
effects
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50955
--- Comment #7 from rguenther at suse dot de
2011-11-03 07:51:25 UTC ---
On Thu, 3 Nov 2011, duyuehai at gmail dot com wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50955
>
> --- Comment #6 from Yuehai Du 2011-11-03 06:24:58
> UTC ---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50955
--- Comment #8 from rakdver at kam dot mff.cuni.cz 2011-11-03 08:06:52 UTC ---
> > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50955
> >
> > --- Comment #6 from Yuehai Du 2011-11-03
> > 06:24:58 UTC ---
> > Let me see if i understand you correc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50976
Bug #: 50976
Summary: [C++0x] literal operator with unsigned long long
parameter not accepted
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFI
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50934
--- Comment #2 from simon at pushface dot org 2011-11-03 08:14:36 UTC ---
Created attachment 25699
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25699
Simpler demonstrator
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50955
--- Comment #9 from Richard Guenther 2011-11-03
08:18:05 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> > > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50955
> > >
> > > --- Comment #6 from Yuehai Du 2011-11-03
> > > 06:24:58 UTC ---
> > > Let me see if i
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50969
--- Comment #2 from Richard Guenther 2011-11-03
08:19:01 UTC ---
Yes, sounds like a cost model issue.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50971
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50974
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50975
--- Comment #1 from Richard Guenther 2011-11-03
08:26:33 UTC ---
But ... you can't tell the difference. So this is a valid optimization.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50912
--- Comment #2 from irar at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-11-03 08:44:41 UTC ---
Author: irar
Date: Thu Nov 3 08:44:35 2011
New Revision: 180819
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=180819
Log:
PR tree-optimization/50912
* tree-v
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50912
Ira Rosen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50730
Ira Rosen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50819
Ira Rosen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50977
Bug #: 50977
Summary: non-deterministic failure in cactusADM using openmp
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50977
--- Comment #1 from razya at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-11-03 09:14:20 UTC ---
Created attachment 25700
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25700
loop annotated with openmp prgmas
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50978
Bug #: 50978
Summary: libgcc build fails - unable to find
unwind-arm-common.h
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
S
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50448
--- Comment #5 from Georg-Johann Lay 2011-11-03
11:01:55 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #0)
> foo:
> ldi r24,lo8(-86)
> ldi r30,lo8(2752)
> ldi r31,hi8(2752)
> std Z+3,r24
> .L2:
> lds r24,2754
> sbrs r24,7
> rjmp .L2
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50976
--- Comment #1 from Ed Smith-Rowland <3dw4rd at verizon dot net> 2011-11-03
11:49:46 UTC ---
I can't reproduce this error.
I have test cases in the tree that look exactly like this.
Look at udlit-args.C. Grep "long long" in
gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50976
--- Comment #2 from Daniel Krügler
2011-11-03 12:03:51 UTC ---
Created attachment 25701
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25701
Test case
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50976
--- Comment #3 from Daniel Krügler
2011-11-03 12:05:06 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> Could it be that there is a 'template' just above the declaration?
> Literal operator templates must have void argument.
No, there is nothing like this ne
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50960
--- Comment #12 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-11-03 12:06:48 UTC ---
In summary, the combined patches of comment 1, comment 9 and comment 10:
Index: gcc/fortran/class.c
===
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50975
--- Comment #2 from Jeremy 2011-11-03 12:37:41 UTC
---
(In reply to comment #1)
> But ... you can't tell the difference. So this is a valid optimization.
You can tell the difference in execution time.
And why is this an "optimization"? In thi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50976
--- Comment #4 from Ed Smith-Rowland <3dw4rd at verizon dot net> 2011-11-03
12:47:41 UTC ---
I wonder if the testsuite was run when the gcc was built.
It should have raised a boatload of flags there.
Your test case runs like a charm on x86_64-unk
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50976
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-11-03
12:54:03 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> Your test case runs like a charm on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu.
I can confirm that, using the 4.7-20111029 snapshot
> I can't imagine how this could be ta
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50906
--- Comment #8 from Alan Modra 2011-11-03 12:54:32
UTC ---
Created attachment 25702
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25702
Proposed mainline fix
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50906
--- Comment #9 from Alan Modra 2011-11-03 12:55:29
UTC ---
Created attachment 25703
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25703
gcc-4.6 fix
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50906
--- Comment #10 from Alan Modra 2011-11-03 12:59:10
UTC ---
Please test out these patches. bootstrap and regression tests with -Os in
BOOT_CFLAGS on spe would be ideal. I'll be running a powerpc-linux regression
test, but can't do that for spe.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50976
--- Comment #6 from Daniel Krügler
2011-11-03 13:04:57 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> gcc version 4.7.0 20111031 (experimental) (GCC)
This difference shouldn't be essential, should it?
> I wonder if the testsuite was run when the gcc was b
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50976
--- Comment #7 from Daniel Krügler
2011-11-03 13:06:12 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> (In reply to comment #4)
> > gcc version 4.7.0 20111031 (experimental) (GCC)
>
> This difference shouldn't be essential, should it?
(Sorry, my reply conf
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48217
--- Comment #4 from Richard Guenther 2011-11-03
13:13:39 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu Nov 3 13:13:33 2011
New Revision: 180822
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=180822
Log:
2011-11-03 Richard Guenther
PR lto/482
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48217
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50976
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-11-03
13:23:24 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> http://www.equation.com/servlet/equation.cmd?fa=fortran
That page implies those binaries contain some source modifications, but it's
not clear what they a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50970
--- Comment #3 from Eric Millbrandt
2011-11-03 13:30:15 UTC ---
We found the problem in an implementation of a hierarchical state machine from
Practical Statecharts in C/C++ (CMP Books, 2002). The supplied example is a
condensed reproduction of
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50976
--- Comment #9 from Ed Smith-Rowland <3dw4rd at verizon dot net> 2011-11-03
13:47:15 UTC ---
This may well happen if perhaps 'unsigned long long int' doesn't map to
long_long_unsigned_type_node for this target.
Daniel, just for fun, and as a poss
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50979
Bug #: 50979
Summary: sparc mcpu=v8 libgcc2 "mul32" not enabled for "smul"
or "umul"
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50979
--- Comment #1 from Joel Sherrill 2011-11-03 13:56:07
UTC ---
Created attachment 25704
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25704
Preprocessed source for failure case
Preprocessed source code which trips issue. It can be reproduc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50976
--- Comment #10 from Daniel Krügler
2011-11-03 13:58:53 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
I just send a corresponding email to the support address of this page. In
addition I removed my previous gcc installation completely and installed it
freshly
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50960
--- Comment #13 from Tobias Burnus 2011-11-03
14:03:40 UTC ---
Patch for the issue of comment 5: Constants (PARAMETER) which are exists as
global static variables were not marked as TREE_READONLY.
With the patch below (not regtested), the functi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50960
--- Comment #14 from Richard Guenther 2011-11-03
14:17:52 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #13)
> Patch for the issue of comment 5: Constants (PARAMETER) which are exists as
> global static variables were not marked as TREE_READONLY.
>
> With the pa
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50981
Bug #: 50981
Summary: [4.4/4.5/4.6/4.7 Regression] Wrong-code for
scalarizing ELEMENTAL call with absent OPTIONAL
argument
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50980
Bug #: 50980
Summary: arm-rtems multilib not matching for -mfpu=vfp
-mfloat-abi=soft
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50960
--- Comment #15 from Tobias Burnus 2011-11-03
14:23:59 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #14)
> Yes, that should work iff Fortran does not allow parameter initializers
> that require runtime init (like / foo() /, thus a function call result).
No, For
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50960
--- Comment #16 from Richard Guenther 2011-11-03
14:29:29 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #11)
> (In reply to comment #9)
> > FAIL: gfortran.dg/extends_type_of_1.f03 -O0 (internal compiler error)
> > FAIL: gfortran.dg/extends_type_of_3.f90 -O (i
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50960
--- Comment #17 from Richard Guenther 2011-11-03
14:34:02 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #16)
> (In reply to comment #11)
> > (In reply to comment #9)
> > > FAIL: gfortran.dg/extends_type_of_1.f03 -O0 (internal compiler error)
> > > FAIL: gfortra
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44965
--- Comment #6 from Richard Guenther 2011-11-03
14:46:40 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu Nov 3 14:46:26 2011
New Revision: 180827
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=180827
Log:
2011-11-03 Richard Guenther
PR lto/449
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50882
--- Comment #9 from Graham Reed 2011-11-03 14:50:48
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
If I compile the testcase of comment #6 with -fdump-final-insns, there are no
"...:DI" instructions in the output from 4.6.1, or 4.6.2 with rs6000.md from
befor
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50974
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
K
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50982
Bug #: 50982
Summary: gthr reorganization breakage
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50979
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||davem at davemloft dot net,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50982
David Edelsohn changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50974
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work|4.5.4, 4.6.3|
Summary|[4.7 regres
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44965
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50982
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bonzini at gnu dot org, ro
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50040
--- Comment #8 from Richard Guenther 2011-11-03
15:14:38 UTC ---
Patch doesn't apply to the 4.6 branch. Don't hold your breath.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50079
--- Comment #8 from Richard Guenther 2011-11-03
15:17:08 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu Nov 3 15:16:57 2011
New Revision: 180829
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=180829
Log:
2011-11-03 Richard Guenther
PR middle-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50079
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50882
--- Comment #10 from Graham Reed 2011-11-03 15:23:45
UTC ---
Created attachment 25706
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25706
Fix wrong mode in call_value_indirect_aix32
(In reply to comment #9)
And that 'DI' was the key (but
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50978
--- Comment #1 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-11-03 15:27:19 UTC ---
> Current SVN fails to build libgcc for an arm-none-eabi target because it can't
> find unwind-arm-common.h:
>
> In file included from
> /work/upstream-checkouts/gc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50979
--- Comment #3 from Joel Sherrill 2011-11-03 15:32:12
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> Are you sure this was introduced by my libgcc series? I'd like to avoid
> hunting down unrelated issues.
No. I just know it is the next breakage in the sp
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50978
--- Comment #2 from Matthew Gretton-Dann
2011-11-03 15:45:57 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> > Current SVN fails to build libgcc for an arm-none-eabi target because it
> > can't
> > find unwind-arm-common.h:
> >
> > In file included from
> >
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50979
--- Comment #4 from Eric Botcazou 2011-11-03
16:06:42 UTC ---
Probably everywhere but Solaris.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50979
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50979
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50978
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50978
--- Comment #4 from Rainer Orth 2011-11-03 16:21:34 UTC
---
Created attachment 25708
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25708
proposed patch
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50981
Mikael Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikael at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50978
--- Comment #5 from Matthew Gretton-Dann
2011-11-03 16:43:41 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> I think I found it: an incredibly stupid error. The contents of arm/t-bpabi
> was moved to libgcc, with the exception of EXTRA_HEADERS. I missed tha
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50978
--- Comment #6 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-11-03 16:46:23 UTC ---
Thanks for the confirmation. I'll submit the patch now.
Rainer
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50906
--- Comment #11 from Kyle Moffett 2011-11-03
16:48:43 UTC ---
Ok, I'm running a "bootstrap-lean" + "make check" by way of a full Debian GCC
package build with this patch added. The first build will just do
C/C++/ObjC/ObjC++/Fortran; if that work
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50979
--- Comment #6 from Joel Sherrill 2011-11-03 17:06:52
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> Created attachment 25707 [details]
> Tentative fix
That seems to have done the trick enough to complete the build of gcc.
Please commit it.
Thanks.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50981
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.4.7
--- Comment #2 from Tobias Burnus
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50857
--- Comment #4 from Michael Matz 2011-11-03 17:17:11
UTC ---
Author: matz
Date: Thu Nov 3 17:17:07 2011
New Revision: 180833
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=180833
Log:
libcpp/
PR bootstrap/50857
* configure.ac: Ch
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50857
Michael Matz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50982
--- Comment #3 from Rainer Orth 2011-11-03 17:25:59 UTC
---
Created attachment 25709
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25709
proposed patch
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50982
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|ro at CeBiTec d
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50934
--- Comment #3 from simon at pushface dot org 2011-11-03 17:34:01 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> It seems to me that this new approach is a remarkably non-Ada way of
> addressing
> the problem; the original design is precisely the way that it
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50983
Bug #: 50983
Summary: [4.7 Regression] incorrect DW_LNS_negate_stmt
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50984
Bug #: 50984
Summary: Boolean return value expression clears register too
often
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50984
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Component|tr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50982
--- Comment #4 from David Edelsohn 2011-11-03 18:11:40
UTC ---
The failure is config/gthr-posix.h is not found in the search path when
building libstdc++ during bootstrap.
Paolo's suggestion probably was not well thought through.
I tried editin
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50978
--- Comment #7 from Rainer Orth 2011-11-03 18:19:57 UTC
---
Author: ro
Date: Thu Nov 3 18:19:54 2011
New Revision: 180839
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=180839
Log:
Restore arm-eabi bootstrap (PR target/50978)
PR tar
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50598
--- Comment #7 from Iain Sandoe 2011-11-03 18:22:05
UTC ---
$ more ../gcc-live-trunk/libgomp/testsuite/libgomp.c++/pr24455-1.C
// { dg-do compile }
// { dg-require-effective-target tls }
extern int i;
#pragma omp threadprivate (i)
int i;
===
i
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50982
--- Comment #5 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-11-03 18:22:16 UTC ---
> --- Comment #4 from David Edelsohn 2011-11-03
> 18:11:40 UTC ---
> The failure is config/gthr-posix.h is not found in the search path when
> building libstdc++
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50978
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
URL|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50982
--- Comment #6 from Paolo Bonzini 2011-11-03 18:27:23
UTC ---
> Paolo's suggestion probably was not well thought through.
Yes, it assumed that the patch would be tested by maintainers...
The patch looks good.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32534
Richard Smith changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||richard-gccbugzilla at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50985
Bug #: 50985
Summary: FAIL: gfortran.fortran-torture/execute/entry_4.f90
execution, at -O2 and above
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50986
Bug #: 50986
Summary: weak static data members with constant initializers
emitted in .rodata, leading to segfault on startup
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50628
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||danglin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50985
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32534
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50977
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-11-03
18:50:42 UTC ---
Without a small self-contained reproducer hard to do anything about it.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50968
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comm
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50890
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50981
--- Comment #3 from Mikael Morin 2011-11-03
19:19:51 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> Unless I made a mistake with building those versions, the regression is caused
> by:
>
> Rev. 161472 (PR fortran/43841 and PR 43843).
> http://gcc.gnu.org/vi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50982
--- Comment #7 from David Edelsohn 2011-11-03 19:28:16
UTC ---
It's better. It now finds gthr-posix.h. But now it fails with a C++ failure:
In file included from /farm/dje/src/src/libstdc++-v3/src/atomic.cc:28:0:
/tmp/20111103/powerp
e:
Fine. I'm running Solaris and Linux/x64 bootstraps with that patch now.
> In file included from /farm/dje/src/src/libstdc++-v3/src/atomic.cc:28:0:
> /tmp/2003/powerpc-ibm-aix5.3.0.0/pthread/libstdc++-v3/include/mutex: In
> cons
> tructor 'constexpr std::once_flag::once_
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50976
--- Comment #11 from Daniel Krügler
2011-11-03 19:44:02 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> I can't imagine how this could be target dependent though.
I have a bit more information now: If I'm using the 32-bit version from
http://www.equation.com
1 - 100 of 124 matches
Mail list logo
