http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51362
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51362
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51439
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50686
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #21
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50686
--- Comment #22 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-12-07 09:08:41 UTC ---
> --- Comment #21 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-12-07
> 09:00:47 UTC ---
> Can't reproduce that with x86_64-linux x mips-sgi-irix6.5 cross and current
> trunk.
As I m
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50686
--- Comment #23 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-12-07
09:21:16 UTC ---
Can't reproduce with i686-linux x mips-sgi-irix6.5 cross either.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51318
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #8 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51441
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51307
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48835
--- Comment #42 from Mikael Pettersson 2011-12-07
09:58:17 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #41)
> I'll continue to bisect and test with r162897 reverted.
With r162897 reverted subsequent gcc-4.6 snapshots up to the 4.6.2 release
bootstrap fine with
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40154
--- Comment #5 from Jorn Wolfgang Rennecke
2011-12-07 10:17:53 UTC ---
Actually, it is not enough to ensure that the mode matches; we must ensure
that the SET_DEST of the insn we attach the note to is set to the value.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50744
--- Comment #7 from Martin Jambor 2011-12-07
10:30:55 UTC ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Wed Dec 7 10:30:49 2011
New Revision: 182076
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=182076
Log:
2011-12-07 Martin Jambor
PR tree-optimiza
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50744
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51362
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51448
Bug #: 51448
Summary: Compiler crash when assigning floating point values of
different kinds
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONF
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51442
--- Comment #3 from Richard Earnshaw 2011-12-07
10:55:17 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> Created attachment 26010 [details]
> Only use BLKmode for volatile accesses which are not naturally aligned.
>
> Per Julian Brown's original email at
> h
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50051
Anthony Green changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48835
--- Comment #43 from Andreas Schwab 2011-12-07 11:07:16
UTC ---
What is the argument of fp_size_to_prec here?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51448
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51315
--- Comment #9 from rguenther at suse dot de
2011-12-07 11:36:55 UTC ---
On Tue, 6 Dec 2011, ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51315
>
> --- Comment #8 from Eric Botcazou 2011-12-06
> 16:41:38 U
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51434
--- Comment #9 from Tobias Burnus 2011-12-07
11:44:48 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> Any guess when this ICE might get some attention and into a release version?
Well, as you can see from the discussion here, it does get attention.
But in g
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50873
rsand...@gcc.gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50823
--- Comment #15 from Richard Guenther 2011-12-07
11:55:19 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Dec 7 11:55:16 2011
New Revision: 182077
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=182077
Log:
2011-12-07 Richard Guenther
PR tree-o
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48835
--- Comment #44 from Mikael Pettersson 2011-12-07
12:04:14 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #43)
> What is the argument of fp_size_to_prec here?
size == 80
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51229
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-12-07
12:04:46 UTC ---
Created attachment 26015
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26015
gcc47-pr51229.patch
Untested fix.
This patch doesn't deal with missing diagnostics for invalid:
st
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50823
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51448
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.6.3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51447
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Status|UNCONFIR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37130
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48835
--- Comment #45 from Andreas Schwab 2011-12-07 12:48:29
UTC ---
That should probably be 96.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51446
--- Comment #1 from Richard Guenther 2011-12-07
12:51:39 UTC ---
I get
-2251799813685248 9221120237041090560
vs.
-2251799813685248 -2251799813685248
the subtraction is carried out with 4.7, also with 4.6.2.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=864
--- Comment #22 from Richard Guenther 2011-12-07
12:54:15 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #20)
> I would also very much like to see the patch in comment 16 applied. There is
> now a second report open at bug 51095, I will mark it as a dup. Are there
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51444
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.4.7
--- Comment #1 from Richard Guen
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51447
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milesto
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51307
John David Anglin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51362
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48835
--- Comment #46 from Andreas Schwab 2011-12-07 13:10:15
UTC ---
There were a lot of float related changes around 2011-08-02.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51447
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bonzini at gnu dot org
--- Comment #3 fro
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51390
--- Comment #7 from Iain Sandoe 2011-12-07 13:13:16
UTC ---
with a stage1 compiler built with O0/g3:
/GCC/gcc-live-trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/recip-5.c:12:39: error:
Builtin function __builtin_recipdiv is not supported with the curre
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50904
--- Comment #50 from Venkataramanan Kumar 2011-12-07 13:18:57 UTC ---
In the machine I used Induct run time improves from 68.9 seconds to 55.94
seconds for -Ofast. I will update on other benchmarks and SPEC2006 once I
complete testing.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51449
Bug #: 51449
Summary: [4.7 regression] Rev181994 causes tramp3d-v4 profiled
build failure
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50896
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50601
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51447
--- Comment #4 from Paolo Bonzini 2011-12-07 13:48:42
UTC ---
The bug is that rbx is added to the EXIT_BLOCK uses:
Basic block 1 , prev 2, loop_depth 0, count 0, freq 0.
Predecessors:
;; bb 1 artificial_defs: { }
;; bb 1 artificial_uses: { u-1(3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51448
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48100
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[4.6/4.7 Regression]|[4.6 Regression] Assertion
PR lto/48100
* gcc.dg/lto/20111207-1_0.c: New testcase.
* gcc.dg/lto/20111207-1_1.c: Likewise.
* gcc.dg/lto/20111207-1_2.c: Likewise.
* gcc.dg/lto/20111207-1_3.c: Likewise.
Added:
trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/lto/20111207-1_0.c
trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/lto/20111207-1_1.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51449
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Target Milestone|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51447
--- Comment #5 from Paolo Bonzini 2011-12-07 14:04:04
UTC ---
Untested patch...
Index: df-problems.c
===
--- df-problems.c (revision 177688)
+++ df-problems.c (working c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51447
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-12-07
14:06:41 UTC ---
I think goto ptr can't be nonlocal, so that testcase indeed would be invalid.
register void *ptr asm ("rbx");
int
foo (void)
{
__label__ nonlocal_lab;
__attribute__((noinline, n
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40154
Jorn Wolfgang Rennecke changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #6 from Jorn W
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51450
Bug #: 51450
Summary: configure's test for -fno-rtti -fno-exceptions broken
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51429
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49945
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49945
--- Comment #6 from Richard Guenther 2011-12-07
14:59:52 UTC ---
Index: gcc/lto-streamer-out.c
===
--- gcc/lto-streamer-out.c (revision 182081)
+++ gcc/lto-streamer-out.c (
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51449
--- Comment #1 from Markus Trippelsdorf
2011-12-07 15:14:40 UTC ---
Here is a (somewhat) reduced testcase:
% cat test.ii
extern "C"
{
typedef long unsigned int size_t;
}
namespace std __attribute__ ((__visibility__ ("default")))
{
template
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51434
--- Comment #10 from Tobias Burnus 2011-12-07
15:31:11 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #9)
> Draft patch - one probably needs to do something similar for derived types.
The patch breaks the "Different CHARACTER lengths (%d/%d) in array constructor"
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51420
--- Comment #3 from Jason Merrill 2011-12-07
15:41:08 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Wed Dec 7 15:41:03 2011
New Revision: 182083
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=182083
Log:
PR c++/51420
* parser.c (lookup_literal_ope
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51451
Bug #: 51451
Summary: Premature EOF in stream
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.4.5
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Comp
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50051
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski 2011-12-07
16:00:25 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> Thanks Andrew. Does this force the generation of FP instructions, which are
> then emulated through OS traps?
Yes and the traps are always enabled in newis
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51434
--- Comment #11 from Andy Nelson 2011-12-07
16:11:38 UTC ---
On Dec 6, 2011, at 7:17 PM, sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51434
>
> --- Comment #8 from Steve Kargl
> 2011-12-07 02:17
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50747
--- Comment #5 from Richard Guenther 2011-12-07
16:13:14 UTC ---
The function in question is DECL_ABSTRACT (it's one of the B::B constructors).
Not sure why we have a cgraph node for it at all:
#0 cgraph_create_node (decl=0x75b92500)
at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47687
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||doko at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #8 fr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51395
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51452
Bug #: 51452
Summary: has_nothrow_.*constructor bugs
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51051
--- Comment #11 from Joel Sherrill 2011-12-07
16:56:46 UTC ---
I still have HP's patch in my local tree. Should I remove it? Or does it need
to be committed?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51398
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51403
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51452
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-12-07
17:16:58 UTC ---
I think this is by design, see the thread beginning with c++std-lib-30698
I've been surprised by that reasoning several times e.g.
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-help/2011-11/msg00015.ht
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51434
--- Comment #12 from Tobias Burnus 2011-12-07
17:20:14 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #10)
> > Draft patch - one probably needs to do something similar for derived types.
> The patch breaks the "Different CHARACTER lengths (%d/%d) in array
> constr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51452
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||daniel.kruegler at
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51401
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51452
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||redi at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3 fr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51452
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-12-07
17:38:39 UTC ---
yes, I keep forgetting that noexcept should be implied on dtors now
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51448
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51354
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51453
Bug #: 51453
Summary: Feature request: Implement Empty Base Optimization in
std::tuple
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51454
Bug #: 51454
Summary: For loop improper scoping
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49973
Tom Tromey changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tromey at gcc dot gnu.org
Component
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51453
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c++ |libstdc++
--- Comment #1 from Paolo Carli
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51453
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51455
Bug #: 51455
Summary: Possible uninitialized register use when array
subscript is unsigned
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51452
--- Comment #5 from d...@boost-consulting.com 2011-12-07 18:41:12 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> I think this is by design, see the thread beginning with c++std-lib-30698
>
> I've been surprised by that reasoning several times e.g.
> http://gc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51417
--- Comment #2 from Andi Kleen 2011-12-07
18:54:57 UTC ---
Hmm, you mean a copy with the version number in addition? Would be reasonable I
guess.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51452
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-12-07
19:03:30 UTC ---
c++std-lib-30708 has Daniel's explanation of his interpretation, as implemented
in GCC.
FWIW I prefer your interpretation, but will peace Daniel to comment further
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51051
--- Comment #12 from Hans-Peter Nilsson 2011-12-07
19:07:27 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #11)
> I still have HP's patch in my local tree.
I assume you mean Bernd's patch referenced in this PR.
(I was only doing the legwork.)
> Should I remove i
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51455
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski 2011-12-07
19:10:55 UTC ---
((unsigned char *)offsets)[index] still sign extends to int.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51454
--- Comment #1 from Paolo Carlini 2011-12-07
19:19:17 UTC ---
Note that ICC and Comeau also reject it in strict mode.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45416
--- Comment #13 from Andrew Pinski 2011-12-07
19:23:13 UTC ---
Author: pinskia
Date: Wed Dec 7 19:23:10 2011
New Revision: 182084
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=182084
Log:
2011-12-07 Andrew Pinski
PR middle-end/4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45416
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
Known to work|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51455
--- Comment #2 from frederik.deweerdt at gmail dot com 2011-12-07 19:25:30 UTC
---
(In reply to comment #1)
> ((unsigned char *)offsets)[index] still sign extends to int.
I'm not sure how to parse this. My problem is that '((unsigned char
*)offse
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51455
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski 2011-12-07
19:28:29 UTC ---
movzbl 0x20d(%rsp),%eax
is the same as:
movzbq 0x20d(%rsp),%rax
as all l instructions zero extend to q.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51455
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-12-07
19:30:21 UTC ---
Probably time for you to read the docs.
E.g. AMD 24592 pdf, in 3.1.2 says:
"In general, byte and word operands are stored in the low 8 or 16
bits of GPRs without modifying their high 5
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51455
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51456
Bug #: 51456
Summary: gcc-4.5.3 ARM misaligned relocation for
__gxx_personality_v0 in libstdc++
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.3
Status: UNCON
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51456
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski 2011-12-07
19:43:26 UTC ---
What version of glibc are you using? glibc should be handling the unaligned
relocation correctly. Also GCC is correct here in using the unaligned
relocation.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51456
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski 2011-12-07
19:44:09 UTC ---
See http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-help/2005-07/msg00325.html for a problem against
MIPS for the same unaligned relocation.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51386
--- Comment #8 from François Dumont 2011-12-07
19:47:08 UTC ---
Author: fdumont
Date: Wed Dec 7 19:47:03 2011
New Revision: 182085
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=182085
Log:
2011-12-07 François Dumont
PR libstdc++/
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51369
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-12-07
19:51:57 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Dec 7 19:51:54 2011
New Revision: 182086
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=182086
Log:
PR c++/51369
* init.c (build_value_init): A
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51446
--- Comment #2 from lucier at math dot purdue.edu 2011-12-07 19:55:32 UTC ---
I don't understand what you're saying.
On my linux box
heine:~/Downloads> uname -a
Linux heine 3.0.0-13-generic #22-Ubuntu SMP Wed Nov 2 13:27:26 UTC 2011 x86_64
x86_64
1 - 100 of 142 matches
Mail list logo
