http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51749
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51780
Bug #: 51780
Summary: Missed optimization for ==/!= comparison
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51781
Bug #: 51781
Summary: Missed optimization for ==/!= comparison type-sinking
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50490
Volker Reichelt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51782
Bug #: 51782
Summary: Missing address-space information leads to wrong code
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: addr-space, w
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51782
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51782
--- Comment #1 from Georg-Johann Lay 2012-01-07
12:05:20 UTC ---
Created attachment 26262
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26262
a-bug.c
C source file triggering the bug.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51782
--- Comment #2 from Georg-Johann Lay 2012-01-07
12:08:25 UTC ---
Created attachment 26263
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26263
a-bug.s (assembler output)
read_rgb_ok uses LPM instructions to read data (okay)
read_rgb_bug use
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51783
Bug #: 51783
Summary: Missed optimization for X ==/!= (signed type)
((unsigned type) Y + Z)
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRM
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51782
--- Comment #3 from Georg-Johann Lay 2012-01-07
12:09:41 UTC ---
Created attachment 26264
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26264
a-bug.c.003t.original
a-bug.c.003t.original tree-dump, FYI
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51782
--- Comment #4 from Georg-Johann Lay 2012-01-07
12:11:03 UTC ---
Created attachment 26265
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26265
a-bug.c.004t.gimple
a-bug.c.004t.gimple tree-dump, FYI
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51782
--- Comment #5 from Georg-Johann Lay 2012-01-07
12:11:50 UTC ---
Created attachment 26266
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26266
a-bug.c.149t.optimized
a-bug.c.149t.optimized tree dump, FYI
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51782
--- Comment #6 from Georg-Johann Lay 2012-01-07
12:17:21 UTC ---
Created attachment 26267
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26267
a-bug.c.150r.expand
a-bug.c.150r.expand RTL dump, FYI
As you can see in read_rgb_ok that move in
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43745
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||addr-space
Status|UNCONFIR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49857
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||addr-space
Target Milestone|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51755
--- Comment #7 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2012-01-07
13:03:54 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> Thus by 'opposite' of 'complete' you mean that nothing should be *added* to
> the
> patch, instead something removed from it? Great. You see I meant c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51779
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51779
--- Comment #4 from Tobias Burnus 2012-01-07
14:08:11 UTC ---
I forgot to mention that there exist also unofficial binaries for MacOS at:
http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/GFortranBinaries#MacOS
Thus, that could be an alternative to fixing the MPFR issue
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51784
Bug #: 51784
Summary: [4.7 Regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-prof/pr44777.c
execution,-fprofile-generate -D_PROFILE_GENERATE
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51715
--- Comment #4 from John David Anglin 2012-01-07
15:27:22 UTC ---
Author: danglin
Date: Sat Jan 7 15:27:15 2012
New Revision: 182981
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=182981
Log:
PR gcov-profile/51715
PR gcov-profile
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51717
--- Comment #1 from John David Anglin 2012-01-07
15:27:22 UTC ---
Author: danglin
Date: Sat Jan 7 15:27:15 2012
New Revision: 182981
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=182981
Log:
PR gcov-profile/51715
PR gcov-profile
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51785
Bug #: 51785
Summary: gets not anymore declared
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51717
John David Anglin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51779
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fxcoudert at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51715
John David Anglin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51779
--- Comment #6 from Steve Kargl
2012-01-07 16:02:51 UTC ---
On Sat, Jan 07, 2012 at 07:31:46AM +, zippy at anl dot gov wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51779
>
> --- Comment #2 from Tim Williams 2012-01-07 07:31:46
> UT
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51680
--- Comment #11 from Jan Hubicka 2012-01-07
16:11:50 UTC ---
Well, the problem here is that we compile with -O2 and function is not declared
inline. Conequetely GCC inlines only when it thinks code size will shrink.
Inliner always works one step
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51786
Bug #: 51786
Summary: [c++0x] Invalid declaration with decltype accepted
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21120
--- Comment #5 from Volker Reichelt 2012-01-07
16:21:08 UTC ---
Well, "decltype" has the same problems, so I opened a new bug report, see
PR51786.
Hello ,
We are currently searching for high-tech manufacturers and suppliers who are
able to produce and supply the exact quality products on our website.
Aicom group international is a leading industrial and commercial company based
in vietnam founded in 1987, and has been existing in b
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51680
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned at g
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51783
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski 2012-01-07
18:25:19 UTC ---
I think that would be an invalid transformation except when -fwrapv is used.
The reason is:
x.0_2 = (unsigned int) x_1(D);
D.2715_4 = z_3(D) + x.0_2; <--- wrapping semantics
c_5
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51783
--- Comment #2 from Kai Tietz 2012-01-07 18:55:05
UTC ---
Well, IMHO it is still valid in the case of argument of ne/eq comparison, as
indeed here sign and wrap-around doesn't matter.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51783
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski 2012-01-07
18:57:52 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> Well, IMHO it is still valid in the case of argument of ne/eq comparison, as
> indeed here sign and wrap-around doesn't matter.
Maybe for this exact IR but
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51779
Jack Howarth changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||howarth at nitro dot
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51783
--- Comment #4 from Kai Tietz 2012-01-07 19:04:13
UTC ---
Hmm, here I disagree. See other ==/!= comparison missed optimization.
Eg for 'x == (signed type)((unsigned type) x + z)' the transformation is
profitable, as it allows later on reduction
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51785
Marc Glisse changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marc.glisse at normalesup
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51779
--- Comment #8 from Tim Williams 2012-01-07 20:24:20 UTC
---
(In reply to comment #7)
> FYI, the miscompilation of MPFR 3.1.0's tis support by clang is resolved in
> Xcode 4.2.1.
> This was radar://10291355, "Xcode 4.2 miscompiles tls support in
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51787
Bug #: 51787
Summary: [4.7.0 Regression] internal compiler error: in
inline_small_functions, at ipa-inline.c:1410
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51787
--- Comment #1 from Douglas Mencken 2012-01-07
20:48:15 UTC ---
Created attachment 26268
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26268
pre-processed output of last failed operation (compressed)
from Tobias Burnus 2012-01-07
21:07:39 UTC ---
Works for me with GCC 4.7.0 20120107 (experimental) [trunk revision 182980] on
x86-64-linux (with and without -m32; without one gets the error "cast from
'void*' to 'size_t' loses precision").
I used the following f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40386
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51784
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=51725
--- Comment #20 from Alexandre Oliva 2012-01-07
21:37:20 UTC ---
Author: aoliva
Date: Sat Jan 7 21:37:15 2012
New Revision: 182982
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=182982
Log:
PR bootstrap/51725
* cselib.c (new_elt_loc_list
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40135
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48858
--- Comment #9 from Tobias Burnus 2012-01-07
22:14:15 UTC ---
See also discussion starting at
http://j3-fortran.org/pipermail/j3/2008-December/002123.html
Fortran 2003 has in "16.1 Scope of global identifiers"
"Program units, common blocks, e
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35161
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50602
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code
Target Milestone|--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48858
--- Comment #10 from Tobias Burnus 2012-01-07
22:15:51 UTC ---
*** Bug 35161 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51788
Bug #: 51788
Summary: Unstable gfc_verify_binding_labels check for a binding
label which collides with a global entity
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50720
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.8.0
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50766
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50572
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48858
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic, wrong-code
--- Comment #11 fr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51402
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51433
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Status|UNCONFIR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51219
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51084
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51784
--- Comment #2 from Dominique d'Humieres 2012-01-07
22:40:07 UTC ---
> Looks like an OS bug, not GCC bug, if getenv segfaults...
Well, revision 182587 uses the same OS and does not segfault. Also 'exit (0)'
is used in many tests that pass.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51789
Bug #: 51789
Summary: GCC does not consider SFINAE in template parameter
list of template parameter pack
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Stat
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51788
--- Comment #1 from Tobias Burnus 2012-01-07
23:15:58 UTC ---
The problems is that:
if ((sym->attr.use_assoc && bind_c_sym->mod_name
&& strcmp (bind_c_sym->mod_name, sym->module) != 0)
is not true as the gsym and the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51790
Bug #: 51790
Summary: Broken ambiguity check when combining generic with
nongeneric procedures
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONF
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51680
--- Comment #13 from Jan Hubicka 2012-01-07
23:35:13 UTC ---
Author: hubicka
Date: Sat Jan 7 23:35:08 2012
New Revision: 182983
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=182983
Log:
PR tree-optimization/51680
* ipa-inline.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51600
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51600
--- Comment #7 from Jan Hubicka 2012-01-08
00:16:28 UTC ---
Author: hubicka
Date: Sun Jan 8 00:16:18 2012
New Revision: 182984
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=182984
Log:
PR tree-optimization/51600
* ipa-inline-an
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50602
--- Comment #12 from Andi Kleen 2012-01-08
01:37:29 UTC ---
LTO saves the options in the object files and collects them for the final
link. This works as far as I know.
The only thing it cannot handle is different incompatible options in differe
66 matches
Mail list logo