http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51796
Bug #: 51796
Summary: [4.7 regression] internal compiler error: in
distribute_notes, at combine.c:13285 for
libgomp/alloc.c on m68k-linux
Classification: Unclassified
Pr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23383
--- Comment #23 from rguenther at suse dot de
2012-01-09 08:37:21 UTC ---
On Thu, 5 Jan 2012, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23383
>
> Jakub Jelinek changed:
>
>What|Removed
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23383
--- Comment #24 from rguenther at suse dot de
2012-01-09 08:39:37 UTC ---
On Thu, 5 Jan 2012, xinliangli at gmail dot com wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23383
>
> --- Comment #20 from davidxl 2012-01-05
> 18:11:18 UTC --
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51797
Bug #: 51797
Summary: Arm backend missed the mls related optimization
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33919
--- Comment #6 from gfunck at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-09 08:48:51 UTC ---
Author: gfunck
Date: Mon Jan 9 08:48:43 2012
New Revision: 183003
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=183003
Log:
libcpp/
PR preprocessor/33919
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51784
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.7.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51787
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.7.0
Summary|[4.7.0 Regres
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51796
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.7.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51659
--- Comment #4 from Matthias Klose 2012-01-09
09:18:14 UTC ---
Created attachment 26277
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26277
preprocessed source
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51659
Matthias Klose changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||doko at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51638
Sebastien Bardeau changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #26153|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51638
--- Comment #12 from Sebastien Bardeau 2012-01-09
09:23:41 UTC ---
Dear Tobias,
many thanks for your help and for the many alternatives you gave us. We are
still discussing which one is the best to choose in our context, but at least
we have sev
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41929
--- Comment #12 from Eric Botcazou 2012-01-09
09:50:26 UTC ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Mon Jan 9 09:50:19 2012
New Revision: 183005
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=183005
Log:
PR ada/41929
* config/sparc/sol2-unwin
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41929
--- Comment #13 from Eric Botcazou 2012-01-09
09:50:47 UTC ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Mon Jan 9 09:50:42 2012
New Revision: 183006
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=183006
Log:
PR ada/41929
* config/sparc/sol2-unwin
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51680
--- Comment #16 from Richard Guenther 2012-01-09
09:58:52 UTC ---
This should not be fixed in the early inliner at all.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51638
--- Comment #13 from Tobias Burnus 2012-01-09
10:01:59 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #12)
> I am surprised to see that none of the compilers I tested (gfortran, ifort,
> g95) complain about the fact that the same variable is used as both
> intent(
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51173
torvald at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51124
torvald at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||torvald at gcc dot gnu.org
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48625
torvald at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51124
--- Comment #9 from Dominique d'Humieres 2012-01-09
10:23:06 UTC ---
libitm.c/memcpy-1.c and memset-1.c are still failing in 32 bit mode on
*86*-*-*. From
http://glutton.geoffk.org/HEAD/native-logsum/i686-pc-linux-gnu/libitm/testsuite/libitm.log.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51775
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|ada |tree-optimization
--- Comment #3 from Eri
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51124
--- Comment #10 from Iain Sandoe 2012-01-09 10:55:06
UTC ---
Just for once, all the tests pass on powerpc-darwin9 (m32 & m64) [last tested
182949].
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42954
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P4 |P5
Target Milestone|4.7.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51773
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51793
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|i386-pc-solaris2.11 |x86_64-*-*, i?86-*-*
Statu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51784
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51782
--- Comment #7 from Richard Guenther 2012-01-09
12:04:30 UTC ---
Please figure out where the address-space information is lost.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49642
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51777
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18589
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51770
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
--- Comment #1 from Richar
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51775
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|ebotcazou at gcc dot|rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51796
Mikael Pettersson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18589
--- Comment #7 from William J. Schmidt 2012-01-09
13:06:34 UTC ---
Sure, I'll at least have a look at it when I get some time.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51578
--- Comment #4 from Tobias Burnus 2012-01-09
13:11:11 UTC ---
Author: burnus
Date: Mon Jan 9 13:11:05 2012
New Revision: 183010
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=183010
Log:
2012-01-09 Tobias Burnus
PR fortran/51
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51578
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51796
--- Comment #2 from Mikael Pettersson 2012-01-09
13:19:23 UTC ---
Created attachment 26279
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26279
reduced test case
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51522
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51522
--- Comment #3 from Dominique d'Humieres 2012-01-09
13:38:38 UTC ---
With the following change
--- pr51522.f902011-12-13 00:17:20.0 +0100
+++ pr51522_db.f902012-01-09 12:15:44.0 +0100
@@ -265,9 +266,11 @@ interface
int
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51758
Mikael Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51758
--- Comment #6 from Dominique d'Humieres 2012-01-09
13:48:14 UTC ---
See patch at http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2012-01/msg00066.html .
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51775
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P4 |P3
Summary|[4.6/4.7 Regress
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51775
--- Comment #5 from Richard Guenther 2012-01-09
14:06:41 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Jan 9 14:06:31 2012
New Revision: 183012
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=183012
Log:
2012-01-09 Richard Guenther
PR tree-op
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50855
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48051
--- Comment #4 from Jason Merrill 2012-01-09
14:15:26 UTC ---
Created attachment 26280
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26280
testsuite patch showing wrong mangling
The change checked in above fixes this bug in many cases, but
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51322
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51792
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51124
--- Comment #11 from Patrick Marlier
2012-01-09 14:27:18 UTC ---
> libitm.c/memcpy-1.c and memset-1.c are still failing in 32 bit mode on
*86*-*-*.
Fix proposed here: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-12/msg01784.html
Torvald, what was decid
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50199
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P1 |P2
Target Milestone|4.7.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51798
Bug #: 51798
Summary: [4.7 regression] libstdc++ atomicity performance
regression due to __sync_fetch_and_add
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50237
--- Comment #34 from Richard Guenther 2012-01-09
14:31:30 UTC ---
Another possible fix is to drop autodetecting the feature (defaulting to
the old behavior) and requiring --enable-init_array at configure time.
HJ, please work on this, this is a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51798
David Edelsohn changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51798
--- Comment #1 from David Edelsohn 2012-01-09 14:37:35
UTC ---
Proposed patch:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/libstdc++/2012-01/msg00044.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50561
--- Comment #4 from Richard Guenther 2012-01-09
14:41:04 UTC ---
Re-confirmed. Reduced testcase:
void f (unsigned *s)
{
int n;
for (n = 0; n < 256; n++)
s[n] = 0;
}
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51124
torvald at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50913
--- Comment #8 from Richard Guenther 2012-01-09
15:14:30 UTC ---
There is a disconnect on how we analyze data-references during SCOP detection
(outermost_loop is the root of the loop tree) and during SESE-to-poly where
outermost is determined by
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51680
--- Comment #17 from Jan Hubicka 2012-01-09 15:18:43
UTC ---
> This should not be fixed in the early inliner at all.
Well, it is not (just to summarize the disucssion on ML). The change is into
IPA inliner.
Honza
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50199
--- Comment #12 from Jan Hubicka 2012-01-09 15:19:30
UTC ---
-flto-partition=none is a workaround for 4.7 compiler.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51124
--- Comment #13 from Patrick Marlier
2012-01-09 15:22:45 UTC ---
As posted here http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-12/msg01804.html, GCC
explicitly change the calling convention to stdcall when variable arguments in
x86/32 bits mode. So I am
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51791
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50561
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50913
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Component|middle-end
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51766
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
--- Comment #1 from Richard Guenthe
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51798
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51766
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-01-09
15:45:06 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> The docs of __sync_* say
>
> This builtin is not a full barrier, but rather an @dfn{acquire barrier}.
> This means that references after the builtin canno
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48075
Patrick Marlier changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51252
Patrick Marlier changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||patrick.marlier at gmail
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51766
--- Comment #3 from David Edelsohn 2012-01-09 16:49:10
UTC ---
> It says above them "In most cases, these
> builtins are considered a full barrier." and only __sync_lock_test_and_set and
> __sync_lock_release specify different barrier semantics.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51796
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-01-09
16:52:57 UTC ---
I guess the assert should be adjusted, from gcc_assert (old_size != args_size);
to gcc_assert (old_size != args_size || find_reg_note (i3, REG_NORETURN,
NULL));
because we add the REG_
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51124
--- Comment #14 from Patrick Marlier
2012-01-09 16:52:47 UTC ---
>From http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Function-Attributes.html
regparm (number)
... Functions that take a variable number of arguments will continue to be
passed all of their argu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38644
--- Comment #62 from Ramana Radhakrishnan
2012-01-09 16:55:24 UTC ---
Author: ramana
Date: Mon Jan 9 16:55:16 2012
New Revision: 183019
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=183019
Log:
2012-01-09 Ramana Radhakrishnan
B
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51798
--- Comment #3 from David Edelsohn 2012-01-09 17:11:32
UTC ---
Another alternative is to modify __gnu_cxx::_atomic_add() to perform acquire
semantics for positive increments and release semantics for negative
increments. That avoid creating a ne
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51779
--- Comment #9 from Tim Williams 2012-01-09 17:15:06 UTC
---
(In reply to comment #4)
> 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 altern
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51799
Bug #: 51799
Summary: Compiler ICE in vect_is_simple_use_1
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51787
--- Comment #3 from Douglas Mencken 2012-01-09
17:43:20 UTC ---
I can re-confirm that snapshots 4.7-20111231, 4.7-20120107 do fail (can't enter
this into "Known to fail" field, because despite that
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/page.cgi?id=fields.h
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51779
--- Comment #10 from Jack Howarth 2012-01-09
17:45:42 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #9)
> Thanks, Tobias. I did try out the gfortran 4.6.2 from here, and it does
> compile
> runnable code. Unfortunately, it still does not work with any version of
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51775
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48231
DJ Delorie changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dj at redhat dot com
--- Comment #1 from DJ
4 x86_64 GNU/Linux
> rpm -qa "glibc*" | grep -e 'glibc-[0-9]' | sort -u
glibc-2.12-1.47.el6.i686
glibc-2.12-1.47.el6.x86_64
> g++ -v
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=g++
COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/app2/gcc/4.7.0-20120109-svn183001/i686/libexec/gcc/i686-unknown-linux-gnu/4.7.0/lto
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51800
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51759
--- Comment #6 from Martin Jambor 2012-01-09
18:40:16 UTC ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Mon Jan 9 18:40:09 2012
New Revision: 183023
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=183023
Log:
2012-01-09 Martin Jambor
PR tree-optimiza
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51633
Dodji Seketeli changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51801
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.7.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45644
--- Comment #10 from Martin Jambor 2012-01-09
18:40:17 UTC ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Mon Jan 9 18:40:09 2012
New Revision: 183023
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=183023
Log:
2012-01-09 Martin Jambor
PR tree-optimiz
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51801
Bug #: 51801
Summary: [4.7 Regression] ICE in inline_small_functions
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51252
--- Comment #11 from dave.anglin at bell dot net 2012-01-09 18:44:24 UTC ---
On 1/9/2012 10:55 AM, patrick.marlier at gmail dot com wrote:
> Do all libitm tests passed on PA?
All tm tests pass on PA (well, there is one that fails on 32-bit HP-UX
d
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51758
--- Comment #7 from Mikael Morin 2012-01-09
19:01:44 UTC ---
Author: mikael
Date: Mon Jan 9 19:01:34 2012
New Revision: 183024
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=183024
Log:
2012-01-09 Mikael Morin
PR fortran/51758
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50023
Tobias Grosser changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51759
--- Comment #7 from Martin Jambor 2012-01-09
19:52:13 UTC ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Mon Jan 9 19:52:06 2012
New Revision: 183029
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=183029
Log:
2012-01-09 Martin Jambor
PR tree-opti
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51197
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51197
--- Comment #8 from Tobias Burnus 2012-01-09
19:53:32 UTC ---
Author: burnus
Date: Mon Jan 9 19:53:27 2012
New Revision: 183030
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=183030
Log:
2012-01-09 Harald Anlauf
Tobias Bur
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51759
--- Comment #8 from Martin Jambor 2012-01-09
20:03:15 UTC ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Mon Jan 9 20:03:08 2012
New Revision: 183031
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=183031
Log:
2012-01-09 Martin Jambor
PR tree-opti
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51759
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45644
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nobled at dreamwidth dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51705
--- Comment #33 from Steve Kargl
2012-01-09 20:13:08 UTC ---
On Fri, Jan 06, 2012 at 04:14:08PM +, bkorb at gnu dot org wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51705
>
> --- Comment #32 from bkorb at gnu dot org 2012-01-06 16:14
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51791
--- Comment #2 from Paul Thomas 2012-01-09 20:26:05
UTC ---
Author: pault
Date: Mon Jan 9 20:25:55 2012
New Revision: 183032
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=183032
Log:
2012-01-09 Paul Thomas
PR fortran/51791
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51792
--- Comment #2 from Paul Thomas 2012-01-09 20:26:14
UTC ---
Author: pault
Date: Mon Jan 9 20:25:55 2012
New Revision: 183032
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=183032
Log:
2012-01-09 Paul Thomas
PR fortran/51791
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51791
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51792
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51782
--- Comment #8 from Georg-Johann Lay 2012-01-09
20:30:35 UTC ---
It's scalar replacement of aggregates:
With -O1 code is wrong.
With -O1 -fno-tree-sra code is correct.
1 - 100 of 151 matches
Mail list logo
