http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51784
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-01-11
08:20:27 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> The main difference between r182587 and r182980 with -m32 is
>
> @@ -50,18 +50,26 @@ L3:
> movl4(%eax), %esp
> jmp*%edx
> L2:
> +lea
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50176
--- Comment #12 from rguenther at suse dot de
2012-01-11 08:56:27 UTC ---
On Tue, 10 Jan 2012, ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50176
>
> Eric Botcazou changed:
>
>What|Removed
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50176
--- Comment #13 from Eric Botcazou 2012-01-11
09:13:54 UTC ---
> Yeah, it's a bit unfortunate that combines behavior depends on the
> insn scheduling ...
We do have a long-range, albeit limited, forward combining (fwprop) though.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51819
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.7.0
Summary|[4.7 Regressi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50182
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50283
--- Comment #17 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-11 09:45:02 UTC ---
>> Either way, we should be able to formulate an assert in scan_trace that
>> checks this condition. Do you think that would be useful?
> You absolutely correct that we ough
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49783
--- Comment #3 from Pavel Zhukov 2012-01-11 10:36:18
UTC ---
Created attachment 26298
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26298
list of files from gnat_util
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51820
Bug #: 51820
Summary: [doc] underscoring documentation incorrect
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prior
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51821
Bug #: 51821
Summary: 64bit > 32bit conversion produces incorrect results
with optimizations
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.2
Status: UNCONFIR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51822
Bug #: 51822
Summary: libitm.c++/eh-1.C FAILs
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Comp
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51124
--- Comment #16 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2012-01-11 11:16:56 UTC ---
> --- Comment #15 from Aldy Hernandez 2012-01-10
> 17:53:25 UTC ---
> Folks, I am going to close this PR since it is a potpourri of failures across
> different a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51173
--- Comment #1 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2012-01-11 11:18:16 UTC ---
I think that test should be skipped instead of xfailed to avoid the
noise from
WARNING: libitm.c++/static_ctor.C compilation failed to produce executable
Rain
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51821
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||i?86-*-*
Status|UNCONFIRME
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51821
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Component|c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51797
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Keywords|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51442
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51381
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51799
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Stat
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51659
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Known to work|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51381
--- Comment #13 from eric.valette at free dot fr 2012-01-11 12:22:57 UTC ---
Even if the code is invalid, gcc should not crash with a ICE but notify that
the asm is invalid.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14698
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14733
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14743
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15810
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16200
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17280
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17306
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17601
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51821
--- Comment #3 from Uros Bizjak 2012-01-11 12:33:59
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> I believe this is a target issue. We produce
>
> test:
> .LFB0:
> .cfi_startproc
> movl4(%esp), %ecx
> movl$-1, %eax
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18024
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18035
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18112
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18433
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18649
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19003
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19251
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19353
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19815
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20223
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20478
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20696
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20735
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20819
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21016
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51823
Bug #: 51823
Summary: reverse iterator instantiated with POD type returns
uninitialized values + work around
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21067
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51785
--- Comment #3 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-11 13:00:37 UTC ---
This attempt at 'a glibc version check and defining the std::gets prototype in
libstdc++' (PR 51773 comment 11) unbreaks the libstdc++ build:
...
Index: libstdc++-v3/include/c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Status|UNCONFIR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21161
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Target|powerpc-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21217
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21267
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51821
--- Comment #4 from Uros Bizjak 2012-01-11 13:12:48
UTC ---
In fact, peephole2 pass fails to allocate correct scratch.
We have:
(insn 7 19 16 2 (parallel [
(set (reg:DI 0 ax [65])
(ashift:DI (const_int -1 [0x
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21305
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51823
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-01-11
13:16:16 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #0)
> Consider an iterator class that implements the requirements of a
> forward_iterator. We underlying datatype is always POD and the operator*()
> member of t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51821
Uros Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ubizjak at gmail dot com
Component
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51633
--- Comment #4 from Dodji Seketeli 2012-01-11
13:22:55 UTC ---
It seems to me that the first example might actually be considered as
valid.
One non-fully clear reason why it could have been considered invalid
in the first place is tat the constr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51785
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51823
Jakob van Bethlehem changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #26299|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48561
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-*-*
Status|WAITING
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47548
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48561
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.3.6, 4.5.3
Target Milestone|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51613
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51785
--- Comment #5 from Marc Glisse 2012-01-11
13:49:54 UTC ---
If we are just going to declare gets when glibc doesn't, the easiest solution
is a fixinclude that reverts Ulrich's latest glibc commit. Somehow that doesn't
feel right...
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51633
--- Comment #5 from Jason Merrill 2012-01-11
13:52:11 UTC ---
The testcase is valid because A's implicitly-declared default constructor is
constexpr. We just need to fix build_constexpr_member_initializers to deal
with the trees that we get for
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21307
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|vax--netbsdelf |vax-*-netbsdelf, x86_64-*-*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48561
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||m...@3am-software.com
--- Comment #6 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51824
Bug #: 51824
Summary: Error during the Compile step while upgrading the
Apache from 1.3.34 to 2.0.59
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 3.3.2
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51823
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-01-11
13:55:49 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #0)
> Headerfiles involved:
>
And
> Consider an iterator class that implements the requirements of a
> forward_iterator.
Do you mean bidirectional iterator
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21405
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51824
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||powerpc-aix5.3
Severity|major
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21524
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21754
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17601
Ralf Corsepius changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||corsepiu at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22006
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21609
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51823
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21530
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22341
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22344
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22473
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51824
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22485
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |SUSPENDED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51821
Uros Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23101
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23215
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23231
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23351
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23525
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51823
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22006
--- Comment #6 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2012-01-11 14:20:48 UTC ---
I haven't seen this in a long time, and the testcases pass since they
now use .comm instead of .space. I meant to keep the PR open to
investigate why gcc would emi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23605
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Host|Kernel 2.6
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23650
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23686
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23750
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23756
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|i486-linux-gnu |i?86-linux-gnu
Status|UNCO
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23800
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51705
--- Comment #47 from bkorb at gnu dot org 2012-01-11 14:31:15 UTC ---
To eliminate any possible ambiguity, the patch is "approved"
On 01/10/12 23:49, andreast at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51705
>
> Andrea
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23810
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23856
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51823
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-01-11
14:37:27 UTC ---
That change was present as early as the Feb 2004 draft, n1577
Also related: http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/lwg-closed.html#1052
1 - 100 of 192 matches
Mail list logo