http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51940
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51893
--- Comment #8 from Aurelien Buhrig
2012-01-23 08:27:22 UTC ---
It seems the problem occurs with big endian targets when value is at least 4
times bigger than a word.
Example:
bitsize=40, value = reg:DI sub words-->HI. So wordnum = 3.
The for lo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51956
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51933
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-01-23
09:25:55 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Jan 23 09:25:52 2012
New Revision: 183416
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=183416
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/51933
* ree.c (transfor
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51933
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51958
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50325
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amodra at gmail dot com
--- Comment #39 from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51926
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51959
Bug #: 51959
Summary: [4.7 Regression] ICE in set_mem_alias_set, at
emit-rtl.c:1884
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51916
--- Comment #10 from Richard Guenther 2012-01-23
10:11:48 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #9)
> (In reply to comment #8)
> > (In reply to comment #7)
>
>
> > ... so this is a build/config issue - or, alternatively, the segment name
> > can
> > be
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51959
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51916
--- Comment #11 from Dominique d'Humieres
2012-01-23 10:21:38 UTC ---
> Yes. Can you please post it to gcc-patches@ and commit it? It's preapproved
> as obviously correct. Thx.
A patch has already been submitted by Patrick Marlier at
http://g
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51938
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Keywords|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29333
--- Comment #7 from Richard Guenther 2012-01-23
10:25:20 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> (In reply to comment #5)
> > This is the patch which I am testing:
>
> I Have a slightly different one since we should do a few more things before
> the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51939
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51960
Bug #: 51960
Summary: Missing move-assignment operator in
raw_storage_iterator
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51949
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51949
--- Comment #4 from Richard Guenther 2012-01-23
10:42:04 UTC ---
We do not honor cur_node->local.can_change_signature, and that does not
take into account return value removal. I have a smallish workaround.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51950
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.5.3
Target Milestone|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51910
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.7.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51957
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-01-23
10:48:05 UTC ---
The problem is that during var-tracking adjust_insn doesn't
avoid_constant_pool_reference because we have:
(debug_insn 116 33 34 5 (var_location:DI D#3 (reg:DI 2 2)) -1
(nil))
...
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51955
--- Comment #5 from Richard Guenther 2012-01-23
10:50:52 UTC ---
void _start() {
main();
}
isn't properly aligning the stack for the ABI GCC assumes. Simply drop it.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51957
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-01-23
10:51:39 UTC ---
To reject just .toc related SYMBOL_REFs, guess we'd need to set
#define SYMBOL_FLAG_TOC_SECTION (1 << SYMBOL_FLAG_MACH_DEP_SHIFT)
or so flag on the symbol refs when creating them and t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51949
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51961
Bug #: 51961
Summary: [OOP] ALLOCATE with MOLD= rejects if source-expr has
a different rank
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51949
--- Comment #5 from Richard Guenther 2012-01-23
10:53:01 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Jan 23 10:52:57 2012
New Revision: 183424
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=183424
Log:
2012-01-23 Richard Guenther
PR tree-op
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51962
Bug #: 51962
Summary: Compiling with -O3 and using the same input produces a
different result
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.2
Status: UNCONFI
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51941
Dodji Seketeli changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51962
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|critical|normal
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wak
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51941
--- Comment #2 from Dodji Seketeli 2012-01-23
11:22:46 UTC ---
Created attachment 26424
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26424
Candidate fix for the bug
This candidate fix works for me on both x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu and
x86_
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51950
--- Comment #1 from Jan Kratochvil
2012-01-23 11:22:36 UTC ---
GDB command for the PASS/FAIL output:
gdb -nx a.out -ex 'b 6' -ex r -ex 'ptype F'
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51962
Mario Achkar changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51962
--- Comment #3 from Mario Achkar 2012-01-23
11:27:48 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> You do not initialise found1. Set that to false and your problem probably
> goes
> away.
Thanks for the fast reply.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51960
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51962
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-01-23
11:33:39 UTC ---
It was very easy to find using valgrind, or a static analysis tool.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51948
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.6.3
Summary|[OOP] Rejects va
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51941
--- Comment #3 from Iain Sandoe 2012-01-23 11:46:19
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> Created attachment 26424 [details]
> Candidate fix for the bug
>
> This candidate fix works for me on both x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu and
> x86_64-apple-darwin1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51642
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comm
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51895
--- Comment #17 from Richard Guenther 2012-01-23
11:59:57 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Jan 23 11:59:53 2012
New Revision: 183429
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=183429
Log:
2012-01-23 Richard Guenther
PR tree-o
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51959
--- Comment #2 from Richard Guenther 2012-01-23
12:26:05 UTC ---
Created attachment 26425
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26425
autoreduced testcase
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51963
Bug #: 51963
Summary: FAIL: g++.dg/torture/pr51344.C
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51963
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51934
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||Greta.Yorsh at arm dot com
--- Com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51934
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|powerpc*-*-*|powerpc*-*-* arm-none-eabi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51941
--- Comment #4 from Dominique d'Humieres 2012-01-23
12:51:06 UTC ---
> > Could some Darwin savvy people confirm that the fix works for them?
>
> As a fix for the test-case this works for me (and, logically, there is no
> reason to exclude darwin
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51938
--- Comment #2 from Marc Glisse 2012-01-23
12:51:42 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> I suspect also worthwhile for integral types. Note that for real types
> you need -ffinite-math-only - I bet the clang result is wrong for NaNs.
I hadn't tho
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51011
John David Anglin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49847
--- Comment #11 from Andreas Schwab 2012-01-23 13:05:35
UTC ---
After r183426 this is now dormant on the 4.6 branch again.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51642
--- Comment #4 from Richard Guenther 2012-01-23
13:07:17 UTC ---
No idea what fixed it, so I don't know - I don't even know where it segfaults.
I suspect the change to make -fuse-linker-plugin the default maybe had an
effect?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51964
Bug #: 51964
Summary: Missed tail merging opportunity
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17729
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu.org |
--- Comment #19 from Paolo Carlini 2012
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51964
--- Comment #1 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-23 13:43:33 UTC ---
I have a still rather vague idea that we might value number the uses rather
than the defs: assign the same number to uses which use a value in the same
way. I don't know how t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25973
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|paolo.carlini
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51965
Bug #: 51965
Summary: Redundant move constructions in heap algorithms
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51965
--- Comment #1 from Aliaksandr Valialkin 2012-01-23
13:51:16 UTC ---
Created attachment 26427
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26427
Testcase for determining redundant move constructions in stl_heap
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51957
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51966
Bug #: 51966
Summary: internal compiler error
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Comp
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25973
--- Comment #17 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-23 14:04:07 UTC ---
> I tested an earlier version of this patch without any problems, I just need to
> retest and submit.
Submitted patch: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-01/msg01071.htm
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51965
Chris Jefferson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||chris at bubblescope dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17729
--- Comment #20 from Iain Sandoe 2012-01-23 14:08:21
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #19)
> Hi Iain, I'm not 100% sure to understand: did your patch in Comment #16 pass
> the testsuite? Did you get around to submit it?
The problem I was referring t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51916
--- Comment #12 from Aldy Hernandez 2012-01-23
14:07:49 UTC ---
Author: aldyh
Date: Mon Jan 23 14:07:41 2012
New Revision: 183433
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=183433
Log:
PR lto/51916
* lto-wrapper.c (run_
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51916
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51879
--- Comment #5 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-23 14:10:38 UTC ---
Created attachment 26430
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26430
Tentative patch
2012-01-23 Tom de Vries
PR tree-optimization/51879
tree-ssa-scc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51965
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-01-23
14:11:08 UTC ---
Thanks, Chris.
I haven't looked at the patch or test yet, but I'm a little surprised the
compiler can't elide the move constructors.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51934
--- Comment #11 from Jason Merrill 2012-01-23
14:43:30 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Mon Jan 23 14:43:25 2012
New Revision: 183434
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=183434
Log:
PR target/51934
* g++.dg/torture/pr51344.C
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51934
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51966
--- Comment #1 from Peter Wind 2012-01-23
14:51:46 UTC ---
Created attachment 26431
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26431
compile with gfortran fails
small code that exposes the same problem (internal compiler error)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51934
--- Comment #13 from Dominique d'Humieres
2012-01-23 14:55:08 UTC ---
> Log:
> PR target/51934
> * g++.dg/torture/pr51344.C: Use noreturn instead of cdecl.
>
> Should be fixed now.
The use of 'noreturn' yields a warning with g++ 4.6.2 an
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51830
--- Comment #4 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-23 14:57:50 UTC ---
Author: uros
Date: Mon Jan 23 14:57:44 2012
New Revision: 183435
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=183435
Log:
PR libitm/51830
* builtin-types.def
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51830
Uros Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51966
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51934
--- Comment #14 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-01-23
15:10:42 UTC ---
Well, if it hangs before the fix with the noreturn attribute, then it is
trivial to replace the return a; with for (;;);
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51966
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51967
Bug #: 51967
Summary: FAIL: libstdc++-prettyprinters/48362.cc
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51934
--- Comment #15 from Dominique d'Humieres
2012-01-23 15:19:37 UTC ---
> Well, if it hangs before the fix with the noreturn attribute, then it is
> trivial to replace the return a; with for (;;);
It does not hang:
macbook] f90/bug% cat pr51344_d
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51967
--- Comment #1 from John David Anglin 2012-01-23
15:20:35 UTC ---
Similar fail is libstdc++-prettyprinters/simple.cc:
Executing on host: /test/gnu/gcc/objdir/./gcc/g++ -shared-libgcc
-B/test/gnu/gcc
/objdir/./gcc -nostdinc++
-L/test/gnu/gcc/objd
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51902
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #26391|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51965
--- Comment #4 from Paolo Carlini 2012-01-23
15:26:34 UTC ---
Indeed, I double checked that *before* changing the functions to use moves we
had plain copies, that is the original HP/SGI functions had copies, nothing was
passed by reference. Thus
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51934
--- Comment #16 from Jason Merrill 2012-01-23
15:30:58 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Mon Jan 23 15:30:48 2012
New Revision: 183436
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=183436
Log:
PR target/51934
* g++.dg/torture/pr51344.C
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17729
--- Comment #21 from Paolo Carlini 2012-01-23
15:30:25 UTC ---
The problem with testing for duplicate diagnostics is by now well known, I
guess. What I couldn't figure out from the audit trail was whether the fix
itself was ready to go in or not,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51967
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-01-23
15:39:52 UTC ---
do the printers ever work, outside the testsuite?
i.e. if you build this:
#include
int main() {
std::tuple t;
return std::tuple_size::value;
}
then debug and run
break 4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17729
--- Comment #22 from Iain Sandoe 2012-01-23 15:47:18
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #21)
> The problem with testing for duplicate diagnostics is by now well known, I
> guess. What I couldn't figure out from the audit trail was whether the fix
> its
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51934
--- Comment #17 from Dominique d'Humieres
2012-01-23 15:50:16 UTC ---
> g++.dg/torture/pr51344.C: Limit to x86.
Note that using 'format' instead of 'cdecl' hangs also on
powerpc-apple-darwin9:
[karma] f90/bug% time g++-fsf-4.6 pr51344_db.C
^C0.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51934
--- Comment #18 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-01-23
15:58:01 UTC ---
I bet you'd have to instantiate the template to see the errors.
Nevertheless, it would be a bad idea to add __attribute__((format)) to the
testcase and expect that we don't error on t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49847
Andreas Schwab changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||build
Version|4.6.1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51966
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51925
--- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill 2012-01-23
16:35:44 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Mon Jan 23 16:35:31 2012
New Revision: 183438
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=183438
Log:
PR c++/51925
* class.c (add_method): Set OV
ead model: posix
gcc version 4.7.0 20120123 (experimental) (GCC)
COLLECT_GCC_OPTIONS='-v' '-save-temps' '-c' '-mandroid' '-mbionic'
'-Wno-unused-function' '-Wno-psabi' '-march=armv7-a' '-mcpu=cortex-a9'
'
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51969
Bug #: 51969
Summary: [4.7 regression] gcc 4.7 unable to build gcc 4.6
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51925
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51812
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51398
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51941
--- Comment #5 from Dodji Seketeli 2012-01-23
17:05:53 UTC ---
Author: dodji
Date: Mon Jan 23 17:05:46 2012
New Revision: 183441
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=183441
Log:
PR testsuite/51941 - FAIL g++.dg/debug/dwarf2/nest
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51941
Dodji Seketeli changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51970
Bug #: 51970
Summary: gimplification failed for an avatar of pr51948
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51971
Bug #: 51971
Summary: unclear/unverified restrictions on
attribute((const|pure))
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51972
Bug #: 51972
Summary: [OOP] ALLOCATE misses memset/calloc, causing segfault
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: wrong-code
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51968
--- Comment #1 from Eric Batut 2012-01-23
17:36:50 UTC ---
Adding Richard Henderson, who committed rev 183051.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51946
--- Comment #10 from Tobias Burnus 2012-01-23
17:37:18 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> Otherwise, as far as I could see, all Fortran examples work except for
> - chapter07/strategy_surrogate_f2003: Segfaults in
> __timed_lorenz_module_MOD___
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51970
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|bur...@net-b.de |burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
1 - 100 of 160 matches
Mail list logo
