http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51994
--- Comment #17 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-01-26
08:02:50 UTC ---
Doing it in get_inner_reference sounds like a risky change though.
E.g. Richard's PR51750 change would need to be adjusted to match it.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51994
Uros Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #18
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52006
Bug #: 52006
Summary: [4.7 Regression] ARM ICE on
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
Severity: n
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52006
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52006
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.6.3
Target Milestone|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52006
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-01-26
09:35:30 UTC ---
Created attachment 26471
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26471
gcc47-pr52006.patch
Untested fix.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51994
--- Comment #19 from Richard Guenther 2012-01-26
10:01:23 UTC ---
I agree, all callers of get_inner_reference need to cope with a negative
bitpos. Those that forward it unchecked to functions that expect an
unsigned bitpos are broken.
Thus I th
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52007
Bug #: 52007
Summary: configure: error: installation or configuration
problem: C compiler cannot create executables
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.2.4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52007
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52007
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|critical|normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52007
--- Comment #2 from chilaka 2012-01-26
10:28:52 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> You should look into config.log to find out why it fails. Also don't build in
> the source directory. I bet you don't have all the right packages installed
> to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52008
Bug #: 52008
Summary: [C++0x] ICE when adding partial specialization for
variadic-templated structure
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52007
--- Comment #3 from chilaka 2012-01-26
10:39:37 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> (In reply to comment #1)
> > You should look into config.log to find out why it fails. Also don't build
> > in
> > the source directory. I bet you don't have al
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52007
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52007
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-01-26
10:41:20 UTC ---
The problem you're facing is that you didn't read the documentation on
installing GCC, starting at http://gcc.gnu.org/install/ and summarised at
http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/InstallingGCC
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51985
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comm
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52007
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-01-26
10:44:35 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
>
> Now I have ran autoconf and then ./configure. Here is content of config.log
>
> #/usr/local/bin/autoconf -v
> # ./configure
Why have you done that?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52007
--- Comment #7 from chilaka 2012-01-26
10:49:12 UTC ---
Thanks for the inputs.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51985
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-01-26
10:55:20 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Jan 26 10:55:12 2012
New Revision: 183556
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=183556
Log:
PR bootstrap/51985
* src/c++98/Makefile.am
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51985
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51994
--- Comment #20 from Eric Botcazou 2012-01-26
11:00:33 UTC ---
> Eric, you should know this area the best - what do you recommend here?
> [we could assert in the unsigned bitpos taking functions that the MSB
> is not set on bitpos]
I agree that
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52008
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52003
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52000
--- Comment #2 from Richard Guenther 2012-01-26
11:21:33 UTC ---
It also calls merge_notes (so I suppose might drop REG_EQUAL notes).
Both should be delayed to commit time.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51641
--- Comment #1 from Dodji Seketeli 2012-01-26
12:36:25 UTC ---
I candidate patch was sent to
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-01/msg01371.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51798
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-01-26
13:01:58 UTC ---
What about the other files that use __sync_* in libstdc++?
include/tr1/shared_ptr.h, include/bits/shared_ptr_base.h,
include/profile/impl/profiler_state.h, libsupc++/guard.cc and part
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52009
Bug #: 52009
Summary: Another missed tail merging opportunity
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Priority: P
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48794
--- Comment #9 from Michael Matz 2012-01-26 13:25:06
UTC ---
Author: matz
Date: Thu Jan 26 13:24:58 2012
New Revision: 183559
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=183559
Log:
PR tree-optimization/48794
* tree-eh.c (remov
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51959
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|target |middle-end
--- Comment #5 from Eric Botca
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48794
Michael Matz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51798
--- Comment #12 from Andrew Macleod 2012-01-26
13:57:56 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #11)
> What about the other files that use __sync_* in libstdc++?
I would change the bare minimum... Every change is a risk of some sort this
late n the game.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51895
--- Comment #18 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-01-26
14:09:34 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Jan 26 14:09:29 2012
New Revision: 183560
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=183560
Log:
PR middle-end/51895
* expr.c (expand_expr_
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51895
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51998
--- Comment #5 from Jan Hubicka 2012-01-26 14:23:21 UTC
---
> I think remove_attribute would be desirable too. But I wonder if it can't be
> detected earlier than here. In any case, I'd like to hear Honza on this.
I was under impression that v
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44173
Ariel Burton changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ariel.burton at roguewave
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51999
--- Comment #2 from David Edelsohn 2012-01-26 14:58:09
UTC ---
You seem to have applied a lot of random changes to your system and then
reported a GCC bootstrap bug. Do not use GNU Binutils on AIX 6.1.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51798
--- Comment #13 from David Edelsohn 2012-01-26
15:02:14 UTC ---
If libstdc++-v3 does not consistently use its own atomicity.h everywhere, then
it is even more broken. Any code that explicitly calls __sync_* in
libstdc++-v3 has introduced a perfo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51974
--- Comment #2 from Richard Guenther 2012-01-26
15:14:23 UTC ---
I can reproduce random comparison failures as well, even with checking enabled,
on openSUSE Factory x86_64. I wasn't yet able to reproduce them locally
though.
I'm trying again.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51798
--- Comment #14 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-01-26
15:25:11 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #13)
> If libstdc++-v3 does not consistently use its own atomicity.h everywhere, then
> it is even more broken.
calm down, a few places in libstdc++ use __sync
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52010
Bug #: 52010
Summary: Intrinsic assignment involving CLASS/TYPE
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52001
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46590
--- Comment #20 from Michael Matz 2012-01-26 15:50:43
UTC ---
Author: matz
Date: Thu Jan 26 15:50:33 2012
New Revision: 183566
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=183566
Log:
PR tree-optimization/46590
* cfgexpand.c: Re
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51978
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-01-26
15:53:03 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Jan 26 15:52:55 2012
New Revision: 183567
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=183567
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/51978
* ree.c (make_def
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51978
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50981
--- Comment #30 from Dominique d'Humieres
2012-01-26 16:12:13 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #28)
> Created attachment 26468 [details]
> better patch
>
> This one should work.
It does;-)
I have applied the patch on revision 183541 on top of the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52010
--- Comment #1 from Dominique d'Humieres 2012-01-26
16:22:51 UTC ---
> The attached examle generates a compiler error about not being able to convert
> from CLASS to TYPE being the object of the same declared type.
There is no attachment!-(
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52010
--- Comment #2 from Fran Martinez Fadrique
2012-01-26 16:25:41 UTC ---
Created attachment 26473
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26473
Test sample
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52011
Bug #: 52011
Summary: FAIL: gcc.dg/lto/trans-mem-* c_lto_trans-mem-*.o
assemble, -flto -fgnu-tm in 32 bit mode
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49829
Benjamin Kosnik changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot |bkoz at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51994
Uros Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #26466|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51994
--- Comment #22 from Uros Bizjak 2012-01-26 18:41:57
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #20)
> I agree that making get_inner_reference artificially return a non-zero poffset
> would most certainly be problematic as this would change the semantics. Bu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51994
--- Comment #23 from Uros Bizjak 2012-01-26 18:51:00
UTC ---
With a crosscompiler to alpha-linux-gnu, we can trigger both problems, one with
preprocessed source, another with the testcase in latest attached patch:
[uros@localhost testalpha]$ ~/g
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51199
--- Comment #1 from Daniel Krügler
2012-01-26 19:32:03 UTC ---
Related to this bug:
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/cwg_active.html#1417
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51798
--- Comment #15 from David Edelsohn 2012-01-26
19:42:47 UTC ---
> calm down, a few places in libstdc++ use __sync_compare_and_swap directly
> because there is no CAS in atomicity.h
Jonathan,
I do not know what you are reading into my comment.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51798
--- Comment #16 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-01-26
20:39:40 UTC ---
Apologies for my phrasing. What I meant is that it's not a matter of
consistency.
Localising all uses of __sync_bool_compare_and_swap by adding an unnecessary
additional layer of
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51994
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51852
--- Comment #11 from Nathan Ridge 2012-01-26
21:48:09 UTC ---
I bisected the SVN history between the snapshot that worked and the snapshot
that gave the error - it appears at r182668.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52012
Bug #: 52012
Summary: [4.6/4.7 Regression] Wrong-code with RESHAPE
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: wrong-code
S
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52005
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski 2012-01-26
22:08:05 UTC ---
Here is another testcase:
int f(int x, int a, int b)
{
int t = 0;
int c = 1 << a;
if (!(x & 1))
t = 0;
else
if (x & (1 << 2))
t = g();
else
t = 0;
ret
Andrew Pinski 2012-01-26
22:27:42 UTC ---
This still fails on the trunk:
GNU C++ (GCC) version 4.7.0 20120126 (experimental) [trunk revision 183553]
(mips64-linux-gnu)
compiled by GNU C version 4.7.0 20120126 (experimental) [trunk revision
183553], GMP version 4.3.2, MPFR version 3.0.0, MPC version
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42240
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Target Milestone|4.3.6
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52012
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
Known to w
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52013
Bug #: 52013
Summary: [OOP] Polymorphism and coarrays: Support as class
container
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52012
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52012
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[4.6/4.7 Regression]|[4.6/4.7 Regression]
|W
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51370
--- Comment #4 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-01-27 00:12:48 UTC ---
Author: paolo
Date: Fri Jan 27 00:12:41 2012
New Revision: 183593
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=183593
Log:
/cp
2012-01-26 Paolo Carlini
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51370
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51852
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51852
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||GC
--- Comment #13 from Andrew Pinski 20
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52003
--- Comment #4 from mauro 2012-01-27 00:27:43
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> main has an implicit return 0 if it follows through to the end according to
> the
> C++ standard IIRC.
Ok, I thought it was something like that.
Thanks for answer.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51795
--- Comment #1 from Ed Smith-Rowland <3dw4rd at verizon dot net> 2012-01-27
04:48:39 UTC ---
I random.tcc in _Mod
__x = 1103527590
__m = 2147483648
__a = 1103515245
__c = 12345
static const _Tp __q = __m / __a; // 1
static cons
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51852
--- Comment #14 from Nathan Ridge 2012-01-27
05:37:21 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #13)
> One thing to do is to use --param ggc-min-expand=1 --param ggc-min-heapsize=1
> and try to reduce it from there. And then when you get down use 0's instead
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51852
--- Comment #15 from Nathan Ridge 2012-01-27
06:29:07 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #14)
> (In reply to comment #13)
> > One thing to do is to use --param ggc-min-expand=1 --param
> > ggc-min-heapsize=1
> > and try to reduce it from there. And t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51852
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
--- Comment #16 from Jason Merrill 2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52014
Bug #: 52014
Summary: [c++0x] g++: Segfault When `decltype` Used in Nested
Lambda Function Defined in Class Member Function
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52014
--- Comment #1 from cheesear at gmail dot com 2012-01-27 07:05:26 UTC ---
Sorry, accidentally hit return before I was ready. The code sample fails to
compile because of the use of decltype in the parameter-list of the nested
lambda function defined
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51852
--- Comment #17 from Nathan Ridge 2012-01-27
07:30:00 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #16)
> make check-g++-strict-gc finds failures on several variadic template tests,
> including variadic99.C, so I don't think reducing your testcase is necessary.
77 matches
Mail list logo
