http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51852
--- Comment #18 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-01-27
08:52:28 UTC ---
Created attachment 26476
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26476
pointer_map patch
local_specializations isn't GTY(()) marked at all and inserts GC TREE_LIST
nodes
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48299
Andreas Krebbel changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||krebbel at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52011
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52012
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.7.0 |4.6.3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52015
Bug #: 52015
Summary: std::to_string does not work under MinGW
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51852
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #19
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=52001
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-01-27
09:26:53 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Jan 27 09:26:48 2012
New Revision: 183608
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=183608
Log:
PR debug/52001
* var-tracking.c (reverse_op
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52001
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51798
--- Comment #17 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-01-27
09:33:11 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #13)
> Any code that explicitly calls __sync_* in
> libstdc++-v3 has introduced a performance regression.
But if it happens in code that is executed only rarely
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51946
--- Comment #11 from Paul Thomas 2012-01-27 10:06:05
UTC ---
Author: pault
Date: Fri Jan 27 10:05:56 2012
New Revision: 183613
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=183613
Log:
2012-01-27 Paul Thomas
Tobias Burnus
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51870
--- Comment #1 from Paul Thomas 2012-01-27 10:06:04
UTC ---
Author: pault
Date: Fri Jan 27 10:05:56 2012
New Revision: 183613
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=183613
Log:
2012-01-27 Paul Thomas
Tobias Burnus
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51943
--- Comment #4 from Paul Thomas 2012-01-27 10:06:05
UTC ---
Author: pault
Date: Fri Jan 27 10:05:56 2012
New Revision: 183613
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=183613
Log:
2012-01-27 Paul Thomas
Tobias Burnus
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48705
--- Comment #3 from Paul Thomas 2012-01-27 10:06:03
UTC ---
Author: pault
Date: Fri Jan 27 10:05:56 2012
New Revision: 183613
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=183613
Log:
2012-01-27 Paul Thomas
Tobias Burnus
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51910
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-01-27
10:10:08 UTC ---
Created attachment 26477
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26477
gcc47-pr51910.patch
Untested fix.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48705
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52016
Bug #: 52016
Summary: [OOP] Polymorphism and elemental: missing diagnostic
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51943
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51946
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51870
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51910
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #9 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52017
Bug #: 52017
Summary: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault in
compiling Perl Tk on Cygwin
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.3
Status: UNCO
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51990
--- Comment #6 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-27 10:38:32 UTC ---
Author: vries
Date: Fri Jan 27 10:38:27 2012
New Revision: 183614
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=183614
Log:
2012-01-27 Tom de Vries
PR tree-op
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51990
--- Comment #7 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-27 10:38:38 UTC ---
Author: vries
Date: Fri Jan 27 10:38:34 2012
New Revision: 183615
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=183615
Log:
2012-01-27 Tom de Vries
PR tree-op
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52012
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52015
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51795
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||paolo.carlini at oracle dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52016
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52011
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|FAIL: |[4.7 Regression] FAIL:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51959
--- Comment #6 from Richard Guenther 2012-01-27
10:54:55 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri Jan 27 10:54:51 2012
New Revision: 183616
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=183616
Log:
2012-01-27 Richard Guenther
PR middle-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51959
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51795
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51910
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-01-27
11:05:04 UTC ---
Created attachment 26479
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26479
gcc47-pr51910.patch
The alternative patch. I like the first patch more, because it will work even
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51798
--- Comment #18 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-01-27
11:17:35 UTC ---
Created attachment 26480
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26480
gcc47-pr51798.patch
This is one of the few remaining P1s, so in order to speed this up, is this
pat
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52011
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.7.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52017
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||cygwin
Component|c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51795
--- Comment #4 from Paolo Carlini 2012-01-27
11:32:10 UTC ---
The problem is that isn't true that __r < __q, thus one of the preconditions
for the algorithm (as explained in eg, Numerical Recipes) is violated.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51874
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|i386-pc-solaris2.1[01], |i386-pc-solaris2.1[01],
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51795
--- Comment #5 from Paolo Carlini 2012-01-27
11:41:28 UTC ---
Roughly, we have to fix either __calc or the generator itself to work fine also
when isn't true that __a << __m (which is the "normal" situation)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51874
--- Comment #2 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2012-01-27 11:45:17 UTC ---
I've also had a look at the Solaris/SPARC failures, which are unrelated
to the 64-bit Solaris/x86 problem previously identified. I could trace
it to the most trivi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51795
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|paolo.carlini at oracle dot |marc.glisse at normalesup
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52007
--- Comment #8 from chilaka 2012-01-27
12:17:44 UTC ---
I managed to generate a Makefile in objdir then issued a make command from that
directory. After a 10 minute compilation it ended with the below error.
checking for suffix of object files.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52018
Bug #: 52018
Summary: GCC refuses to accept a disambiguation statement
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51795
--- Comment #7 from Paolo Carlini 2012-01-27
12:35:28 UTC ---
As a matter of fact, I don't see why here (and elsewhere, eg generate) we have
to use the Schrage trick to avoid integer overflow: we know that the integers
are unsigned and I don't se
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51795
--- Comment #8 from Paolo Carlini 2012-01-27
12:47:10 UTC ---
Eg:
Index: random.h
===
--- random.h(revision 183615)
+++ random.h(working copy)
@@ -263,7 +263,7 @@
res
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51798
--- Comment #19 from Andrew Macleod 2012-01-27
12:49:27 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #17)
> (In reply to comment #13)
> > Any code that explicitly calls __sync_* in
> > libstdc++-v3 has introduced a performance regression.
>
> But if it happens
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51874
--- Comment #3 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2012-01-27 12:52:29 UTC ---
The chan.go testcase also fails on 32-bit IRIX, but in a different way:
> ./chan.x
panic: runtime error: invalid memory address or nil pointer dereference
Running
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51795
--- Comment #9 from Marc Glisse 2012-01-27
12:53:38 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> Marc, can you see a "quick and dirty" (ie, suited for 4.7 too) way to fix
> this?
Note that I am not a specialist.
1) add an assertion "not implemented yet,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51795
--- Comment #10 from Paolo Carlini 2012-01-27
13:01:23 UTC ---
Really, I don't think the intent here is involving arbitrary size integers.
This stuff must be quick, and all the integers are unsigned. I don't think we
have here something like the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52016
--- Comment #2 from Tobias Burnus 2012-01-27
13:03:05 UTC ---
Author: burnus
Date: Fri Jan 27 13:02:54 2012
New Revision: 183620
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=183620
Log:
2012-01-27 Tobias Burnus
PR fortran/52
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52016
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51528
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org |rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51953
--- Comment #1 from Tobias Burnus 2012-01-27
13:06:19 UTC ---
Author: burnus
Date: Fri Jan 27 13:06:13 2012
New Revision: 183621
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=183621
Log:
2012-01-27 Tobias Burnus
PR fortran/51
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51953
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51970
--- Comment #5 from Tobias Burnus 2012-01-27
13:08:58 UTC ---
Author: burnus
Date: Fri Jan 27 13:08:52 2012
New Revision: 183622
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=183622
Log:
2012-01-27 Tobias Burnus
PR fortran/51
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51970
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51977
--- Comment #2 from Tobias Burnus 2012-01-27
13:08:58 UTC ---
Author: burnus
Date: Fri Jan 27 13:08:52 2012
New Revision: 183622
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=183622
Log:
2012-01-27 Tobias Burnus
PR fortran/51
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51977
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51795
--- Comment #11 from Marc Glisse 2012-01-27
13:12:05 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #10)
> Really, I don't think the intent here is involving arbitrary size integers.
> This stuff must be quick, and all the integers are unsigned. I don't think we
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51795
--- Comment #12 from Paolo Carlini 2012-01-27
13:17:22 UTC ---
I see. Before asking: 26.5/4 says that "all descriptions of calculations in
this subclause use mathematical real numbers". Thus should we use floats?!?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51795
--- Comment #13 from Paolo Carlini 2012-01-27
13:23:01 UTC ---
Note that besides the case of the linear_congruential (where we could
definitely static_assert, I don't consider such uses really important in
practice, given also that generators muc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51795
--- Comment #14 from Marc Glisse 2012-01-27
13:35:29 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #12)
> I see. Before asking: 26.5/4 says that "all descriptions of calculations in
> this subclause use mathematical real numbers".
Ok, no need to ask then.
> Thu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51795
--- Comment #15 from Paolo Carlini 2012-01-27
13:42:27 UTC ---
I'm not sure to understand: is using floating point quantities the way to go or
not? I'm particularly worried by generate, as I said, much more than linear
congruential. Note we can a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51389
--- Comment #4 from Andrey Belevantsev 2012-01-27
13:47:45 UTC ---
Author: abel
Date: Fri Jan 27 13:47:41 2012
New Revision: 183624
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=183624
Log:
PR middle-end/51389
* Makefile.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51389
Andrey Belevantsev changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.7.0
--- Comment #5 from Andrey Bel
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51795
--- Comment #16 from Paolo Carlini 2012-01-27
13:54:44 UTC ---
Uhm, in the case of generate, however, "each operation is to be carried out
modulo 2^32", thus I guess it's safe to not use __mod at all for the
multiplication.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51795
--- Comment #17 from Marc Glisse 2012-01-27
13:57:43 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #15)
> I'm not sure to understand: is using floating point quantities the way to go
> or
> not?
> Note we can also use long double.
I don't think there is any gua
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52016
--- Comment #4 from Tobias Burnus 2012-01-27
13:59:10 UTC ---
Author: burnus
Date: Fri Jan 27 13:59:04 2012
New Revision: 183625
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=183625
Log:
2012-01-27 Tobias Burnus
PR fortran/52
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51795
--- Comment #18 from Paolo Carlini 2012-01-27
14:04:28 UTC ---
Okay, thanks, but for generate we are 'lucky'. Thus, for 4.7 I'm going to add
the static_assert in linear_congruential and tweak generate to not use __mod at
all. Then we'll see.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48133
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-01-27
14:07:35 UTC ---
Honza, ping?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48941
Eric Batut changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||eric.batut at allegorithmic
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51980
Eric Batut changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51798
--- Comment #20 from David Edelsohn 2012-01-27
14:27:25 UTC ---
Jonathan,
Your explanation in comment #16 does not fully explain the design of
libstdc++-v3. If the __sync_* intrinsics provide the complete abstraction for
CAS, what is the purpos
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52019
Bug #: 52019
Summary: [4.7 Regression] tree-ssa/ipa-split-5.c fails with
-fno-tree-sra because of CLOBBERS
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
St
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52020
Bug #: 52020
Summary: ICE in immed_double_const, at emit-rtl.c:544
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prior
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51798
--- Comment #21 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-01-27
14:49:12 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #20)
> The patch is incomplete because it should update
> src/libstdc++-v3/config/cpu/generic/atomicity_builtins/atomicity.h as well.
It does update even that fi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50444
--- Comment #17 from Richard Guenther 2012-01-27
14:54:44 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri Jan 27 14:54:37 2012
New Revision: 183629
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=183629
Log:
2012-01-27 Richard Guenther
PR tree-o
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50444
--- Comment #18 from Richard Guenther 2012-01-27
14:57:04 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri Jan 27 14:56:54 2012
New Revision: 183630
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=183630
Log:
2012-01-27 Richard Guenther
PR tree-o
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51798
--- Comment #22 from David Edelsohn 2012-01-27
14:57:42 UTC ---
You're right, the patch does modify both files. sorry.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50444
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P1 |P2
Known to work|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16458
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52019
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||matz at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Miles
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51980
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Ta
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52020
Michael Matz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51910
--- Comment #11 from Sandra Loosemore
2012-01-27 15:31:14 UTC ---
I like the first patch too. Since -frepo seems to depend on telling the linker
not to demangle, better to just say so.
I'm not familiar with the overall code flow here. Does -fr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52020
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52020
--- Comment #2 from Richard Guenther 2012-01-27
15:50:41 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri Jan 27 15:50:32 2012
New Revision: 183633
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=183633
Log:
2012-01-27 Richard Guenther
PR tre
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51910
--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-01-27
15:50:54 UTC ---
Unfortunately the patch doesn't work, I thought that there are separate ld
invocations for rpo stuff only and then a final one without, but that is not
the case. So, I'm withdrawing
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52021
Bug #: 52021
Summary: FAIL: gfortran.dg/typebound_proc_25.f90 -O (internal
compiler error)
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52010
--- Comment #3 from Tobias Burnus 2012-01-27
16:06:51 UTC ---
The following handles the checking part. However, one also needs to handle the
access internally (in trans-expr.c). Namely:
type_var = class_var
type_var = class_function ()
and bo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48941
--- Comment #9 from Ramana Radhakrishnan 2012-01-27
16:20:07 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> Any chance of seeing the work on this restart ?
>
> I found this bug while looking for something that would help (I raised bug
> 51980 for the same k
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52021
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51687
Thierry Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52022
Bug #: 52022
Summary: [4.5/4.6/4.7 Regression] Wrong-code with procedures
passed as actual argument
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: U
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27775
Rich Newman changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|4.0.0 |4.5.1
Known to fail|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52022
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milest
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51906
--- Comment #8 from Jack Howarth 2012-01-27
17:36:08 UTC ---
Opened as radr://10765474, "darwin11 linker bug exposed by new libstdc++ thread
tests" although it appears to be more complex than a simple linker bug as...
1) 30_threads/recursive_mut
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51937
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-01-27
17:54:18 UTC ---
Consider converting local_specializations in cp/pt.c to pointer_map:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51852#c18
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51852
--- Comment #20 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-01-27
17:56:01 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Jan 27 17:55:55 2012
New Revision: 183637
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=183637
Log:
PR c++/51852
* pt.c (tsubst_pack_expansion
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52023
Bug #: 52023
Summary: _Alignof (double) yields wrong value on x86
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
Priorit
1 - 100 of 199 matches
Mail list logo
