Component: regression
AssignedTo: unassig...@gcc.gnu.org
ReportedBy: jan.kratoch...@redhat.com
Target: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
crash: gcc (GCC) 4.7.0 20120216 (experimental)
It was crashing already at least on 2012-02-01, I did not search older logs.
crash: gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52272
Bug #: 52272
Summary: [4.7 regression] Performance regresswion of 410.bwaves
on x86.
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52272
--- Comment #1 from Vladimir Yakovlev 2012-02-16
08:16:27 UTC ---
Created attachment 26672
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26672
Good case before commit
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52272
--- Comment #2 from Vladimir Yakovlev 2012-02-16
08:17:53 UTC ---
Created attachment 26673
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26673
Bad case after commit
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51930
--- Comment #12 from Jason Merrill 2012-02-16
08:23:38 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #10)
> But think about a header only library. My test case isn't that far fetched. A
> simple struct with no member functions (except for the implicitly generated
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52260
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-02-16
08:47:32 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Feb 16 08:47:24 2012
New Revision: 184303
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=184303
Log:
PR debug/52260
* dwarf2out.c (copy_decls_wa
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52271
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52260
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52241
--- Comment #3 from Vladimir Yakovlev 2012-02-16
08:58:45 UTC ---
Created attachment 26674
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26674
Dump of bad case (with -fPIC -DPIC)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52241
--- Comment #4 from Vladimir Yakovlev 2012-02-16
09:00:32 UTC ---
Created attachment 26675
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26675
Dump of good case (without -fPIC -DPIC)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52260
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-02-16
08:50:11 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Feb 16 08:50:02 2012
New Revision: 184304
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=184304
Log:
PR debug/52260
* dwarf2out.c (copy_decls_wa
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52241
--- Comment #5 from Vladimir Yakovlev 2012-02-16
09:05:49 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> I don't understand what you mean by "inlining", since '_Rb_tree_node_base' is
> a
> *type* not a function.
This is a constructor
> Anyway, I don't see
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52241
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-02-16
09:26:58 UTC ---
The fact that -fPIC code is often slower than -fno-pic code on many targets
isn't that surprising. But libstdc++.so.6's tree.cc has been compiled with
-fPIC -DPIC before Benjamin's ch
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23286
--- Comment #37 from rguenther at suse dot de
2012-02-16 09:37:54 UTC ---
On Wed, 15 Feb 2012, steven at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23286
>
> --- Comment #36 from Steven Bosscher 2012-02-15
> 18:37:40
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52220
--- Comment #3 from Iain Sandoe 2012-02-16 09:46:37
UTC ---
Author: iains
Date: Thu Feb 16 09:46:31 2012
New Revision: 184305
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=184305
Log:
PR libitm/52220
* config/darwin-crt-tm.c: Co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52270
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52273
Bug #: 52273
Summary: translatable string typo: "at at %L"
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52126
--- Comment #6 from fabien at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-02-16 09:57:20 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> (In reply to comment #2)
> > Further investigation shows that the issue appears only when inheritance
> > from
> > the template class (class B : p
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52255
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-02-16
10:20:33 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Feb 16 10:20:26 2012
New Revision: 184306
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=184306
Log:
PR tree-optimization/52255
* tree-vect-loop
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52241
--- Comment #7 from Richard Guenther 2012-02-16
10:37:34 UTC ---
It is desirable that libstdc++.a contains PIC code, otherwise you cannot
link it statically into shared libraries or into position independent
executables.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52266
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.7.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52272
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Keywords|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52263
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Known to work|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52255
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52274
Bug #: 52274
Summary: [Meta-bug] Fortran translation related issues: Typos
and more
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52241
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-02-16
10:57:19 UTC ---
Note that if more inlining in tree.cc even in -fPIC code helps more than just a
single benchmark, we could consider compiling that file with -O3, or use some
attributes/pragmas to ensu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52275
Bug #: 52275
Summary: The polyhedron test air.f90 is miscompiled with '-O2
-floop-flatten' after revision 184265
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52272
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rakdver at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23286
--- Comment #38 from Richard Guenther 2012-02-16
12:44:31 UTC ---
Incremental patch to fix the EH related ICEs:
Index: gcc/tree-ssa-pre.c
===
--- gcc/tree-ssa-pre.c.orig 2012-02
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52272
--- Comment #4 from Richard Guenther 2012-02-16
12:40:06 UTC ---
Before the patch we choose
Improved to:
cost: 128 (complexity 0)
cand_cost: 19
cand_use_cost: 28 (complexity 0)
candidates: 2, 4, 7
use:0 --> iv_cand:4, cost=(2,0)
us
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52277
Bug #: 52277
Summary: spell corrector for misspelled identifiers
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prior
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52238
--- Comment #3 from Michael Kostylev
2012-02-16 13:26:24 UTC ---
Ok, let's modify the test case - s/char a;/char a:6;/:
struct {
char a:6;
char b __attribute__ ((aligned (16)));
} s;
int main()
{
return (__PTRDIFF_TYPE__)&s.b & 15;
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52275
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52241
--- Comment #9 from Paolo Carlini 2012-02-16
13:39:21 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> (In reply to comment #2)
> > I don't understand what you mean by "inlining", since '_Rb_tree_node_base'
> > is a
> > *type* not a function.
>
> This is a c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52241
--- Comment #10 from Paolo Carlini 2012-02-16
13:45:53 UTC ---
By the way, I don't see anything wrong with explicitly marking
_Rb_tree_increment(_Rb_tree_node_base*) inline if that helps in some special
circumstances.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52275
--- Comment #2 from Dominique d'Humieres 2012-02-16
13:46:30 UTC ---
> If I apply the pseudo-patch at the end, air still works fine at -O3 or -O2 on
> x86_64-linux. So, what exactly is miscompiled with that patch applied? -O2
> -fgraphite-ident
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52241
--- Comment #13 from Paolo Carlini 2012-02-16
13:52:38 UTC ---
Thanks Jakub that's definitely possible, and my knowledge of libtool is very
weak anyway. My operative suggestion stands, I guess.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52241
--- Comment #12 from Paolo Carlini 2012-02-16
13:50:46 UTC ---
... besides the trivial fact that then isn't exported anymore. For that we can
simply refactor the actual code and call it as-is or via the const_cast from
the two exported _Rb_tree_i
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52241
--- Comment #14 from Paolo Carlini 2012-02-16
13:59:20 UTC ---
Created attachment 26676
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26676
Draft
Something like this. I suppose either static or inline should do the trick.
Maybe submitter c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52278
Bug #: 52278
Summary: [avr] inefficient register allocation for SUBREGs
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimizati
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52238
--- Comment #4 from Kai Tietz 2012-02-16 14:03:29
UTC ---
Hmm, right. The previous field needs to be cleared for ms-bitfields, too.
Index: stor-layout.c
===
--- stor-layout.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52241
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-02-16
13:48:59 UTC ---
libtool apparently creates convenience libraries only with -fPIC stuff in it,
instead of having two sets of objects for each source, one -fPIC and one
non-fPIC.
Not sure if it is poss
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52278
--- Comment #1 from Georg-Johann Lay 2012-02-16
14:00:59 UTC ---
Created attachment 26677
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26677
add.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52278
--- Comment #4 from Georg-Johann Lay 2012-02-16
14:06:43 UTC ---
Created attachment 26680
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26680
add.c.198r.reload
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52278
--- Comment #3 from Georg-Johann Lay 2012-02-16
14:04:02 UTC ---
Created attachment 26679
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26679
add.c.197r.ira
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52279
Bug #: 52279
Summary: Fortran translation issues issues
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52278
--- Comment #2 from Georg-Johann Lay 2012-02-16
14:03:05 UTC ---
Created attachment 26678
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26678
add.s
Assembler output with -c -mmcu=avr4 -Os -save-temps -dp -da
To see reasonable code, add -f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42693
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
Blo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52275
--- Comment #4 from Dominique d'Humieres 2012-02-16
14:19:30 UTC ---
This is the following subroutine that is miscompiled at '-O2 -floop-flatten':
!*==SPECTOP.spg processed by SPAG 6.55Dc at 09:26 on 23 Sep 2005
!
! other routines
!
SUBRO
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46986
--- Comment #25 from Jack Howarth 2012-02-16
14:22:33 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #23)
> I'm fine with the last patch, though, I think it needs Ian to approve.
Wouldn't it make more sense to file a joint PR with the OpenBSD folks in order
to ha
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52272
--- Comment #6 from Vladimir Yakovlev 2012-02-16
14:42:36 UTC ---
I've checked. The patch fixes the regression. Thanks.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52275
--- Comment #3 from Tobias Grosser 2012-02-16
14:00:29 UTC ---
It seems there Sebastian himself sees the loop flatteing pass as currently
unstable: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50335#c8
I would propose to follow his suggestion, di
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43491
--- Comment #7 from Richard Guenther 2012-02-16
14:43:51 UTC ---
With tree hoisting we generate
:
pretmp.5_19 = data_0;
pretmp.5_20 = data_3;
i_21 = pretmp.5_19 + pretmp.5_20;
if (data_3(D) != 0)
goto ;
else
goto ;
:
:
# v_
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52275
--- Comment #5 from Dominique d'Humieres 2012-02-16
14:52:17 UTC ---
The subroutine SPECTOP has been the cause of pr42181. The two variants in
comment #22 behave the same way when compiled with '-O2 -floop-flatten', i.e.,
the variant with
if (j
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52280
Bug #: 52280
Summary: FAIL: c974013 -- C974013 Abortable part did not
execute
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52241
--- Comment #15 from Paolo Carlini 2012-02-16
15:04:42 UTC ---
Note, if we decide to do this at the level of tree.cc, we should consistently
change _Rb_tree_decrement too.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52281
Bug #: 52281
Summary: No warnings generated for unused captures
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Pri
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52208
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-02-16
15:34:35 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Feb 16 15:34:28 2012
New Revision: 184310
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=184310
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/52208
* ira-costs.c (sc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46986
--- Comment #26 from Ian Lance Taylor 2012-02-16 15:48:18
UTC ---
I think it would be great if somebody would tell me something I can used
instead of makecontext/getcontext/setcontext. Unless somebody can come up with
one, then I think the only
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52282
Bug #: 52282
Summary: [C++0x] ICE / confused by earlier errors with
decltype/constexpr
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52188
--- Comment #8 from Martin Jambor 2012-02-16
15:55:04 UTC ---
First and foremost, sorry for the big delay but I could not have a
look at this PR earlier. Nevertheless, I doubt that the decision of
the new IPA-CP not to clone the function in ques
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52218
--- Comment #3 from Matthias Klose 2012-02-16
16:08:18 UTC ---
delaying this until PR52266 can be fixed
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46986
--- Comment #27 from Jack Howarth 2012-02-16
16:22:02 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #26)
> I think it would be great if somebody would tell me something I can used
> instead of makecontext/getcontext/setcontext. Unless somebody can come up
> wit
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52283
Bug #: 52283
Summary: "error: case label does not reduce to an integer
constant" for constant folded cast expr
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52283
--- Comment #1 from chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-02-16 16:49:38 UTC ---
Note that the TREE_NO_WARNING is introduced in convert_to_integer:596 while
because of the unsigned-int type conversion in build_c_cast.
A first attempt to fix is to set TRE
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46986
--- Comment #28 from Ian Lance Taylor 2012-02-16 16:50:13
UTC ---
Using pthreads will be much less efficient than the current code using
getcontext/setcontext. Writing machine-specific replacement code would be a
much better idea than that.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52284
Bug #: 52284
Summary: translatable string typo: "compatable"
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52283
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52283
--- Comment #3 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2012-02-16 17:09:30 UTC ---
On Thu, 16 Feb 2012, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> I hope we'll eventually extend TREE_NO_WARNING to be a bit that thise tree
> should be looked up in some hash ta
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52268
--- Comment #1 from Mike Stump 2012-02-16
17:15:47 UTC ---
If you could snapshot some codegen, say
void foo() {
static __thread int i = 42;
++i;
}
or somesuch, we could see if they wired it up the same was as gcc is normally
wired.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52220
--- Comment #4 from Mike Stump 2012-02-16
17:16:39 UTC ---
Thanks.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52283
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52283
--- Comment #5 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2012-02-16 17:54:03 UTC ---
On Thu, 16 Feb 2012, manu at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> What is the problem with stripping the nops *before giving the error* and if
> it
> still fails, give an error?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51415
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52285
Bug #: 52285
Summary: [4.7 Regression] libgcrypt _gcry_burn_stack slowdown
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimiz
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52283
--- Comment #6 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2012-02-16
18:25:30 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> On Thu, 16 Feb 2012, manu at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> > What is the problem with stripping the nops *before giving the error* and
> > if it
> > sti
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52285
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-02-16
18:25:24 UTC ---
While it will slow down this exact testcase even more, I think tailr/tailc
passes should ignore CLOBBER stmts.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52285
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.7.0
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52286
Bug #: 52286
Summary: wrong code bug
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
++
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.7.0 20120216 (experimental) (GCC)
[regehr@gamow 1]$ cat small.c
int printf ( const char *, ... );
int c,
a,
b;
int
fn1 ( void )
{
return c < 0;
}
int
main ( )
{
b = ( ~a | 0 >= 0 ) & 0x98685255F;
printf ( "%d\n", ( ( b ) < 0 ) );
return 0;
}
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52285
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-02-16
18:50:27 UTC ---
Created attachment 26681
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26681
gcc47-pr52285.patch
Patch to ignore clobber stmts in tailc/tailr passes. This turns this testcase
b
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52286
--- Comment #2 from John Regehr 2012-02-16 18:51:50
UTC ---
Sorry, previous one wasn't quite reduced.
int printf ( const char *, ... );
int a, b;
int main (void)
{
b = (~a | 0 >= 0) & 0x98685255F;
printf ("%d\n", b < 0);
return 0;
}
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52268
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52283
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-02-16
19:00:28 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> Is this folding actually necessary for anything beyond diagnostics? I thought
> it was agreed that folding in the FEs was EVIL and we should stop doing it.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52287
Bug #: 52287
Summary: [4.7 regression] ICE in ready_remove_first, at
haifa-sched.c:1927
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52286
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52286
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46986
--- Comment #32 from Anders F Björklund
2012-02-16 19:28:22 UTC ---
Then it's more about fixing library issues, like the macros used
for TIOCNOTTY/TIOCSCTTY or st_atime/st_mtime/st_ctime and sysctl.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46986
--- Comment #31 from Anders F Björklund
2012-02-16 19:22:52 UTC ---
Created attachment 26683
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26683
gcc-darwin_goc2c.patch
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48501
--- Comment #6 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2012-02-16 19:25:56 UTC ---
> --- Comment #5 from Ian Lance Taylor 2012-02-14
> 18:06:55 UTC ---
> Should be fixed now. Let me know if you still see problems.
Not with these three. Only
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46986
--- Comment #30 from Anders F Björklund
2012-02-16 19:22:25 UTC ---
Created attachment 26682
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26682
gcc-gox_import.diff
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52282
Daniel Krügler changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||daniel.kruegler at
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46986
--- Comment #29 from Anders F Björklund
2012-02-16 19:21:45 UTC ---
It still needs to generate the extra underscore for Darwin,
and it still needs to fix the bug mentioned in Comment #12.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51415
--- Comment #3 from Jason Merrill 2012-02-16
19:42:15 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Thu Feb 16 19:42:08 2012
New Revision: 184314
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=184314
Log:
PR c++/51415
* error.c (dump_expr): Handle
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48122
--- Comment #3 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2012-02-16 19:23:05 UTC ---
> --- Comment #2 from Ian Lance Taylor 2012-02-14
> 19:47:16 UTC ---
> I believe this is fixed now. The testsuite compilation now uses
> -fno-toplevel-reorder to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51874
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|i386-pc-solaris2.1[01], |mips-sgi-irix6.5
|mips-sg
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50654
--- Comment #3 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2012-02-16 19:29:29 UTC ---
> --- Comment #2 from Ian Lance Taylor 2012-02-14
> 00:40:07 UTC ---
> Should be fixed on mainline. Although I only tested it on
> x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu built
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45472
--- Comment #19 from Jason Merrill 2012-02-16
19:41:29 UTC ---
It seems to me that volatile reads/writes should get their own gimple
statements, not be part of a larger block move. So instead of
vv1 = vv2;
we should have
vv1.a ={v} vv2.a;
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52205
--- Comment #12 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2012-02-16 19:46:02 UTC ---
> Fine with me (I won't make any of these changes myself though).
I'll probably give it a whirl, but only after 4.7 has branched. For
4.8, there might be conside
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52287
--- Comment #1 from Bernd Schmidt 2012-02-16
19:47:29 UTC ---
Please attach the reginfo.ii file.
1 - 100 of 159 matches
Mail list logo
