http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52878
Mikael Pettersson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikpe at it dot uu.se
--- Comment #4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52865
--- Comment #6 from Igor Zamyatin 2012-04-16
07:16:56 UTC ---
Any ideas what exactly does prevent the vectorization in the case of Fortran?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52935
--- Comment #1 from Mark Wielaard 2012-04-16 07:55:35
UTC ---
GNU C 4.6.3 20120306 (Red Hat 4.6.3-2) -mtune=generic -march=x86-64 -g
produces:
[1d]structure_type
name (string) "S"
byte_size
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53003
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52977
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52968
--- Comment #4 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-04-16 08:48:18 UTC ---
Author: janus
Date: Mon Apr 16 08:48:11 2012
New Revision: 186486
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=186486
Log:
2012-04-16 Janus Weil
PR fortran/5
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53004
Bug #: 53004
Summary: Segmentation fault can be overcome with dummy
predefined declaration
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.2
Status: UNCONFIRME
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52968
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52804
--- Comment #2 from amker.cheng 2012-04-16
09:00:08 UTC ---
Any comments?
Or could anyone help me confirm this issue?
Thanks very much.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52994
--- Comment #10 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-04-16 09:04:51 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #9)
> (In reply to comment #8)
> > > Just out of curiosity: Are you aware of any compiler which swallows this?
> >
> > No. I've just tried it with PGI (
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52994
--- Comment #11 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-04-16 09:11:07 UTC ---
Note that at gfortran correctly rejects the test case with -std=f2003:
a%left_halo(arr) = -666 ! ICE
1
Error: Fortran 2008: Pointer functions in variable definition con
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52941
--- Comment #4 from Oleg Endo 2012-04-16 09:14:57
UTC ---
Created attachment 27164
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27164
WIP patch
The attached patch adds support for movco.l/movli.l insns on SH4A for
-msoft-atomic. It also
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52975
--- Comment #2 from Richard Guenther 2012-04-16
09:25:17 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Apr 16 09:25:14 2012
New Revision: 186488
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=186488
Log:
2012-04-16 Richard Guenther
PR tree-op
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52999
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.7.1
Summary|[4.7, 4.8 Reg
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52997
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52996
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52941
--- Comment #5 from Oleg Endo 2012-04-16 09:33:25
UTC ---
Created attachment 27165
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27165
WIP patch
The temporary string buffers should have been 'static' of course.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52985
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Status|UNCONFIR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52979
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Known to work|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52976
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53004
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53004
--- Comment #2 from gursoyturan at iyte dot edu.tr 2012-04-16 09:57:08 UTC ---
Created attachment 27166
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27166
C-Source code
C-source code
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52939
--- Comment #7 from Martin Jambor 2012-04-16
10:02:12 UTC ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Mon Apr 16 10:02:04 2012
New Revision: 186489
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=186489
Log:
2012-04-16 Martin Jambor
PR middle-end/52
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53005
Bug #: 53005
Summary: GCC moves the called C function address and parameters
to the wrong stack position, when making C-style
calling of C functions in a C function with inline
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52939
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53005
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c++ |c
Version|unknown
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52948
--- Comment #4 from Rainer Orth 2012-04-16 10:14:49 UTC
---
Author: ro
Date: Mon Apr 16 10:14:40 2012
New Revision: 186490
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=186490
Log:
Fix plugin testsuite, remove uses of TODO_dump_func (PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52977
--- Comment #3 from Richard Guenther 2012-04-16
10:15:35 UTC ---
ugh...
#0 0x004d7255 in gt_pch_p_14lang_tree_node (this_obj=0x75bf64c0,
x_p=0x75bf64c0, op=0x8b1a27 , cookie=0x7fffdb20)
at ./gt-c-decl.h:1448
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53005
--- Comment #2 from Lili Zhao 2012-04-16
10:17:43 UTC ---
Do you mean we should use a later GCC version?
(In reply to comment #1)
> GCC 4.2 is not supported, please try a current release.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52948
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
URL|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53004
Andreas Schwab changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38470
--- Comment #11 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2012-04-16
10:43:44 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #10)
> It seems like we could at least add a simple improvement that just checks for
> simple comparisons to 0. That probably catches most code (I often do
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39728
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-04-16
10:44:19 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> I think libstdc++ include pathes make the error message useless
Manu has a patch for that in PR 52974
(In reply to comment #2)
> * What is a "synthesi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53005
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-04-16
10:47:15 UTC ---
Yes.
If you got GCC 4.2 from Apple then you could report the bug to Apple, not here.
We do not support GCC 4.2, so it is pointless to report bugs for that version
here, they won't
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53004
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39728
--- Comment #4 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2012-04-16
10:53:50 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> Every C++ programmer knows that the compiler implicitly defines special member
> functions, including the copy-assignment operator but I don't really l
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52996
--- Comment #2 from Richard Guenther 2012-04-16
10:58:06 UTC ---
Looks like a pre-existing bug to me - when we unswitch loops computing
irreducible regions before / after that can lead to inconsistent results.
Loop preserving leads to different
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52763
--- Comment #5 from Mikka 2012-04-16 11:01:25 UTC
---
(In reply to comment #4)
> (In reply to comment #3)
> > (In reply to comment #2)
> > > But what about cases such as (val1 == (ONE|TWO)) ?
> > >
> > > (ONE|TWO) is of type 'int' but that code
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52975
--- Comment #3 from Richard Guenther 2012-04-16
11:03:20 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Apr 16 11:03:16 2012
New Revision: 186491
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=186491
Log:
2012-04-16 Richard Guenther
PR tree-op
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52975
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39728
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-04-16
11:10:07 UTC ---
Maybe the most widely used term is "compiler-generated" but I prefer implicity
defined.
(In reply to comment #2)
> * Do not show "In member function", it clutters the output and it
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53005
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53005
--- Comment #5 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2012-04-16
11:18:51 UTC ---
Lili Zhao, I forgot to say, but feel free to reopen this if you can reproduce
the bug with GCC 4.7. Thanks for the report anyway, and sorry we cannot help
you.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52975
--- Comment #5 from vincenzo Innocente
2012-04-16 11:19:26 UTC ---
indeed.
will it be back-ported to 4.7.1?
btw
I find very "elegant" the
movaps(%rdx,%rax), %xmm0
minps%xmm1, %xmm0
movaps%xmm0, (%rcx,%rax)
produced by -Of
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52975
--- Comment #6 from Richard Guenther 2012-04-16
11:40:46 UTC ---
Unless we come up with a testcase that is a regression from an earlier release
a backport is unlikely.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53001
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51081
--- Comment #3 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-04-16 12:01:46 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> First, my example was incomplete. Secondly, I just realized that gfortran
> rejects the program although I think it is valid (ifort also compiles it
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51255
--- Comment #4 from Krisztian Kocsis
2012-04-16 12:07:19 UTC ---
If it is treated as a user error than a warning should be printed because this
changes the behavior of what is dropped and what is not. People expect that
"used thinds" won't be dro
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52935
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52976
--- Comment #10 from William J. Schmidt
2012-04-16 12:16:04 UTC ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Mon Apr 16 12:15:50 2012
New Revision: 186493
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=186493
Log:
2012-04-16 Bill Schmidt
PR tree-op
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53001
--- Comment #2 from Joshua Cogliati 2012-04-16
12:16:45 UTC ---
Yes, it should also warn for non-constants, and also for other floating
decreases in accuracy such as:
float foo(double x) {
return x;
}
I should have time to create a patch for
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52976
William J. Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53006
Bug #: 53006
Summary: libstdc++-prettyprinters/shared_ptr.cc FAILs
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prior
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53006
--- Comment #1 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2012-04-16 12:27:06 UTC ---
> Strangely, the same gdb binary works on Solaris 10 with the bundled
> libpython2.6.so, so this might be a bug in that library on Solaris 11.
Indeed when I point
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53001
--- Comment #3 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2012-04-16
12:36:59 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> I should have time to create a patch for this before 4.8 goes into stage 3.
> Do
> you think it needs a copyright assignment and if so what paperwork
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51081
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
-mpc-lib=/usr/local/lib64
--enable-cloog-backend=isl --with-cloog=/usr/local
--with-ppl-lib=/usr/local/lib64 CFLAGS='-O2 -ftree-vectorize -fPIC'
CXXFLAGS='-O2 -fPIC -ftree-vectorize -fvisibility-inlines-hidden -march=native'
-enable-libitm -disable-multilib
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.8.0 20120416 (experimental) (GCC)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52977
--- Comment #4 from Richard Guenther 2012-04-16
13:21:37 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Apr 16 13:21:30 2012
New Revision: 186494
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=186494
Log:
2012-04-16 Richard Guenther
PR middle-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52976
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vincenzo.innocente at cern
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53007
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51148
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46072
--- Comment #37 from Michael Haubenwallner 2012-04-16 13:29:06 UTC ---
A few more references:
The fix for this one issue is:
https://www-304.ibm.com/support/docview.wss?uid=isg1IZ98134
But this introduces /usr/ccs/bin/as coredump during gcc boots
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51255
--- Comment #5 from Jan Hubicka 2012-04-16 13:50:35 UTC
---
How common is this construction in practice? Adding a warning or making GCC to
imply used attribute is same amount of work - it means teaching GCC about those
and possibly others specia
on id"
gcc version 4.8.0 20120416 (experimental) (GCC)
does not uniquely identify the content of the build…
> 2012-04-16 13:53:30 UTC ---
> I confirm that "revision 186494" fixed PR53007.
> btw:
> would it be possible to add the revision number to the oyuout of "c++ -v"?
> the current "version id"
> gcc version 4.8.0 20120416 (experimental) (GCC)
> doe
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51148
--- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill 2012-04-16
14:15:45 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Mon Apr 16 14:15:36 2012
New Revision: 186495
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=186495
Log:
PR c++/51148
* friend.c (make_friend_class)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51148
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51255
--- Comment #6 from Krisztian Kocsis
2012-04-16 14:35:37 UTC ---
I currently know that glibc uses it but don't know who else use it.
In my projects I always use constructor/destructor attributes because with them
I can control the exection order.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53008
Bug #: 53008
Summary: abort in _ITM_getTMCloneSafe
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51819
--- Comment #6 from Ulrich Weigand 2012-04-16
15:19:47 UTC ---
Author: uweigand
Date: Mon Apr 16 15:19:43 2012
New Revision: 186498
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=186498
Log:
2012-04-16 Ulrich Weigand
PR target/518
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50303
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49152
--- Comment #40 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-04-16 15:32:28 UTC ---
Author: paolo
Date: Mon Apr 16 15:32:22 2012
New Revision: 186499
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=186499
Log:
/cp
2012-04-16 Paolo Carlini
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49152
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49152
--- Comment #42 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-04-16
15:47:37 UTC ---
Awesome, thank you very very much, Paolo and Manu.
The example in comment 23 can now be added to
http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/ClangDiagnosticsComparison ;)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50830
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52932
--- Comment #13 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-04-16 16:03:55 UTC ---
Author: uros
Date: Mon Apr 16 16:03:51 2012
New Revision: 186500
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=186500
Log:
2012-04-16 Uros Bizjak
Backport fro
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52932
Uros Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53009
Bug #: 53009
Summary: pointer to static member function of template class is
“invalid” as a template argument of another template
class
Classification: Unclassified
Prod
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53009
--- Comment #1 from Lorenzo Pistone 2012-04-16
16:09:16 UTC ---
Created attachment 27170
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27170
testcase
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53009
--- Comment #2 from Lorenzo Pistone 2012-04-16
16:22:04 UTC ---
I just tested, the problem happens only if the template arguments of
function_proxy are function pointers. More trivial types (int is what I've
tested) just work fine
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49152
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52008
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53009
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Status|UNCONF
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38543
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53006
--- Comment #2 from Tom Tromey 2012-04-16 18:01:17
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #0)
> match = self.compiled_rx.match(typename)
> print type(typename)
>
This is very odd. The code in context:
typename = self.get_basic_type(va
h-libelf=/usr/local --enable-lto
--prefix=/home/regehr/z/compiler-install/gcc-r186501-install
--program-prefix=r186501- --enable-languages=c,c++
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.8.0 20120416 (experimental) (GCC)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53011
Bug #: 53011
Summary: ice in verify_loop_structure: bad sizes
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53012
Bug #: 53012
Summary: unrelated friend operators in same namespace interfere
with operator resolution outside of namespace
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41933
--- Comment #8 from Jason Merrill 2012-04-16
19:21:13 UTC ---
Created attachment 27172
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27172
incomplete patch
Here's the beginning of work to implement this. A lot more will be needed.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53011
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||markus at trippelsdorf dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53011
--- Comment #2 from Markus Trippelsdorf
2012-04-16 19:59:38 UTC ---
create_preheader (loop=0x77452440, flags=) at
/home/markus/gcc/gcc/cfgloopmanip.c:1391
1391 latch_edge_was_fallthru = (mfb_kj_edge->flags & EDGE_FALLTHRU) != 0;
(gdb) bt
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53012
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Status|UNCONF
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53013
Bug #: 53013
Summary: Inconsistent Behaviour with Left Shift Operator.
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.4.5
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Pr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53013
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52849
--- Comment #3 from Paolo Carlini 2012-04-16
21:27:18 UTC ---
Really, 4.4.x is very old, especially in terms of C++11 features. Current
mainline, 4.7.0 and 4.6.x have no problems with the testcase.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52849
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52916
--- Comment #7 from Tobias Burnus 2012-04-16
21:38:53 UTC ---
Author: burnus
Date: Mon Apr 16 21:38:49 2012
New Revision: 186506
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=186506
Log:
2012-04-16 Tobias Burnus
PR fortran/52
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53013
--- Comment #2 from john.stevens at f5 dot com 2012-04-16 21:47:11 UTC ---
I would respectfully point out that "consistent", and "undefined by the
standard", are two different things.
I can expect consistent behavior that is not defined by the sta
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52864
--- Comment #4 from Tobias Burnus 2012-04-16
21:47:39 UTC ---
Author: burnus
Date: Mon Apr 16 21:47:35 2012
New Revision: 186507
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=186507
Log:
2012-04-12 Tobias Burnus
PR fortran/52
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49565
--- Comment #4 from Tobias Burnus 2012-04-16
22:04:20 UTC ---
See also http://www.dwarfstd.org/ShowIssue.php?issue=120213.1
1 - 100 of 123 matches
Mail list logo
