http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53380
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53438
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.7.2 |4.7.1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49707
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53414
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53350
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49707
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37308
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53406
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski 2012-05-22
05:57:23 UTC ---
function == unit .
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42666
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51450
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40650
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53380
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski 2012-05-22
06:01:32 UTC ---
Did -fno-asynchronous-unwind-tables do what you wanted it to do? In that
disable the unwinding tables when not using exceptions?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50993
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49986
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53447
Bug #: 53447
Summary: missed optimization of 64bit ALU operation with small
constant
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53436
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53366
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53410
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Component|c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53409
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53436
--- Comment #4 from o.mangold at googlemail dot com 2012-05-22 07:45:46 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> The testcase is not valid OpenMP, there is no flush operation in between the
> store and reads,
Is that also needed with volatile variables
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53436
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-05-22
07:59:01 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> (In reply to comment #3)
> > The testcase is not valid OpenMP, there is no flush operation in between the
> > store and reads,
>
> Is that also needed with
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53192
Yukhin Kirill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||areg.melikadamyan at gmail
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53447
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53436
--- Comment #6 from o.mangold at googlemail dot com 2012-05-22 08:32:03 UTC ---
Yes, I get, that it's not a good way to do things, as (among other reasons) a
volatile access is no memory fence. So accesses to other locations may not be
ordered. But
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52952
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-05-22
08:29:08 UTC ---
The format string could be even something like
void f() {
__builtin_printf(
u8R"abcd(%.)abcd"
"*d");
}
So, the question is, if
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53448
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53448
Bug #: 53448
Summary: [avr] ignoring __attribute__((aligned(2)))
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priorit
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52862
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Known to work|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53447
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||steven at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53438
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52407
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52862
--- Comment #8 from Richard Guenther 2012-05-22
09:17:53 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue May 22 09:17:42 2012
New Revision: 187762
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=187762
Log:
2012-05-22 Richard Guenther
Backpo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51071
--- Comment #7 from Richard Guenther 2012-05-22
09:23:14 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue May 22 09:23:01 2012
New Revision: 187764
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=187764
Log:
2012-05-22 Richard Guenther
Backpo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52383
Mikael Pettersson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikpe at it dot uu.se
--- Comment #5
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53334
--- Comment #6 from Ramana Radhakrishnan 2012-05-22
09:07:03 UTC ---
Author: ramana
Date: Tue May 22 09:06:55 2012
New Revision: 187761
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=187761
Log:
Fix PR target/53334
2012-05-22 Ramana Ra
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51071
--- Comment #9 from Richard Guenther 2012-05-22
09:28:44 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue May 22 09:28:38 2012
New Revision: 187765
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=187765
Log:
2012-05-22 Richard Guenther
PR middle-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53437
--- Comment #2 from Richard Guenther 2012-05-22
09:33:51 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue May 22 09:33:42 2012
New Revision: 187767
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=187767
Log:
2012-05-22 Richard Guenther
PR middle-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53437
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53336
--- Comment #4 from Paolo Bonzini 2012-05-22 08:32:07
UTC ---
Author: bonzini
Date: Tue May 22 08:31:52 2012
New Revision: 187759
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=187759
Log:
gcc:
2012-05-16 Paolo Bonzini
PR tree-opt
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53441
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52407
--- Comment #11 from Richard Guenther 2012-05-22
09:20:24 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue May 22 09:20:15 2012
New Revision: 187763
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=187763
Log:
2012-05-22 Richard Guenther
Backp
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53192
--- Comment #2 from Yukhin Kirill 2012-05-22
08:22:12 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> Please provide a testcase to show the problem.
I have no idea, which kind of test it should be.
These is just MS-ICC-GCC incompatibility issue
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53389
--- Comment #5 from Tobias Burnus 2012-05-22
10:10:55 UTC ---
Author: burnus
Date: Tue May 22 10:10:47 2012
New Revision: 187769
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=187769
Log:
2012-05-22 Tobias Burnus
PR fortran/53
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53448
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51071
--- Comment #8 from Richard Guenther 2012-05-22
09:24:10 UTC ---
Backported with a new testcase.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53426
--- Comment #5 from Richard Guenther 2012-05-22
09:44:41 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> > Hum. IPA-PTA ... yeah ... :/
> >
> > Mine I guess (note ipa-pta is experimental).
> >
> > Honza - we are trying to access the varinfo for
> > _ZTIN5bo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53436
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-05-22
10:01:11 UTC ---
What GCC did was wrong. But your testcase is clearly invalid as per
OpenMP 3.1, 1.4.1:
"Similarly, if at least one thread reads from a memory unit and at least one
thread writes witho
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51071
--- Comment #10 from Richard Guenther 2012-05-22
09:35:40 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue May 22 09:35:32 2012
New Revision: 187768
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=187768
Log:
2012-05-22 Richard Guenther
PR middle
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52952
--- Comment #6 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2012-05-22
09:54:29 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> What does clang report for this:
>
> #include
> void f() {
>printf(
> "%."
> "*d");
> }
>
> ?
/tmp/webcompile/_2090_0.c:5:2: warning: '.*' spec
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53449
Bug #: 53449
Summary: [4.8 regression] fortran fails to build
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53449
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.8.0
Summary|[4.8 regressi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49707
--- Comment #3 from kais58 at sucs dot org 2012-05-22 10:33:03 UTC ---
I should have updated this earlier, it turned out to be a problem with the
standard ld in IRIX 6.5, using the updated one included with MIPSPro made it
work without error.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53408
--- Comment #5 from Richard Guenther 2012-05-22
10:46:25 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue May 22 10:46:21 2012
New Revision: 187770
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=187770
Log:
2012-05-22 Richard Guenther
PR tree-op
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53438
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53440
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52952
--- Comment #7 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2012-05-22
10:55:49 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> The format string could be even something like
>void f() {
> __builtin_printf(
> u8R"abcd(%.)abcd"
>"*d");
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52952
--- Comment #8 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2012-05-22
11:04:41 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> What does clang report for this:
>
> #include
> void f() {
>printf(
> "%."
> "*d");
> }
>
> ?
An even more interesting example is this:
#defin
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53192
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53450
Bug #: 53450
Summary: [4.8 Regression] ICE in compiling
libiberty/cp-demangle.c with -O2
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41757
pageexec at freemail dot hu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pageexec at freemail dot hu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53380
--- Comment #3 from msharov at users dot sourceforge.net 2012-05-22 11:21:41
UTC ---
> Did -fno-asynchronous-unwind-tables do what you wanted it to do? In that
> disable the unwinding tables when not using exceptions?
No, it did not. For example
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53192
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-05-22
11:52:12 UTC ---
BTW, to avoid that warning, you could use in C:
extern __inline __m128i
__attribute__ ((__gnu_inline__, __always_inline__, __artificial__))
_mm_i32gather_epi64 (
#ifdef __cplusplus
s/cern.ch/cms/slc5_amd64_gcc470/external/gcc/4.7.0
--with-mpfr=/afs/cern.ch/cms/slc5_amd64_gcc470/external/gcc/4.7.0
--prefix=/afs/cern.ch/user/i/innocent/w3/gcc47slc5
--with-build-time-tools=/build/ge/new-binutils/a/slc5_amd64_gcc470/external/gcc/4.7.0-cms/bin
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52383
--- Comment #6 from Thorsten Glaser 2012-05-22 12:17:36
UTC ---
Hm, I was pretty sure I tracked it down to aranym. But anyway, it’s gone.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53426
--- Comment #6 from Jan Hubicka 2012-05-22 12:19:55 UTC
---
> by changing it to
>
> if (!vnode
> || DECL_INITIAL (vnode) == error_mark_node
> || !varpool_all_refs_explicit_p (vnode))
> make_copy_
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53438
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53408
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.7.1
Summary|[4.6/4.7 Regr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53426
--- Comment #7 from Richard Guenther 2012-05-22
12:47:04 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> > by changing it to
> >
> > if (!vnode
> > || DECL_INITIAL (vnode) == error_mark_node
> > || !varpool_all_refs_expl
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53451
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53450
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53450
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||markus at trippelsdorf dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53426
--- Comment #8 from Jan Hubicka 2012-05-22 12:53:43 UTC
---
> But I have a variable that fulfills varpool_all_refs_explicit_p but still
> its DECL_INITIAL contains &X where I have no varpool node for X for. So
> if I constant fold from it I can
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53380
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53429
Jeffrey Yasskin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53452
Bug #: 53452
Summary: large array problem x86_64
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
C
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53452
--- Comment #1 from Peter Faasse 2012-05-22
13:03:59 UTC ---
Created attachment 27476
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27476
gcc -v etcetera version of gcc
Distribution is Slackware-64 13.37
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53433
vincenzo Innocente changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vincenzo.innocente at cern
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53450
vincenzo Innocente changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53438
--- Comment #7 from William J. Schmidt 2012-05-22
13:13:04 UTC ---
Yep, I'll check it out. Thanks, Richard!
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53451
vincenzo Innocente changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|FIXED |INVALID
--- Comment #2 from vincenzo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53161
--- Comment #9 from Jan Hubicka 2012-05-22
13:20:19 UTC ---
OK, this problem is caused by C++ FE corrupting symbol table by creating new
symbol from DECL_ASSEMBLER_NAME langhook while creating another symbol. There
has to be better ways to produ
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53453
Bug #: 53453
Summary: darwin linker expects both AT_name and AT_comp_dir
debug notes
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53452
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53426
--- Comment #9 from Jan Hubicka 2012-05-22
13:31:28 UTC ---
OK,
I see the following:
6882 FOR_EACH_VARIABLE (var)
6883{
6884 if (var->alias)
6885continue;
6886
6887 get_vi_for_tree (var->symbol.decl);
68
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53433
--- Comment #7 from vincenzo Innocente
2012-05-22 13:42:17 UTC ---
mine is a one-year-old libc
GNU C Library stable release version 2.13, by Roland McGrath et al.
….
Compiled by GNU CC version 4.6.1 20110520 (prerelease).
Compiled on a Linux 2.6
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53453
--- Comment #1 from Jack Howarth 2012-05-22
13:33:01 UTC ---
It looks like the lines...
if (!IS_ABSOLUTE_PATH (filename) && filename[0] != '<')
add_comp_dir_attribute (die);
in gen_compile_unit_die() of dwarf2out.c need adjusted f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49167
--- Comment #3 from Frank Ch. Eigler 2012-05-22
14:30:35 UTC ---
test comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53426
--- Comment #10 from Richard Guenther 2012-05-22
13:52:49 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #9)
> OK,
> I see the following:
> 6882 FOR_EACH_VARIABLE (var)
> 6883{
> 6884 if (var->alias)
> 6885continue;
> 6886
> 6887
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53453
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=53453
--- Comment #2 from Jack Howarth 2012-05-22
13:58:13 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> It looks like the lines...
>
> if (!IS_ABSOLUTE_PATH (filename) && filename[0] != '<')
> add_comp_dir_attribute (die);
>
> in gen_compile_unit
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48941
--- Comment #11 from Ramana Radhakrishnan
2012-05-22 14:16:34 UTC ---
> There are still a few vmov's between Vector registers but I suspect that is
> because of the vcombine at the end for which RichardE might have something in
> flight.
This i
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53446
Daniel Krügler changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||daniel.kruegler at
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53454
Bug #: 53454
Summary: [RX backend]: redundant insn being expanded for long
long trivial arithmetic comparison
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53008
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53008
--- Comment #8 from Patrick Marlier
2012-05-22 15:58:53 UTC ---
Aldy,
Actually the problem is different that my first thought and it is a real bug.
The problem is well described into the 'testcase for gcc testsuite'.
In the testcase, you have a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53432
Roman Kononov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||roman at binarylife dot net
--- Comment #
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53440
--- Comment #3 from Richard Earnshaw 2012-05-22
16:36:56 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> Someone needs to implement the thunk functionality for arm.
The ARM port does have MI thunk support. The question is "why isn't it being
used"?
R.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53008
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
Component|ada
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53455
Bug #: 53455
Summary: g++ builds segfault in boost::python
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53455
--- Comment #1 from Jonas Wielicki 2012-05-22
17:41:18 UTC ---
Created attachment 27477
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27477
-save-temps output for inheritance.cpp from boost::python 1.48
Sorry for the .gz, but bugzilla refu
1 - 100 of 129 matches
Mail list logo
