http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54061
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[4.8 Regression]|[4.8 Regression]
|gcc.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53014
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski 2012-07-21
07:06:19 UTC ---
This still happens as of today.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54035
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54035
--- Comment #2 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-07-21 09:35:49 UTC ---
The problem is really that we have only one symbol for the specific and generic
procedure.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42418
--- Comment #6 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-07-21 09:51:57 UTC ---
The error in comment #0 should be fixable by something like the following:
Index: gcc/fortran/decl.c
===
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43716
Uros Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54034
Uros Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43716
Uros Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ubizjak at gmail dot com
--- Comment #31 fr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43716
--- Comment #32 from Uros Bizjak 2012-07-21 10:49:31
UTC ---
gcc version 4.8.0 20120720 (experimental) [trunk revision 189718] (GCC)
==2822== Memcheck, a memory error detector
==2822== Copyright (C) 2002-2011, and GNU GPL'd, by Julian Seward et
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54056
--- Comment #1 from Sergey Prokhorenko
2012-07-21 10:58:04 UTC ---
I also asked few people to test, this could be reproduced on:
g++ (GCC) 4.7.0 20120507 (Red Hat 4.7.0-5)
g++-mp-4.6 (MacPorts gcc46 4.6.3_3) 4.6.3
g++-mp-4.7 (MacPorts gcc47 4.7.1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54062
Bug #: 54062
Summary: extraneous move due to register allocation issue on
x86_64
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48820
--- Comment #18 from Tobias Burnus 2012-07-21
11:02:56 UTC ---
Author: burnus
Date: Sat Jul 21 11:02:47 2012
New Revision: 189743
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=189743
Log:
2012-07-21 Tobias Burnus
PR fortran/4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43716
--- Comment #33 from Uros Bizjak 2012-07-21 11:31:18
UTC ---
The NaN is generated as a mask for DFmode ABS_EXPR:
(insn 124 123 125 (set (reg:V2DF 508)
(mem/u/c:V2DF (symbol_ref/u:DI ("*.LC13") [flags 0x2]) [5 S16 A128]))
doduc.f90:5376 -
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54063
Bug #: 54063
Summary: [4.8 regression] on powerpc64 gcc 4.8 generates larger
code for global variable accesses than gcc 4.7
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43716
--- Comment #34 from Uros Bizjak 2012-07-21 12:16:42
UTC ---
Maybe no problem with gcc at all:
Compile doduc.f90 with -g -O3 -ffast-math -ffpe-trap=invalid
Starting program: /home/uros/pb11/lin/source/a.out
MAIN : FIN S2
MAIN : FIN S
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43716
--- Comment #35 from Uros Bizjak 2012-07-21 12:35:17
UTC ---
Actually, exception happens at:
Starting program: /home/uros/pb11/lin/source/a.out
MAIN : FIN S2
MAIN : FIN S1
MAIN : FIN S00011
MAIN : FIN S00022
Program received signal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43716
--- Comment #36 from Dominique d'Humieres
2012-07-21 13:40:09 UTC ---
> To me, it looks like invalid test. Any fortraners here to share their opinion?
Please read comments #23 and #24. One problem with NaN is that they propagate
until something
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43716
--- Comment #37 from Uros Bizjak 2012-07-21 13:51:59
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #36)
> > To me, it looks like invalid test. Any fortraners here to share their
> > opinion?
>
> Please read comments #23 and #24. One problem with NaN is that the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54055
--- Comment #3 from Jason Merrill 2012-07-21
14:11:11 UTC ---
Yes, it was intentional, based on the discussion mentioned in the other
comments. I made it a pedwarn rather than a hard error so that affected code
would continue to compile.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39288
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39288
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|SUSPENDED |NEW
--- Comment #2 from Tobias Burnus 20
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43716
--- Comment #38 from Dominique d'Humieres
2012-07-21 14:43:10 UTC ---
> No, the first NaN was born exactly at this instruction. Please note 0 / 0
> which is the definition of NaN.
AFAIU the loop around line 1852, the only possibility for 0/0 is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54064
Bug #: 54064
Summary: C++11 unordered_map emplace
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54064
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-07-21
17:09:03 UTC ---
See http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/lwg-closed.html#2006
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42418
--- Comment #7 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-07-21 17:10:32 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> However, I wonder whether this whole generic check does not come to early. If
> the generic interface is declared after the PROCEDURE statement, it
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54064
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53561
Matthias Vallentin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vallentin at icir dot org
--- Commen
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53561
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-07-21
18:00:16 UTC ---
When someone contributes an implementation of it.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54063
Mikael Pettersson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amodra at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53633
Sandra Loosemore changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sandra at codesourcery dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54058
--- Comment #2 from Andy Jost 2012-07-21
21:45:30 UTC ---
I think you're right. Section 14.6.5.2 of the 2nd ed. (2003-10-15) has a
footnote in section 14.6.5.2. It reads: 131) Friend declarations do not
introduce new names into any scope, eithe
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54058
Andy Jost changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35591
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35590
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35543
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27453
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||steven at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28441
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||matz at gcc dot gnu.org,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32543
--- Comment #1 from Steven Bosscher 2012-07-21
23:37:05 UTC ---
Author: steven
Date: Sat Jul 21 23:37:02 2012
New Revision: 189748
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=189748
Log:
PR gcov-profile/32543
* profile.c (branc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32543
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47618
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47793
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49340
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50631
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51975
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53915
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||steven at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53546
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48361
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47618
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski 2012-07-22
00:42:28 UTC ---
We have one internally at Cavium which is designed to run afterwards and merge
a few gcda file. It is designed for how we run multi-core programs and write a
gcda file for each run.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54065
Bug #: 54065
Summary: [SH] Prefer @(R0,Rn) addressing for floating-point
load/store
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47618
xunxun changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xunxun1982 at gmail dot com
--- Comment #3 from
50 matches
Mail list logo