http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53615
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54133
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54155
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54088
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50672
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|tom at cod
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48914
--- Comment #5 from asmwarrior 2012-08-02
08:28:10 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> We are Code::Blocks' developers, we see the same annoying warnings, hope it
> will be fixed. Thanks.
> See:
> http://forums.codeblocks.org/index.php/topic,16670
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54159
Bug #: 54159
Summary: Fortran quad precision rounding seemingly nonsensical
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54147
--- Comment #4 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-08-02 08:58:01 UTC ---
Author: janus
Date: Thu Aug 2 08:57:58 2012
New Revision: 190069
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=190069
Log:
2012-08-02 Janus Weil
PR fortran/5
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54147
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54154
--- Comment #5 from Paulo J. Matos 2012-08-02
09:34:03 UTC ---
I have now a patch for this which I will submit shortly.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54158
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50672
--- Comment #19 from Richard Guenther 2012-08-02
09:43:19 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu Aug 2 09:43:14 2012
New Revision: 190070
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=190070
Log:
2012-08-02 Richard Guenther
PR tree-o
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50672
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50672
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54158
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-08-02
09:45:06 UTC ---
Ah, it was changed by a DR
(http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/cwg_defects.html#613) not a C++11
proposal, so supporting it in C++03 mode is probably intentional.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54154
--- Comment #6 from Paulo J. Matos 2012-08-02
09:58:55 UTC ---
Created attachment 27926
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27926
regcprop patch to remove redundant moves
This patch seems to fix 54154.
I am not sure its generic e
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54146
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|middle-end |tree-optimization
Summary|Ve
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54155
--- Comment #2 from damz 2012-08-02 10:02:46 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> > /*** COMPILATION OUTPUT ***/
> > bash-3.2# gcc -o test1 test.cpp -m32 -mcpu=ultrasparc -lstdc++
> > /usr/local/bin/ld: target elf32-sparc not fou
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54154
--- Comment #7 from Paulo J. Matos 2012-08-02
10:05:40 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> With send it to gcc-patches.
's/With/Will/'
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54155
--- Comment #3 from damz 2012-08-02 10:08:44 UTC ---
Note: My gcc libraries are available at the /usr/local/gcc-4.4.4/lib
whereas I ran the sed command on usr/lib/lib*.so
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53664
--- Comment #15 from ramrad01 at arm dot com 2012-08-02 10:10:47 UTC ---
On 08/02/12 00:35, janis at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53664
>
> --- Comment #14 from Janis Johnson 2012-08-01
> 23:35:12 UTC ---
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54133
--- Comment #7 from amker.cheng 2012-08-02
10:18:41 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> > In experiment, if I disable r0/r1 from renaming, most regressions observed
> > in
> > CSiBE are gone.
> >
> > So how should this be fixed? Thanks.
>
> The
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54111
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-08-02
10:18:44 UTC ---
FWIW Clang 3.2 accepts bug-int?.cc and rejects bug-u?.cc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54159
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54146
--- Comment #13 from rguenther at suse dot de
2012-08-02 10:35:56 UTC ---
On Thu, 2 Aug 2012, steven at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54146
>
> Steven Bosscher changed:
>
>What|Removed
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54159
--- Comment #2 from Tobias Burnus 2012-08-02
10:37:56 UTC ---
Actually, you can also change the rounding mode by calling the following C
program from your Fortran program.
/*/
#include
void
set_round (void)
{ /* FE_TONE
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54158
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54158
--- Comment #4 from Paolo Carlini 2012-08-02
10:51:32 UTC ---
2009-03-31 Jason Merrill
C++ DR 613
* semantics.c (finish_non_static_data_member): Allow such references
without an associated object in sizeof/decltype/alignof.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54111
--- Comment #3 from Leonid Volnitsky 2012-08-02
11:13:26 UTC ---
if in bug-int2.cc (and only in this file) to replace tuple with pair - it
becomes accepted by any gcc version.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54159
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54159
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Hogg 2012-08-02
11:37:17 UTC ---
I can confirm that if we fiddle the fp rounding mode using a bit of C (very
similar to the one you just suggested) then the problem goes away for this
example.
With your clue and loo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54111
--- Comment #4 from Leonid Volnitsky 2012-08-02
13:12:44 UTC ---
Please disregard my last message (about std::pair) - it was incorrect.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54087
--- Comment #4 from Ulrich Drepper 2012-08-02
14:33:19 UTC ---
One more data point. In a micro-benchmark which uses realistic code used in
production the change from
__sync_sub_and_fetch(var, constant)
to
__sync_add_and_fetch(var, -cons
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54155
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54159
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=54160
Bug #: 54160
Summary: gcc should not define __OBJC2__ when lang is not set
to ObjC (gcc 4.6 and later)
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53876
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53961
--- Comment #21 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-08-02 16:24:35 UTC ---
Author: uros
Date: Thu Aug 2 16:24:25 2012
New Revision: 190089
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=190089
Log:
Backport from mainline
2012-07-24
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53961
Uros Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53615
--- Comment #7 from Georg-Johann Lay 2012-08-02
16:45:24 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> You should run the compiler under Valgrind and see whether it complains.
I never built the compiler with valgrind support. Is the a comprehensible
docum
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53865
--- Comment #5 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-08-02
16:58:42 UTC ---
Author: hjl
Date: Thu Aug 2 16:58:33 2012
New Revision: 190090
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=190090
Log:
Add free inline summary pass after pass_earl
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53321
--- Comment #25 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-08-02
16:58:41 UTC ---
Author: hjl
Date: Thu Aug 2 16:58:33 2012
New Revision: 190090
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=190090
Log:
Add free inline summary pass after pass_ear
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54128
Steve Ellcey changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50925
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2012-02-17 00:00:00 |2012-08-02 0:00
--- Comment #24 from G
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30162
Hristo Iliev changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||iliev at rz dot
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50925
--- Comment #25 from Georg-Johann Lay 2012-08-02
17:34:40 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #24)
> The kook isn't even called once...
My bad... The hook IS called, but it does not help with this bug.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54087
--- Comment #5 from Uros Bizjak 2012-08-02 17:35:30
UTC ---
Created attachment 27927
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27927
Patch that introduces atomic_fetch_sub with const_int operands
This patch introduces atomic_fetch_sub:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54161
Bug #: 54161
Summary: sizeof(void) expressions are accepted
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53321
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
n't split), the code bloat returns.
Just suppose the examples given in comment #0
long readx (const __memx long *p)
{
return *p;
}
long read0 (const __flash long *p)
{
return *p;
}
with "GCC: (GNU) 4.8.0 20120802 (experimental)"
and -S -Os -dp -mmcu=avr5 -fno-split-wide-t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52543
--- Comment #11 from Georg-Johann Lay 2012-08-02
18:37:18 UTC ---
Created attachment 27928
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27928
/local/gnu/patches/pr52543-undo-185605.diff
Just for reference: Here is the patch that undoes th
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52543
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54161
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51213
--- Comment #11 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-08-02 18:45:04 UTC ---
Author: paolo
Date: Thu Aug 2 18:44:58 2012
New Revision: 190093
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=190093
Log:
/cp
2012-08-02 Jason Merrill
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51213
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48820
--- Comment #20 from Mikael Morin 2012-08-02
19:48:55 UTC ---
Author: mikael
Date: Thu Aug 2 19:48:50 2012
New Revision: 190098
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=190098
Log:
fortran/
PR fortran/48820
* trans-array.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53805
--- Comment #10 from Marc Glisse 2012-08-02
19:54:47 UTC ---
Author: glisse
Date: Thu Aug 2 19:54:43 2012
New Revision: 190100
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=190100
Log:
2012-08-02 Marc Glisse
PR tree-optimization
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54161
--- Comment #2 from Daniel Krügler
2012-08-02 20:13:29 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> Jason can you double check whether we
> want to reject even without -pedantic?
I hope it will be active even without -pedantic
> Anyway, Daniel, it would
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54161
--- Comment #3 from Jason Merrill 2012-08-02
20:34:52 UTC ---
A SFINAE testcase that doesn't depend on core 1172 would be
template
auto f(int) -> char;
template
auto f(...) -> char(&)[2];
static_assert(sizeof(f(0)) != 1, ""); // OK - Oops
stat
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54161
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51931
--- Comment #2 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-08-02 21:32:02 UTC ---
Author: rsandifo
Date: Thu Aug 2 21:31:57 2012
New Revision: 190104
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=190104
Log:
gcc/
PR target/51931
* con
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54162
Bug #: 54162
Summary: Does not accept static global anonymous unions or
structs
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54162
--- Comment #1 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2012-08-02 23:23:19 UTC ---
On Thu, 2 Aug 2012, josh at joshtriplett dot org wrote:
> C1X, and numerous other compilers, support static anonymous unions or structs
> at file scope. For example,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54158
--- Comment #5 from Ai Azuma 2012-08-03 02:05:45
UTC ---
Well, I'm a bit confused. So I would like to make sure some points.
> Ah, it was changed by a DR
> (http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/cwg_defects.html#613) not a C++11
> proposal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54087
--- Comment #6 from Ulrich Drepper 2012-08-03
02:16:57 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> This patch introduces atomic_fetch_sub:
Seems to work nicely.
65 matches
Mail list logo
