http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44728
maybe524 changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xiaowen.huangg at gmail dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51727
--- Comment #16 from Simon Baldwin 2012-10-13
08:08:30 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #15)
> ...
> This has not been the case since 2007, even though it appears to make a lot of
> sense...
I noticed the same thing while investigating thi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51727
--- Comment #17 from Ollie Wild 2012-10-13 08:08:49
UTC ---
I'm on vacation until Mon, Oct. 15.
For compiler related questions, please email c-compiler-t...@google.com.
If you need to contact a manager, please email lp-m...@google.com.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51727
--- Comment #18 from Joost VandeVondele
2012-10-13 08:13:14 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #14)
> Created attachment 28425 [details]
> Patch for testing
thanks... now repeated CP2K compiles give identical '.mod's, and of course also
om
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51727
--- Comment #19 from Tobias Schlüter 2012-10-13
08:31:39 UTC ---
Simon,
I don't think the 'integer's are functions of the pointers once you process the
symbols in a defined order. The non-determinism was caused by traversing the
pointer_info tr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51727
--- Comment #20 from Simon Baldwin 2012-10-13
09:26:35 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #19)
> ...Since we now process these symbols in a deterministic order,
> the integers of the symbols added during each iteration are also
> deterministic.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51727
--- Comment #21 from Tobias Schlüter 2012-10-13
09:32:10 UTC ---
Hm, I don't know about anonymous symbols. If they exist and end up in modules
(which I honestly don't know), I would hope that they would obtain their number
from some counter, wh
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54917
--- Comment #4 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-10-13 10:01:00 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> It could be r177486 or 177486?
Not sure. (Note: Both revisions you quote are the same.)
Anyway, I can confirm that at least the ICE wi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54917
--- Comment #5 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-10-13 10:05:13 UTC ---
However, the other ICE (which does not require -Wsurprising) appears with all
gfortran versions I tried from 4.5 to trunk:
subroutine test_routine2(arg)
implicit
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54917
--- Comment #6 from Dominique d'Humieres 2012-10-13
10:12:28 UTC ---
> > It could be r177486 or 177486?
>
> Not sure. (Note: Both revisions you quote are the same.)
Oops! (never copy and paste after midnight.) r177486 or r177527 (see pr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54919
Bug #: 54919
Summary: [4.6/4.7/4.8 Regression] gcc.dg/torture/pr54877.c
FAILs with -fvariable-expansion-in-unroller
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54919
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54834
Tobias Schlüter changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
Resolution|INVALID
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51727
--- Comment #22 from Tobias Schlüter 2012-10-13
11:29:41 UTC ---
Created attachment 28440
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28440
patch that doesn't use c++
Here's a patch that works essentially the same way, but doesn't use C
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54885
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Status|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51727
--- Comment #23 from Joost VandeVondele
2012-10-13 12:28:12 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #22)
> Created attachment 28440 [details]
> patch that doesn't use c++
I've tested the patch with (an older version of) the 4.7 branch, and it work
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51727
--- Comment #24 from Joost VandeVondele
2012-10-13 12:45:11 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #23)
> I've tested the patch with (an older version of) the 4.7 branch, and it works
> fine for CP2K.
it doesn't apply cleanly to 4.6, so no test
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54917
--- Comment #7 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-10-13 13:08:11 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> r177486 or r177527 (see pr50004).
Out of these two, I'd rather guess for the latter (but this is not more than a
guess).
Anyway, I thi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54913
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54920
Bug #: 54920
Summary: [4.8 Regression] segfault in tree-ssa-pre.c during
Firefox build
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54902
Mikael Pettersson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikpe at it dot uu.se
--- C
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54921
Bug #: 54921
Summary: [4.8 Regression] wrong code with -Os
-fno-omit-frame-pointer -fsched2-use-superblocks
-fstack-protector -ftree-slp-vectorize
Classification: Unclassif
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54841
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||arm
Status|UNCONF
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54892
Mikael Pettersson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikpe at it dot uu.se
--- C
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54829
--- Comment #5 from Richard Earnshaw 2012-10-13
16:04:55 UTC ---
The result of the comparison is used in more than one instruction, so combine
cannot safely rework the branch instructions that follow to ensure that the
result of the subtra
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54829
--- Comment #6 from Richard Earnshaw 2012-10-13
16:18:03 UTC ---
Note also that flag setting behaviour of the PPC instruction essentially is a
comparison of the result against zero. On ARM the flags are set as if the two
input operands we
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54919
--- Comment #2 from Steven Bosscher 2012-10-13
16:38:14 UTC ---
At the ".178r.loop2_invariant" dump:
5 r61:SI=0x40 # 64
6 r62:DF=[`*.LC0'] # 0.0
34 r68:DF=[`*.LC1'] # 1.0e+0
L16:
11 r62:DF=r62:DF-r68:DF
12 {r61:SI=r6
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54913
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[4.8 Regression]|[4.8 Regression] qualified
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54922
Bug #: 54922
Summary: [C++11][DR 1359] constexpr constructors require
initialization of all union members
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54919
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44728
--- Comment #3 from Andreas Schwab 2012-10-13
18:41:14 UTC ---
Author: schwab
Date: Sat Oct 13 18:41:08 2012
New Revision: 192425
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=192425
Log:
PR gcov-profile/44728
* gcov.c (creat
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44728
Andreas Schwab changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54404
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.8.0
Jack Howarth changed:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54871
--- Comment #5 from Eric Botcazou 2012-10-13
20:22:18 UTC ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Sat Oct 13 20:22:07 2012
New Revision: 192426
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=192426
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/54871
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54871
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54922
--- Comment #1 from Daniel Krügler
2012-10-13 20:54:14 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #0)
Some copy'n-paste error occurred while attempting to format the code example.
The correct code under investigation was:
//
class nullable_in
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54870
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54892
--- Comment #2 from Mikael Pettersson 2012-10-13
21:35:21 UTC ---
The ICE started with Richard Henderson's "[ARM] Convert to atomic optabs" patch
in r183050:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-01/msg00288.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54919
--- Comment #4 from Steven Bosscher 2012-10-13
21:51:15 UTC ---
Created attachment 28442
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28442
Perform replacement in REG_EQUAL notes too
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54917
--- Comment #8 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-10-13 21:52:39 UTC ---
The following fixes the ICE(s) on comment 5 ...
Index: gcc/fortran/target-memory.c
===
--- gcc/fort
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54870
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unas
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54923
Bug #: 54923
Summary: Internal unit I/O error when using -malign-double
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50293
--- Comment #2 from Cody Schafer 2012-10-14 00:58:44
UTC ---
I've just run into the same issue with gcc 4.7.2 (using the binary here:
http://www.makehackvoid.com/sites/default/files/MHV_AVR_Tools_20121007.exe )
Disabling LTO allows the l
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54923
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54923
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|INVALID |DUPLICATE
--- Comment #2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31696
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gnu.0kn at gishpuppy dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54404
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
47 matches
Mail list logo
