http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53325
--- Comment #5 from Sebastian Huber
2012-11-28 08:09:47 UTC ---
It is fixed on GCC 4.8. GCC 4.6 and 4.7 are still open.
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-05/msg00939.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55502
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55485
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||howarth at nitro dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54721
--- Comment #4 from George Spelvin 2012-11-28
08:37:50 UTC ---
> I wouldn't expect this to be something of high priority currently.
I know the benefit is low; I had just hoped that it would be a fairly small and
simple change and thus th
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55508
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55429
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jwakely.gcc at gmail dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55358
--- Comment #6 from Markus Trippelsdorf
2012-11-28 08:51:26 UTC ---
Created attachment 28818
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28818
stl benchmark
The last issue can be reproduced with an old C++ STL benchmark
from St
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55501
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55512
Bug #: 55512
Summary: [4.8 Regression] Various LRA ICEs with inline-asm
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: error-r
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55512
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35634
--- Comment #37 from Richard Biener 2012-11-28
09:27:14 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Nov 28 09:27:10 2012
New Revision: 193882
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=193882
Log:
2012-11-28 Richard Biener
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35634
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.8.0
Summary|[4.6/4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55489
Paolo Bonzini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52996
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55327
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener 2012-11-28
09:32:35 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Nov 28 09:32:30 2012
New Revision: 193883
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=193883
Log:
2012-11-28 Richard Biener
P
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55327
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Component|reg
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55512
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski 2012-11-28
09:33:32 UTC ---
I thought this was fixed with:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-11/msg02271.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55512
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55501
--- Comment #3 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-28 09:40:33 UTC ---
The backtrace one gets on trunk is:
0x669272 gfc_conv_structure(gfc_se*, gfc_expr*, int)
/home/jweil/gcc48/trunk/gcc/fortran/trans-expr.c:5971
0x667dbb gfc_c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54547
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|una
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55513
Bug #: 55513
Summary: Incorrect snprintf folding when building with
-std=c++0x
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55513
--- Comment #1 from Amit Schreiber 2012-11-28
10:05:16 UTC ---
Created attachment 28819
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28819
The program
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55501
--- Comment #4 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-28 10:10:40 UTC ---
For a case like this:
module test
integer :: MPI_INTEGER = merge(4, 8, .false.)
end module
we do not get an EXPR_FUNCTION in gfc_conv_initializer, but it is si
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55266
--- Comment #2 from Marc Glisse 2012-11-28 10:11:31
UTC ---
Author: glisse
Date: Wed Nov 28 10:11:27 2012
New Revision: 193884
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=193884
Log:
2012-11-28 Marc Glisse
PR middl
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55513
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Status|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55491
--- Comment #7 from tom.day at amlin dot co.uk 2012-11-28 10:29:51 UTC ---
Sorry Mikael, I'm with you now. I also don't get this error message when
targeting i686-w64-mingw32 when hosted on i686-linux-gnu.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55511
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55501
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assig
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55514
Bug #: 55514
Summary: PowerPC EABI: Warning: setting incorrect section
attributes for .sdata2
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
Statu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55501
--- Comment #6 from Tobias Burnus 2012-11-28
10:48:58 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> type(MPI_Datatype) :: MPI_INTEGER = merge(MPI_Datatype(4), MPI_Datatype(8),
> .false.)
The problem is related to having array PARAMETERs. For nor
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55497
--- Comment #6 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-11-28 10:49:44 UTC ---
Author: paolo
Date: Wed Nov 28 10:49:39 2012
New Revision: 193885
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=193885
Log:
2012-11-28 Paolo Carlini
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55501
--- Comment #7 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-28 10:50:28 UTC ---
I think the following variant makes even more sense:
Index: gcc/fortran/simplify.c
===
--- gcc/fortra
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55497
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Known to work|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55501
--- Comment #8 from Tobias Burnus 2012-11-28
10:54:56 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> + && tsource->expr_type != EXPR_STRUCTURE)
That's not okay: If you have
integer, allocatable :: a(:), b(:)
one has an EXPR_STRUCTURE for "
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55501
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55515
Bug #: 55515
Summary: PowerPC EABI: Create a predefined symbol for
-mdata=xxx
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55516
Bug #: 55516
Summary: strict volatile bitfields are broken on ARM.
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55501
--- Comment #10 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-28 12:16:59 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #9)
> (In reply to comment #7)
> > - if (tsource->expr_type != EXPR_CONSTANT
> > - || fsource->expr_type != EXPR_CONSTANT
> > - || ma
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54547
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener 2012-11-28
12:18:47 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Nov 28 12:18:39 2012
New Revision: 193888
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=193888
Log:
2012-11-28 Richard Biener
P
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54547
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55501
--- Comment #11 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-28 12:22:02 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #10)
> The first two are runtime checks, which are basically identical. Here is a
> reduced test case for these:
>
> implicit none
> integ
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55517
Bug #: 55517
Summary: [ASAN] ASAN doesn't work with (soft) ulimit on virtual
memory
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFI
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55513
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.7.3
Known to fail|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55511
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.8.0
Summary|r19380
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55507
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55494
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Target Mile
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55493
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55517
Konstantin Serebryany changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||konstantin.s.serebryany at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55517
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener 2012-11-28
12:48:56 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> I am quite sure that asan should not mess with the limits itself.
> It gets too messy too soon. (e.g. in tsan we try to reexec if the stack is
> unl
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55517
--- Comment #3 from Konstantin Serebryany 2012-11-28 12:50:09 UTC ---
[The component for such bugs should be 'sanitizer' but for some reason I can't
change it]
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55517
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dodji at gcc dot gnu.org,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55517
--- Comment #5 from Konstantin Serebryany 2012-11-28 12:56:53 UTC ---
We try to minimize the number of syscalls we make in asan run-time.
One reason for that is that asan may run in a sanbox which disallows some of
them. (Another is just t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55517
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-11-28
13:00:27 UTC ---
I think raising soft limit is a standard approach done in multiple places, even
gcc itself does that, and is far better than just crashing. Unlike
RLIMIT_STACK, it doesn't caus
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55517
--- Comment #7 from kcc at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-28 13:17:21 UTC ---
BTW, the messages are actually quite nice:
==22487== ERROR: Failed to allocate 0x2001000 (2199023259648) bytes at
address 0x0000 (12)
==22487== ReserveSha
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55358
--- Comment #7 from Markus Trippelsdorf
2012-11-28 13:20:54 UTC ---
The fix for:
==23637== Invalid write of size 8
==23637==at 0xCF9951: rest_of_handle_dse() (dse.c:2874)
...
seems to be simple. Because of "delete_dead_store_insn (pt
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55511
--- Comment #2 from Hans-Peter Nilsson 2012-11-28
13:36:08 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> Is this with the first build of libgcc? I.e. is it likely that I'll
> see this with just a cross-build?
>
> Also, can you please check whethe
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55485
--- Comment #7 from Kostya Serebryany 2012-11-28
13:37:02 UTC ---
Note that the LLVM implementation inserts a call to __asan_handle_no_return
before every "no-return" call instruction.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55485
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-11-28
13:47:41 UTC ---
If I understand it right, that clears all shadow memory corresponding to
current thread's stack, rather than trying to figure out into which function it
longjmps and clearing on
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54791
--- Comment #29 from Adi 2012-11-28 14:00:55 UTC
---
Ok... if you are so kind please tell me exactly
1) how did you install the gcc(you said it works on your aix) ? I mean what
mpfr,gmp, libmpc did you use and how did you install them?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55485
--- Comment #9 from Kostya Serebryany 2012-11-28
14:00:53 UTC ---
Correct.
__asan_handle_no_return may loose some of the stack-buffer overflows.
It is also used to handle clone case, where the entire stack should be
unpoisoned.
http:/
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55511
--- Comment #3 from Andreas Krebbel 2012-11-28
14:10:24 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> (In reply to comment #1)
> > Is this with the first build of libgcc? I.e. is it likely that I'll
> > see this with just a cross-build?
> >
> >
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55264
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55513
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48076
--- Comment #7 from torvald at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-28 14:29:47 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> There seems to be a similar bug in code generated for function static
> variables.
> The fast-path load is a plain load rather than atomic
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55474
--- Comment #2 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-28
14:38:50 UTC ---
Author: hjl
Date: Wed Nov 28 14:38:40 2012
New Revision: 193893
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=193893
Log:
Handle OPT_SPECIAL_XXX in LTO
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54795
--- Comment #28 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-28
14:38:50 UTC ---
Author: hjl
Date: Wed Nov 28 14:38:40 2012
New Revision: 193893
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=193893
Log:
Handle OPT_SPECIAL_XXX in LTO
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54795
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Version|4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55474
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55477
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55358
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55501
--- Comment #12 from Tobias Burnus 2012-11-28
14:54:33 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #10)
> integer :: i(-1:1) = 0
> print *, lbound(merge(i,i,.true.))
> Without the patch, this prints:
>1
> And with the patch:
> -1
Ma
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55469
Matthias Krack changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||matthias.krack at gmail dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55518
Bug #: 55518
Summary: boehm-gc, libatomic, libffi and libgomp testsuite
can't find path to libasan for make check with
-fsanitizer
Classification: Unclassified
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52161
--- Comment #1 from Dominique d'Humieres 2012-11-28
15:12:52 UTC ---
Still there at revision 193884.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55481
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener 2012-11-28
15:14:20 UTC ---
Testcase that fails (infinite loop) with both the C and the C++ frontend at
-O2:
int main()
{
signed char result = 0;
int n;
for (n = 0; n < 13; ++n)
{
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55513
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55481
--- Comment #10 from Richard Biener 2012-11-28
15:16:00 UTC ---
Caused by
2012-06-27 Richard Guenther
PR middle-end/53676
* tree-chrec.c (chrec_convert_1): Represent truncation to
a type with undefined over
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55481
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|una
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55481
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rakdver at gcc dot gnu.org
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55518
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55513
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-11-28
15:51:21 UTC ---
Reduced testcase:
void
f1 ()
{
char s[10];
const int t = __builtin_snprintf (s, 10, "Hello");
__builtin_printf ("%d %s\n", t, s);
}
void
f2 ()
{
char s[10];
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52161
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55481
--- Comment #13 from rakdver at iuuk dot mff.cuni.cz 2012-11-28 16:19:11 UTC ---
> now, but iv->no_overflow is false (and IVOPTs nowhere uses that flag ...).
>
> I can fix this for example with
>
> Index: tree-ssa-loop-ivopts.c
> ==
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55504
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-11-28
16:28:19 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Nov 28 16:28:06 2012
New Revision: 193898
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=193898
Log:
PR testsuite/55504
* gcc.c-tort
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55505
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-11-28
16:29:13 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Nov 28 16:28:57 2012
New Revision: 193899
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=193899
Log:
PR testsuite/55505
* gcc.c-tort
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55504
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55505
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55518
--- Comment #2 from Jack Howarth 2012-11-28
16:48:55 UTC ---
This seems to be sufficient for libstc++-v3...
Index: libstdc++-v3/testsuite/lib/libstdc++.exp
===
--- libstdc+
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55358
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-11-28
16:49:49 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Nov 28 16:49:35 2012
New Revision: 193900
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=193900
Log:
PR other/55358
* dse.c (rest_of
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55518
Jack Howarth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
Resolution|IN
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55518
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-11-28
17:23:32 UTC ---
I still think it is a very bad idea. As I said earlier, there are lots of
similar compiler options that require their corresponding runtime libraries,
and adding lots of junk t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53094
--- Comment #2 from Marc Glisse 2012-11-28 17:25:51
UTC ---
Created attachment 28820
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28820
Incomplete patch
Slightly ridiculous: with this patch, v+v still fails because we don't manag
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52844
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jondreads at gmail dot com
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55494
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55512
--- Comment #3 from Vladimir Makarov 2012-11-28
17:42:50 UTC ---
Author: vmakarov
Date: Wed Nov 28 17:42:39 2012
New Revision: 193901
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=193901
Log:
2012-11-28 Vladimir Makarov
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55518
--- Comment #5 from Jack Howarth 2012-11-28
18:23:45 UTC ---
Considering that H.J. is working towards a --with-build-config=bootstrap-asan
option, it would seem wise to allow for testing the existing FSF gcc testsuite
against libasan witho
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55507
--- Comment #1 from Richard Henderson 2012-11-28
18:25:03 UTC ---
Created attachment 28821
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28821
preprocessed alpha source
Looks like the same problem for alpha, occurring elsewhere in
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55507
Uros Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #2 from Uros Bi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55507
--- Comment #3 from dave.anglin at bell dot net 2012-11-28 18:50:26 UTC ---
On 11/28/2012 1:25 PM, rth at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> Since this is _powtf2, you probably need --enable-long-double-128 in the
> configure line when cross-compiling
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55508
--- Comment #3 from Jack Howarth 2012-11-28
18:57:10 UTC ---
This failure in expand_call_tm, at trans-mem.c:2273 is also seen in the libitm
testsuite for...
FAIL: libitm.c/dropref-2.c (internal compiler error)
FAIL: libitm.c/dropref-2.c
1 - 100 of 155 matches
Mail list logo
