http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55542
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55542
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
Targe
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55542
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unas
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55542
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|critical|normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55541
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||flamaros.xavier at gmail
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43566
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55541
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55248
--- Comment #1 from Paolo Carlini 2012-11-30
09:25:24 UTC ---
Created attachment 28835
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28835
mainline errors
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55426
--- Comment #4 from Manjunath S Matti 2012-11-30
09:26:04 UTC ---
Created attachment 28836
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28836
Proposed fix
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55248
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55426
--- Comment #5 from Manjunath S Matti 2012-11-30
09:28:04 UTC ---
The "define_insn_and_split "neon_vld1_dupv2di" contains the DI move pattern
as second instruction in split. The pattern generated for the move are
subreg:DI (Reg:VDI) to s
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55520
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55149
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||etlverified at gmail dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55149
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.8.0 |---
--- Comment #4 from Paolo C
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55073
--- Comment #3 from Eric Batut 2012-11-30
09:52:19 UTC ---
Hello Richard
I updated my working copy of gcc to rev 193943, rebuilt the compiler, rebuilt
the testcase I originally attached to this bug report, and I am still getting
differe
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55451
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-11-30
09:56:02 UTC ---
I can't reproduce it with a cross-compiler, for me it optimizes into
:
_2 = VIEW_CONVERT_EXPR(a_5(D));
if (_2 == -2147483648)
goto ;
else
goto ;
:
z_
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55073
--- Comment #4 from Richard Earnshaw 2012-11-30
09:58:38 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> Hello Richard
>
> I updated my working copy of gcc to rev 193943, rebuilt the compiler, rebuilt
> the testcase I originally attached to this bug
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55073
--- Comment #5 from Eric Batut 2012-11-30
10:14:00 UTC ---
Since this comes from several hours of stripping down a texture generation
engine to the single function that provided different results, I must admit I
have no idea what the corre
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55541
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55543
Bug #: 55543
Summary: diamond shaped inheritance involving strings leads to
crashing executables (MinGW, 32 bit)
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55073
--- Comment #6 from Eric Batut 2012-11-30
11:05:18 UTC ---
Building the test case at O1 (which I tend to trust slightly more than O2 in
the present case) gives the same set of values than the previous "OK" case :
root@android:/data # ./r
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55543
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55543
Kai Tietz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54975
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55544
Bug #: 55544
Summary: invalid optimisation long long->double->long long
(with -m32)
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCON
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55543
--- Comment #3 from Martin Gieseking
2012-11-30 12:30:39 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> Yes, I noticed this regression recently on 4.8 too. There is already a
> smaller
> testcase and it has to do with SjLj exception-mechanism.
> Do
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54170
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unas
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55124
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener 2012-11-30
12:33:03 UTC ---
This issue is latent and papered over heavily by find_or_generate_expression
which does
static tree
find_or_generate_expression (basic_block block, tree op, gimple_seq *stmt
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55544
--- Comment #1 from Mikael Pettersson 2012-11-30
12:37:49 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #0)
> double d = (double)v1;
Doesn't this overflow and provoke undefined behaviour when v1 is
9223372036854774781LL (0x7bfd)?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55544
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55545
Bug #: 55545
Summary: [4.8 Regression] Incredibly large compile-time
performance regression on IA64 compiling 253.perlbmk
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Versi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55545
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55545
--- Comment #1 from Steven Bosscher 2012-11-30
13:00:46 UTC ---
Do you also have revision numbers in those logs?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55541
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55546
Bug #: 55546
Summary: Static functions that are fully inlined can end up in
the object file
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55544
Jörg Richter changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
Component|c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55545
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener 2012-11-30
13:11:38 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> Do you also have revision numbers in those logs?
Unfortunately not, but I can see that rev. 193357 was definitely ok
and rev. 193534 definitely br
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55547
Bug #: 55547
Summary: Alias analysis does not handle AND addresses correctly
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: no
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55544
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-11-30
13:14:24 UTC ---
For C++ you can use -ffloat-store (of course, the penalty for that is quite
big).
Or better -msse2 -mfpmath=sse if you don't need to support prehistoric HW.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55545
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener 2012-11-30
13:15:17 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> It seems to be compiling build-disjuncts.c btw.
which is from 197.parser - where the compiler currently is after two hours
(but in schedule_block
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55545
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener 2012-11-30
13:16:36 UTC ---
Oh, and 1080x seems to be what ulimit -t is for these jobs - thus this are
endless loops.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55073
--- Comment #7 from Eric Batut 2012-11-30
13:21:13 UTC ---
Richard,
I apologize, building at -O0 (and handrolling an assembly routine to do the
same computation) proves me wrong : your values are the correct ones, and -O1
is also broken
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55544
--- Comment #5 from Jörg Richter 2012-11-30 13:47:24
UTC ---
-ffloat-store works. But I dont want to use it in our project.
-msse2 -mfpmath=sse does not work.
I still see fildll,fnstcw,... instructions in the assembler listing.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51062
vincenzo Innocente changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|4.7.0 |4.8.0
--- Comment #3 from vincenzo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48549
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||steven at gcc dot gnu.org
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55073
--- Comment #8 from Richard Earnshaw 2012-11-30
14:00:21 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> Richard,
>
> I apologize, building at -O0 (and handrolling an assembly routine to do the
> same computation) proves me wrong : your values are t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55548
Bug #: 55548
Summary: SYSTEM_CLOCK with integer(8) provides nanosecond
resolution, but only microsecond precision (without
-lrt)
Classification: Unclassified
Pr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44102
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55542
--- Comment #3 from Jason Merrill 2012-11-30
14:19:40 UTC ---
The patch is OK.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55073
--- Comment #9 from Eric Batut 2012-11-30
14:29:11 UTC ---
Richard,
I double-checked (update + rebuild), the end of my assembly files correctly
states :
.ident"GCC: (GNU) 4.8.0 20121130 (experimental)"
Since -O1 is a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55549
Bug #: 55549
Summary: zero_extend and vectors
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55073
--- Comment #10 from Richard Earnshaw 2012-11-30
14:40:07 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #9)
> Do you think rebuilding arm-linux-androideabi-gcc on Linux to check if the
> generated code is the same is worth the time or is there no chance wh
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55073
--- Comment #11 from Richard Earnshaw 2012-11-30
14:55:25 UTC ---
Something else to check is that you are using the version of arm_neon.h that
comes with gcc-4.8. This file has to match the version of GCC it was designed
for.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55486
--- Comment #1 from dnovillo at google dot com
2012-11-30 15:14:10 UTC ---
On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 6:25 AM, kyrylo.tkachov at arm dot com
wrote:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55486
>
> Bug #: 55486
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55073
--- Comment #12 from Eric Batut
2012-11-30 15:16:47 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #11)
> Something else to check is that you are using the version of arm_neon.h that
> comes with gcc-4.8. This file has to match the version of GCC it was de
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55486
--- Comment #2 from Kyrill Tkachov 2012-11-30
15:38:33 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> > Target: arm-none-eabi
> >
> > gcc.dg/sms-7.c:17:1: internal compiler error: in schedule_reg_moves, at
> > modulo-sched.c:725
>
> Can you show
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55486
--- Comment #3 from dnovillo at google dot com
2012-11-30 15:53:02 UTC ---
On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 10:38 AM, kyrylo.tkachov at arm dot com
wrote:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55486
>
> --- Comment #2 from Kyrill Tkac
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55543
--- Comment #4 from Martin Gieseking
2012-11-30 15:56:00 UTC ---
Created attachment 28839
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28839
simplified sample code
I simplified the sample code a little bit by removing the static
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52890
--- Comment #13 from Martin Jambor 2012-11-30
16:11:41 UTC ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Fri Nov 30 16:11:33 2012
New Revision: 193998
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=193998
Log:
2012-11-30 Martin Jambor
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54386
--- Comment #10 from Martin Jambor 2012-11-30
16:11:43 UTC ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Fri Nov 30 16:11:33 2012
New Revision: 193998
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=193998
Log:
2012-11-30 Martin Jambor
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55448
--- Comment #5 from Martin Jambor 2012-11-30
16:11:44 UTC ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Fri Nov 30 16:11:33 2012
New Revision: 193998
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=193998
Log:
2012-11-30 Martin Jambor
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55415
--- Comment #5 from Martin Jambor 2012-11-30
16:11:43 UTC ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Fri Nov 30 16:11:33 2012
New Revision: 193998
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=193998
Log:
2012-11-30 Martin Jambor
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55073
--- Comment #13 from Eric Batut
2012-11-30 16:16:36 UTC ---
Richard,
After a clean checkout of gcc's trunk and of the Android NDK r8b package and
tools, I rebuilt arm-linux-androideabi-gcc on a Ubuntu VM using gcc 4.5.1. I
then rebuilt
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55073
--- Comment #14 from Eric Batut
2012-11-30 16:20:10 UTC ---
Created attachment 28840
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28840
Second repro case with source code, build script, assembly files and binary
files
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47477
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55543
--- Comment #5 from Kai Tietz 2012-11-30 16:56:10
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> As far as I know, mingw64 also uses SjLj, doesn't it? When creating a 64 bit
> executable with it, it runs correctly. Only the 32 bit binaries show this
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=0
Bug #: 0
Summary: internal compiler segmentation fault on openmp for
collapse
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1
Bug #: 1
Summary: Revision 193999 breaks lto/profiledbootstrap
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55465
--- Comment #13 from Juno Krahn 2012-11-30 17:21:08
UTC ---
This issue was once discussed by members of the Fortran standards committee. I
don't recall if that was on usenet or somewhere in the committee meeting notes.
The conclusion was t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=0
--- Comment #1 from Luc 2012-11-30 17:25:28 UTC ---
If I manually unfold the loop to 2 stages and use collapse(2), or if I unfold
it to 1 stage and use just a "parallel for" it gives the same error.
The whole loop works fine without this
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55073
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|F
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55451
--- Comment #3 from gretay at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-30 17:34:44 UTC ---
I am entirely following the explanation of the failure, but the patch fixes the
testsuite regression and the assembly generated for libgcc/_ssnegSQ.o seems
correct:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1
--- Comment #1 from Teresa Johnson 2012-11-30
17:38:07 UTC ---
Working on reproducing right now. Teresa
On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 9:20 AM, markus at trippelsdorf dot de
wrote:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1
>
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2
Bug #: 2
Summary: --enable-gold=default doesn't work with in-tree
binutils
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54470
--- Comment #2 from Martin Jambor 2012-11-30
17:49:07 UTC ---
The problem is that whereas on other platforms, hiphip4 looks like:
hiphip4 (struct S s)
{
void (*) (struct S *) _2;
:
_2 = s.f;
_2 (&s);
return;
}
on hpp
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=0
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55521
--- Comment #7 from Jack Howarth 2012-11-30
18:01:28 UTC ---
This issue is further analyzed and a potential fix to mach_override proposed in
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2012-November/056478.html.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55544
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=323
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||joerg.rich...@pdv-fs.de
--- Comme
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55073
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bernds at gcc dot gnu.org
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55545
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55541
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unas
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-p
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3
Bug #: 3
Summary: Segmentation fault when calling vector::push_back with
an initialized list
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
St
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54502
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||matt at godbolt dot org
--- Com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55286
--- Comment #13 from wbrana 2012-11-30 20:23:40 UTC
---
It seems it is caused by 182844
182839
ASSIGNMENT : 64.374 : 244.96 : 63.54
182844
ASSIGNMENT : 57.697 : 219.55 : 56.95
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55539
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55539
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Priority|P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54572
--- Comment #12 from Janne Blomqvist 2012-11-30
21:56:29 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #9)
> (In reply to comment #7)
> > Why are there no line numbers in the backtrace from gdb? You said you
> > compiled
> > with -g. Are you sure that
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54572
--- Comment #13 from Janne Blomqvist 2012-11-30
22:03:43 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #10)
> (In reply to comment #6)
> > Created attachment 28779 [details]
> > Patch to use libbacktrace
>
> I have to apply the following patch on your
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1
--- Comment #2 from Teresa Johnson 2012-11-30
22:05:22 UTC ---
Found the issue. Doing final testing, but the patch is below. FTR, I
couldn't do a slim-lto-bootstrap, it appears this config file is not
yet committed to trunk? Reproduced wit
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1
--- Comment #3 from Markus Trippelsdorf
2012-11-30 22:20:43 UTC ---
On 2012.11.30 at 22:05 +, tejohnson at google dot com wrote:
> Found the issue. Doing final testing, but the patch is below. FTR, I
> couldn't do a slim-lto-bootstrap,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55542
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-11-30
23:51:31 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Nov 30 23:51:26 2012
New Revision: 194010
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=194010
Log:
PR c++/55542
* pt.c (make_ith_p
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45216
Nick Kossifidis changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mickflemm at gmail dot com
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55521
--- Comment #8 from Jack Howarth 2012-12-01
01:50:37 UTC ---
Note that fixing this by replacing mach_override with interpose will require
FSF gcc to be enhanced to provide the missing blocks support (which was
developed after the GPLv3 tra
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45247
Kai Tietz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39820
Kai Tietz changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||leledumbo_cool at yahoo dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54572
--- Comment #14 from Ian Lance Taylor 2012-12-01 06:43:07
UTC ---
Thanks for the additional info.
#1 0x77bb53be in build_address_map (addrs=0x7fffc710,
data=0x7fffcf1c,
error_callback=0x77ad51f0 , is_bigendian=
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1
--- Comment #4 from Markus Trippelsdorf
2012-12-01 06:51:14 UTC ---
With your patch applied, Firefox fails to build:
/var/tmp/moz-build-dir/_virtualenv/bin/python
/var/tmp/mozilla-central/config/pythonpath.py -I../../../config
/var/tmp/
1 - 100 of 103 matches
Mail list logo
