http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55614
--- Comment #5 from Eric Botcazou 2012-12-07
14:57:28 UTC ---
> The difference from broken to working starts at the esra pass:
> :
> - MEM[(char * {ref-all})x_1].v = r$v_15;
> + MEM[(char * {ref-all})x_1] = r$v_15;
>x_8 = x_1 + 16
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55579
--- Comment #3 from Martin Jambor 2012-12-07
14:59:43 UTC ---
Created attachment 28896
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28896
Untested patch
I'm bootstrapping and testing this patch.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51494
kpx1894 changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kpx1894 at gmail dot com
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55614
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-12-07
15:28:30 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> How can a union have alignment 8 if it contains a field with alignment 128?
> That should only happen if the field is a bit-field...
That is what
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55614
--- Comment #7 from Eric Botcazou 2012-12-07
15:40:08 UTC ---
> That is what the memcpy folding folds it to. We could perhaps stop for
> 4.6/4.7
> doing such replacements in memcpy folding if it would try to decrease
> alignment
> of so
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55419
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unas
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55617
--- Comment #3 from Jack Howarth 2012-12-07
15:44:16 UTC ---
This might be due to the code...
/* Startup code should go to startup subsection unless it is
unlikely executed (this happens especially with function splitting
wh
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52275
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resoluti
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53696
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55395
--- Comment #15 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-12-07
16:04:33 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Dec 7 16:04:26 2012
New Revision: 194304
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=194304
Log:
PR fortran/55395
* varpool.c (
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53696
--- Comment #5 from Paolo Carlini 2012-12-07
16:20:35 UTC ---
If you want me to revert that patchlet of mine don't be afraid to ask, after
all was just an ice on invalid, no big deal. Can do that immediately and then
we have all the time t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53696
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-12-07
16:27:14 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> If you want me to revert that patchlet of mine don't be afraid to ask, after
> all was just an ice on invalid, no big deal. Can do that immediately an
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39464
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unas
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52573
--- Comment #8 from Andreas Schwab 2012-12-07 16:45:49
UTC ---
The failure disappeared somewhere between r190830 and r191055.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54401
--- Comment #2 from Dodji Seketeli 2012-12-07
17:05:40 UTC ---
Author: dodji
Date: Fri Dec 7 17:05:19 2012
New Revision: 194306
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=194306
Log:
PR c++/54401 - Confusing diagnostics about type-a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54401
Dodji Seketeli changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55610
--- Comment #4 from Jack Howarth 2012-12-07
17:35:00 UTC ---
--- gcc-4.7.2/gcc/config/host-darwin.c.orig 2012-12-07 11:30:48.0
-0500
+++ gcc-4.7.2/gcc/config/host-darwin.c 2012-12-07 11:39:21.0 -0500
@@ -57,8 +57,8 @@
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54814
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55610
--- Comment #5 from Jack Howarth 2012-12-07
18:03:05 UTC ---
It appears that the change in Comment 4 only works if dragonegg is built with
clang. Using the patch from
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2012-December/056882.html to allow
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55466
--- Comment #10 from H.J. Lu 2012-12-07 18:49:10
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> This patch:
>
> diff --git a/gcc/lto-symtab.c b/gcc/lto-symtab.c
> index 0b0cdac..295fd37 100644
> --- a/gcc/lto-symtab.c
> +++ b/gcc/lto-symtab.c
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55618
Bug #: 55618
Summary: [4.6/4.7/4.8 Regression] Failures with
ISO_Varying_String test suite
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55127
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unas
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55141
--- Comment #4 from Vladimir Makarov 2012-12-07
21:06:49 UTC ---
Author: vmakarov
Date: Fri Dec 7 21:06:38 2012
New Revision: 194308
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=194308
Log:
2012-12-07 Vladimir Makarov
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55534
--- Comment #5 from Harald Anlauf 2012-12-07 21:09:50
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> * With the patch and the warning activated, the compiler crashes in
> gcc/incpath.c's remove_duplicates for cur->name == "/no/such/dir".
Yes, I get
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55618
--- Comment #1 from Tobias Burnus 2012-12-07
21:13:57 UTC ---
Created attachment 28898
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28898
Test case (still depends on the iso_varying_string module)
Slightly reduced test case - sti
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55547
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|un
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54814
--- Comment #4 from Steven Bosscher 2012-12-07
22:02:43 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> R0 is a fixed register, it should not be used for spilling or be allocated by
> IRA.
But apparently RA believes it has to, to satisfy some constr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52857
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54814
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||steven at gcc dot gnu.org
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55547
--- Comment #4 from Alexandre Oliva 2012-12-07
23:29:28 UTC ---
I don't understand how this sort of unaligned access that modifies unrelated
objects can fit in with any reasonable threaded memory model, but I guess
that's beyond the scope
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55513
--- Comment #10 from Aldy Hernandez 2012-12-08
01:20:33 UTC ---
Author: aldyh
Date: Sat Dec 8 01:19:13 2012
New Revision: 194316
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=194316
Log:
PR c++/55513
* semantics.c (c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55513
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55617
--- Comment #4 from Jack Howarth 2012-12-08
03:14:29 UTC ---
The failing testcase in gdb appears as...
gdb ./covariant3.exe
...
(gdb) br _GLOBAL__sub_I_covariant3.C
Breakpoint 1 at 0x11ce2: file covariant3.C, line 85.
(gdb) displa
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55419
--- Comment #4 from Jason Merrill 2012-12-08
03:31:33 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Sat Dec 8 03:31:25 2012
New Revision: 194317
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=194317
Log:
PR c++/55419
* tree.c (build_ta
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55127
--- Comment #6 from Jason Merrill 2012-12-08
03:31:43 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Sat Dec 8 03:31:37 2012
New Revision: 194318
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=194318
Log:
PR c++/55127
* search.c (access
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55419
--- Comment #5 from Jason Merrill 2012-12-08
03:32:06 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Sat Dec 8 03:31:56 2012
New Revision: 194319
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=194319
Log:
PR c++/55419
* tree.c (build_ta
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55419
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55127
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55619
Bug #: 55619
Summary: [4.8 Regression] Chromium build fails with: error:
memory input is not directly addressable
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55619
--- Comment #1 from Markus Trippelsdorf
2012-12-08 07:48:26 UTC ---
Created attachment 28899
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28899
testcase
101 - 140 of 140 matches
Mail list logo
