--- Comment #7 from mark at codesourcery dot com 2005-10-28 02:16 ---
Subject: Re: no static definition
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> Not really as unit at a time is considered an optimization and the C++
> front-end just turns it on always.
I don't think that
--- Comment #15 from mark at codesourcery dot com 2005-10-30 22:33 ---
Subject: Re: [3.4/4.0/4.1 regression] Minor compilation
problem for cross to Solaris 8
What's this "4.1blocker-" stuff about? This certainly isn't a 4.1
blocker, and that information is alr
--- Comment #17 from mark at codesourcery dot com 2005-10-30 22:38 ---
Subject: Re: [3.4/4.0/4.1 regression] Minor compilation
problem for cross to Solaris 8
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> --- Comment #16 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-30 22
--- Comment #7 from mark at codesourcery dot com 2005-10-31 07:44 ---
Subject: Re: [3.4/4.0/4.1 Regression] bitfield layout
change (regression?)
steven at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> --- Comment #6 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-31 07:21
> ---
> This
--- Comment #21 from mark at codesourcery dot com 2010-02-18 19:47 ---
Subject: Re: warnings about 'mangling of 'va_list' has changed
in GCC 4.4' not suppressed in sytem headers
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> In any case, using diagnostic_report_warni
--- Comment #15 from mark at codesourcery dot com 2010-04-20 22:18 ---
Subject: Re: [DR 1022] G++ is too aggressive in optimizing
away bounds checking with enums
jason at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> Certainly optimizing away bounds checking is good when it is provably
> red
--- Additional Comments From mark at codesourcery dot com 2005-06-22 19:46
---
Subject: Re: [4.0 Regression] libstdc++ abi_check
bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> --- Additional Comments From bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-22
> 18:17 ---
>
> I'd lik
--- Additional Comments From mark at codesourcery dot com 2005-06-23 15:04
---
Subject: Re: [4.0/4.1 regression] Spurious ambiguity with
pointers to members
bangerth at dealii dot org wrote:
> --- Additional Comments From bangerth at dealii dot org 2005-06-23 14
--- Additional Comments From mark at codesourcery dot com 2005-06-23 15:20
---
Subject: Re: [4.0/4.1 regression] Spurious ambiguity with
pointers to members
bangerth at ices dot utexas dot edu wrote:
> --- Additional Comments From bangerth at ices dot utexas dot edu
> 2
--- Additional Comments From mark at codesourcery dot com 2005-06-26 00:45
---
Subject: Re: [4.0/4.1 regression] Spurious ambiguity with
pointers to members
bangerth at ices dot utexas dot edu wrote:
> --- Additional Comments From bangerth at ices dot utexas dot edu
> 2
--- Additional Comments From mark at codesourcery dot com 2005-07-08 01:56
---
Subject: Re: [4.0/4.1 Regression] debug info omitted for
uninitialized variables
wilson at specifix dot com wrote:
> I think you are just compounding the mistake created by Mark Mitchell's
> p
--- Additional Comments From mark at codesourcery dot com 2005-07-15 00:30
---
Subject: Re: [4.0 Regression] libgcj build fails with
"execvp: /bin/sh: Argument list too long"
bonzini at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> --- Additional Comments From bonzini at gcc dot gnu
--- Additional Comments From mark at codesourcery dot com 2005-07-20 14:40
---
Subject: Re: [4.0/4.1 Regression] debug info omitted for
uninitialized variables
jakub at redhat dot com wrote:
> --- Additional Comments From jakub at redhat dot com 2005-07-20 11:41
> -
--- Additional Comments From mark at codesourcery dot com 2005-07-22 06:25
---
Subject: Re: [4.0/4.1 Regression] debug info omitted for
uninitialized variables
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> I will try a test run with my patch reverted; if that passes, and still fi
--- Additional Comments From mark at codesourcery dot com 2005-07-22 06:52
---
Subject: Re: [4.0/4.1 Regression] debug info omitted for
uninitialized variables
mark at codesourcery dot com wrote:
> Unfortunately, it failed -- gcc.dg/pch/global-1.c fails at -O3.
>
> I hav
--- Additional Comments From mark at codesourcery dot com 2005-07-22 20:49
---
Subject: Re: [4.0 Regression] debug info omitted for uninitialized
variables
hjl at lucon dot org wrote:
> --- Additional Comments From hjl at lucon dot org 2005-07-22 20:44
> ---
> M
--- Additional Comments From mark at codesourcery dot com 2005-07-22 20:51
---
Subject: Re: [4.0 Regression] C++ debug is broken
hjl at lucon dot org wrote:
> --- Additional Comments From hjl at lucon dot org 2005-07-22 20:45
> ---
> The bug came back with the patc
--- Additional Comments From mark at codesourcery dot com 2005-07-22 21:02
---
Subject: Re: [4.0 Regression] debug info omitted for uninitialized
variables
hjl at lucon dot org wrote:
> --- Additional Comments From hjl at lucon dot org 2005-07-22 20:53
> ---
> I a
--- Additional Comments From mark at codesourcery dot com 2005-07-22 23:43
---
Subject: Re: [4.0 Regression] debug info omitted for uninitialized
variables
Devang Patel wrote:
>
> $ gdb --batch -x gdbcmds t
> Reading symbols for shared libraries ... done
> Breakpoint
--- Additional Comments From mark at codesourcery dot com 2005-08-02 03:25
---
Subject: Re: [4.0/4.1 Regression] debug info omitted for
uninitialized variables (stabs)
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> --- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08
--- Additional Comments From mark at codesourcery dot com 2005-08-02 17:16
---
Subject: Re: [4.0/4.1 Regression] debug info omitted for
uninitialized variables (stabs)
dpatel at apple dot com wrote:
> --- Additional Comments From dpatel at apple dot com 2005-08-02 17
--- Additional Comments From mark at codesourcery dot com 2005-08-05 03:49
---
Subject: Re: error: '' is/uses anonymous type'
sethml at google dot com wrote:
> --- Additional Comments From sethml at google dot com 2005-08-05 03:43
> ---
> The C++ wor
--- Additional Comments From mark at codesourcery dot com 2005-08-09 23:53
---
Subject: Re: [4.0/4.1 Regression] ICE on illegal code: "extern
static" struct member
reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> --- Additional Comments From reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot or
--- Additional Comments From mark at codesourcery dot com 2005-08-25 17:22
---
Subject: Re: nonoverlapping_memrefs_p returns
true even for overlapping memory references
rth at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> And in the case in question, it's quite obviously an off-by-one bu
--- Comment #10 from mark at codesourcery dot com 2010-01-15 15:05 ---
Subject: Re: FAIL: g++.dg/tree-ssa/new1.C scan-tree-dump-not
forwprop1 "= .* \+ -"
ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> So yes it does look ARM specific . Also peeking at results on gcc-testresu
--- Comment #9 from mark at codesourcery dot com 2010-01-27 20:04 ---
Subject: Re: warnings about 'mangling of 'va_list' has changed
in GCC 4.4' not suppressed in sytem headers
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com wrote:
> If you say 'consider' and
--- Comment #15 from mark at codesourcery dot com 2010-01-29 15:12 ---
Subject: Re: warnings about 'mangling of 'va_list' has changed
in GCC 4.4' not suppressed in sytem headers
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> Why is this a note and not simply a warn
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45375
--- Comment #69 from Mark Mitchell 2011-04-05
00:16:02 UTC ---
On 4/4/2011 3:19 AM, froydnj at codesourcery dot com wrote:
> Do folks think it would be useful to include a breakdown by individual
> TREE_CODE, similar to what's done for RTXes?
S
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46770
--- Comment #16 from Mark Mitchell 2010-12-11
18:50:11 UTC ---
On 12/11/2010 10:47 AM, hjl.tools at gmail dot com wrote:
> Linker supports sorting .ctors.N and .init_array..
> Within .ctors.N and .init_array., the order is define
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46770
--- Comment #18 from Mark Mitchell 2010-12-11
19:33:17 UTC ---
On 12/11/2010 11:03 AM, hjl.tools at gmail dot com wrote:
> I am not sure about GOLD. But it usually follows GNU linker.
> For GNU linker, the constructor priority is honored within
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46770
--- Comment #24 from Mark Mitchell 2010-12-11
19:56:43 UTC ---
On 12/11/2010 11:53 AM, hjl.tools at gmail dot com wrote:
>> You have to be more specific about what you meant by "interleaving".
Constructor priorities are a GNU C extension:
__
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46770
--- Comment #27 from Mark Mitchell 2010-12-11
20:19:23 UTC ---
On 12/11/2010 12:17 PM, hjl.tools at gmail dot com wrote:
> I don't think GCC really supports interleaving constructor priority
> at binary level. Unless GCC can guarantees one can i
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46770
--- Comment #29 from Mark Mitchell 2010-12-11
21:06:41 UTC ---
On 12/11/2010 1:01 PM, hubicka at ucw dot cz wrote:
> So I take that, the ctor order is to support priotities, since the
> .ctor.priority sections get merged into single and ordered
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46770
--- Comment #32 from Mark Mitchell 2010-12-11
23:19:05 UTC ---
On 12/11/2010 2:56 PM, hjl.tools at gmail dot com wrote:
> It works at source code level. I don't believe we ever support
> "interleaving constructor priorities" between object files
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46770
--- Comment #34 from Mark Mitchell 2010-12-11
23:30:19 UTC ---
On 12/11/2010 3:28 PM, hjl.tools at gmail dot com wrote:
> 1. How do you find out what priority "foo" constructor has?
If you're looking at source code, read the source. If you're
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46770
--- Comment #36 from Mark Mitchell 2010-12-11
23:54:44 UTC ---
On 12/11/2010 3:48 PM, hjl.tools at gmail dot com wrote:
> 1. __attribute__((init_priority(1005))) doesn't map to
> .ctors.1005 section.
It probably maps to .ctors.(65535-1005). T
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46770
--- Comment #38 from Mark Mitchell 2010-12-12
00:03:22 UTC ---
On 12/11/2010 4:00 PM, hjl.tools at gmail dot com wrote:
> Really? Here is a testcase. Do you think goo's constructor
> will be called before another constructor in another file
> w
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46770
--- Comment #40 from Mark Mitchell 2010-12-12
00:11:56 UTC ---
On 12/11/2010 4:08 PM, hjl.tools at gmail dot com wrote:
> We only support constructor priority in single source file:
H.J., this is false.
Please try writing three constructors, w
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46770
--- Comment #43 from Mark Mitchell 2010-12-12
00:24:30 UTC ---
On 12/11/2010 4:20 PM, hjl.tools at gmail dot com wrote:
> That means we only guarantee constructor priorities in one TU and
> my testcase confirms it.
HJ, this isn't true.
The exp
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46770
--- Comment #46 from Mark Mitchell 2010-12-12
18:40:35 UTC ---
On 12/11/2010 4:32 PM, hjl.tools at gmail dot com wrote:
> Mark, I may have misunderstood you. Correct me if I am wrong.
> Currently, it may be possible to interleave constructors
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46770
--- Comment #62 from Mark Mitchell 2010-12-14
15:17:25 UTC ---
> Having everyone with knowledge of static construction alerted, can't we use
> the
> GNU constructor priorities to solve PR44952?
The two constraints are:
(a) priorities aren't su
--- Comment #6 from mark at codesourcery dot com 2007-10-28 22:46 ---
Subject: Re: INIT_PRIORITY is broken
danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> With respect to initpr1.c, it can be seen that only one "GLOBAL" constructor,
> _GLOBAL__I_0_c1, and one &qu
--- Comment #8 from mark at codesourcery dot com 2007-10-30 02:50 ---
Subject: Re: INIT_PRIORITY is broken
dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca wrote:
>> I don't think this will be too hard to implement. In
>> cgraph_build_cdtor_fns, we need to partition/sort th
--- Comment #12 from mark at codesourcery dot com 2007-11-01 16:50 ---
Subject: Re: INIT_PRIORITY is broken
danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> --- Comment #11 from danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-01 03:05
> ---
> Mark,
>
> This is major pro
--- Comment #30 from mark at codesourcery dot com 2007-11-27 18:58 ---
Subject: Re: [4.3 regression] udivdi3 counterproductive,
unwarranted use
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> --- Comment #29 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-27 09:43
> ---
> Thi
--- Comment #35 from mark at codesourcery dot com 2007-11-27 19:45 ---
Subject: Re: [4.3 regression] udivdi3 counterproductive,
unwarranted use
bunk at stusta dot de wrote:
> Even if this specific issue in the kernel would turn out as a misoptimization,
> the general problem
--- Comment #15 from mark at codesourcery dot com 2007-12-17 04:34 ---
Subject: Re: [4.3 Regression] Revision 129442 breaks
libstc++ API
rguenther at suse dot de wrote:
> Now that we have ext/hash_map and ext/hash_set back (yes, SPEC2000
> eon still is broken, as it uses the r
--- Comment #18 from mark at codesourcery dot com 2007-12-26 21:19 ---
Subject: Re: [4.2/4.3 regression] ICE with incompatible types
for ?: with "complex type" conversion
gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> I'm very nervous about adding more constructors.
> I
--- Comment #39 from mark at codesourcery dot com 2008-01-04 04:43 ---
Subject: Re: [4.3 regression] udivdi3 counterproductive,
unwarranted use
fche at redhat dot com wrote:
>> Downgrading to P4. We seem to have consensus that this is [not] a GCC
>> wrong-code
>&
--- Comment #22 from mark at codesourcery dot com 2008-01-05 07:55 ---
Subject: Re: [4.2/4.3 regression] ICE with incompatible types
for ?: with "complex type" conversion
gdr at cs dot tamu dot edu wrote:
> | > I'd rather distinguish the constructor taking
--- Comment #24 from mark at codesourcery dot com 2008-01-06 21:06 ---
Subject: Re: [4.2/4.3 regression] ICE with incompatible types
for ?: with "complex type" conversion
gdr at cs dot tamu dot edu wrote:
> | I'm not sure what you mean by that. It's a pub
--- Comment #26 from mark at codesourcery dot com 2008-01-07 01:16 ---
Subject: Re: [4.2/4.3 regression] ICE with incompatible types
for ?: with "complex type" conversion
gdr at cs dot tamu dot edu wrote:
> I would not bet money that nobody is not using it. However, th
--- Comment #30 from mark at codesourcery dot com 2008-01-07 07:44 ---
Subject: Re: [4.2/4.3 regression] ICE with incompatible types
for ?: with "complex type" conversion
gdr at cs dot tamu dot edu wrote:
> | Is it conceivable that ISO C++ will ever add a
> | comp
--- Comment #31 from mark at codesourcery dot com 2008-01-07 07:48 ---
Subject: Re: [4.2/4.3 regression] ICE with incompatible types
for ?: with "complex type" conversion
gdr at cs dot tamu dot edu wrote:
> But, as that hypothetical user, I would not have any ground
--- Comment #34 from mark at codesourcery dot com 2008-01-07 16:17 ---
Subject: Re: [4.2/4.3 regression] ICE with incompatible types
for ?: with "complex type" conversion
gdr at cs dot tamu dot edu wrote:
> | What's the likely change?
>
> Ban implicit narro
--- Comment #36 from mark at codesourcery dot com 2008-01-08 03:39 ---
Subject: Re: [4.2/4.3 regression] ICE with incompatible types
for ?: with "complex type" conversion
gdr at cs dot tamu dot edu wrote:
> | (Both have
> | values unrepresentable in the other, of
--- Comment #25 from mark at codesourcery dot com 2008-01-16 22:27 ---
Subject: Re: [4.3 Regression] Revision 129442 breaks
libstc++ API
bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> I believe there is a bit of a bias here, in that it's OK to make FE changes,
> but even well-doc
--- Comment #9 from mark at codesourcery dot com 2008-06-08 20:23 ---
Subject: Re: [4.3/4.4 Regression]: HOSTCC doesn't work
with unstalled gcc
hjl dot tools at gmail dot com wrote:
> How does gcc search the right paths when GCC_EXEC_PREFIX points
> to non-existent direct
--- Comment #11 from mark at codesourcery dot com 2008-06-08 21:12 ---
Subject: Re: [4.3/4.4 Regression]: HOSTCC doesn't work
with unstalled gcc
hjl dot tools at gmail dot com wrote:
>> I suspect that if you remove the setting in site.exp you will break the
>> f
--- Comment #13 from mark at codesourcery dot com 2008-06-09 00:05 ---
Subject: Re: [4.3/4.4 Regression]: HOSTCC doesn't work
with unstalled gcc
hjl dot tools at gmail dot com wrote:
>>>> 1. User puts libraries/headers in $pefix/{lib,include}
>>>
--- Comment #17 from mark at codesourcery dot com 2008-06-09 21:16 ---
Subject: Re: [4.3/4.4 Regression]: HOSTCC doesn't work
with unstalled gcc
hjl dot tools at gmail dot com wrote:
> --- Comment #16 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2008-06-09 14:16
> ---
>
--- Comment #19 from mark at codesourcery dot com 2008-06-10 00:38 ---
Subject: Re: [4.3/4.4 Regression]: HOSTCC doesn't work
with installed gcc
hjl dot tools at gmail dot com wrote:
> They sound to me the ideal usage for --sysroot. They aren't from
> gcc and they d
--- Comment #21 from mark at codesourcery dot com 2008-06-10 05:02 ---
Subject: Re: [4.3/4.4 Regression]: HOSTCC doesn't work
with installed gcc
hjl dot tools at gmail dot com wrote:
>>> --syroot supports libraries and headers. Does it support
>>> assemble
--- Comment #6 from mark at codesourcery dot com 2008-07-08 16:32 ---
Subject: Re: Simple std::bind use causes warnings with -Wextra
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com wrote:
> Thanks Tom. In fact, yesterday I was writing without remembering my past
> analyses of this type of
--- Comment #13 from mark at codesourcery dot com 2008-07-09 19:08 ---
Subject: Re: Simple std::bind use causes warnings with -Wextra
bangerth at dealii dot org wrote:
> --- Comment #10 from bangerth at dealii dot org 2008-07-09 17:04 ---
> (In reply to comment #8)
&g
--- Comment #9 from mark at codesourcery dot com 2008-07-10 03:42 ---
Subject: Re: [4.4 regression] warning "array subscript is
below array bounds" on delete [] with -O2, -Wall
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com wrote:
> Mark, could you possibly comment on this PR? W
--- Comment #14 from mark at codesourcery dot com 2008-07-10 14:58 ---
Subject: Re: [4.4 regression] warning "array subscript is
below array bounds" on delete [] with -O2, -Wall
rguenther at suse dot de wrote:
> Can the FE mark this array-access with TREE_NO_WARNING?
--- Comment #7 from mark at codesourcery dot com 2008-07-14 15:28 ---
Subject: Re: ICE on SFINAE and __is_empty
sebor at roguewave dot com wrote:
> My preference would be for gcc to avoid imposing restrictions on the use
> of these helpers to facilitate portability to other com
--- Comment #9 from mark at codesourcery dot com 2008-07-14 16:53 ---
Subject: Re: ICE on SFINAE and __is_empty
sebor at roguewave dot com wrote:
> int foo >(B, __is_empty (A<0>)>::X*):
> _Z3fooI1AILi0EEEiPN1BIT_Xv19builtin16TOS3_EE1XE
>
--- Comment #19 from mark at codesourcery dot com 2006-02-01 08:21 ---
Subject: Re: [4.0/4.1/4.2 Regression] ICE on throw code
rakdver at atrey dot karlin dot mff dot cuni dot cz wrote:
>>Zdenek, have you submitted the patch yet for mainline?
>
> no, I was waiting for
--- Comment #8 from mark at codesourcery dot com 2006-02-14 01:21 ---
Subject: Re: [4.0/4.1 regression] ICE in reload_cse_simplify_operands,
at postreload.c:391
Joern RENNECKE wrote:
> No, it is just a matter of what is desired for the branch. Mark, would
> you like
&
--- Comment #6 from mark at codesourcery dot com 2006-02-14 19:26 ---
Subject: Re: [4.0/4.1/4.2 regression] Trouble with static
const data members in template classes
reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> --- Comment #5 from reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-14 17
--- Comment #17 from mark at codesourcery dot com 2006-02-15 01:56 ---
Subject: Re: [4.1/4.2 Regression] reload leaves insns
from earlier passes around: fatal for postinc
Joern RENNECKE wrote:
> I have started regression tests for i686-pc-linux-gnu native, X arm-elf,
> X cris-
--- Comment #20 from mark at codesourcery dot com 2006-02-24 02:17 ---
Subject: Re: [4.0/4.1/4.2 regression] rejects "i"(&var
+ 1)
mrs at apple dot com wrote:
> --- Comment #19 from mrs at apple dot com 2006-02-24 02:14 ---
> This was not 4.1.0 before, it
--- Comment #6 from mark at codesourcery dot com 2006-02-24 19:14 ---
Subject: Re: [4.1/4.2 Regression] gcc fails to build on
powerpc e500-double targets
edmar at freescale dot com wrote:
> I started a build. This is a very slow target, it will take several hours...
If you'
--- Comment #8 from mark at codesourcery dot com 2006-02-24 21:07 ---
Subject: Re: [4.1/4.2 Regression] gcc fails to build on
powerpc e500-double targets
edmar at freescale dot com wrote:
> --- Comment #7 from edmar at freescale dot com 2006-02-24 20:45 ---
> Crea
--- Comment #19 from mark at codesourcery dot com 2006-02-28 00:25 ---
Subject: Re: [4.0 Regression] ICE with const int copied into
two different functions
rakdver at atrey dot karlin dot mff dot cuni dot cz wrote:
> --- Comment #18 from rakdver at atrey dot karlin dot mff
--- Additional Comments From mark at codesourcery dot com 2005-04-22 00:58
---
Subject: Re: [PR c++/21087] don't keep builtin anticipated decl, override
it with actual declaration
Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> When push_overloaded_decl() was passed a new declaration that mat
--- Additional Comments From mark at codesourcery dot com 2005-04-24 17:05
---
Subject: Re: [PR c++/21087] don't keep builtin anticipated decl, override
it with actual declaration
Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>
> Ok for 4.0 branch as well? The same patch applies cleanly there,
--- Additional Comments From mark at codesourcery dot com 2005-05-02 14:56
---
Subject: Re: New: [3.4 regression] ICE with pointer to member
in template
reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> The testcase in PR 15875 started ICE'ing on the 3.4 branch again:
> Mark, t
--- Additional Comments From mark at codesourcery dot com 2005-05-03 19:35
---
Subject: Re: [4.0 Regression] Reload may generate
stores to read-only memory
Jeffrey A Law wrote:
> On Sat, 2005-04-30 at 22:10 +, ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org
>
--- Additional Comments From mark at codesourcery dot com 2005-05-04 16:33
---
Subject: Re: [3.4 regression] Infinite memory
allocation on -O3
giovannibajo at libero dot it wrote:
> --- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2005-05-04
> 12:12 ---
&
--- Additional Comments From mark at codesourcery dot com 2005-05-09 00:20
---
Subject: Re: [4.0 Regression] Reload may generate
stores to read-only memory
ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> --- Additional Comments From ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-07
>
--- Additional Comments From mark at codesourcery dot com 2005-05-10 15:20
---
Subject: Re: [3.4 regression] Infinite memory
allocation on -O3
schwab at suse dot de wrote:
> --- Additional Comments From schwab at suse dot de 2005-05-10 13:23
> ---
> This is
--- Additional Comments From mark at codesourcery dot com 2005-05-11 23:06
---
Subject: Re: New: 3.4.4 RC1 fails libstdc++ install
on powerpc64-linux
janis at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> GCC 3.4.4 RC1 fails "make install" for powerpc64-linux. Recent builds
> from
--- Additional Comments From mark at codesourcery dot com 2005-05-12 15:15
---
Subject: Re: libstdc++-v3 testsuite hangs on cygwin
pcarlini at suse dot de wrote:
> --- Additional Comments From pcarlini at suse dot de 2005-05-12 10:02
> ---
> In other terms, we sh
--- Additional Comments From mark at codesourcery dot com 2005-05-12 15:32
---
Subject: Re: libstdc++-v3 testsuite hangs on cygwin
pcarlini at suse dot de wrote:
> --- Additional Comments From pcarlini at suse dot de 2005-05-12 15:23
> ---
> Thanks a lot Mark. At t
--- Additional Comments From mark at codesourcery dot com 2005-05-12 18:06
---
Subject: Re: New: 3.4.4 RC1 fails libstdc++ install
on powerpc64-linux
Janis --
Would you please try the attached patch for 3.4? I have a similar patch
for 4.0 which I will attach soon.
If this doesn&#
--- Additional Comments From mark at codesourcery dot com 2005-05-13 00:37
---
Subject: Re: libstdc++-v3 testsuite hangs on cygwin
david dot billinghurst at comalco dot riotinto dot com dot au wrote:
> --- Additional Comments From david dot billinghurst at comalco dot
> ri
--- Additional Comments From mark at codesourcery dot com 2005-05-13 01:01
---
Subject: Re: [4.0 Regression] 3.4.4 RC1 fails libstdc++
install on powerpc64-linux
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> --- Additional Comments From mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05
--- Additional Comments From mark at codesourcery dot com 2005-05-13 06:18
---
Subject: Re: [4.0/4.1 Regression] g++.dg/opt/temp1.C
execution test fails
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> --- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-12
>
--- Additional Comments From mark at codesourcery dot com 2005-05-16 00:17
---
Subject: Re: g++.dg/opt/temp1.C should be optimized
elsewhere
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> --- Additional Comments From rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-15
> 19:30 ---
--- Additional Comments From mark at codesourcery dot com 2005-05-17 21:40
---
Subject: Re: libstdc++ headers should have pop/push
of the visibility around the declarations
pcarlini at suse dot de wrote:
> --- Additional Comments From pcarlini at suse dot de 2005-05-17 19
--- Additional Comments From mark at codesourcery dot com 2005-05-17 21:58
---
Subject: Re: libstdc++ headers should have pop/push
of the visibility around the declarations
hjl at lucon dot org wrote:
> --- Additional Comments From hjl at lucon dot org 2005-05-17 21
--- Additional Comments From mark at codesourcery dot com 2005-05-19 19:21
---
Subject: Re: libstdc++ headers should have pop/push
of the visibility around the declarations
bernie at develer dot com wrote:
> It's not a regresion, but it causes KDE to miscompile
> wit
--- Additional Comments From mark at codesourcery dot com 2005-05-20 18:48
---
Subject: Re: libstdc++ headers should have pop/push
of the visibility around the declarations
lanius at gentoo dot org wrote:
> --- Additional Comments From lanius at gentoo dot org 2005-05-20 08
--- Additional Comments From mark at codesourcery dot com 2005-05-29 17:18
---
Subject: Re: [3.4 regression] local classes as template argument
Geoffrey Keating wrote:
> Hi Mark,
>
> Consider this code:
>
> struct Attribute { };
> template void fun (const Attrib
--- Additional Comments From mark at codesourcery dot com 2005-06-05 17:35
---
Subject: Re: [4.0 regression] __builtin_constant_p(&"Hello"[0])?1:-1
not compile-time constant
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> --- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot
--- Additional Comments From mark at codesourcery dot com 2005-06-05 17:57
---
Subject: Re: [4.0 regression] __builtin_constant_p(&"Hello"[0])?1:-1
not compile-time constant
mark at codesourcery dot com wrote:
> --- Additional Comments From mark at codesourcery
--- Additional Comments From mark at codesourcery dot com 2005-06-06 00:15
---
Subject: Re: [4.0/4.1 Regression] debug info omitted for
global variables
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> --- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-05
>
201 - 300 of 339 matches
Mail list logo
