On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 12:27 AM, Steve Ellcey s...@cup.hp.com wrote:
On Mon, 2011-02-28 at 23:56 +0100, Richard Guenther wrote:
The gcc_personality is provided by libgcc_s I think, it's what you
get when compiling C code with -fexceptions and install
cleanup handlers.
It seems that LTO
On 21/02/11 10:12, Guillem Jover wrote:
This was already discussed in this list some time ago [0]. But it came
up again when restarting the discussion for the proposed new armhf port
for Debian.
[0]http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2010-07/msg00179.html
My arguments for why a distinct triplet is
2011/2/28 Georg-Johann Lay a...@gjlay.de:
Denis Chertykov schrieb:
2011/2/26 Georg-Johann Lay a...@gjlay.de:
Ok, this is the patch I meant:
http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?view=revisionrevision=86842
it allows just Pmode in r29:r28 because of some spill failures in PR15417
and PR12017.
It
On Tue, 2011-03-01 at 11:10 +0100, Richard Guenther wrote:
It comes from the fact that we delay choosing a personality function
for functions that are happy with any personality. There is
the function_needs_eh_personality () function that decides this.
If you force that to never return
AFAIK, Cortex-M3 has single-cycle multiply, right?
I'm seeing gcc 4.5.2 prefering to do a lot (up to 5) of adds w/ shifts
in places where a single mult would suffice.
If I'm interpreting it right, where are the costs computed?
Thanks!
Alexandre
Steve Ellcey s...@cup.hp.com writes:
According to PR 20095 the reason for not implementing
__gcc_personality_v0 is that the HP unwind library does not implement
_UA_END_OF_STACK which is a GCC extension to the standard IA64 unwind
ABI and the HP-UX system unwind does not support it so the
Snapshot gcc-4.4-20110301 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.4-20110301/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.4 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches
On Tue, 2011-03-01 at 13:45 -0800, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
Steve Ellcey s...@cup.hp.com writes:
According to PR 20095 the reason for not implementing
__gcc_personality_v0 is that the HP unwind library does not implement
_UA_END_OF_STACK which is a GCC extension to the standard IA64 unwind
Liqin --
The GCC SC has appointed you the maintainer of the SCORE back-end.
Congratulations!
As we've discussed previously, the mere fact that there is a maintainer
for a port does not imply that the port will not be deprecated or
removed. So, I hope that you will be able to actively maintain
-darwin10.7.0/lib/ -isystem
/sw/lib/gcc4.6/x86_64-apple-darwin10.7.0/include -isystem
/sw/lib/gcc4.6/x86_64-apple-darwin10.7.0/sys-include-DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I.
-I../../../gcc-4.6-20110301/libjava -I./include -I./gcj
-I../../../gcc-4.6-20110301/libjava -Iinclude
-I../../../gcc-4.6-20110301
On 02/03/2011 03:23, Jack Howarth wrote:
Is anyone else building java with lto-bootstrap? At r170606 I am seeing a
bootstrap
failure which appears as...
make[4]: *** No rule to make target `.deps/gij.Plo'. Stop.
make[3]: *** [all-multi] Error 2
make[3]: *** Waiting for unfinished
On Wed, Mar 02, 2011 at 04:58:41AM +, Dave Korn wrote:
On 02/03/2011 03:23, Jack Howarth wrote:
Is anyone else building java with lto-bootstrap? At r170606 I am seeing
a bootstrap
failure which appears as...
make[4]: *** No rule to make target `.deps/gij.Plo'. Stop.
make[3]:
On 02/03/2011 05:10, Jack Howarth wrote:
I tried again without --enable-build-with-cxx and it worked. I'll see if I
can
reproduce it again with --enable-build-with-cxx.
Bizarre. Can't see how that would be related, but you never know what kind
of odd knock-on effects a bug can have...
Hello Dave,
* Dave Korn wrote on Wed, Mar 02, 2011 at 06:28:15AM CET:
http://mad-scientist.net/make/autodep.html
although note that where that recommends using -include (under
Avoiding ``No rule to make target ...'' Errors) to ignore would-be
errors from trying to include non-existent
On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 7:29 AM, Ian Lance Taylor i...@google.com wrote:
Liu pro...@gmail.com writes:
I write a v16hi mode Unpack Low Data insn pattern and it is OK. v8si
and v4di modes are OK, too.
But the v32qi mode Unpack Low Data insn pattern get error like:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45381
m...@gcc.gnu.org mrs at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47832
m...@gcc.gnu.org mrs at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mrs at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47938
Summary: libgfortran symbol version node bumped unnecessarily
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libfortran
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5026
Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47931
Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36299
--- Comment #4 from Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-03-01
09:14:27 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
The documentation should be improved anyway (the word suspicious is very
subjective).
Please propose a patch.
You
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47939
Summary: Missing DW_TAG_typedef for qualified types
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: wrong-debug
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46911
--- Comment #8 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-03-01
09:45:09 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Mar 1 09:45:05 2011
New Revision: 170588
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=170588
Log:
2011-03-01 Richard
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47924
--- Comment #5 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-03-01
09:46:22 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Mar 1 09:46:19 2011
New Revision: 170589
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=170589
Log:
2011-03-01 Richard
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46911
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47924
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47850
--- Comment #4 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr 2011-03-01
10:00:01 UTC ---
The regression appeared between revisions 158105 and 159105.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47940
Summary: can call a pure virtual from a constructor/destructor
Product: gcc
Version: 4.4.5
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Component: c++
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47938
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47940
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-03-01
10:13:57 UTC ---
This is hard to detect really. Basically what the function usefunc needs to
marked as calling a virtual function. If the call was direct to func instead,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47931
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47932
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43038
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47934
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5026
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.5.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47918
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47936
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47936
--- Comment #2 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-03-01
10:30:12 UTC ---
IMHO WONTFIX. Eventually we could add a -fvery-strict-aliasing, but it's
probably not worth it.
Leaving open to eventually document this fact somewhere.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47890
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47850
--- Comment #5 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-03-01
10:39:21 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
-std=f95 no longer generates the error that it should:
logical, parameter :: buf(3) = [(any(sc(i) ==nc), i = 1, 3)]
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47799
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47850
Paul Thomas pault at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||franke.daniel at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47940
--- Comment #2 from mlg mlg7 at yandex dot ru 2011-03-01 11:34:30 UTC ---
Yes it _is_ hard to detect. My colleague was suspecting
a build system bug/feature at first (hours for a full rebuild).
If it was a direct call, there would be a linker
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47404
Rainer Orth ro at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47835
Rainer Orth ro at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ro at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47938
Janne Blomqvist jb at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47940
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47940
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-03-01
12:30:06 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #0)
Functions that call pure virtual functions cannot
be called from constructors and destructors.
This may be discovered at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47940
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-03-01
12:32:19 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
abstract virtual - the class is abstract, the function is pure virtual.
I forgot I already changed that ;)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47850
--- Comment #7 from Paul Thomas pault at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-03-01 12:45:34
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
(In reply to comment #3)
-std=f95 no longer generates the error that it should:
logical, parameter :: buf(3) = [(any(sc(i)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43038
--- Comment #8 from Dmitry Gorbachev d.g.gorbachev at gmail dot com
2011-03-01 12:46:39 UTC ---
The problem is that statics need to be mangled, so they persist
as i.1234 instead. Really refering to a local symbol in asm is
going to be
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47896
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||alias
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47941
Summary: [4.6 Regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/guality/vla-2.c
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: lto
AssignedTo:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47942
Summary: Not possible to initialize a shared_ptr with a class
defined in function scope, inheriting from a global
scope base class
Product: gcc
Version: 4.1.2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47943
Summary: PRE fails to move a load before a loop with LTO
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: lto
AssignedTo:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47943
--- Comment #1 from Martin Jambor jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-03-01
13:11:23 UTC ---
Created attachment 23499
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=23499
Testcase
The testcase.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47890
--- Comment #7 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-03-01
13:18:29 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Mar 1 13:18:25 2011
New Revision: 170593
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=170593
Log:
2011-03-01 Richard
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47890
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.6.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47923
--- Comment #6 from Mirko mirko.chioldin at iside dot bcc.it 2011-03-01
13:20:17 UTC ---
Hello,
I have tried to compile with XLC.
I set the variables with the following lines:
export LDR_CNTRL=MAXDATA=0x5000
export
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47844
Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|I/O: data transfer |Array stride
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47923
--- Comment #7 from Mirko mirko.chioldin at iside dot bcc.it 2011-03-01
13:20:54 UTC ---
Created attachment 23500
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=23500
Test with XLC
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47941
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47942
--- Comment #1 from Johan Andersson skagget77 at gmail dot com 2011-03-01
13:28:26 UTC ---
I might add that this bug is also present in gcc (Debian 4.4.5-11) 4.4.5.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47943
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47942
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47944
Summary: Several graphite tests SEGV on Solaris 10/x86
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47942
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-03-01
13:45:26 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
Your options are either to use C++0x mode (classes without linkage can be used
as template arguments in C++0x) or to upcast the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47942
--- Comment #4 from Johan Andersson skagget77 at gmail dot com 2011-03-01
13:58:00 UTC ---
Thanks for the quick reply and advice to use static_cast, the reinterpret_cast
was a temporary memory lapse!
The old GCC version was because I used a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47945
Summary: REAL(8) output conversion error on MinGW32
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libfortran
AssignedTo:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47945
--- Comment #1 from Thomas Henlich thenlich at users dot sourceforge.net
2011-03-01 14:01:32 UTC ---
Created attachment 23501
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=23501
Test case
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47945
--- Comment #2 from Thomas Henlich thenlich at users dot sourceforge.net
2011-03-01 14:01:56 UTC ---
Created attachment 23502
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=23502
C test case
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47939
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47945
--- Comment #3 from Andreas Schwab sch...@linux-m68k.org 2011-03-01 14:27:54
UTC ---
0.142857142857142849218750 is still within the accuracy of IEEE double.
All numbers map to the same IEEE double.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47939
--- Comment #2 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-03-01
14:31:35 UTC ---
The lack of knowledge of George_t is the worst side-effect of this bug.
/* { dg-do run } */
/* { dg-options -g } */
typedef struct _Harry { int dummy; }
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47939
--- Comment #3 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-03-01
14:36:31 UTC ---
Better patch, I'm giving that a quick test.
Index: c-decl.c
===
--- c-decl.c(revision
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47945
--- Comment #4 from Thomas Henlich thenlich at users dot sourceforge.net
2011-03-01 14:44:54 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
0.142857142857142849218750 is still within the accuracy of IEEE
double.
All numbers map to the same IEEE
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47939
--- Comment #4 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-03-01
14:49:43 UTC ---
That said, specifying -aux-info /dev/null also fixes this bug. Huh.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36299
--- Comment #5 from Vincent Lefèvre vincent at vinc17 dot org 2011-03-01
15:05:19 UTC ---
Under Debian, I can no longer reproduce the problem with GCC 4.5.2:
$ gcc-4.5 -Wall warn-nulladdress.c
$ gcc-4.5 -Waddress warn-nulladdress.c
$ gcc-4.4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47946
Summary: Dwarf uses 64-bits to refer to a structure offset
unnecessarily
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47946
--- Comment #1 from hariharans at picochip dot com 2011-03-01 15:31:47 UTC ---
Created attachment 23504
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=23504
The assembly code
instances of the bug with various member
types. It still fails on two cases when using array members. I don't think
they are errors. Running
sh constexpr-ctor-templ.cpp
with 4.6.0 20110301 now yields the following (output compressed for legibility
[snip] = -c constexpr-ctor-templ.cpp -std=c++0x
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36299
--- Comment #6 from Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-03-01
15:37:25 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
So, I assume that it has been fixed anyway. Do you confirm?
I think the intention is to warn, at least for a == (void *)0,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43829
--- Comment #33 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
2011-03-01 15:41:36 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #32)
Created attachment 23268 [details]
More up-to-date patch
Although this patch is probably not suitable for stage 4, I have
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47939
--- Comment #5 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-03-01
15:41:53 UTC ---
The patch bootstrapped and tested ok. Removing
if (!flag_gen_aux_info (TYPE_QUALS (element_type)))
type = TYPE_MAIN_VARIANT (type);
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46459
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45797
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42769
--- Comment #34 from Mikael Morin mikael at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-03-01
16:26:53 UTC ---
The hack in comment 32 compiles correctly comment 24, but rejects the following
variant (with the type-bound call in a subroutine) with:
use mod2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43038
--- Comment #9 from joseph at codesourcery dot com joseph at codesourcery dot
com 2011-03-01 16:39:23 UTC ---
On Tue, 1 Mar 2011, d.g.gorbachev at gmail dot com wrote:
The problem is that statics need to be mangled, so they persist
as i.1234
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43038
--- Comment #10 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-03-01
16:42:26 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #9)
On Tue, 1 Mar 2011, d.g.gorbachev at gmail dot com wrote:
The problem is that statics need to be mangled, so they persist
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47939
--- Comment #6 from joseph at codesourcery dot com joseph at codesourcery dot
com 2011-03-01 16:52:37 UTC ---
On Tue, 1 Mar 2011, rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
The patch bootstrapped and tested ok. Removing
if (!flag_gen_aux_info
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47939
--- Comment #7 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-03-01
17:01:38 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
On Tue, 1 Mar 2011, rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
The patch bootstrapped and tested ok. Removing
if
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47890
--- Comment #9 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-03-01
17:04:32 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Mar 1 17:04:26 2011
New Revision: 170595
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=170595
Log:
2011-03-01 Richard
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46723
--- Comment #14 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-03-01
17:04:32 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Mar 1 17:04:26 2011
New Revision: 170595
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=170595
Log:
2011-03-01 Richard
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46723
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47890
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47639
--- Comment #6 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-03-01
17:06:45 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Mar 1 17:06:41 2011
New Revision: 170596
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=170596
Log:
2011-03-01 Richard
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47946
Michael Matz matz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||matz at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47639
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47940
--- Comment #6 from mlg mlg7 at yandex dot ru 2011-03-01 17:23:41 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
(In reply to comment #0)
Functions that call pure virtual functions cannot
be called from constructors and destructors.
This may be
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47947
Summary: Varibles of type vector double are not copied
correctly in gcc-4.5.1 and gcc-4.6.0
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: critical
1 - 100 of 141 matches
Mail list logo
