http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48070
Summary: Application fails assertion when compiled with
optimizations
Product: gcc
Version: 4.4.4
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48070
Brad Shadow7789 at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |major
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37430
Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48070
Zdenek Sojka zsojka at seznam dot cz changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zsojka at seznam
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48070
--- Comment #2 from Brad Shadow7789 at gmail dot com 2011-03-11 09:40:27 UTC
---
(In reply to comment #1)
Even at -O0, valgrind complains about using uninitialised value:
(tested with gcc 4.4.5, x86_64-linux)
This is likely an unintelligent
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48070
--- Comment #3 from Zdenek Sojka zsojka at seznam dot cz 2011-03-11 09:44:15
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
This is likely an unintelligent question, but does that output from valgrind
seem to indicate a code error or a compiler error?
It
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48070
Brad Shadow7789 at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48063
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=48065
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48063
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-03-11
10:04:33 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Mar 11 10:04:30 2011
New Revision: 170867
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=170867
Log:
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48063
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46824
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48052
--- Comment #7 from vincenzo Innocente vincenzo.innocente at cern dot ch
2011-03-11 10:16:37 UTC ---
what's the probablity to have this fixed?
We depend on a third party matrix library
that is fully templated and uses everywhere unsigned int
I
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48067
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|powerpc64-linux
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48052
--- Comment #8 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de
2011-03-11 10:26:47 UTC ---
On Fri, 11 Mar 2011, vincenzo.innocente at cern dot ch wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48052
--- Comment #7 from vincenzo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47808
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=47808
--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-03-11
10:35:17 UTC ---
build_aggr_init_expr isn't called at all here BTW, I just don't see too many
similarities with PR46003.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48069
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47278
--- Comment #6 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-03-11
10:43:35 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri Mar 11 10:43:31 2011
New Revision: 170868
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=170868
Log:
2011-03-11 Richard
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47278
--- Comment #7 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-03-11
10:45:59 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri Mar 11 10:45:54 2011
New Revision: 170869
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=170869
Log:
2011-03-11 Richard
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47779
--- Comment #4 from Stu Stuart.Henderson at analog dot com 2011-03-11
11:26:04 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
Maybe ucontext.h should only define these context ifdef __USE_GNU? That's what
i386 and x86_64 appear to do.
Hi Bernd,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48066
--- Comment #5 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-03-11
11:28:57 UTC ---
Draft patch:
--- a/libgfortran/m4/ifunction.m4
+++ b/libgfortran/m4/ifunction.m4
@@ -132,7 +132,10 @@ name`'rtype_qual`_'atype_code (rtype * const restrict
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46824
--- Comment #11 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-03-11
11:58:15 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #10)
Works with [...] EDG.
The reduced versions don't work with Comeau online, does a different EDG-based
compiler accept them?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47951
--- Comment #1 from Stu Stuart.Henderson at analog dot com 2011-03-11
12:16:40 UTC ---
Created attachment 23626
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=23626
First attempt to fix seg fault
The attached patch fixes the problem and my
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44768
Emmanuel Blot eblot.ml at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||eblot.ml at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48071
Summary: Blank line after 'all warnings being treated as
errors'
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48059
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=48072
Summary: Function with __attribute__((used)) is not inlined at
-O1 level
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48044
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-03-11
13:45:00 UTC ---
Created attachment 23628
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=23628
gcc46-pr48044.patch
This fixed it and passed bootstrap/regtest.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48072
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=47768
--- Comment #7 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-03-11 14:13:52 UTC ---
Author: janus
Date: Fri Mar 11 14:13:49 2011
New Revision: 170871
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=170871
Log:
2011-03-11 Janus Weil ja...@gcc.gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48073
Summary: ICE with -flto in templated C++ code
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
AssignedTo:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48073
--- Comment #1 from tux008 at googlemail dot com 2011-03-11 14:19:51 UTC ---
Created attachment 23629
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=23629
preprocessed code
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48073
--- Comment #2 from tux008 at googlemail dot com 2011-03-11 14:20:49 UTC ---
Created attachment 23630
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=23630
(almost empty) assembly code file produced by g++-4.6.0 r170867
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46824
--- Comment #12 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-03-11
14:21:26 UTC ---
I checked comment #5 with ICC 12.0 in -strict_ansi mode.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48072
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48073
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||lto
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47198
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48069
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48069
--- Comment #4 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-03-11
14:44:53 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Fri Mar 11 14:44:49 2011
New Revision: 170872
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=170872
Log:
PR c++/48069
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47808
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48059
--- Comment #7 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-03-11 14:45:22 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
I think the inputs to conv_parent_component_references are already wrong.
From the caller of that function (gfc_conv_variable):
755
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48069
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48044
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48035
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48044
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-03-11
14:47:29 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Mar 11 14:47:26 2011
New Revision: 170873
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=170873
Log:
PR middle-end/48044
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48067
--- Comment #3 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-03-11
14:50:13 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
Reproduces on trunk/x86_64 with
-O2 -ffast-math -mfma4 -fno-tree-forwprop -fno-tree-reassoc
on trunk both forwprop and
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48044
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36299
--- Comment #11 from Vincent Lefèvre vincent-gcc at vinc17 dot net 2011-03-11
15:15:16 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #10)
If you don't want this warning, please contribute a testcase to
gcc-patc...@gcc.gnu.org, so this warning won't reappear in
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48074
Summary: [trans-mem] regular function used instead of clone in
a transaction
Product: gcc
Version: trans-mem
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48059
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48075
Summary: [trans-mem] infinite loop when compiling
Product: gcc
Version: trans-mem
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
AssignedTo:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48035
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-03-11
15:43:42 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Mar 11 15:43:37 2011
New Revision: 170874
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=170874
Log:
PR c++/48035
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1773
--- Comment #78 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ro at CeBiTec dot
Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-03-11 15:44:59 UTC ---
--- Comment #77 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com
2011-03-08 11:19:03 UTC ---
Great Rainer.
As soon as
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47808
--- Comment #13 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-03-11
15:45:58 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #11)
I think it isn't the ?: arms here, but the condition on which
convert_like_real
is called.
Same principle applies.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48035
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.6.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48059
--- Comment #9 from paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com paul.richard.thomas
at gmail dot com 2011-03-11 15:51:31 UTC ---
Janus,
That looks like the right way to go. Do you understand how this can
be a regression, whilst the correct interface
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48059
--- Comment #10 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-03-11 15:57:47 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #9)
That looks like the right way to go. Do you understand how this can
be a regression, whilst the correct interface mapping was previously
not
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47808
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Guenther rguent...@suse.de
PR lto/48073
* tree.c (find_decls_types_r): Do not walk types only reachable
from IDENTIFIER_NODEs.
* g++.dg/lto/20110311-1_0.C: New testcase.
Added:
trunk/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/lto/20110311-1_0.C
Modified:
trunk/gcc/ChangeLog
trunk/gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48073
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48076
Summary: Unsafe double checked locking in __emutls_get_address
Product: gcc
Version: 4.4.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1773
--- Comment #79 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-03-11
16:09:23 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #70)
- needs to remove the overloads on linkage (like bsearch, qsort) in the
solaris
headers because g++ is broken there.
So it's
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48076
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-03-11
16:33:49 UTC ---
This looks unlikely on x86, but it may be a much bigger deal on ARM.
This code should not be used on GNU/Linux on most targets anyways. ARM Linux
supports
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48067
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48067
--- Comment #4 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-03-11
16:36:22 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri Mar 11 16:36:16 2011
New Revision: 170877
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=170877
Log:
2011-03-11 Richard
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48077
Summary: [Code Improvement] Use multiplication by magic number
for integer division by constant
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47571
--- Comment #31 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ro at CeBiTec dot
Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-03-11 16:45:31 UTC ---
That being said, I'd prefer to postpone this fix to stage 1 due to
- I'm currently moving flats so my stuff is all over and
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47808
--- Comment #15 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-03-11
16:49:46 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Fri Mar 11 16:49:41 2011
New Revision: 170878
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=170878
Log:
PR c++/47808
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47808
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48053
--- Comment #2 from Peter Bergner bergner at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-03-11
17:08:33 UTC ---
Created attachment 23633
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=23633
A related but different test case.
Attached is another test case that
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48077
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-03-11
17:11:25 UTC ---
Actually GCC is expanding the division by a constant into a multiplication but
using shifts and adds to do the multiplication based on the cost.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48029
--- Comment #11 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-03-11
17:20:36 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Fri Mar 11 17:20:27 2011
New Revision: 170880
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=170880
Log:
PR c++/48029
*
AFAIU) with pre-4.6 (4.6.0 20110311)
(I tested some versions of GCC back to 4.2.x, same problem. They had local
mods, but none that should have caused a difference in this regard.)
FYI, clang C++ front-end flags an error as expected:
devtools/cpp_tests/x.cc:22:24: error: 'APrivateMethod
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48078
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-03-11
17:38:17 UTC ---
Access checking inside templates seems to be completely broken, see PR 47346
and the bugs I listed there, this could be a dup of one of them
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45383
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46564
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47346
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48078
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||accepts-invalid
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48059
--- Comment #11 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-03-11 18:24:01 UTC ---
The patch in comment #8 induced a regression in module_read_2.f90, which is
fixed by the following update (we must only replace the base type, if the
actual argument is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48077
--- Comment #2 from William J. Schmidt wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-03-11
18:34:41 UTC ---
OK, interesting, thanks for the information. It seems the analysis of the cost
is not particularly good here. I'll dig into where the expansion is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48067
--- Comment #6 from William J. Schmidt wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-03-11
18:46:27 UTC ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Fri Mar 11 18:46:24 2011
New Revision: 170882
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=170882
Log:
Backport PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48047
--- Comment #8 from Jerry DeLisle jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-03-11
18:49:30 UTC ---
Regression tested OK. Can I get a release manager OK for this? If not, it can
wait for 4.7.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48067
--- Comment #7 from William J. Schmidt wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-03-11
18:52:45 UTC ---
I verified this on branches/ibm/gcc-4_5-branch, and it regtests successfully
there as well. Thanks for the quick turnaround!
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48053
--- Comment #3 from Peter Bergner bergner at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-03-11
19:06:17 UTC ---
Author: bergner
Date: Fri Mar 11 19:06:14 2011
New Revision: 170883
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=170883
Log:
gcc/
PR target/48053
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48047
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-03-11
19:12:36 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
Regression tested OK. Can I get a release manager OK for this? If not, it can
wait for 4.7.
This is fine for 4.6.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48077
William J. Schmidt wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|powerpc64-linux, others
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46803
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44623
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48078
--- Comment #3 from Chris Demetriou cgd at google dot com 2011-03-11 19:59:40
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
I think this is different enough from any of those others to count as a
distinct bug - confirmed
I hadn't seen them when i filed
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48077
--- Comment #4 from Michael Meissner meissner at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-03-11
20:43:20 UTC ---
It depends on what the default cpu is for the system. If you say -mcpu=power4,
-mcpu=power5, or -mcpu=power7, it generates code similar to what XLC
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47125
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47446
--- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com 2011-03-11 21:24:44
UTC ---
Another one:
/usr/gcc-4.6.0-x32/bin/gcc -S -o x.s -mx32 -funroll-all-loops -O3 -dp x.i
/usr/gcc-4.6.0-x32/bin/gcc -mx32 -funroll-all-loops -O3 -dp -c -o x.o x.s
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47944
Sebastian Pop spop at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47127
Sebastian Pop spop at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ro at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48077
--- Comment #5 from William J. Schmidt wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-03-11
21:27:25 UTC ---
BTW, I mis-entered the optimization level before. The code generation was at
-O2 when the mulhw was expanded into shifts/adds with the default P6
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47552
Francois-Xavier Coudert fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46803
--- Comment #9 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-03-11
21:36:04 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Fri Mar 11 21:36:02 2011
New Revision: 170885
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=170885
Log:
PR c++/46803
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46803
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47127
Sebastian Pop spop at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last
1 - 100 of 130 matches
Mail list logo
