http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54293
--- Comment #9 from Daniel Krügler daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com
2012-08-21 06:13:50 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
I agree with your analysis, but would like to point out that there is change
planned to essentially this part of the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53073
Venkataramanan venkataramanan.kumar at amd dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53609
Dodji Seketeli dodji at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48636
--- Comment #17 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-08-21
06:54:09 UTC ---
Author: hubicka
Date: Tue Aug 21 06:54:01 2012
New Revision: 190556
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=190556
Log:
PR fortran/48636
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54337
Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||steven at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54339
Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P5
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54340
Bug #: 54340
Summary: internal compiler error: Illegal instruction (int
main() returns nothing, only when -O2/-O3 used)
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54339
Bug #: 54339
Summary: [4.8 Regression] Update gfortran manual for GCC 4.8's
TS29113 changes
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54340
--- Comment #1 from Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se 2012-08-21
07:22:09 UTC ---
You didn't specify the host, but since it's Ubuntu I'm guessing Linux/x86_64.
I can't reproduce the SIGILL with either 4.7.1, 4.6.3, or 4.5.4 on a Core i7.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54340
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54340
--- Comment #3 from Коренберг Марк socketpair at gmail dot com 2012-08-21
07:32:25 UTC ---
Yes, I tested on gentoo, no error appear.
I have reported to ubuntu bug tracker:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/gcc-4.6/+bug/1039401
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54293
--- Comment #10 from Jiří Paleček jpalecek at web dot de 2012-08-21 07:51:55
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #9)
(In reply to comment #8)
I agree with your analysis, but would like to point out that there is
change
planned to essentially
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54146
--- Comment #56 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de
2012-08-21 07:55:14 UTC ---
On Mon, 20 Aug 2012, steven at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54146
Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54340
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54339
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54335
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=54293
--- Comment #11 from Daniel Krügler daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com
2012-08-21 08:07:28 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #10)
In other words: In this case IsValid(ref_int) will hold for the same
reasons
as it holds for IsValid(ref_obj).
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54337
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-*-*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46590
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nbhargava at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48636
--- Comment #18 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-08-21
08:14:33 UTC ---
With loop_iterations hint, we should now hint the bar function of testcase in
comment #4, but we don't because the value is used conditionally:
#
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54332
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.8.0
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54224
--- Comment #6 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-08-21
08:48:49 UTC ---
* Regarding the inlining issue: I think that's known, cf. bug 48636 comment 18.
* It seems as if the TREE_USED part should be handled on the Fortran FE side
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54221
Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Target
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46590
Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||steven at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46590
--- Comment #24 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de
2012-08-21 09:59:41 UTC ---
On Tue, 21 Aug 2012, steven at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46590
Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54341
Bug #: 54341
Summary: [4.7 / 4.8 Regression] ICE (segfault) in
cx_check_missing_mem_inits, at cp/semantics.c:6093
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54333
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|enhancement |normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54342
Bug #: 54342
Summary: [4.8 Regression] Wrong mode of call argument
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54342
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.8.0
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54342
--- Comment #2 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-08-21
11:10:13 UTC ---
Btw, please elaborate on why you consider this a bug.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54342
--- Comment #3 from Vladimir Yakovlev vbyakovl23 at gmail dot com 2012-08-21
11:18:39 UTC ---
I'm working on vzeroupper insertion and my implementation inserts vzeroupper
before the call because VALID_AVX256_REG_MODE returns false.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54341
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54343
Bug #: 54343
Summary: RTL postreload leaks DF memory
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54341
--- Comment #2 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 2012-08-21
11:46:12 UTC ---
Reduced:
templatetypename T
struct enable_shared_from_this
{
constexpr enable_shared_from_this();
private:
int mem;
};
class VTableClass {
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54343
Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54253
--- Comment #6 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 2012-08-21
11:53:53 UTC ---
Related to PR54341
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54344
Bug #: 54344
Summary: Issue with multiple arch= function attributes.
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54345
Bug #: 54345
Summary: jump threading leaks e-aux heap memory
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: memory-hog
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54146
--- Comment #57 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-08-21
13:34:28 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Aug 21 13:34:19 2012
New Revision: 190562
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=190562
Log:
2012-08-21 Richard
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54332
--- Comment #6 from dnovillo at google dot com dnovillo at google dot com
2012-08-21 13:38:24 UTC ---
On 2012-08-20 22:59 , hjl.tools at gmail dot com wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54332
--- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54314
--- Comment #5 from gee jojelino at gmail dot com 2012-08-21 13:38:57 UTC ---
I think symbol _ZTCSt* need to be included in libstdc++/config/abi/pre/gnu.ver
so that shared-library can export these symbols unless user did append
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54146
--- Comment #58 from stevenb.gcc at gmail dot com stevenb.gcc at gmail dot
com 2012-08-21 13:56:27 UTC ---
FWIW, I think all patches addressing parts of this bug are candidates
for back-porting to release branches. They are all almost trivial.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54332
--- Comment #7 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com 2012-08-21 13:58:05
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
If it's related to the hash table, then comparing rev 188059 vs rev
188129 may show the regression.
Neither rev 188059 nor rev
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54346
Bug #: 54346
Summary: combine permutations
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54332
--- Comment #8 from dnovillo at google dot com dnovillo at google dot com
2012-08-21 14:06:34 UTC ---
On 2012-08-21 09:58 , hjl.tools at gmail dot com wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54332
--- Comment #7 from H.J. Lu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46590
--- Comment #25 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-08-21
14:10:38 UTC ---
I have a patch for the SCCVN issue, but trying to gather current trunk status
first.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46590
--- Comment #26 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-08-21
14:56:41 UTC ---
For a somewhat reduced testcase I now get at -O1:
alias stmt walking : 105.51 (45%) usr 0.33 (24%) sys
tree SSA rewrite: 22.01 ( 9%)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54347
Bug #: 54347
Summary: REAL_VALUE_TO_TARGET_LONG_DOUBLE shouldn't be used in
i386
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54332
--- Comment #9 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com 2012-08-21 16:20:37
UTC ---
Revision 188059 is bad:
f951: out of memory allocating 36872 bytes after a total of 583266304 bytes
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54332
--- Comment #10 from dnovillo at google dot com dnovillo at google dot com
2012-08-21 16:44:10 UTC ---
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 12:20 PM, hjl.tools at gmail dot com
gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54332
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54332
H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54332
Diego Novillo dnovillo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54332
--- Comment #13 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com 2012-08-21 17:10:09
UTC ---
It can be reproduced with -frecord-marker=4 -O -funswitch-loops.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2972
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu.org |
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2778
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu.org |
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54307
--- Comment #3 from Matt Hargett matt at use dot net 2012-08-21 17:26:55 UTC
---
Paolo, what about listint? Does VC11 achieve the size GCC 4.6 has by not
being compliant somehow?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2972
--- Comment #18 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-08-21
17:26:16 UTC ---
No, not at present. I tried using default_init_uninitialized_part but it either
missed cases or produce ICEs, and I never solved the problems. I can send you
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54307
--- Comment #4 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 2012-08-21
17:35:25 UTC ---
I have no idea what they are doing in their implementation, there are of course
trade offs. When we decide to globally break the ABI to implement a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54332
--- Comment #14 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com 2012-08-21 17:41:10
UTC ---
It failed even with
diff --git a/gcc/tree-ssa-loop.c b/gcc/tree-ssa-loop.c
index 3d650bf..30ac4b5 100644
--- a/gcc/tree-ssa-loop.c
+++ b/gcc/tree-ssa-loop.c
@@
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54184
--- Comment #3 from Aldy Hernandez aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-08-21
17:46:26 UTC ---
My bad... I'm on this.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54341
H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at redhat dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2972
--- Comment #19 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 2012-08-21
17:54:12 UTC ---
Eh, I'm of course not sure that I can help but I quickly went through the
exchange on gcc-patches and got the impression that your work was already in
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54332
--- Comment #15 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com 2012-08-21 17:57:59
UTC ---
It failed with
diff --git a/gcc/passes.c b/gcc/passes.c
index b6fe18e..10174c4 100644
--- a/gcc/passes.c
+++ b/gcc/passes.c
@@ -1449,7 +1449,6 @@
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54335
--- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com 2012-08-21 18:03:17
UTC ---
There are:
opts.c:typedef char *char_p; /* For DEF_VEC_P. */
opts.c:DEF_VEC_P(char_p);
opts.c:DEF_VEC_ALLOC_P(char_p,heap);
opts-global.c:typedef const char
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54332
--- Comment #16 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com 2012-08-21 18:08:49
UTC ---
There are:
opts.c:typedef char *char_p; /* For DEF_VEC_P. */
opts.c:DEF_VEC_P(char_p);
opts.c:DEF_VEC_ALLOC_P(char_p,heap);
opts-global.c:typedef const char
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54332
--- Comment #17 from dnovillo at google dot com dnovillo at google dot com
2012-08-21 18:19:10 UTC ---
On 2012-08-21 14:08 , hjl.tools at gmail dot com wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54332
--- Comment #16 from H.J. Lu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54332
--- Comment #18 from dnovillo at google dot com dnovillo at google dot com
2012-08-21 18:31:51 UTC ---
OK, I think this is the hunk that's causing grief:
diff --git a/gcc/df-scan.c b/gcc/df-scan.c
index 39f444f..35100d1 100644
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54332
--- Comment #19 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com 2012-08-21 18:54:45
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #15)
It failed with
diff --git a/gcc/passes.c b/gcc/passes.c
index b6fe18e..10174c4 100644
--- a/gcc/passes.c
+++ b/gcc/passes.c
@@
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54332
--- Comment #20 from dnovillo at google dot com dnovillo at google dot com
2012-08-21 19:07:33 UTC ---
On 2012-08-21 14:54 , hjl.tools at gmail dot com wrote:
With --enable-gather-detailed-mem-stats, I got
Alloc-pool Kind Elt size
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54343
Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||steven at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54332
--- Comment #21 from Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-08-21
19:19:58 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #18)
Odd that this has not triggered anywhere else.
It may have triggered elsewhere, see PR54343 ...
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20420
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54332
--- Comment #22 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com 2012-08-21 19:27:50
UTC ---
This seems to work:
diff --git a/gcc/df-scan.c b/gcc/df-scan.c
index 35100d1..39f444f 100644
--- a/gcc/df-scan.c
+++ b/gcc/df-scan.c
@@ -4392,6 +4392,7 @@
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54348
Bug #: 54348
Summary: wrong error reported for type mismatch in conditional
expression : error: no match for ternary 'operator?:'
in 'false ?
Classification: Unclassified
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54348
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54332
--- Comment #23 from dnovillo at google dot com dnovillo at google dot com
2012-08-21 19:50:12 UTC ---
On 2012-08-21 15:27 , hjl.tools at gmail dot com wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54332
--- Comment #22 from H.J. Lu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54348
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-08-21
19:51:53 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #0)
Shouldn't g++ be complaining about initializing a string with a liststring
rather than this cryptic no match for ternary
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54332
--- Comment #24 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com 2012-08-21 19:53:14
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #23)
The problem with this is that you are switching a stack vec into a heap
vec. This may not always be what the caller wanted.
My
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54348
--- Comment #3 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 2012-08-21
20:08:02 UTC ---
Indeed.
About my own reply, I'm not sure, the wording here is pretty subtle, we already
handle separately the ambiguous overloading case. ICC refers
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54314
--- Comment #6 from gee jojelino at gmail dot com 2012-08-21 20:10:01 UTC ---
Created attachment 28065
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28065
proposed patch
just added one line.
_ZTC* is then exported.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54348
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-08-21
20:24:15 UTC ---
I think clang's incompatible operand types is simple and fairly clear
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54348
--- Comment #5 from Jason Vas Dias jason.vas.dias at gmail dot com 2012-08-21
20:27:36 UTC ---
Oops, I was interrupted adding this comment to my initial comment - will
respond
to subsequent commment next :
Incidentally, I found this issue while
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54348
--- Comment #6 from Jason Vas Dias jason.vas.dias at gmail dot com 2012-08-21
20:29:53 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
In mainline the diagnostics is better because we output the types. But I agree
that given that the conditional operator
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54348
--- Comment #7 from Jason Vas Dias jason.vas.dias at gmail dot com 2012-08-21
20:34:06 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
(In reply to comment #0)
Shouldn't g++ be complaining about initializing a string with a liststring
rather than this
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54332
--- Comment #25 from dnovillo at google dot com dnovillo at google dot com
2012-08-21 20:49:16 UTC ---
On 2012-08-21 15:53 , hjl.tools at gmail dot com wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54332
--- Comment #24 from H.J. Lu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54348
--- Comment #8 from Jason Vas Dias jason.vas.dias at gmail dot com 2012-08-21
20:52:12 UTC ---
All I'm suggesting is that g++ should try to find the most basic error,
which is that different type objects are returned as the result of a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54332
--- Comment #26 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org hjl at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-08-21
21:07:07 UTC ---
Author: hjl
Date: Tue Aug 21 21:07:01 2012
New Revision: 190576
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=190576
Log:
Restore
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54332
H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54343
Diego Novillo dnovillo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dnovillo at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53676
--- Comment #12 from Matt Hargett matt at use dot net 2012-08-21 21:40:11 UTC
---
I've been doing research into LLVM 3.1 and other GCC versions. LLVM 3.1
correctly eliminate the (near) empty loop, and their current trunk does not
regress like 4.7
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52885
--- Comment #7 from Jeffrey Walton noloader at gmail dot com 2012-08-21
22:08:38 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
Also using -fPIC instead of -fPIE is always ok. So I doubt there is a really
issue here. Since the differences between PIC and
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39423
--- Comment #33 from Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-08-21
23:35:02 UTC ---
Author: olegendo
Date: Tue Aug 21 23:34:54 2012
New Revision: 190579
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=190579
Log:
PR target/39423
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20420
--- Comment #8 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 2012-08-22
00:01:27 UTC ---
For Comment #4: the validate_nonmember_using_decl call at the beginning of
do_local_using_decl returns NULL_TREE for the second using declaration, but
93 matches
Mail list logo
