http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54426
Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54428
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54428
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|jakub at gcc dot gnu.org|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42579
Asier Llano asierllano at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||asierllano at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42579
--- Comment #6 from Asier Llano asierllano at gmail dot com 2012-08-31
08:03:58 UTC ---
We tried it in 4.7 and it works perfectly. By now we will have to apply this
patch for our development with 4.7.1.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54428
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-08-31
08:37:09 UTC ---
Created attachment 28109
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28109
gcc48-pr54428.patch
Untested fix.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54434
Bug #: 54434
Summary: [4.8/ICE] on illegal use of TYPE(*) in SELECT TYPE
construct
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54435
Bug #: 54435
Summary: ICE with SELECT TYPE on a non-CLASS object
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-invalid-code
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54435
Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54434
Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54435
Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xarthisius.kk at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54435
Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54418
--- Comment #3 from Kazumoto Kojima kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-08-31
10:51:48 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
Unfortunately I was not able to reproduce this case without the -fopenmp
option, and that option requires threads, which are not
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51244
--- Comment #50 from Kazumoto Kojima kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-08-31
10:54:44 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #49)
Kaz, if you have some time, could you please gather some CSiBE runtime numbers
for '-mpretend-cmove' and without it?
Here is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54429
--- Comment #1 from Kazumoto Kojima kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-08-31
10:59:44 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #0)
I don't know the history about it. I guess that the original
intention would be to use FP registers as fast memories for
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54429
--- Comment #2 from Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-08-31 11:54:27
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
I don't know the history about it. I guess that the original
intention would be to use FP registers as fast memories for
integers,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54436
Bug #: 54436
Summary: Compiling some regular C++ code gives assembler
'700415 shortened to 255' warning
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54426
--- Comment #2 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr 2012-08-31
12:21:59 UTC ---
Following Tobias' suggestion on IRC, the patch
--- /opt/gcc/work/gcc/fortran/symbol.c2012-08-28 01:14:39.0 +0200
+++
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54426
--- Comment #3 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-08-31
12:30:53 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
Following Tobias' suggestion on IRC, the patch
@@ -2890,6 +2890,7 @@ gfc_undo_symbols (void)
+ p-common_block-refs--;
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54436
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54437
Bug #: 54437
Summary: [4.8 Regression] Revision 190664 causes Firefox build
failure
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54419
--- Comment #4 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr 2012-08-31
12:55:40 UTC ---
Deleting the #if defined __i386__ || defined __x86_64__ blocks in
libstdc++-v3/src/c++11/random.cc allowed me to bootstrap revision 190830 on
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51213
Markus Trippelsdorf markus at trippelsdorf dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||markus
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54437
--- Comment #1 from Markus Trippelsdorf markus at trippelsdorf dot de
2012-08-31 13:07:54 UTC ---
This is what Creduce came up with:
typedef bool (*IsAcceptableThis)(const int v);
typedef bool (*NativeImpl)(int *, int);
templateIsAcceptableThis,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54394
--- Comment #5 from Martin Jambor jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-08-31
13:13:09 UTC ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Fri Aug 31 13:13:03 2012
New Revision: 190831
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=190831
Log:
2012-08-31 Martin
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54435
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||janus at gcc dot gnu.org
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54394
Martin Jambor jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
-I/sw/src/fink.build/gcc48-4.8.0-1000/gcc-4.8-20120831/libstdc++-v3/../libgcc
-I/sw/src/fink.build/gcc48-4.8.0-1000/darwin_objdir/x86_64-apple-darwin12.2.0/libstdc++-v3/include/x86_64-apple-darwin12.2.0
-I/sw/src/fink.build/gcc48-4.8.0-1000/darwin_objdir/x86_64-apple-darwin12.2.0/libstdc++-v3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54438
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54419
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||howarth
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54435
--- Comment #5 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-08-31 14:03:21 UTC ---
This kills the ICE and gets us back at least to the 4.6 behavior (see comment
#3):
Index: gcc/fortran/match.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54409
--- Comment #8 from Martin Jambor jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-08-31
14:05:50 UTC ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Fri Aug 31 14:05:45 2012
New Revision: 190833
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=190833
Log:
2012-08-31 Martin
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54409
Martin Jambor jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54369
--- Comment #4 from Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-08-31
14:20:03 UTC ---
I think I see where delete_related_insns is going wrong. We call it
with a JUMP instruction that we want to remove because we are just
jumping to the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45844
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40119
--- Comment #3 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr 2012-08-31
14:48:54 UTC ---
Any plan to fix this PR?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54419
--- Comment #6 from Jack Howarth howarth at nitro dot med.uc.edu 2012-08-31
14:48:47 UTC ---
This same issue was discussed in the following thread...
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1145078
specifically
Comments/Questions:
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54435
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51222
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50545
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|SUSPENDED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54419
--- Comment #7 from Jack Howarth howarth at nitro dot med.uc.edu 2012-08-31
15:40:25 UTC ---
Would the approach used in the proposed linux kernel patch be feasible?
+/* RDRAND sets carry bit on success, otherwise we should try
+ * again.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54197
--- Comment #5 from Ollie Wild aaw at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-08-31 15:47:37 UTC
---
Author: aaw
Date: Fri Aug 31 15:47:29 2012
New Revision: 190834
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=190834
Log:
2012-08-31 Ollie Wild
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51244
--- Comment #51 from Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-08-31
15:50:35 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #50)
Thanks!
Hmm .. difficult.
There seem to be 17 improvements and 10 dis-improvements, but the
dis-improvements seem heavier. The
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54409
--- Comment #10 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
2012-08-31 16:18:37 UTC ---
This commit or the previous one caused a lot of ICEs (see
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2012-08/msg02988.html):
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54436
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54437
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54392
--- Comment #15 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 2012-08-31
16:52:16 UTC ---
Yes it does. However considering that nobody noticed that for 10 years and that
the std::string implementation is near its end of life anyway (as I
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54439
Bug #: 54439
Summary: new BigDecimal (int n) dumps core under
CYGWIN_NT-6.1-WOW64
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54409
--- Comment #11 from Martin Jambor jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-08-31
17:15:52 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #10)
This commit or the previous one caused a lot of ICEs (see
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2012-08/msg02988.html):
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54419
--- Comment #8 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 2012-08-31
17:16:36 UTC ---
Is it clear which are the specific requirements for the various x86* targets?
I'm wondering if after all it's just matter of updating:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54197
--- Comment #6 from Ollie Wild aaw at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-08-31 17:16:47 UTC
---
Author: aaw
Date: Fri Aug 31 17:16:39 2012
New Revision: 190839
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=190839
Log:
Backport from mainline
2012-08-31
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54197
Ollie Wild aaw at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54419
--- Comment #9 from Ulrich Drepper drepper.fsp at gmail dot com 2012-08-31
17:46:41 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
Is it clear which are the specific requirements for the various x86* targets?
I'm wondering if after all it's just matter of
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54440
Bug #: 54440
Summary: [c++11] g++ prematurely applying rule that a template
parameter pack cannot be followed by a template
parameter
Classification: Unclassified
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53987
--- Comment #1 from Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-08-31 18:14:28
UTC ---
On a second thought, it might be not safe to omit zero/sign extensions if
values are compared after calculations, where the regs hold values SImode.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54369
--- Comment #5 from Steve Ellcey sje at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-08-31 18:16:08
UTC ---
Thanks for digging into this Eric. I tested your patch here against the
example and on the GCC testsuite and didn't see any problems. Are you going to
check
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54338
--- Comment #2 from Vladimir Makarov vmakarov at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-08-31
18:35:17 UTC ---
IRA can not find super set of GENERAL_REGS and IWMMXT_GR_REGS. It should not
happen as ALL_REGS exits as the last resort for this.
GCC documentation
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54369
Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rsandifo at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54428
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-08-31
19:01:05 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Aug 31 19:00:59 2012
New Revision: 190840
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=190840
Log:
PR c/54428
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54441
Bug #: 54441
Summary: Infinite loop with brace initializer on zero-length
array
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54442
Bug #: 54442
Summary: Const overloads resolution failure
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50921
fabien at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54442
Daniel Krügler daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54442
Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||glisse at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54061
Steve Ellcey sje at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18747
--- Comment #6 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-08-31
21:35:38 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Fri Aug 31 21:35:33 2012
New Revision: 190842
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=190842
Log:
PR c++/18747
* pt.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54443
Bug #: 54443
Summary: Segmentation Fault when Compiling for code using
Fortran Polymorphic Entities
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5
Bug #: 5
Summary: 32-bit glibc development headers required on GNU/Linux
x86_64, but not checked during configure
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54443
--- Comment #1 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr 2012-09-01
00:06:53 UTC ---
AFAICT the code is invalid:
pr54443.f90:43.25:
select type(hp%htype)
1
Error: Selector in SELECT TYPE at (1) is not a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54443
--- Comment #2 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr 2012-09-01
00:30:05 UTC ---
Compiling the following reduced test
program class_test
type hashnode
!character(12) :: name
character(4) :: htype
end type hashnode
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54445
Bug #: 54445
Summary: TLS array lookup with negative constant is not
combined into a single instruction
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54446
Bug #: 54446
Summary: Stack needlessly aligned with AVX
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54436
--- Comment #3 from Mathias Gaunard mathias at gaunard dot com 2012-09-01
01:23:04 UTC ---
While a warning is emitted, is the code in the end still valid or is that a
miscompilation?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54446
--- Comment #1 from Cesar Eduardo Barros cesarb at cesarb dot net 2012-09-01
01:23:48 UTC ---
Created attachment 28114
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28114
testcase
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44959
--- Comment #29 from Hin-Tak Leung htl10 at users dot sourceforge.net
2012-09-01 02:53:00 UTC ---
Created attachment 28115
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28115
sets of failed-to-compare objs from 4.7.1
tgz'ed,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54445
--- Comment #1 from Adam Warner adam at consulting dot net.nz 2012-09-01
03:00:39 UTC ---
Another example:
$ cat negative_constant_not_combined_into_a_single_instruction_example_2.c
#include stdint.h
__thread uint8_t byte_array[100];
uint64_t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54447
Bug #: 54447
Summary: gmp in source does not work on alphaev68-dec-osf5.1a
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
77 matches
Mail list logo
