http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48928
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-05-10
06:05:23 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue May 10 06:05:20 2011
New Revision: 173606
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=173606
Log:
PR debug/48928
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48794
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-05-10
06:08:23 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue May 10 06:08:18 2011
New Revision: 173607
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=173607
Log:
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48611
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-05-10
06:08:23 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue May 10 06:08:18 2011
New Revision: 173607
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=173607
Log:
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48928
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48794
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48611
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-05-10
06:32:04 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue May 10 06:31:59 2011
New Revision: 173608
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=173608
Log:
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48794
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-05-10
06:32:04 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue May 10 06:31:59 2011
New Revision: 173608
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=173608
Log:
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48859
fabien at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48837
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-05-10
08:45:56 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue May 10 08:45:50 2011
New Revision: 173610
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=173610
Log:
Backported from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48837
--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-05-10
08:47:12 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue May 10 08:47:09 2011
New Revision: 173611
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=173611
Log:
Backported from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48942
ray linn ray_linn at hotmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|unknown |4.6.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48943
Summary: [gcc-4.6.0] opt.adb compiled error while multilib
enabled
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48837
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-05-10
08:45:09 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue May 10 08:45:00 2011
New Revision: 173609
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=173609
Log:
Backported from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48942
Summary: [gcc-4.6.0] opt.adb compiled error while multilib
enabled
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48837
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48942
--- Comment #1 from Andreas Schwab sch...@linux-m68k.org 2011-05-10 09:18:43
UTC ---
*** Bug 48943 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48944
Summary: build error: libffi has not been ported to
avr-unknown-none.
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48940
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-05-10
09:08:39 UTC ---
I assume you're talking about binding the A to a B object without an
accessible copy constructor?
That was the subject of a Defect Report against C++03 so has
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32164
--- Comment #10 from Ludovic Brenta ludo...@ludovic-brenta.org 2011-05-10
08:48:53 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #9)
This works with 4.4.x and 4.5.x:
pak1.ads:2:09: prefix of Unrestricted_Access attribute cannot be intrinsic
I wouldn't
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48944
Georg-Johann Lay gjl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||avr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48942
Andreas Schwab sch...@linux-m68k.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44273
Ian Bolton ibolton at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48940
--- Comment #2 from Zachary Vance vanceza at gmail dot com 2011-05-10
09:48:47 UTC ---
Sorry to be cryptic as to the part of the standard I was talking about. Yes, I
was referring to report 391/589.
Yes, I agree that g++ should not issue an
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48943
Andreas Schwab sch...@linux-m68k.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38199
--- Comment #13 from Janne Blomqvist jb at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-05-10
09:41:08 UTC ---
Here's something for formatted writes; consider the write-many.f (from some
other PR, I'm too lazy to check which now)
program main
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44160
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31983
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=48945
Summary: [C++0x] static constexpr member function cannot be
defined out-of class
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48946
Summary: [OOP] Deferred Overloaded Assignment
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: rejects-valid, wrong-code
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44160
--- Comment #4 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 2011-05-10
10:09:15 UTC ---
Things go wrong well before check_return_expr: in cp_parser_lambda_body,
cp_parser_expression returns error_mark_node.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48940
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-05-10
10:07:53 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
Sorry to be cryptic as to the part of the standard I was talking about. Yes,
I
was referring to report 391/589.
Yes, I agree
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48940
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=48670
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-05-10
10:34:52 UTC ---
Anyway, most likely PR48190, i.e.
http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?view=revisionrevision=171655
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48944
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jsm28 at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48938
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48940
--- Comment #5 from Zachary Vance vanceza at gmail dot com 2011-05-10
10:27:08 UTC ---
As long as folks are aware of this behavior and consider it proper, I
personally have no objection. I don't see any large benefit from changing it;
I was just
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48725
--- Comment #6 from Vadim Markovtsev gmarkhor at gmail dot com 2011-05-10
11:01:14 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
(In reply to comment #4)
Does it work with BFD linker in CVS?
I will check that out tomorrow.
Sorry for such a delay,
I
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44160
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48947
Summary: 4.6.0 fails to link ffmpeg with LTO and gold
Product: gcc
Version: lto
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: lto
AssignedTo:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44160
--- Comment #5 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 2011-05-10
10:54:31 UTC ---
More debugging: fname_decl, called by finish_fname, returns error_mark_node,
whereas it doesn't for, eg, 'const char* f() { return __func__; }'. Note
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48770
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=18041
--- Comment #5 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-05-10
11:38:50 UTC ---
With a patch I have we now optimize at the tree level to
bb 2:
D.2686_2 = b_1(D)-bit0;
D.2688_4 = b_1(D)-bit1;
D.2693_10 = D.2688_4 ^ D.2686_2;
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44160
--- Comment #7 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 2011-05-10
11:42:41 UTC ---
A do_pushlevel(sk_block) missing?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48159
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=48896
--- Comment #1 from Georg-Johann Lay gjl at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-05-10
12:16:15 UTC ---
Author: gjl
Date: Tue May 10 12:16:09 2011
New Revision: 173617
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=173617
Log:
PR target/48896
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48770
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-05-10
11:46:34 UTC ---
*.asmcons is identical in between r171110 and r17, *.ira already looks
wrong (no setting of %rax to 24+.LPBX1, or changing the (%rax) address to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48947
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48896
Georg-Johann Lay gjl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48889
Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #24205|application/octet-stream|text/plain
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48948
Summary: [C++0x] constexpr friend function cannot be defined
in-class
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48896
Eric Weddington eric.weddington at atmel dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.7.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48906
--- Comment #3 from Jerry DeLisle jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-05-10
12:53:07 UTC ---
Status: I have managed to eliminate the OUTPUT_FLOAT_G macro completely and all
floating point operations. What remains is to adjust the trailing blanks.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48159
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-05-10
13:08:31 UTC ---
Further reduced testcase for -O3 -g:
void
foo (double x, int y, double *__restrict z, double *__restrict w)
{
while (y--)
*z++ = (*w++ = 0) * x;
}
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48770
Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48889
Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jvdelisle at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48159
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aoliva at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48948
Johannes Schaub schaub.johannes at googlemail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48944
--- Comment #2 from joseph at codesourcery dot com joseph at codesourcery dot
com 2011-05-10 15:10:57 UTC ---
When I configure for this target I get:
*** This configuration is not supported in the following subdirectories:
target-libmudflap
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48159
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.7.0 |4.6.1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48949
Summary: gcc-4.6.0 regression with complex.h on
i386-pc-solaris2.10
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48859
--- Comment #8 from Jeffrey Yasskin jyasskin at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-05-10
15:42:54 UTC ---
Thanks! Is this patch ok for the 4.6 branch too? If you don't have time to
backport it, I can.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48949
Mariah Lenox mariah.lenox at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48949
Joseph S. Myers jsm28 at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c |target
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48950
Summary: a patch from 4.4.x not backported to 4.3.x
Product: gcc
Version: 4.3.5
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libfortran
AssignedTo:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48951
Summary: probably, it is a bug.
Product: gcc
Version: 3.4.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
AssignedTo: unassig...@gcc.gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48770
Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Component: lto
AssignedTo: unassig...@gcc.gnu.org
ReportedBy: andi-...@firstfloor.org
When running a Linux kernel LTO build with recent mainline
(gcc version 4.7.0 20110510 (experimental) (GCC))
I get a segfault during the final lto-wpa phase
In gdb I get
Program received signal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48859
--- Comment #9 from fabien at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-05-10 16:27:42 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
Thanks! Is this patch ok for the 4.6 branch too?
Yes, as it is a 4.6 regression, and Jason also approved it for 4.6.
If you don't have time to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48948
--- Comment #2 from Daniel Krügler daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com
2011-05-10 16:33:39 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
I don't think that this is intended, but I would like to await feedback from
the developer group before submitting a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48950
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=48952
--- Comment #1 from Andi Kleen andi-gcc at firstfloor dot org 2011-05-10
16:37:17 UTC ---
Some more information from gdb. So it follows some pointer in the VEC
that is NULL
(gdb) p edge
$1 = (struct cgraph_edge *) 0x7f1ce05d90d0
(gdb) p edge-uid
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48948
--- Comment #3 from Johannes Schaub schaub.johannes at googlemail dot com
2011-05-10 16:46:18 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
(In reply to comment #1)
I don't think that this is intended, but I would like to await feedback from
the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48938
--- Comment #2 from Zdenek Sojka zsojka at seznam dot cz 2011-05-10 16:40:46
UTC ---
Thanks for the reply. You are right, the assert described in PR48246 is at the
same place. However, I have 4.6 configured with --enable-checking=yes,rtl,df -
so
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48950
--- Comment #2 from Jerry DeLisle jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-05-10
16:39:28 UTC ---
4.4 is available in cygwin. Just search through the setup and you will see it
listed with 4.4 appended to the name, something like gfortran-4.4.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48951
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48948
--- Comment #4 from Johannes Schaub schaub.johannes at googlemail dot com
2011-05-10 16:59:50 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #0)
gcc 4.7.0 20110507 (experimental) in C++0x mode rejects the following code at
the line marked with #:
//---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48948
--- Comment #5 from Johannes Schaub schaub.johannes at googlemail dot com
2011-05-10 17:07:30 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
(In reply to comment #0)
gcc 4.7.0 20110507 (experimental) in C++0x mode rejects the following code
at
the line
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48906
--- Comment #4 from Thomas Henlich thenlich at users dot sourceforge.net
2011-05-10 17:16:47 UTC ---
Way to go! I'll be happy to test.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48950
--- Comment #3 from Jerry DeLisle jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-05-10
17:12:30 UTC ---
I am mistaken. However you can get fairly recent Cygwin (or MingW):
http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/GFortranBinaries
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48857
Michael Meissner meissner at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48948
--- Comment #6 from Johannes Schaub schaub.johannes at googlemail dot com
2011-05-10 17:20:31 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
(In reply to comment #0)
gcc 4.7.0 20110507 (experimental) in C++0x mode rejects the following code
at
the line
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48951
--- Comment #2 from ufo008ahw ufo008ahw at 163 dot com 2011-05-10 17:26:31
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
(gcc 3.4.2 is ancient, even if there is a bug noone will fix it in that
version)
what is the program's input?
what is its output?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48953
Summary: [4.7 Regression] ICE: verify_gimple failed: type
mismatch in array reference with -flto and struct with
vararray
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48495
Michael Meissner meissner at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48954
Summary: [4.7 Regression] ICE: SIGSEGV in bitmap_count_bits
(bitmap.c:719) with -O2 -flto -fno-early-inlining
-fkeep-inline-functions
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48951
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48736
--- Comment #1 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-05-10
17:58:41 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Tue May 10 17:58:38 2011
New Revision: 173627
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=173627
Log:
PR c++/48736
* pt.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48930
--- Comment #7 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-05-10
17:58:49 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Tue May 10 17:58:46 2011
New Revision: 173628
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=173628
Log:
PR c++/48930
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48374
--- Comment #2 from Zdenek Sojka zsojka at seznam dot cz 2011-05-10 18:05:57
UTC ---
Thanks for the suggestion, Andrey. Using lower values for --param
max-sched-extend-regions-iters might reduce the compilation time in some cases.
I tested your
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48950
--- Comment #4 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-05-10
18:16:41 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
4.4 is available in cygwin. Just search through the setup and you will see it
listed with 4.4 appended to the name, something like
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48951
--- Comment #4 from ufo008ahw ufo008ahw at 163 dot com 2011-05-10 18:11:04
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
So, your expectations are wrong, because of course 4 1 is false, thus 0 as
an
integer.
??
my expectation is (4 1) output 0. but
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48951
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-05-10
18:33:13 UTC ---
it works correctly for me
you need to provide the What we need info requested at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs/ (no need for preprocessed source) and try with a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48950
--- Comment #5 from Cezary Sliwa sliwa at blue dot cft.edu.pl 2011-05-10
19:08:34 UTC ---
OK, if everything is backported you get the current version... I agree this
does not make sense. But this has a maintained status, which gives people a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48950
--- Comment #6 from Cezary Sliwa sliwa at blue dot cft.edu.pl 2011-05-10
19:11:22 UTC ---
PS. The gfortran version of ACML 4.4.0 appears to be built with 4.3.x.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48950
--- Comment #7 from Jerry DeLisle jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-05-10
19:23:57 UTC ---
4.5 may be a test version as far as Cygwin folks downstream of us, but 4.5 and
4.6 are Released and perfectly useable from our view from here. Both are
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48950
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48955
Summary: [4.6/4.7 Regression] Wrong result for array assignment
due to missing temporary
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: wrong-code
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48952
--- Comment #2 from Andi Kleen andi-gcc at firstfloor dot org 2011-05-10
20:49:28 UTC ---
I uploaded a (large) test case to
http://firstfloor.org/~andi/lto-kernel.tar.bz2
Run R2 in the directory after pointing the script to the right gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48955
Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.3.4, 4.4.0,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48736
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
1 - 100 of 109 matches
Mail list logo
