http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49001
--- Comment #3 from Norbert Pozar npozar at quick dot cz 2011-05-16 06:05:37
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
Please provide testcase that can be compiled without changes. See [1].
I'm sorry about this.
Probably mingw64 specific problem... CC
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49009
Summary: internal compiler error: verify_gimple failed
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48955
--- Comment #5 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-05-16
07:27:07 UTC ---
Submitted patch: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2011-05/msg00090.html
It fixes the test case of comment 0, but (cf. review comment) it does not
handle a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49009
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=48989
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46934
Chung-Lin Tang cltang at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49010
Summary: Result of MOD and MODULO intrinsic has wrong sign
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48941
--- Comment #4 from Richard Earnshaw rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-05-16
08:13:04 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
Created attachment 24234 [details]
Proposed patch
The attached patch seems to fix the testcase and doesn't
regress
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49011
Summary: Wrong repeat count in error message for REPEAT
intrinsic
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49004
Mu Qiao qiaomuf at gentoo dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49006
--- Comment #1 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de
2011-05-16 08:57:46 UTC ---
On Sun, 15 May 2011, dominiq at lps dot ens.fr wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49006
Summary: [4.6/4.7
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49011
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=49006
--- Comment #2 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr 2011-05-16
09:24:28 UTC ---
The patch changes inliner heuristics only.
Yes, but the vectorization of induct.f90 is very sensitive to inlining: see
pr34265. Did you checked the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49010
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=49006
--- Comment #3 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de
2011-05-16 10:41:58 UTC ---
On Mon, 16 May 2011, dominiq at lps dot ens.fr wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49006
--- Comment #2 from Dominique
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49011
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=45853
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=48999
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.7.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48996
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49006
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.6.1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48986
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48554
--- Comment #3 from Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se 2011-05-16
11:52:32 UTC ---
gcc-4.6-20110513 still ICEs on this test case, but after backporting the fix
for PR47612 (r173393) compilation succeeds.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49003
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-05-16
11:09:05 UTC ---
ah I was thinking of PR 45908 (where I provided that reduced testcase - I knew
it looked familiar!) but that was for an ICE which is fixed, so this one should
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45873
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48679
--- Comment #7 from Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se 2011-05-16
12:17:45 UTC ---
The bootstrap comparison failure appears to be gone in a c-only build of
gcc-4.7-20110514. I'll run a bisect to identify which rev fixed this bug.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48996
--- Comment #2 from psmith at gnu dot org 2011-05-16 11:56:33 UTC ---
Created attachment 24251
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24251
Un-fixed sys/stat.h
Yes, sorry, it was silly not to have done that.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48986
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-05-16
12:50:59 UTC ---
Created attachment 24252
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24252
gcc47-pr48986.patch
Untested patch using peephole2.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48955
--- Comment #6 from paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com paul.richard.thomas
at gmail dot com 2011-05-16 12:48:32 UTC ---
Indeed - I just need to find the time to sort out the logic.
Structurally the patch is OK.
Cheers
Paul
On Mon, May 16,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48996
--- Comment #3 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-05-16
13:07:56 UTC ---
I don't see anything wrong with the fixinclude though it is a bit fragile
as it wants to fixup both prototype and redicrected inline function and
both are
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49012
Summary: weak const optimisations
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
AssignedTo: unassig...@gcc.gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49012
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=48999
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45099
--- Comment #1 from Georg-Johann Lay gjl at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-05-16
14:16:30 UTC ---
Author: gjl
Date: Mon May 16 14:16:22 2011
New Revision: 173791
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=173791
Log:
PR target/45099
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48999
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.7.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41076
--- Comment #2 from Georg-Johann Lay gjl at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-05-16
14:20:25 UTC ---
Author: gjl
Date: Mon May 16 14:20:19 2011
New Revision: 173792
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=173792
Log:
PR target/27663
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27663
--- Comment #6 from Georg-Johann Lay gjl at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-05-16
14:20:25 UTC ---
Author: gjl
Date: Mon May 16 14:20:19 2011
New Revision: 173792
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=173792
Log:
PR target/27663
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49012
--- Comment #2 from etienne_lorrain at yahoo dot fr 2011-05-16 14:36:41 UTC ---
Well, with gcc-4.4.5-8 the weak attribute did the trick:
$ gcc -v
Using built-in specs.
Target: i486-linux-gnu
Configured with: ../src/configure -v
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48999
--- Comment #3 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-05-16
14:30:36 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Mon May 16 14:30:30 2011
New Revision: 173793
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=173793
Log:
PR c++/48999
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45099
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=49003
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-05-16
14:48:13 UTC ---
A simpler test for DR 1207 being implemented is:
struct A {
auto a() const - decltype(this) { return this; }
};
nc.cc:2:32: error: invalid use of 'this'
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27663
Georg-Johann Lay gjl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gjl at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48996
--- Comment #4 from psmith at gnu dot org 2011-05-16 15:07:40 UTC ---
I'm attaching a small test program that fails for me. I'm just running the
compiler with c++ -o tstfstat.o -c tstfstat.cpp; no extra flags.
After looking more carefully I can
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48996
--- Comment #5 from psmith at gnu dot org 2011-05-16 15:08:35 UTC ---
Created attachment 24253
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24253
Test invocation of fstat64()
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45873
--- Comment #3 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-05-16
15:42:36 UTC ---
This seems like a dup of 35722.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49007
--- Comment #4 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia.nrc.ca 2011-05-16 16:22:28 UTC ---
On Mon, 16 May 2011, danglin at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
By trial and error, it appears tree-cfgcleanup.c is miscompiled at -O1
without -fno-delayed-branch.
Attached
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45873
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-05-16
17:04:12 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
This seems like a dup of 35722.
Ah yes, it definitely is for the call to foop1 in my second example in
comment 2: modifying pt.c to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48999
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49000
Ian Lance Taylor ian at airs dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ian at airs dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49000
Ian Lance Taylor ian at airs dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aoliva at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48955
--- Comment #7 from tkoenig at netcologne dot de tkoenig at netcologne dot de
2011-05-16 18:10:03 UTC ---
Hi Paul,
Indeed - I just need to find the time to sort out the logic.
Structurally the patch is OK.
I think the logic could be as
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48677
--- Comment #17 from Joseph S. Myers jsm28 at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-05-16
18:34:34 UTC ---
Author: jsm28
Date: Mon May 16 18:34:31 2011
New Revision: 173801
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=173801
Log:
PR preprocessor/48677
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49013
Summary: [4.7 Regression] LTO bootstrap failed with
bootstrap-profiled
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49014
Summary: ICE: in reset_sched_cycles_in_current_ebb, at
sel-sched.c:7132 with even more insane set of flags
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45853
--- Comment #5 from James Michael DuPont JamesMikeDuPont at googlemail dot
com 2011-05-16 19:17:06 UTC ---
Ok,
I will have to look into it,
thanks,
mike
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 1:19 PM, redi at gcc dot gnu.org
gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49010
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48969
--- Comment #4 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-05-16
20:52:24 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Mon May 16 20:52:18 2011
New Revision: 173805
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=173805
Log:
PR c++/48969
* pt.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49010
--- Comment #3 from Steve Kargl sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu
2011-05-16 21:17:44 UTC ---
There is an additional problem with MOD(A,P) and MODULO(A,P).
In F95, one finds P = 0, the result is processor dependent.
In F2003 and F2008,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46071
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49015
Summary: [C++0x] Non-defining constexpr function declarations
require complete argument/return types
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49013
H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48677
--- Comment #18 from Joseph S. Myers jsm28 at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-05-16
21:23:18 UTC ---
Author: jsm28
Date: Mon May 16 21:23:14 2011
New Revision: 173808
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=173808
Log:
PR preprocessor/48677
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49010
--- Comment #4 from Steve Kargl sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu
2011-05-16 21:43:57 UTC ---
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 09:31:57PM +, sgk at troutmask dot
apl.washington.edu wrote:
In F95, one finds P = 0, the result is processor
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48677
Joseph S. Myers jsm28 at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49016
Summary: always_inline causes references below the current
stack pointer
Product: gcc
Version: 4.3.4
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49017
Summary: [avr] -ffunction-sections causes linker to fail
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
AssignedTo:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49016
--- Comment #1 from Lee Merrill merrill_707_1 at yahoo dot com 2011-05-16
22:45:58 UTC ---
Created attachment 24257
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24257
The source file which generates the problem
This file, when compiled via
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49016
--- Comment #2 from Lee Merrill merrill_707_1 at yahoo dot com 2011-05-16
22:49:14 UTC ---
Created attachment 24258
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24258
The output of running rc with -v -save-temps added.
This is the output
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49017
--- Comment #1 from stefan.hladnik at gmail dot com 2011-05-16 22:51:14 UTC ---
Created attachment 24259
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24259
Object files before and after linking
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49016
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-05-16
23:09:13 UTC ---
Well x86_64 ABI has a red zone which allows for these references to happen if
they are under 128 bytes.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49016
--- Comment #3 from Lee Merrill merrill_707_1 at yahoo dot com 2011-05-16
22:51:33 UTC ---
A disassembly snippet to show the problem:
fcPostWrite:
0: 55 push %rbp
1: 48 89 e5mov
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46655
--- Comment #29 from Richard Nolde richard.nolde at cybox dot com 2011-05-16
23:19:24 UTC ---
On 04/01/2011 06:24 AM, michael.haubenwallner at salomon dot at wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46655
--- Comment #28 from Michael
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49016
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
72 matches
Mail list logo