http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45788
--- Comment #1 from Alexander Strange 2010-09-25
06:51:33 UTC ---
BTW, I think the error would be a lot clearer if it printed the pre-cloning/etc
function name.
--
Configure bugmail: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- Y
_64-apple-darwin10.4.0
Configured with: ../../src/gcc/configure --prefix=/usr/local/gcc46
--with-arch=native --with-tune=native --disable-nls --with-gmp=/sw
--disable-bootstrap --enable-languages=c,c++,lto,objc,obj-c++
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.6.0 20100924 (experimental) (GCC)
> gcc -O3 -
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44970
Laurent GUERBY changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|hppa64-*-* |hppa64-*-* arm-linux
--- Comment #80 fro
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45786
--- Comment #4 from Steve Kargl
2010-09-25 05:57:30 UTC ---
On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 03:00:37AM +, sgk at troutmask dot
apl.washington.edu wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 12:16:53AM +, kargl at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> >
> > Interesting*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43601
--- Comment #27 from Cesar Strauss 2010-09-25
03:07:42 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #25)
> So I would like to see some proper detailed analysis on object files
> establishing exactly what constitutes all this bloat and where it comes from
> bef
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45786
--- Comment #3 from Steve Kargl
2010-09-25 03:00:24 UTC ---
On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 12:16:53AM +, kargl at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> Interesting**3. If you simply remove the private
> and public statement then everything works as one
> wou
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45787
--- Comment #1 from Jack Howarth 2010-09-25
00:35:32 UTC ---
Oddly at both r164530 and r164531, stage3 does build plugin.o in gcc despite
the fact that autohost.h has ENABLE_PLUGIN undefined in the second case.
However this inhibits the installat
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45786
--- Comment #2 from neil.n.carlson at gmail dot com 2010-09-25 00:27:24 UTC ---
Note also that the problem isn't restricted to .eq./== ; it appears to occur
with all the other pairs of equivalent operators: .ne./!=, .lt./<, etc. At
least the compi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45786
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45787
Summary: r164531 breaks plugin support on x86_64-apple-darwin10
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: plugins
Assig
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45388
--- Comment #6 from Steve Ellcey 2010-09-24 23:45:28
UTC ---
I have a patch I am testing. It worked on the test case but I haven't fully
bootstrapped it.
Index: ipa.c
===
--- ipa.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45786
Summary: Relational operators .eq. and == are not recognized as
equivalent
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
C
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45778
--- Comment #2 from Steve Kargl
2010-09-24 22:57:01 UTC ---
On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 02:19:53PM +, rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45778
>
> --- Comment #1 from Richard Guenther 2010-09-24
> 1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45785
--- Comment #1 from Frédéric Buclin 2010-09-24
22:40:28 UTC ---
Yeah, there seems to be some performance problems with the DB server.
--
Configure bugmail: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45388
--- Comment #5 from Steve Ellcey 2010-09-24 22:21:38
UTC ---
I have verified that the bug shows up in r163443. Looking at the assembly
language differences between 163442 and 163443, both versions have
_GLOBAL__I_65535_0__ZN2c12f6Ev,
a global ro
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43011
--- Comment #60 from Gerald Pfeifer 2010-09-24
21:58:18 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #59)
> This deserves mentioning on gcc.gnu.org. Thanks for the upgrade!
Yep, I had asked Frédéric for some input already. :-)
--
Configure bugmail: http://gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45770
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45770
MichieldeB at aim dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
Resolution
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43011
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||steven at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43011
--- Comment #58 from Frédéric Buclin 2010-09-24
21:39:26 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #57)
> I am hoping you would also be interested in upgrading the
> sourceware.org bugzilla installation. It is hosted on the
> same machine...
Yup, see http:/
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43011
--- Comment #57 from Tom Tromey 2010-09-24 21:34:23
UTC ---
Thank you very much for doing this.
I am hoping you would also be interested in upgrading the
sourceware.org bugzilla installation. It is hosted on the
same machine...
--
Configure b
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45783
Mikael Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikael at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34684
Kai Tietz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45388
Steve Ellcey changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45737
Steve Ellcey changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sje at cup dot hp.com
--- Comment #4 from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43601
Yu Simin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||silver24k at gmail dot com
--- Comment #26 fro
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45785
Summary: Bugzilla search sometimes fails with an internal error
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: web
Assigne
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45782
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45783
--- Comment #1 from Dominique d'Humieres 2010-09-24
19:51:51 UTC ---
Confirmed on x86_64-apple-darwin10 with revision 164583, the test compiles with
r164232.
--
Configure bugmail: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45784
Summary: gcc OpenMP - error: invalid controlling predicate
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
AssignedTo: unas
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45783
Summary: [4.6 Regression] ICE in gfc_add_component_ref, at
fortran/class.c:77
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45703
Ralf Wildenhues changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45782
Summary: bugzilla internal error trying to update existing PR
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: other
Assigne
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45781
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.6.0
Summary|GCC incorrect
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45780
Uros Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38885
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38884
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot |rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45781
Summary: GCC incorrectly puts function in .text.unlikely
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
As
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38884
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski 2010-09-24
18:39:57 UTC ---
D.2727_2 = COMPLEX_EXPR ;
sv.i = D.2727_2;
d_3 = REALPART_EXPR ;
--
Configure bugmail: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail b
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45780
Summary: Warning for arithmetic operations involving C99 _Bool
variable
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38885
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski 2010-09-24
18:38:58 UTC ---
global_res = { 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 2.0e+0 };
x.0_4 = BIT_FIELD_REF ;
x = x.0_4;
return 0;
--
Configure bugmail: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38884
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski 2010-09-24
18:38:53 UTC ---
global_res = { 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 2.0e+0 };
x.0_4 = BIT_FIELD_REF ;
x = x.0_4;
return 0;
--
Configure bugmail: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45322
Ralf Wildenhues changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43575
Ralf Wildenhues changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Known to work|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45777
--- Comment #4 from Joost VandeVondele
2010-09-24 17:59:40 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> With Crayftn, there is no abort.
that also holds for NAG and g95, BTW.
> Thinking a bit about the program, I believe it is valid, i.e. gfortran has a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43011
--- Comment #56 from Frédéric Buclin 2010-09-24
16:35:58 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #55)
> By the way, I think I speak for the GCC project and its users when I say:
>
> Merci beaucoup, Frédéric!
>
> I hope we weren't very annoying with the l
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45738
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45741
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45738
--- Comment #2 from Jan Hubicka 2010-09-24
16:24:56 UTC ---
Author: hubicka
Date: Fri Sep 24 16:24:45 2010
New Revision: 164602
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=164602
Log:
PR tree-optimization/45738
PR tree-optimiz
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45741
Zdenek Sojka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2010-09-21 17:37:53 |2010-09-24 17:37:53
date|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45777
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45764
Michael Matz changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rakdver at gcc dot gnu.org,
: unassig...@gcc.gnu.org
ReportedBy: akla...@rumms.uni-mannheim.de
Note: initially found on gcc 4.3.2, confirmed on 4.6.0 20100924 from svn.
Consider the following program:
/* test.c */
#include
#include
#include
#include
#include
int main(int argc, char ** argv) {
printf
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45404
--- Comment #2 from jnspaulsson at gmail dot com 2010-09-24 15:33:28 UTC ---
sorry, I may just have been confused, but the comments did not help me
at least very much. Just tried to help a bit.. :-) If you think it
seems right, please accept my ap
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45234
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P1 |P2
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45234
--- Comment #26 from Jakub Jelinek 2010-09-24
15:07:40 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Sep 24 15:07:36 2010
New Revision: 164596
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=164596
Log:
Revert:
2010-09-17 H.J. Lu
PR midd
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45234
--- Comment #25 from Jakub Jelinek 2010-09-24
15:02:06 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Sep 24 15:01:53 2010
New Revision: 164595
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=164595
Log:
Revert:
2010-09-17 H.J. Lu
PR midd
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45751
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45234
--- Comment #24 from Jakub Jelinek 2010-09-24
14:37:06 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Sep 24 14:37:02 2010
New Revision: 164593
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=164593
Log:
PR middle-end/45234
* rtl.h (enum global_r
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45764
--- Comment #4 from Richard Guenther 2010-09-24
14:22:23 UTC ---
It looks like when vectorizing with negative step the alignment needs to be
computed differently.
--
Configure bugmail: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45778
--- Comment #1 from Richard Guenther 2010-09-24
14:19:47 UTC ---
I like the fact that the bugzilla URL is topmost, that no longer requires
me scrolling down.
--
Configure bugmail: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45751
--- Comment #10 from Iain Sandoe 2010-09-24 14:06:40
UTC ---
Author: iains
Date: Fri Sep 24 14:06:35 2010
New Revision: 164592
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=164592
Log:
PR bootstrap/45751
* gcc/config/darwin-driv
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45764
--- Comment #3 from Michael Matz 2010-09-24 13:37:04
UTC ---
The problem is how the alignment for the read accesses is computed.
When we vectorize this data_ref:
ibuf[64 - i] (0 <= i < 64)
i.e.
ibuf[64 .. 1]
The first access is to ibuf[64],
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45778
Summary: Append summary information instead of prepending the
information
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43011
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45777
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45143
--- Comment #6 from Tobias Burnus 2010-09-24
11:36:29 UTC ---
When adding the compilation check, also a gfc_notify_std(GFC_STD_F2008,
"Fortran 2008:" should be added.
--
Configure bugmail: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28632
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44231
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45586
--- Comment #6 from Joost VandeVondele
2010-09-24 10:46:08 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> Actually, looks like there might be some vaguely related issue here in the FE,
> which I'll open in another PR.
See PR45777
--
Configure bugmail: htt
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45777
Joost VandeVondele changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||4.3.0, 4.4.0, 4.5.0, 4.6.0
--- Comme
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45777
Summary: Missing temporary ?
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
AssignedTo: unassig...@gcc.gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45586
--- Comment #5 from Joost VandeVondele
2010-09-24 10:33:13 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> The issue here is of course that LTO re-computes TYPE_CANONICAL and the FE
> sets it in a way that the above situation is not detected as non-trivial
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45774
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek 2010-09-24
10:12:52 UTC ---
Thanks.
--
Configure bugmail: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45774
Frédéric Buclin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45774
Frédéric Buclin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41437
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||liranuna at gmail dot com
--- Comment #
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45775
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45774
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||redi at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45686
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45110
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45774
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44242
--- Comment #2 from gingold at gcc dot gnu.org
2010-09-24 08:46:39 UTC ---
Author: gingold
Date: Fri Sep 24 08:46:36 2010
New Revision: 164587
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=164587
Log:
2010-09-09 Tristan Gingold
P
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38936
--- Comment #16 from Daniel Kraft 2010-09-24
08:10:38 UTC ---
The last commit partially implemented the missing definability checks also for
ASSOCIATE names. For the missing pieces, I opened PR 45776.
So here remains the missing pieces for ASSO
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45776
Daniel Kraft changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||accepts-invalid
Status|UNCONFI
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45776
Summary: Full implementation of variable definition contexts
(and related checks)
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
86 matches
Mail list logo
