Hi, I just came across an optimization issue in pass peephole2:
Regs that are naturally dead because the function ends are not marked as dead,
and therefore some optimization opportunities pass by unnoticed, e.g. together
with recog.c::peep2_reg_dead_p() et. al.
As I could not find a related PR,
Radu Hobincu radu.hobi...@arh.pub.ro writes:
2. I have another piece of code that fails to compile with -O3.
-
struct desc{
int int1;
int int2;
int int3;
};
int bugTest(struct desc *tDesc){
return *((int*)(tDesc-int1 + 16));
}
Hi Ian,
On 19 October 2010 15:31, Ian Lance Taylor i...@google.com wrote:
It should not be necessary to use STARTING_FRAME_OFFSET when using
virtual_stack_vars_rtx, as it should be added in by the vregs pass. See
instantiate_new_reg, and note that var_offset is set to
STARTING_FRAME_OFFSET.
Sayın Yetkili;
TRT1 Ekranlarında 24 Ekim Pazar Günü STADYUM programında Fenerbahçe -
Galatasaray maçının ilk özet görüntüleri yayınlanacaktır.
Geçen sene görüntüler sadece TRT1'de değilken bile Galatasaray-Fenerbahçe
maçının yayınlandığı hafta program açık ara GÜN 1.si olmuştu.
Bu sene ise
On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 02:14:15PM +0200, Frederic Riss wrote:
On 19 October 2010 15:31, Ian Lance Taylor i...@google.com wrote:
However, I agree that it does seem that it should be added to or
subtracted from hard_frame_pointer_rtx before setting
virtual_stack_vars_rtx, or something. I
I need a preprocessor macro to detect c++0x support. For now, that is
__GXX_EXPERIMENTAL_CXX0X__
but what happens once -std=c++0x is the default? Will this macro still
be defined?
Don't we need a
__GXX_CXX0X__ ?
Michael Meissner wrote:
Note, the 64-bit ABI requires that r2 have the current function's GOT in it
when the function is called, while the 32-bit ABI uses r2 as a small data
pointer (and possibly r13 as a second small data pointer).
If the 32-bit ABI is the SYSV-ABI, then you got the register
On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 08:17:51PM +0200, Gunther Nikl wrote:
Michael Meissner wrote:
Note, the 64-bit ABI requires that r2 have the current function's GOT in it
when the function is called, while the 32-bit ABI uses r2 as a small data
pointer (and possibly r13 as a second small data
Georg Lay a...@gjlay.de writes:
Regs that are naturally dead because the function ends are not marked as
dead,
and therefore some optimization opportunities pass by unnoticed, e.g. together
with recog.c::peep2_reg_dead_p() et. al.
I don't understand what you mean. All registers other than
On 21 October 2010 18:52, Neal Becker ndbeck...@gmail.com wrote:
I need a preprocessor macro to detect c++0x support. For now, that is
__GXX_EXPERIMENTAL_CXX0X__
but what happens once -std=c++0x is the default? Will this macro still
be defined?
Don't we need a
__GXX_CXX0X__ ?
Hi,
Is it possible to describe multi-register values in RTL when the
subparts of the value aren't stored in consecutive registers? For
example having a DI value constructed from 2 unrelated SI registers
(without losing the semantic of the original DI value) ?
Thanks a lot,
Fred
Snapshot gcc-4.5-20101021 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.5-20101021/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.5 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches
Frederic Riss frederic.r...@gmail.com writes:
Is it possible to describe multi-register values in RTL when the
subparts of the value aren't stored in consecutive registers? For
example having a DI value constructed from 2 unrelated SI registers
(without losing the semantic of the original DI
On Oct 21, 2010, at 8:15 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
Frederic Riss frederic.r...@gmail.com writes:
Is it possible to describe multi-register values in RTL when the
subparts of the value aren't stored in consecutive registers? For
example having a DI value constructed from 2 unrelated SI
Hi,
I am working on huge object files and I am glad to see that gcc
supports -mcmodel=large now. However, my experiment even doesn't work
because of relocation problem in crtbeginS.o
My Source file: t.c
#include stdio.h
extern int foo(int argc, char **argv);
void *pv1[1024]={(void*)foo,};
char
Paul Koning paul_kon...@dell.com writes:
To take that example, on the pdp11 an SImode is two HImodes. Could
the RTL template in the MD file for, say, addsi3 split that into two
or three insns that operate on HImode values and describe the actual
instructions? In this case: add high parts,
Wei Li liwe...@gmail.com writes:
I am working on huge object files and I am glad to see that gcc
supports -mcmodel=large now. However, my experiment even doesn't work
because of relocation problem in crtbeginS.o
This message was not appropriate for the mailing list gcc@gcc.gnu.org,
which is
Le jeudi 21 octobre 2010 à 21:11 -0700, Ian Lance Taylor a écrit :
Paul Koning paul_kon...@dell.com writes:
To take that example, on the pdp11 an SImode is two HImodes. Could
the RTL template in the MD file for, say, addsi3 split that into two
or three insns that operate on HImode values
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46100
--- Comment #4 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-10-21
06:15:34 UTC ---
Author: burnus
Date: Thu Oct 21 06:15:30 2010
New Revision: 165749
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=165749
Log:
2010-10-21 Tobias Burnus
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46100
Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46111
Summary: [4.6 Regression] ICE: tree check: expected tree that
contains 'decl minimal' structure, have 'mem_ref' in
take_address_of, at tree-parloops.c:336 with
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46083
Zdenek Sojka zsojka at seznam dot cz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||4.5.2
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46067
--- Comment #6 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-10-21 07:51:37 UTC ---
Here is a variant of the test case in comment #3 which uses plain procedure
pointers instead of PPCs (and avoids recursive I/O):
implicit none
type test_type
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46067
--- Comment #7 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-10-21 07:54:43 UTC ---
And here is yet another variant, which uses a procedure as actual argument to
another procedure (instead of procedure pointers). Same symptoms
(accepts-invalid).
module m
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46067
--- Comment #8 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-10-21 07:59:37 UTC ---
Note: Both of the test cases in comment #6 and #7 are invalid but accepted by
current trunk builds (as well as 4.5). However, they are rejected with the
patch in comment #5,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46112
Summary: internal compiler error
Product: gcc
Version: 4.4.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
AssignedTo: unassig...@gcc.gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46110
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=46067
--- Comment #9 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-10-21 09:25:24 UTC ---
Author: janus
Date: Thu Oct 21 09:25:17 2010
New Revision: 165755
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=165755
Log:
2010-10-21 Janus Weil ja...@gcc.gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46067
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46103
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46111
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46112
Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikpe at it dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45764
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45720
--- Comment #2 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org hjl at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-10-03
05:41:44 UTC ---
Author: hjl
Date: Sun Oct 3 05:39:32 2010
New Revision: 164914
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=164914
Log:
Disallow negative steps
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46113
Summary: collect2.exe not passing through @FILE response
argument to linker
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46111
--- Comment #2 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-10-21
10:38:55 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu Oct 21 10:38:51 2010
New Revision: 165765
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=165765
Log:
2010-10-21 Richard
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46111
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45764
--- Comment #10 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-10-21
11:10:45 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu Oct 21 11:10:41 2010
New Revision: 165768
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=165768
Log:
2010-10-21 Richard
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45764
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46060
--- Comment #6 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-10-21 11:31:58 UTC ---
Author: janus
Date: Thu Oct 21 11:31:55 2010
New Revision: 165769
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=165769
Log:
2010-10-21 Janus Weil ja...@gcc.gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46060
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46114
Summary: [4.6 regression] g++ SEGV when built with gld on
Solaris 10+/x86
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: wrong-code
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46007
--- Comment #3 from Thomas Koenig tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-10-21
12:25:23 UTC ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Thu Oct 21 12:25:12 2010
New Revision: 165770
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=165770
Log:
2010-10-21 Thomas
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45834
Zdenek Sojka zsojka at seznam dot cz changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zsojka at seznam
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45827
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=46115
Summary: Feature request: anonymous functions (complementing
anon aggregates)
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46116
Summary: Allow passing of anonymous aggregates when signature
matches
Product: gcc
Version: 4.4.5
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46117
Summary: [4.6 Regression] ICE: SIGSEGV in
add_function_candidate (call.c:1630) on invalid
typename usage
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45319
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=46007
--- Comment #4 from Thomas Koenig tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-10-21
13:02:15 UTC ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Thu Oct 21 13:02:09 2010
New Revision: 165773
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=165773
Log:
2010-10-21 Thomas
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46007
Thomas Koenig tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45875
--- Comment #13 from Martin Jambor jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-10-21
13:06:20 UTC ---
I have just posted a patch fixing the original issue reported in this
bug to the mailing list:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-10/msg01822.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46049
--- Comment #2 from irar at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-10-21 13:37:07 UTC ---
Author: irar
Date: Thu Oct 21 13:36:56 2010
New Revision: 165777
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=165777
Log:
PR tree-optimization/46049
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46052
--- Comment #2 from irar at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-10-21 13:37:05 UTC ---
Author: irar
Date: Thu Oct 21 13:36:56 2010
New Revision: 165777
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=165777
Log:
PR tree-optimization/46049
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46117
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46049
Ira Rosen irar at il dot ibm.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46052
Ira Rosen irar at il dot ibm.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46117
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46118
Summary: g++.dg/torture/pr46111.C: -fcompare-debug failure
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: debug
AssignedTo:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45827
--- Comment #21 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-10-21
14:04:12 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #20)
I fail to reproduce the ICE with today's r165769. Hans, are you still getting
this error?
Frankly, I already got lost in comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46098
Michael Matz matz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45875
--- Comment #14 from Martin Jambor jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-10-21
14:35:05 UTC ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Thu Oct 21 14:34:58 2010
New Revision: 165780
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=165780
Log:
2010-10-21 Martin
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46097
--- Comment #9 from Jeffrey Walton noloader at gmail dot com 2010-10-21
15:04:44 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
I had a look at Cryptopp-SO-Test-1.zip
building on 32-bit I can reproduce a segfault
it doesn't build on 64-bit at all:
1)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45834
--- Comment #8 from meibf at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-10-21 15:16:05 UTC ---
Author: meibf
Date: Thu Oct 21 15:16:01 2010
New Revision: 165781
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=165781
Log:
2010-10-21 Bingfeng Mei b...@broadcom.com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46097
--- Comment #10 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-10-21
15:16:48 UTC ---
you realise you can wait and it will show up?
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-help/2010-10/msg00248.html
That, like your case, is an ODR violation, and like your
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46097
--- Comment #11 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-10-21
15:22:03 UTC ---
also, I'm not the GCC team and I don't speak for anyone else
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45586
--- Comment #8 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-10-21
15:28:01 UTC ---
Created attachment 22107
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22107
patch
Bootstrapped, tested and SPEC CPU 2006 tested.
I don't like it
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46097
--- Comment #12 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-10-21
15:28:05 UTC ---
I'm not on gcc-help, but I assume Alexey's looking at this report now ...
I would expect that TWO different instances of the global variable would
be
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45319
John David Anglin danglin at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46119
Summary: -fsplit-stack -fstack-protector-all - code crashes
when passing large struct via stack
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46097
--- Comment #13 from Jeffrey Walton noloader at gmail dot com 2010-10-21
16:10:41 UTC ---
Hi Jonathon,
(In reply to comment #10)
you realise you can wait and it will show up?
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-help/2010-10/msg00248.html
I've been known
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46097
--- Comment #14 from Jeffrey Walton noloader at gmail dot com 2010-10-21
16:13:36 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
(In reply to comment #6)
Hi Johnathon,
(In reply to comment #5)
oh, and I only see one process invovled there ... I'm still
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46097
--- Comment #15 from Jeffrey Walton noloader at gmail dot com 2010-10-21
16:15:38 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #11)
also, I'm not the GCC team and I don't speak for anyone else
My apologies. I made the leap that you were part of the team due to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46097
--- Comment #16 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-10-21
16:24:18 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #13)
Good point: here's what I would recommend: common sense. Myself, Alexey, a
number of packagers across the globe, and untold
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45720
--- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com 2010-10-21 16:28:24
UTC ---
As of revision 165771, I still got
With runspec -c lnx-i686-gcc.cfg -n 1 -l -o asc -I all -T peak
*** Miscompare of ref.out, see
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46120
Summary: [4.6 regression] g++.dg/ipa/ivinline-?.C
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
AssignedTo:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46117
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46097
--- Comment #17 from Jeffrey Walton noloader at gmail dot com 2010-10-21
16:59:55 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #16)
(In reply to comment #13)
Good point: here's what I would recommend: common sense. Myself, Alexey, a
number of packagers
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46024
--- Comment #3 from Rainer Orth ro at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-10-21 17:13:34 UTC
---
Author: ro
Date: Thu Oct 21 17:13:25 2010
New Revision: 165782
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=165782
Log:
fixincludes:
Backport from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46024
--- Comment #4 from Rainer Orth ro at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-10-21 17:23:29 UTC
---
Author: ro
Date: Thu Oct 21 17:23:24 2010
New Revision: 165783
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=165783
Log:
fixincludes:
Backport from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46024
Rainer Orth ro at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Known
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46097
--- Comment #18 from Jeffrey Walton noloader at gmail dot com 2010-10-21
17:37:15 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #13)
Hi Jonathon,
(In reply to comment #10)
you realise you can wait and it will show up?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45865
H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46120
H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mjambor at suse dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46120
Martin Jambor jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|mjambor at suse dot cz |jamborm at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46116
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|minor |enhancement
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46115
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-10-21
18:38:31 UTC ---
This sounds like C++ lambda functions.
Second, I think this is a bad idea for C.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45749
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ben.combrink at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46113
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46097
--- Comment #19 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-10-21
18:41:20 UTC ---
Oh, I never use the search, it's always been useless
just click on the first month in the list,
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-help/2010-10/ shows the messages
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46018
--- Comment #10 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com 2010-10-21 18:42:22
UTC ---
Can you try
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-10/msg01858.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46097
--- Comment #20 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-10-21
18:47:03 UTC ---
I'd forgotten the search was even there - I might suggest removing it, since
it's apparently not indexed anything this month, and probably much longer
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46097
--- Comment #21 from Jeffrey Walton noloader at gmail dot com 2010-10-21
18:49:49 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #19)
Oh, I never use the search, it's always been useless
just click on the first month in the list,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46097
--- Comment #22 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-10-21
18:54:26 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #20)
I'd forgotten the search was even there - I might suggest removing it, since
it's apparently not indexed anything this month,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46080
--- Comment #9 from Paul Zimmermann zimmerma+gcc at loria dot fr 2010-10-21
19:26:11 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
You really should use hex float to see the diferences. I bet it is just the
final digit of the hex float that is different
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46121
Summary: [4.6 regression] LTO bootstrap failed
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: bootstrap
AssignedTo:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45966
Bernd Schmidt bernds at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46097
--- Comment #23 from Jeffrey Walton noloader at gmail dot com 2010-10-21
19:52:12 UTC ---
Hi Jonathan,
[Sorry about the top post].
I'm going to wrap up my request, and hope you and the GCC team will find that
-Wglobal-variable would be useful
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46114
--- Comment #1 from Rainer Orth ro at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-10-21 20:31:57 UTC
---
Created attachment 22109
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22109
main program of testcase
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46114
--- Comment #2 from Rainer Orth ro at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-10-21 20:32:47 UTC
---
Created attachment 22110
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22110
miscompiled part of the test
1 - 100 of 127 matches
Mail list logo
