-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 01/07/11 14:06, Tony Poppleton wrote:
Thanks for the feedback.
Moving the test case into an attachment won't be useful. What would be
useful is recasting the test case into a form which can be used in the
gcc testsuite, if possible
Whilst
On 10 January 2011 16:08, Jeff Law wrote:
But I think the key is to just keep the necessary builds hanging around,
at least for the most popular targets.
The GCC Compile Farm has a number of releases installed under
/opt/cfarm/release/
See http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/CompileFarm
* Andrew Haley wrote on Fri, Jan 07, 2011 at 10:24:53AM CET:
On 01/06/2011 09:28 PM, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
On Thu, 6 Jan 2011, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
Does passing '-Wl,-rpath -Wl,/foo' to gcj work for a small example
program for you?
I played around, and modifying the failing command line
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47240
Summary: segfault with procedure pointer component
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
AssignedTo:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47224
--- Comment #7 from Martien Hulsen m.a.hulsen at tue dot nl 2011-01-10
08:51:19 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
(In reply to comment #4)
I now have a segfault when running the code. Will send a bug report after I
manage to reduce the code.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47240
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=47240
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47056
--- Comment #10 from Laurent GUERBY laurent at guerby dot net 2011-01-10
09:37:23 UTC ---
Thanks Eric :)
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2011-01/msg00728.html
LAST_UPDATED: Sat Jan 8 23:02:58 UTC 2011 (revision 168603)
=== acats
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47225
Francois-Xavier Coudert fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47241
Summary: lto not work on mingw32, reporting 'ld.exe: could not
unlink output file'
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
I don't think it is. I am building a cross-compiler (with build = host =
x86_64-apple-darwin10.6.0, target = i586-pc-mingw32) from unpatched GCC
revision 168626, and it's failing with the same symptoms. When configuring
libgcc, I get:
checking for suffix of object files... configure:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47225
--- Comment #10 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at ucw dot cz 2011-01-10 11:51:43
UTC ---
I don't think it is. I am building a cross-compiler (with build = host =
x86_64-apple-darwin10.6.0, target = i586-pc-mingw32) from unpatched GCC
revision
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46230
--- Comment #7 from Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-01-10
12:12:07 UTC ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Mon Jan 10 12:11:59 2011
New Revision: 168627
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=168627
Log:
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46230
--- Comment #8 from Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-01-10
12:41:43 UTC ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Mon Jan 10 12:41:40 2011
New Revision: 168628
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=168628
Log:
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47242
Summary: [C++0x] ICE: tree check: expected field_decl, have
error_mark in build_lambda_object, at
cp/semantics.c:7604 on invalid lambda function
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47222
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46230
--- Comment #9 from Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-01-10
12:51:03 UTC ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Mon Jan 10 12:51:00 2011
New Revision: 168629
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=168629
Log:
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46230
Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43891
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44463
--- Comment #10 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de
2011-01-10 12:57:25 UTC ---
On Sun, 9 Jan 2011, hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44463
--- Comment #9 from Jan Hubicka
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47222
--- Comment #12 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at ucw dot cz 2011-01-10 13:15:54
UTC ---
So this bug is in fact invalid (or a dup of PR47237), right?
Well, it seemed correct to create separate PR for the wrong code bug that is
independent of plugin.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44463
--- Comment #11 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at ucw dot cz 2011-01-10 13:20:36
UTC ---
Yep. It's a mess.
I'd really really like to have aliases be handled in a unified
IPA symbol table entry facility before adding even more hacks.
Thus we'd
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46760
--- Comment #27 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org hjl at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-01-10
13:24:30 UTC ---
Author: hjl
Date: Mon Jan 10 13:24:27 2011
New Revision: 168631
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=168631
Log:
Check e-call_stmt
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46760
H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46760
--- Comment #29 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-01-10
13:44:00 UTC ---
H.J., since you run regular testing, do you think you could switch one of
tester into lto-bootstrap (or ideally lto-bootstrap with FDO) so we keep those
in
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46760
--- Comment #30 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com 2011-01-10 13:48:27
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #29)
H.J., since you run regular testing, do you think you could switch one of
tester into lto-bootstrap (or ideally lto-bootstrap with
I have been testing lto-bootstrap:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2011-01/msg00750.html
I will try to start lto-bootstrap with FDO.
Great, thanks!
The FDO bootstrap always suffered from lack of testing, so this should help.
Honza
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46760
--- Comment #31 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at ucw dot cz 2011-01-10 13:51:02
UTC ---
I have been testing lto-bootstrap:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2011-01/msg00750.html
I will try to start lto-bootstrap with FDO.
Great, thanks!
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47141
--- Comment #5 from Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com 2011-01-10 13:51:05
UTC ---
Created attachment 22938
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22938
FIx for PR 47141
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46760
--- Comment #32 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com 2011-01-10 13:59:32
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #31)
I have been testing lto-bootstrap:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2011-01/msg00750.html
I will try to start
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47241
--- Comment #1 from coolypf coolypf at qq dot com 2011-01-10 13:59:45 UTC ---
same problem on mingw-w64, with error message:
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=D:\MinGW\bin\gcc64.exe
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47234
--- Comment #2 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-01-10
14:33:08 UTC ---
Author: hubicka
Date: Mon Jan 10 14:33:04 2011
New Revision: 168632
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=168632
Log:
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47234
Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44846
Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks|45375 |
--- Comment #8
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44951
Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks|45375 |
--- Comment #6
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44897
Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41201
Dave Korn davek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46037
--- Comment #4 from Dave Korn davek at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-01-10 15:28:51
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
the optimize attribute isn't used in the preprocessed file but only the
target attribute which is supported. Thus, worksforme.
Target
Target attributes must be implying optimisation attributes. Bug depends also
on --with-{arch,tune,fpmath} settings. I'll try and reproduce it on
x86_64-linux, it should be possible if I choose the right settings - will
reply
again later.
Well, we probably should just go ahead and
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32511
Michael Matz matz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||matz at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46037
--- Comment #5 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at ucw dot cz 2011-01-10 15:46:25 UTC
---
Target attributes must be implying optimisation attributes. Bug depends also
on --with-{arch,tune,fpmath} settings. I'll try and reproduce it on
x86_64-linux,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32511
--- Comment #13 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-01-10
15:48:51 UTC ---
The original problem was fixed for GCC 4.6 with
2010-09-24 Jan Hubicka j...@suse.cz
* lto-symtab.c (lto_symtab_entry_def): Add guessed field.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47243
Summary: [4.6 Regression] Bootstrap fails: Segfault of
genmddeps / COLLECT bug?
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47086
Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47243
--- Comment #1 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com 2011-01-10 16:00:45
UTC ---
Since you use LTO, you should try the Linux binutils 2.21.51.0.5.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29152
Jack Howarth howarth at nitro dot med.uc.edu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47244
Summary: [4.6 Regression] plugin linker is used unconditionally
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: driver
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47244
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Target
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47215
Andreas Krebbel krebbel at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47246
Summary: [4.6 Regression] Invalid immediate offset for Thumb
VFP store
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29057
Jack Howarth howarth at nitro dot med.uc.edu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47246
--- Comment #1 from Ian Bolton ibolton at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-01-10 16:17:37
UTC ---
Created attachment 22940
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22940
Demonstrates the problem instruction, on line 37
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47215
--- Comment #8 from Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-01-10 16:23:23
UTC ---
Issue here is that s390 uses for its va_list_node_type a record containing
long_integer_type_node type, which doesn't get initialized by java's decl.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44897
Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45375
--- Comment #30 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-01-10
16:39:08 UTC ---
The libmoznome build issue is now Mozilla PR
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=624385
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45352
--- Comment #26 from Zdenek Sojka zsojka at seznam dot cz 2011-01-10 16:39:43
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #25)
Sigh, in this case I forgot that we now also stall when we have issued exactly
issue_rate instructions, so in this case we also need
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47247
Summary: Linker plugin specification makes it difficult to
handle COMDATs
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47141
--- Comment #6 from Jeffrey A. Law law at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-01-10 16:48:46
UTC ---
Author: law
Date: Mon Jan 10 16:48:42 2011
New Revision: 168634
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=168634
Log:
* PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47141
Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47247
Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47243
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.6.0
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47247
--- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com 2011-01-10 17:02:02
UTC ---
Do we have a small testcase to experiment with?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47247
--- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com 2011-01-10 17:04:30
UTC ---
Can we mark the symbol COMDAT when we generate the output?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47247
--- Comment #4 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at ucw dot cz 2011-01-10 17:10:52 UTC
---
Can we mark the symbol COMDAT when we generate the output?
What symbol and what output?
Honza
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47243
Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47247
--- Comment #5 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com 2011-01-10 17:13:46
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
Can we mark the symbol COMDAT when we generate the output?
What symbol and what output?
Honza
I don't think hjl/lto-mixed branch
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47248
Summary: libffi build failure with ld.gold (works with trunk
20110106, fails with 20110110)
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
: unassig...@gcc.gnu.org
ReportedBy: rmansfi...@qnx.com
$ ./xgcc -v
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=./xgcc
Target: i686-pc-linux-gnu
Configured with: ../configure --enable-languages=c++ --disable-bootstrap
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.6.0 20110110 (experimental) [trunk revision 168633
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47248
--- Comment #1 from Matthias Klose doko at ubuntu dot com 2011-01-10 17:22:26
UTC ---
ld.gold from binutils 2.21 was used.
object files at
https://bugs.launchpad.net/gcc/+bug/701110/+attachment/1790281/+files/tst.tar.xz
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38292
--- Comment #12 from Matthias Klose doko at ubuntu dot com 2011-01-10
17:24:03 UTC ---
I ran into bug #47248 trying to build a recent snapshot.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47243
--- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com 2011-01-10 17:49:23
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
Worked with: r168582 (2011-01-07)
Fails with: r168598 (2011-01-08)
My guess is that Honza's r168593 exposes the issue. I now try to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47249
H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47247
--- Comment #6 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-01-10
17:54:51 UTC ---
The plugin specification says that once the COMDAT is marked PREVAILING, it has
to be output.
Any symbol marked PREVAILING_DEF must be defined in one object
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47249
--- Comment #1 from joseph at codesourcery dot com joseph at codesourcery dot
com 2011-01-10 18:00:22 UTC ---
On Mon, 10 Jan 2011, hjl.tools at gmail dot com wrote:
Target Milestone|--- |4.6.0
This is not a 4.6
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46021
--- Comment #5 from Rainer Orth ro at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-01-10 18:19:48 UTC
---
Author: ro
Date: Mon Jan 10 18:19:45 2011
New Revision: 168635
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=168635
Log:
PR tree-optimization/46021
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47247
--- Comment #7 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com 2011-01-10 18:26:00
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
The plugin specification says that once the COMDAT is marked PREVAILING, it
has
to be output.
Any symbol marked PREVAILING_DEF must
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37273
Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46492
Rainer Orth ro at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21206
Ralf Wildenhues rwild at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bjg at gnu dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42524
Ralf Wildenhues rwild at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21206
Ralf Wildenhues rwild at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2005-07-26 23:31:49 |2011-01-10
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47247
Cary Coutant ccoutant at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ccoutant at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45258
Ralf Wildenhues rwild at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||howarth at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47250
Summary: ICE: in add_substitution, at cp/mangle.c:393 with
-fabi-version=5 -g
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47247
--- Comment #9 from Cary Coutant ccoutant at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-01-10
19:07:54 UTC ---
I've added a new disposition code LDPR_PREVAILING_DEF_IRONLY_EXP and a new
version of the GET_SYMBOLS interface to the API specification on the wiki:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33637
Ralf Wildenhues rwild at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ltg at zes dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38546
Ralf Wildenhues rwild at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45979
--- Comment #9 from Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se 2011-01-10
19:30:30 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
Please can you confirm that this is now fixed in trunk, Mikael.
No, it has not been fixed on trunk.
And has it been backported?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45258
Jack Howarth howarth at nitro dot med.uc.edu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45258
--- Comment #13 from mrs at gcc dot gnu.org mrs at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-01-10
19:41:42 UTC ---
Author: mrs
Date: Mon Jan 10 19:41:39 2011
New Revision: 168639
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=168639
Log:
2010-08-17 Jack
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47222
--- Comment #13 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org hjl at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-01-10
19:58:59 UTC ---
Author: hjl
Date: Mon Jan 10 19:58:57 2011
New Revision: 168640
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=168640
Log:
Add
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45258
Iain Sandoe iains at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||iains at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25359
Iain Sandoe iains at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44488
--- Comment #11 from Iain Sandoe iains at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-01-10 20:25:19
UTC ---
should this be closed as fixed - and, if not, what is the remaining issue?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26427
Iain Sandoe iains at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47240
--- Comment #3 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-01-10 20:27:29 UTC ---
Reduced test case:
type t
procedure (fun), pointer, nopass :: p
end type
type(t) :: x
x%p = fun
print *, evaluate (x%p)
contains
real function fun ()
fun
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45258
--- Comment #15 from Jack Howarth howarth at nitro dot med.uc.edu 2011-01-10
20:27:22 UTC ---
Iain,
I was referring to the conceptual problems of creating a
version-compare-remove-outfile spec function. For any given OS release there is
a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46823
--- Comment #16 from Martin Jambor jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-01-10
20:34:14 UTC ---
The problem seems to be a different one. During IPA decision making
we decide to clone a function and the call graph node of the original
one is then
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47247
--- Comment #10 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-01-10
20:56:23 UTC ---
What undesirable things may happen if we mark a COMDAT symbol
PREVAILING_DEF? Is that we won't know which one will be used
if both LTO and non-LTO objects
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47247
--- Comment #11 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com 2011-01-10 21:01:55
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #10)
What undesirable things may happen if we mark a COMDAT symbol
PREVAILING_DEF? Is that we won't know which one will be used
if both
1 - 100 of 137 matches
Mail list logo