Can you point me at least to the section which explains this?
http://gcc.gnu.org/install/build.html
--
Eric Botcazou
www.sileorganik.comİstanbulun şirin ilçesi Şile ve köylerinden
evlerinize geliyor , unuttuğunuz o eski tatları sizlere hatırlatacağız ,
kapıda ödeme kolaylığıyla artık sizlere çok yakınız . Doğal köy yoğurdu
,köy yumurtası ,köy ekmeği ,köy peyniri www.sileorganik.com
Hello All
(I've found this issue with the GCC MELT branch rev 169469, but I strongly
believe it is not directly related to MELT and should happen with the trunk
also. You could run the testsuite/melt/topengpu-1.c test, a comment in that
file describes how to run the test)
First, a pass inserted
On Tue, Feb 01, 2011 at 04:32:51PM +0100, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
On Tue, 1 Feb 2011, Dongsheng Song wrote:
The DATESTAMP change could also be in a post-commit hook (doing
nothing if the date didn't change, of course). No idea whether
this is technically possible of course.
Yes, the
On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 2:29 PM, Jakub Jelinek ja...@redhat.com wrote:
On Tue, Feb 01, 2011 at 04:32:51PM +0100, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
On Tue, 1 Feb 2011, Dongsheng Song wrote:
The DATESTAMP change could also be in a post-commit hook (doing
nothing if the date didn't change, of course). No
On Feb 2, 2011, at 8:32 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 2:29 PM, Jakub Jelinek ja...@redhat.com wrote:
On Tue, Feb 01, 2011 at 04:32:51PM +0100, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
On Tue, 1 Feb 2011, Dongsheng Song wrote:
The DATESTAMP change could also be in a post-commit hook (doing
On 02/01/2011 04:54 AM, Dave Korn wrote:
On 01/02/2011 02:33, Joel Sherrill wrote:
Should LTO work with a target not using gold?
Yes, it should, but some work is needed at the binutils end. I am testing
the attached two patches at the moment; the idea is to have fully-debugged
support for
Hi,
In the past few days, something has regressed
on the sparc. Revision 169143 only had 699 failures
and ~100 of those were LTO related. David Korn's
patch seems to have resolved those. Revision 169504
has 2231 failures.
On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 22:00, Paul Koning paul_kon...@dell.com wrote:
No. Subversion specifically documents the fact that a pre-commit hook can't
change the transaction; it can only inspect it.
paul
Yes, here is a pilot post commit hook for bumping DATESTAMP:
post-commit |
Dongsheng Song dongsheng.s...@gmail.com writes:
+ echo -n ${CURR_DATE} gcc/DATESTAMP
What's the point of -n?
Andreas.
--
Andreas Schwab, sch...@redhat.com
GPG Key fingerprint = D4E8 DBE3 3813 BB5D FA84 5EC7 45C6 250E 6F00 984E
And now for something completely different.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 02/02/11 07:19, Joel Sherrill wrote:
Hi,
In the past few days, something has regressed
on the sparc. Revision 169143 only had 699 failures
and ~100 of those were LTO related. David Korn's
patch seems to have resolved those. Revision 169504
As noticed by Peter Maydell, the EHCI device driver in Linux gets
miscompiled by some versions of arm-gcc (still need to find out which)
due to a combination of problems:
1. In include/linux/usb/ehci_def.h, struct ehci_caps is defined
with __attribute__((packed)), for no good reason. This is
On Wed, Feb 02, 2011 at 05:00:20PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
I would suggest fixing this by:
1. auditing all uses of __attribute__((packed)) in the Linux USB code
and other drivers, removing the ones that are potentially harmful.
2. Changing the ARM MMIO functions to use inline assembly
On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 5:00 PM, Arnd Bergmann a...@arndb.de wrote:
As noticed by Peter Maydell, the EHCI device driver in Linux gets
miscompiled by some versions of arm-gcc (still need to find out which)
due to a combination of problems:
1. In include/linux/usb/ehci_def.h, struct ehci_caps is
On Wed, Feb 02, 2011 at 05:51:27PM +0100, Richard Guenther wrote:
I would suggest fixing this by:
1. auditing all uses of __attribute__((packed)) in the Linux USB code
and other drivers, removing the ones that are potentially harmful.
2. Changing the ARM MMIO functions to use inline
On Wed, 2 Feb 2011, Richard Guenther wrote:
The pointer conversions already invoke undefined behavior as specified by the
C standard (6.3.2.3/7).
I would say: the conversions are undefined if the pointer is
insufficiently aligned for any of the pointer types involved (source,
destination or
On Wednesday 02 February 2011 17:37:02 Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
We used to use inline assembly at one point, but that got chucked out.
The problem is that using asm() for this causes GCC to generate horrid
code.
1. there's no way to tell GCC that the inline assembly is a load
No new failures. Tested on x86_64.
Diego.
On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 10:19 AM, Diego Novillo dnovi...@google.com wrote:
No new failures. Tested on x86_64.
This caused a lot of svn revisions and addition to bug reports that
was not really needed.
-- Pinski
On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 13:30, Andrew Pinski pins...@gmail.com wrote:
This caused a lot of svn revisions and addition to bug reports that
was not really needed.
Gah, sorry about that. The multiple svn revisions were somewhat
intentional, I was trying to keep the svn commit history, but I will
On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 10:47 AM, Diego Novillo dnovi...@google.com wrote:
On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 13:30, Andrew Pinski pins...@gmail.com wrote:
This caused a lot of svn revisions and addition to bug reports that
was not really needed.
Gah, sorry about that. The multiple svn revisions were
On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 13:48, H.J. Lu hjl.to...@gmail.com wrote:
Git can solve this problem for you.
It was git the cause of the problem, actually. I committed with 'git
svn dcommit' without squashing the commits into a single one.
Diego.
On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 10:52 AM, Diego Novillo dnovi...@google.com wrote:
On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 13:48, H.J. Lu hjl.to...@gmail.com wrote:
Git can solve this problem for you.
It was git the cause of the problem, actually. I committed with 'git
svn dcommit' without squashing the commits into
I would like to apologize for all the bugzilla spam I have caused with
a recent merge I made. I was committing the merge with 'git svn',
since I was interested in keeping the commit history. I did not
realize that this would also commit the svn commit messages with the
PR numbers, causing the
Arnd Bergmann a...@arndb.de writes:
On Wednesday 02 February 2011 17:37:02 Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
We used to use inline assembly at one point, but that got chucked out.
The problem is that using asm() for this causes GCC to generate horrid
code.
1. there's no way to tell GCC that
From: Russell King - ARM Linux li...@arm.linux.org.uk
Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2011 16:37:02 +
1. there's no way to tell GCC that the inline assembly is a load
instruction and therefore it needs to schedule the following
instructions appropriately.
Just add a dummy 'm (pointer)' asm input
On Wed, Feb 02, 2011 at 01:38:31PM -0800, David Miller wrote:
From: Russell King - ARM Linux li...@arm.linux.org.uk
Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2011 16:37:02 +
1. there's no way to tell GCC that the inline assembly is a load
instruction and therefore it needs to schedule the following
From: Russell King - ARM Linux li...@arm.linux.org.uk
Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2011 21:45:22 +
On Wed, Feb 02, 2011 at 01:38:31PM -0800, David Miller wrote:
From: Russell King - ARM Linux li...@arm.linux.org.uk
Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2011 16:37:02 +
1. there's no way to tell GCC that the inline
From: Måns Rullgård m...@mansr.com
Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2011 23:08:01 +
David Miller da...@davemloft.net writes:
From: Russell King - ARM Linux li...@arm.linux.org.uk
Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2011 16:37:02 +
1. there's no way to tell GCC that the inline assembly is a load
instruction and
David Miller da...@davemloft.net writes:
From: Russell King - ARM Linux li...@arm.linux.org.uk
Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2011 16:37:02 +
1. there's no way to tell GCC that the inline assembly is a load
instruction and therefore it needs to schedule the following
instructions appropriately.
On Wed, 2 Feb 2011, Dongsheng Song wrote:
Index: hooks/update_datestamp
===
--- hooks/update_datestamp (revision 0)
+++ hooks/update_datestamp (revision 0)
@@ -0,0 +1,51 @@
+#!/bin/sh
+
+REPOS=$1
+REV=$2
+
-20110202/configure --prefix=/sw
--prefix=/sw/lib/gcc4.6 --mandir=/sw/share/man --infodir=/sw/lib/gcc4.6/info
--with-build-config=bootstrap-lto --enable-stage1-languages=c,lto
--enable-languages=c,c++,fortran,lto,objc,obj-c++,java --with-gmp=/sw
--with-libiconv-prefix=/sw --with-ppl=/sw --with-cloog
On Wed, 2 Feb 2011 14:09:21 -0500
Diego Novillo dnovi...@google.com wrote:
I would like to apologize for all the bugzilla spam I have caused with
a recent merge I made. I was committing the merge with 'git svn',
since I was interested in keeping the commit history. I did not
realize that
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47583
--- Comment #6 from Harald Klimach harald at klimachs dot de 2011-02-02
08:04:30 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
Thanks a lot, at least for me this patch seems to solve the problem.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47571
--- Comment #15 from Janne Blomqvist jb at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-02-02
08:48:27 UTC ---
Author: jb
Date: Wed Feb 2 08:48:24 2011
New Revision: 169517
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=169517
Log:
PR 47571 Weakref trickery for
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47574
--- Comment #6 from Martin Losch mlo...@uni-bremen.de 2011-02-02 09:00:10 UTC
---
(In reply to comment #4)
As far as I can see (from the header files that came with pre-compiled
binaries) this was used:
#define MPFR_VERSION_STRING 2.4.1
#define
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47585
Summary: remaining dependent base lookup
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
AssignedTo:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47574
--- Comment #7 from Martin Losch mlo...@uni-bremen.de 2011-02-02 09:09:07 UTC
---
(In reply to comment #5)
I have had a look at the test code. Could you try
(1) to comment the call to EXCH2_UV_AGRID_3D_RL,
(2) the same for the (two?)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47558
Iain Sandoe iains at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47551
rsand...@gcc.gnu.org rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47553
rsand...@gcc.gnu.org rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47574
--- Comment #8 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr 2011-02-02
09:35:31 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
I have used gdb for minimally, but what is its use here? I cannot create an
executable if I do not reduce the optimization
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47543
--- Comment #9 from Ian Bolton ibolton at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-02-02 09:50:23
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
The potential fix seems to work fine on x86 as well. I'm going to build a
arm-elf toolchain and see if anything else pops up during
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47566
--- Comment #13 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-02-02
09:59:29 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Feb 2 09:59:23 2011
New Revision: 169518
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=169518
Log:
2011-02-02 Richard
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47564
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47566
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47583
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47508
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-02-02
10:05:24 UTC ---
And now a new version of that patch has been checked in. Can you verify if
this bug still exists with current trunk (r169513 or newer)?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47574
Martin Losch mlo...@uni-bremen.de changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #23201|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47574
--- Comment #10 from Martin Losch mlo...@uni-bremen.de 2011-02-02 10:28:15
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
(In reply to comment #6)
I have used gdb for minimally, but what is its use here? I cannot create an
executable if I do not reduce
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47574
--- Comment #11 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
2011-02-02 11:22:39 UTC ---
This is embarrissing. I apologize for attaching another wrong file (the
correct
file name would have been exch2_uv_agrid_3d_rl.f). I have now
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47581
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=47585
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-02-02
11:50:00 UTC ---
dup of PR 24163 ?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47585
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24163
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kreckel at ginac
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47584
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47581
--- Comment #4 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-02-02
12:12:23 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
Before Richard's commit apparently expand_one_var wasn't updating
stack_alignment_needed, just stack_alignment_estimated, now
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47581
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-02-02
12:25:01 UTC ---
But then wouldn't be size != 0?
At least when I try -O2 -m32:
int
foo (int x, int y)
{
long long a = (x + 0LL) * y;
long long b = (x - 63LL) * ((y | 12)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47583
--- Comment #7 from jpr at csc dot fi 2011-02-02 12:48:37 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
(In reply to comment #5)
Thanks a lot, at least for me this patch seems to solve the problem.
Well, that patch did break the direct_io_1.f90 test case
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47501
--- Comment #5 from Zdenek Sojka zsojka at seznam dot cz 2011-02-02 13:00:06
UTC ---
Thank you for quick fix. I tested that patch on top of r169501 (I tested it
before with r169450, but deleted the results...) - bootstrap with yes,rtl,df
checking
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47572
--- Comment #2 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-02-02 13:11:54 UTC ---
Author: janus
Date: Wed Feb 2 13:11:50 2011
New Revision: 169520
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=169520
Log:
2011-02-02 Janus Weil ja...@gcc.gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47572
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47581
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-02-02
13:52:42 UTC ---
Created attachment 23213
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=23213
gcc46-pr47581.patch
This patch indeed fixes the testcase and passed
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45122
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #23185|0 |1
is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47586
Summary: allocatable components: deep copy missing
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
AssignedTo:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47455
--- Comment #14 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-02-02 14:10:41 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #13)
Thus, left to do for this PR is comment 5: A deep copy is missing.
This is now PR 47586. Closing this one.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47455
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46941
Patrick Marlier patrick.marlier at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47581
--- Comment #7 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com 2011-02-02 14:18:22
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
Created attachment 23213 [details]
gcc46-pr47581.patch
This patch indeed fixes the testcase and passed bootstrap/regtest on
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47543
--- Comment #10 from Ian Bolton ibolton at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-02-02
14:49:02 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
The potential fix seems to work fine on x86 as well. I'm going to build a
arm-elf toolchain and see if anything else pops up during
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47546
--- Comment #3 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-02-02 14:49:16 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
If gfortran is 4.5, I get
hydro_fluxes.f90:7.18:
use hydro_speeds
1
Internal Error at (1):
mio_component_ref():
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47543
--- Comment #11 from Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com 2011-02-02 14:51:19
UTC ---
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 02/02/11 07:49, ibolton at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47543
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47581
--- Comment #8 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com 2011-02-02 14:57:22
UTC ---
For this tescase, gcc 4.4 generates the most efficient code
while 4.5/4.6 become worse and worse:
[hjl@gnu-6 gcc]$ cat x.i
unsigned mulh(unsigned a, unsigned b)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47581
H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||matz at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47543
--- Comment #12 from Ian Bolton ibolton at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-02-02
15:06:07 UTC ---
The native bootstrap was successful.
I configured with: --with-cpu=cortex-a9 --with-float=softfp
--with-fpu=vfpv3-d16 --with-mode=thumb
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47044
--- Comment #4 from Jack Howarth howarth at nitro dot med.uc.edu 2011-02-02
15:08:33 UTC ---
This issue appears to be resolved at r169520 with
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-02/msg00070.html (omitting the
TODO_update_address_taken part)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47581
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-02-02
15:14:45 UTC ---
As #c8 is caused by a different patch and is much lower priority (because only
very few people use explicitly aligned long longs on i?86), please track it
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47312
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-02-02
15:24:25 UTC ---
One possibility would be to only fold __builtin_fma* into FMA_EXPR after IPA
passes.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47312
--- Comment #3 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-02-02
15:30:51 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
One possibility would be to only fold __builtin_fma* into FMA_EXPR after IPA
passes.
Expanding FMA_EXPR as __builtin_fma
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47312
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-02-02
15:39:00 UTC ---
FMA_EXPR is created though not only just for __builtin_fma{,l,f} in the code,
but also for x * y + z when contracting. Can expansion rely that this is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47589
Summary: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault
Product: gcc
Version: 4.4.5
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
AssignedTo:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47589
--- Comment #1 from Maxim Yegorushkin maxim.yegorushkin at gmail dot com
2011-02-02 15:43:45 UTC ---
Created attachment 23215
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=23215
Archived preprocessed source
Could not attach the preprocessed
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47044
--- Comment #5 from Sebastian Pop spop at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-02-02 15:52:27
UTC ---
Author: spop
Date: Wed Feb 2 15:52:21 2011
New Revision: 169531
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=169531
Log:
Fix PR40979 and PR47044: after
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40979
--- Comment #22 from Sebastian Pop spop at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-02-02
15:52:26 UTC ---
Author: spop
Date: Wed Feb 2 15:52:21 2011
New Revision: 169531
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=169531
Log:
Fix PR40979 and PR47044:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47555
--- Comment #9 from Sebastian Pop spop at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-02-02 15:52:15
UTC ---
Author: spop
Date: Wed Feb 2 15:52:08 2011
New Revision: 169530
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=169530
Log:
Fix PR47576 and PR47555: add
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47576
--- Comment #4 from Sebastian Pop spop at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-02-02 15:52:15
UTC ---
Author: spop
Date: Wed Feb 2 15:52:08 2011
New Revision: 169530
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=169530
Log:
Fix PR47576 and PR47555: add
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47044
Sebastian Pop spop at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47576
Sebastian Pop spop at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40979
Sebastian Pop spop at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47555
--- Comment #10 from Sebastian Pop spop at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-02-02
16:01:34 UTC ---
What about backporting this patch to 4.4 and 4.5?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47589
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-02-02
16:05:34 UTC ---
I think this is PR 45894
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47590
Summary: var tracking produces wrong debug in code where
optimization is turned off using pragma
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47590
--- Comment #1 from hariharans at picochip dot com 2011-02-02 16:07:27 UTC ---
Created attachment 23218
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=23218
The assembly output from -Os compilation
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47274
--- Comment #31 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-02-02
16:07:14 UTC ---
Created attachment 23217
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=23217
gcc46-pr47274.patch
I think it is fairly obvious where the bug is (though
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45894
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47589
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47590
--- Comment #2 from hariharans at picochip dot com 2011-02-02 16:08:20 UTC ---
Created attachment 23219
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=23219
The assembly with instruction addresses
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42860
Sebastian Pop spop at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47574
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenther
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45894
--- Comment #12 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-02-02
16:27:46 UTC ---
Although this bug has 4.4.5 in the Known to work field, the bug in cp/tree.c
is present on the 4.4 branch, and the testcase in PR 47589 causes an ICE with
1 - 100 of 268 matches
Mail list logo
