On Sat, 2011-02-26 at 18:45 +0100, Richard Guenther wrote:
On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 12:22 AM, Steve Ellcey s...@cup.hp.com wrote:
I am looking at an lto bug on ia64-hp-hpux11.23. If I compile
g++.dg/torture/pr33572.C with -flto on this platform I get:
ld: Unsatisfied symbol
Denis Chertykov schrieb:
2011/2/26 Georg-Johann Lay a...@gjlay.de:
Ok, this is the patch I meant:
http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?view=revisionrevision=86842
it allows just Pmode in r29:r28 because of some spill failures in PR15417
and PR12017.
It was a stupid workaround.
I think that the
On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 7:22 PM, Steve Ellcey s...@cup.hp.com wrote:
On Sat, 2011-02-26 at 18:45 +0100, Richard Guenther wrote:
On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 12:22 AM, Steve Ellcey s...@cup.hp.com wrote:
I am looking at an lto bug on ia64-hp-hpux11.23. If I compile
g++.dg/torture/pr33572.C with
On Mon, 2011-02-28 at 23:56 +0100, Richard Guenther wrote:
The gcc_personality is provided by libgcc_s I think, it's what you
get when compiling C code with -fexceptions and install
cleanup handlers.
It seems that LTO comes to the conclusion that the C++ specific
personality is not
Here is an amended patch that handles Ada as EABI-only on ARM.
Are there any other comments on the appropriateness of this globbing change?
Thanks,
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the
On 03/01/2011 09:27 AM, Steve Ellcey wrote:
The libgcc_s on the ia64-hp-hpux* platform, at least when built using
the system unwind library, does not have a gcc personality function and
so far it has not needed one.
How is that possible? Do any of the gcc.dg/cleanup-*.c tests work?
r~
On Tue, 2011-03-01 at 10:14 +1000, Richard Henderson wrote:
On 03/01/2011 09:27 AM, Steve Ellcey wrote:
The libgcc_s on the ia64-hp-hpux* platform, at least when built using
the system unwind library, does not have a gcc personality function and
so far it has not needed one.
How is that
Hi!
On Mon, 2011-02-28 at 16:12:32 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
Here is an amended patch that handles Ada as EABI-only on ARM.
diff --git a/gcc/ada/gcc-interface/Makefile.in
b/gcc/ada/gcc-interface/Makefile.in
index b64ba55..7559efb 100644
--- a/gcc/ada/gcc-interface/Makefile.in
+++
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47894
--- Comment #4 from Francois-Xavier Coudert fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-02-28 08:16:24 UTC ---
Author: fxcoudert
Date: Mon Feb 28 08:16:21 2011
New Revision: 170557
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=170557
Log:
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47894
Francois-Xavier Coudert fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
That should work. The error is a sanity check that profile information
is sane.
Obviously given that sanity of profile can break for valid reasons, we should
not ICE
when this happen. I will try to look how it becomes insane here however.
Honza
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47916
--- Comment #8 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at ucw dot cz 2011-02-28 08:55:46 UTC
---
That should work. The error is a sanity check that profile information
is sane.
Obviously given that sanity of profile can break for valid reasons, we should
not
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47497
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=47497
--- Comment #16 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at ucw dot cz 2011-02-28 08:58:39
UTC ---
Jakub, what was logic for the current alias merging code?
Is that my code? That would surprise me, I had to do something primarily with
same body
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47497
--- Comment #17 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-02-28
09:14:18 UTC ---
For more on LTHUNK see http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2003-06/msg02603.html
When merging you either should take all thunks and real definitions from one
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47920
Summary: strange code generated for expression (a+7)/8
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
AssignedTo:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46639
--- Comment #5 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-02-28
09:25:28 UTC ---
There is no predictor predicting x 1023 as unlikely, there is not much you
can easilly guess here ;(
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47873
--- Comment #10 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-02-28
09:31:32 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
Confirmed that this testcase runs fine with gcc 4.4.5/4.5.2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47874 still fails on gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47899
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-02-28
09:39:52 UTC ---
Somewhat simplified testcase (still for -O -funroll-loops):
extern unsigned int a, b, c;
extern int d;
static int
foo (void)
{
lab:
if (b)
for (d = 0;
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47907
--- Comment #1 from Daniel Richard G. skunk at iskunk dot org 2011-02-28
09:45:09 UTC ---
Much later in the bootstrap process, I get this, which may be related:
libtool: compile: /tmp/gcc-4.5.2-build/./gcc/xgcc -shared-libgcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43085
--- Comment #18 from Onur Küçük onur at pardus dot org.tr 2011-02-28 09:50:51
UTC ---
I have found that reverting r167492 [1] fixes the problem for me. Of course it
brings back PR46806 but at least it should give a hint where the problem is.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43085
--- Comment #19 from Onur Küçük onur at pardus dot org.tr 2011-02-28 09:51:50
UTC ---
Created attachment 23488
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=23488
revert 167492 patch
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47920
--- Comment #1 from Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se 2011-02-28
09:56:36 UTC ---
Presumably because arithmetic right-shift by 3 isn't the same as a division by
8 when (a+7) is negative. Changing the types to unsigned gives the code you
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47920
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=47921
Summary: pbump will overflow when input n is larger than 2G-1
Product: gcc
Version: 4.1.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: critical
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47921
--- Comment #1 from Robert Python RobertPython at 163 dot com 2011-02-28
10:51:30 UTC ---
try below program in a 64bit environment with about 8G memory:
#include string
#include strstream
#include iostream
#define N 1
#define SIZE 40
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47918
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=47921
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42622
--- Comment #2 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 2011-02-28
11:15:44 UTC ---
Thanks Marc, let me have a closer look to the code and some testing.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47922
Summary: [4.6 Regression] libobjc crashes with garbage
collection in any real-life program
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19201
--- Comment #15 from Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se 2011-02-28
12:04:32 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #14)
I'll try Kazu's patch in my next 4.4 bootstrap/regtest.
Kazu's patch appears to have been for a 4.2 code base. I forward-ported
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47923
Summary: Errors when installing GCC 4.5.2 on AIX 6.1
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
Priority: P3
Component: bootstrap
AssignedTo:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47921
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-02-28
12:36:28 UTC ---
We can't change the signature of pbump, but that doesn't mean we have to call
it with values that cause overflow. Could we add a safe_pbump(streamsize n)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47923
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-02-28
12:37:42 UTC ---
I don't see any error with the attachment you made. What is the problem you
are running into?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47923
--- Comment #2 from Mirko mirko.chioldin at iside dot bcc.it 2011-02-28
12:42:28 UTC ---
The make phase was stopper with this error:
if [ x != x ]; then \
powerpc-ibm-aix6.1.0.0-gcc -c -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -g -O2 -I.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47921
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-02-28
12:43:41 UTC ---
something like this (untested)
--- include/std/streambuf.orig 2011-02-28 12:40:44.559350898 +
+++ include/std/streambuf 2011-02-28
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47923
--- Comment #3 from Andreas Schwab sch...@linux-m68k.org 2011-02-28 12:57:30
UTC ---
This is a problem with the host compiler (powerpc-ibm-aix6.1.0.0-gcc). Try
using a different compiler or reducing the optimisation level.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47921
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47921
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47922
Nicola Pero nicola at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47917
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-02-28
13:23:20 UTC ---
Created attachment 23490
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=23490
gcc46-pr47917.patch
Untested patch.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47921
--- Comment #7 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 2011-02-28
14:11:39 UTC ---
Actually, fixing strstream too is easy, because it derives from
basic_streambufchar, which can be assumed to have __safe_pbump
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42622
--- Comment #3 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 2011-02-28
14:32:09 UTC ---
Testing at my end went well. I guess I'm going to apply the patch for 4.6.0,
together with an handful of additional tests. I think the patch is small
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47924
Summary: [4.6 Regression] Missed optimization with LTO
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: lto
AssignedTo:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42622
--- Comment #4 from Marc Glisse marc.glisse at normalesup dot org 2011-02-28
14:45:42 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
I think the patch is small enough
to go in at your name without Copyright Assignment.
I believe I am supposed to have the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47924
--- Comment #1 from Dmitry Gorbachev d.g.gorbachev at gmail dot com
2011-02-28 14:47:26 UTC ---
Created attachment 23492
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=23492
Generated asm
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47924
--- Comment #2 from Dmitry Gorbachev d.g.gorbachev at gmail dot com
2011-02-28 14:48:01 UTC ---
Created attachment 23493
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=23493
Testcase #2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42622
--- Comment #5 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 2011-02-28
14:51:08 UTC ---
Well, I can check, but if you sent already the form, it should be matter of 1-2
weeks max for you to get back via email the pdf of your assignment. When
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47924
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=47925
Summary: delete_trivially_dead_insns mishandles volatile mems
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: rtl-optimization
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47923
--- Comment #4 from Mirko mirko.chioldin at iside dot bcc.it 2011-02-28
15:20:26 UTC ---
Hello,
using the command make CFLAGS = '-O0' CXXFLAGS = '-O0' LIBCFLAGS = '-O0'
LIBCXXFLAGS = '-O0-fno-implicit-templates' bootstrap' seems to work better.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47925
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=47923
--- Comment #5 from Mirko mirko.chioldin at iside dot bcc.it 2011-02-28
15:21:29 UTC ---
Created attachment 23495
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=23495
New test to compile
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46790
--- Comment #17 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-02-28
15:36:41 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Feb 28 15:36:37 2011
New Revision: 170565
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=170565
Log:
PR middle-end/46790
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47283
--- Comment #17 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-02-28
15:47:20 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Feb 28 15:47:18 2011
New Revision: 170566
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=170566
Log:
PR debug/47283
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47924
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46655
--- Comment #27 from Richard Nolde richard.nolde at cybox dot com 2011-02-28
15:57:00 UTC ---
On 02/25/2011 10:52 AM, dje at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46655
--- Comment #26 from David Edelsohndje at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46790
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47283
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42622
--- Comment #6 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org paolo at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-02-28 16:46:28 UTC ---
Author: paolo
Date: Mon Feb 28 16:46:23 2011
New Revision: 170567
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=170567
Log:
2011-02-28 Paolo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42622
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46887
David Edelsohn dje at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47893
--- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-02-28
17:05:10 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Feb 28 17:05:07 2011
New Revision: 170568
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=170568
Log:
PR middle-end/47893
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47926
Summary: [x32] nested function pointer doesn't work
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
AssignedTo:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47893
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45261
--- Comment #17 from denisc at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-02-28 17:13:16 UTC ---
Author: denisc
Date: Mon Feb 28 17:13:13 2011
New Revision: 170569
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=170569
Log:
2011-02-28 Georg-Johann Lay
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47535
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Lennox lennox at cs dot columbia.edu 2011-02-28
17:30:39 UTC ---
In arm.opt, marm is marked Undocumented, and mthumb is not marked
RejectNegative.
In invoke.texi, -marm isn't mentioned except in the ARM options list.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47535
--- Comment #3 from Richard Earnshaw rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-02-28
17:37:21 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
In arm.opt, marm is marked Undocumented, and mthumb is not marked
RejectNegative.
In invoke.texi, -marm isn't mentioned
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47927
Summary: GCC driver accepts bogus compiler options on assembly
input
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47928
Summary: Gfortran intrinsics documentation paragraph ordering
illogical
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28047
--- Comment #1 from Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-02-28 18:23:29
UTC ---
Author: ktietz
Date: Mon Feb 28 18:23:25 2011
New Revision: 170570
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=170570
Log:
2011-02-28 Kai Tietz
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47929
Summary: unclear prototype for '...' does not match any in
class diagnostic for templates
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: diagnostic
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28047
Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47930
Summary: -marm is undocumented; driver accepts -mno-thumb
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
AssignedTo:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47535
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Lennox lennox at cs dot columbia.edu 2011-02-28
18:42:20 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
Yep, sounds like these should be fixed.
Filed as Bug 47930.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47669
Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47225
Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anhvofrcaus at gmail
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47926
--- Comment #1 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org hjl at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-02-28
19:12:24 UTC ---
Author: hjl
Date: Mon Feb 28 19:12:18 2011
New Revision: 170571
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=170571
Log:
Always use ptr_mode on
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47931
Summary: missing -Waddress warning for comparison with NULL
Product: gcc
Version: 4.4.4
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
AssignedTo:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47931
--- Comment #1 from Martin Sebor msebor at gmail dot com 2011-02-28 19:38:15
UTC ---
To add a suggested solution to my report: Since many (most?) comparisons will
be against NULL which can be defined as either 0 or (void*)0 I think it would
be
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47905
Aldy Hernandez aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47836
--- Comment #10 from th.r.klein at web dot de 2011-02-28 19:52:12 UTC ---
If you can't imagine how to get a usable C++ compiler without libstdc++-v3 (and
libc), please stop wasting your time in thinking about it.
Here is no C++ problem at all.
If
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47902
--- Comment #3 from Daniel Richard G. skunk at iskunk dot org 2011-02-28
20:01:51 UTC ---
I played around with this a bit, and found something rather amusing:
sizeof(pid_t) . compiles just fine
sizeof((pid_t)) ... parse error before
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47685
--- Comment #3 from Alexandre Pereira Nunes alexandre.nunes at gmail dot com
2011-02-28 20:25:50 UTC ---
Created attachment 23496
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=23496
Patch from the trunk, which I'm testing against 4.5.x
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47685
--- Comment #4 from Alexandre Pereira Nunes alexandre.nunes at gmail dot com
2011-02-28 20:27:00 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
This has been fixed on trunk and will be in the 4.6.0 release.
With this commit
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47918
--- Comment #2 from joseph at codesourcery dot com joseph at codesourcery dot
com 2011-02-28 20:28:27 UTC ---
On Mon, 28 Feb 2011, rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
Also y isn't really noreturn, is it? Honza? Shouldn't non-local gotos
also
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38203
--- Comment #6 from Alexandre Pereira Nunes alexandre.nunes at gmail dot com
2011-02-28 20:30:24 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
There's a lot of debate about whether the ARM behaviour is a good thing or
not.
Not pushing the return address
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47927
--- Comment #1 from joseph at codesourcery dot com joseph at codesourcery dot
com 2011-02-28 20:35:15 UTC ---
This (the general issue of invalid options being accepted because some
spec passes them down to some subprocess or otherwise accepts
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42560
Ralf Wildenhues rwild at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47567
--- Comment #28 from Jerry DeLisle jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-02-28
21:19:35 UTC ---
New patch which passes Programmatic test case has been submitted for approval.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41936
Mikael Morin mikael at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47873
--- Comment #11 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-02-28
21:41:24 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Mon Feb 28 21:41:21 2011
New Revision: 170576
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=170576
Log:
PR c++/47873
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47902
--- Comment #4 from Daniel Richard G. skunk at iskunk dot org 2011-02-28
21:59:28 UTC ---
Okay, did some more digging.
So I see that the ac_fn_c_check_type function actually tries a test compilation
first with sizeof(foo_t), and then
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47905
--- Comment #2 from Aldy Hernandez aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-02-28
23:25:00 UTC ---
Author: aldyh
Date: Mon Feb 28 23:24:57 2011
New Revision: 170578
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=170578
Log:
PR 47905
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47905
Aldy Hernandez aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47669
--- Comment #2 from Anh Vo anhvofrcaus at gmail dot com 2011-02-28 23:50:00
UTC ---
It is agreed that this problem has been fixed. In fact, rebuilding the
gcc-4.6-20110226 snapshot, this problem went away.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47921
--- Comment #8 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org paolo at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-02-28 23:51:02 UTC ---
Author: paolo
Date: Mon Feb 28 23:50:57 2011
New Revision: 170579
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=170579
Log:
2011-02-28 Paolo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47921
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47874
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47874
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
1 - 100 of 121 matches
Mail list logo
