Hello,
I appriciate explanation regarding the following piece of code in
sched_analyze_insn function (sched-deps.c): When handling jump instruction
dependence edges are created between the jump instruction and memory
writes and volatile reads and I'm not quite sure the reason why.
Jump
On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 1:01 AM, Vladimir Makarov vmaka...@redhat.com wrote:
I can not reproduce the problem. It would be nice to give all info (the
code without includes and all options). In this case I could have more info
to say more definitely about the reason of the problem in IRA.
One
On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 10:11 AM, Paulo J. Matos pa...@matos-sorge.com wrote:
On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 1:01 AM, Vladimir Makarov vmaka...@redhat.com wrote:
I can not reproduce the problem. It would be nice to give all info (the
code without includes and all options). In this case I could have
On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 1:01 AM, Vladimir Makarov vmaka...@redhat.com wrote:
I can not reproduce the problem. It would be nice to give all info (the
code without includes and all options). In this case I could have more info
to say more definitely about the reason of the problem in IRA.
Let
On 08/08/11 21:35, Jan Hubicka wrote:
On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 3:24 PM, Jan Hubicka hubi...@ucw.cz wrote:
In a way I like the current scheme since it is simple and extending it
should IMO have some good reason. We could refine -Os behaviour without
changing current predicates to optimize for
On Thu, Aug 04, 2011 at 04:05:25PM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
Hi,
We (Mozilla) are trying to get the best of the ARM toolchain for our
Android build. I recently built an Android Native-code Development Kit
with GCC 4.6.1 and binutils 2.21.53, instead of GCC 4.4.3 and binutils
2.19 that come
On 08/11/2011 04:49 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 10:11 AM, Paulo J. Matospa...@matos-sorge.com wrote:
On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 1:01 AM, Vladimir Makarovvmaka...@redhat.com wrote:
I can not reproduce the problem. It would be nice to give all info (the
code without
Dear gcc developers,
this is about an issue that popped up in a verification project [1] based on
LLVM, but it seems to be already present in the gimple code, before llvm-gcc
transforms the gimple code to LLVM-IR.
In short:
Calculating the difference of two pointers seems to be treated by gcc
On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 5:15 PM, Florian Merz florian.m...@kit.edu wrote:
Dear gcc developers,
this is about an issue that popped up in a verification project [1] based on
LLVM, but it seems to be already present in the gimple code, before llvm-gcc
transforms the gimple code to LLVM-IR.
In
This brings the second part of the streamer refactoring. I'm
going to be doing frequent merges in the next little while to
avoid big conflicts.
Tested on x86_64.
Diego.
Thanks for your reply Richard, but I'm not satisfied with your answer, yet. :-)
If I'm right, then the problem I'm refering to doesn't require large objects.
See below for more.
Am Thursday, 11. August 2011, 17:48:26 schrieb Richard Guenther:
On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 5:15 PM, Florian Merz
On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 7:21 AM, Mike Hommey mhom...@mozilla.com wrote:
On Thu, Aug 04, 2011 at 04:05:25PM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
Hi,
We (Mozilla) are trying to get the best of the ARM toolchain for our
Android build. I recently built an Android Native-code Development Kit
with GCC 4.6.1
Hello all,
I was making some modifications to picochip port and ran into a problem
with cse within reload and I think it is a bug. Can someone familiar
with reload let me know if it is indeed a bug. The c testcase that
caused the problem was
On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 6:05 PM, Florian Merz florian.m...@kit.edu wrote:
Thanks for your reply Richard, but I'm not satisfied with your answer, yet.
:-)
If I'm right, then the problem I'm refering to doesn't require large objects.
See below for more.
Am Thursday, 11. August 2011, 17:48:26
On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 09:05:19AM -0700, Florian Merz wrote:
If I remember the standard correctly, pointer subtraction is valid if both
pointers point to elements of the same array or to one past the last element
of the array. According to this 0x8000 - 0x7FFF should be a valid
On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 7:13 PM, Joe Buck joe.b...@synopsys.com wrote:
On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 09:05:19AM -0700, Florian Merz wrote:
If I remember the standard correctly, pointer subtraction is valid if both
pointers point to elements of the same array or to one past the last element
of the
Am Thursday, 11. August 2011, 19:15:41 schrieb Richard Guenther:
On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 7:13 PM, Joe Buck joe.b...@synopsys.com wrote:
On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 09:05:19AM -0700, Florian Merz wrote:
If I remember the standard correctly, pointer subtraction is valid if
both pointers point to
Jed Davis jedid...@vmware.com writes:
But is that the right way to do that, do people think? Or should I
look into making this its own -mcmodel option? (Which would raise the
I would make it a new -mcmodel=... option.
question of what to call it -- medsmall? smallhigh? altkernel?) Or is
On Thu, 11 Aug 2011, Richard Guenther wrote:
int x,y;
int main ()
{
char *a, *b;
__INTPTR_TYPE__ w;
if (x)
a = 0x7ffe;
else
a = 0x7fff;
if (y)
b = 0x8001;
else
b = 0x8000;
w = b - a;
return w;
}
indeed traps with -ftrapv for me
On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 12:15 PM, Richard Guenther
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 7:13 PM, Joe Buck joe.b...@synopsys.com wrote:
On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 09:05:19AM -0700, Florian Merz wrote:
If I remember the standard correctly, pointer subtraction is valid if both
On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 1:58 PM, Joseph S. Myers
jos...@codesourcery.com wrote:
-ftrapv and -fwrapv should have no effect on pointer subtraction.
Yes!
-- Gaby
On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 1:58 PM, Joseph S. Myers
jos...@codesourcery.com wrote:
-ftrapv and -fwrapv should have no effect on pointer subtraction.
Gaby writes:
Yes!
Wouldn't it suffice to convert the pointers to unsigned, do an unsigned
subtraction, and then convert the result to signed?
Snapshot gcc-4.5-20110811 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.5-20110811/
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
On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 3:15 PM, H.J. Lu hjl.to...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
It turns out that x32 needs R_X86_64_64. One major reason is
the displacement range of x32 is -2G to +2G. It isn't a problem
for compiler since only small model is required for x32.
However, to address 0 to 4G directly
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50042
Sri murthys at us dot ibm.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |major
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50042
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c |bootstrap
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49687
--- Comment #8 from Georg-Johann Lay gjl at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-08-11
07:50:42 UTC ---
Author: gjl
Date: Thu Aug 11 07:50:37 2011
New Revision: 177648
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=177648
Log:
PR target/49687
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49801
Paulo J. Matos Paulo.Matos at csr dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |major
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49992
--- Comment #39 from Iain Sandoe iains at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-08-11 08:52:24
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #37)
This issue is not fixed.
concur.
Mike; there are two problems.
a. the link line for gcc/gengtype (recently introduced) includes
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50018
--- Comment #6 from Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se 2011-08-11
09:04:52 UTC ---
The proposed patch in #c5 allows me to build a C-only cross to m68k-linux
again. Thanks.
It will take me several days to do a c,c++ native bootstrap +
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50043
Bug #: 50043
Summary: [C++0x] Implement core/1123
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49242
Gerald Pfeifer gerald at pfeifer dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50042
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50041
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28859
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hjl.tools at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50040
--- Comment #1 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-08-11
10:04:06 UTC ---
We should have never accepted the aggregate warning code in 4.4 and earlier
in it's current awkward form that only works for testcases. It was removed.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50039
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50040
--- Comment #2 from Jan Kratochvil jan.kratochvil at redhat dot com
2011-08-11 10:41:30 UTC ---
I was searching for duplicates but I haven't found a close enough one without
knowing GCC internals.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50038
Igor Zamyatin izamyatin at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||izamyatin at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50040
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50040
--- Comment #4 from Jan Kratochvil jan.kratochvil at redhat dot com
2011-08-11 11:22:41 UTC ---
Thanks for a fix, FYI this is a reduced real world problem.
During backporting of
[patch] Implement core file's PID for s390* and ppc*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50037
--- Comment #5 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-08-11
11:21:34 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
(In reply to comment #3)
Using
int foo (int n, int *addr)
{
int count, sum;
for ( count = n 0x3; count = 0;
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50037
--- Comment #6 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-08-11
11:39:44 UTC ---
It probably doesn't help that tree IVOPTs replaces the nice induction variable
with a pointer one:
# BLOCK 2 freq:900
# PRED: ENTRY [100.0%]
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49987
rsand...@gcc.gnu.org rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50037
--- Comment #7 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-08-11
12:12:56 UTC ---
The following patch makes us handle the canonical testcase on the tree level,
but not yet the original testcase (because of the * 2).
We should really
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49987
--- Comment #3 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-08-11 12:13:02 UTC ---
Created attachment 24975
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24975
Proposed patch
I think the PowerPC backend needs the same
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49987
--- Comment #4 from Iain Sandoe iains at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-08-11 12:23:41
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
Created attachment 24975 [details]
Proposed patch
I think the PowerPC backend needs the same fix as i386 and spu
did for #34856.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49911
--- Comment #13 from Martin Jambor jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-08-11
12:33:44 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
Still SRA should probably not produce enum kind replacements but always
integer kind ones.
I see, what would be the best way
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49992
--- Comment #40 from Jack Howarth howarth at nitro dot med.uc.edu 2011-08-11
12:47:02 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #39)
... unless you can produce a patch (or identify a plan for such a patch) that
would obviate the need for common symbols in
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49781
--- Comment #46 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com 2011-08-11 12:55:11
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #45)
(In reply to comment #44)
Created attachment 24973 [details]
Patch that recognizes addresses, zero-extended with AND, v2.
(In
...
../gcc-4.7-20110811/configure --prefix=/sw --prefix=/sw/lib/gcc4.7
--mandir=/sw/share/man --infodir=/sw/lib/gcc4.7/info
--enable-languages=c,c++,fortran,objc,obj-c++,java --with-gmp=/sw
--with-libiconv-prefix=/sw --with-ppl=/sw --with-cloog=/sw --with-mpc=/sw
--with-system-zlib --x-includes
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49992
--- Comment #42 from Mike Stump mikestump at comcast dot net 2011-08-11
13:26:18 UTC ---
Ick. Oh well. Ok, how about outright removing for all darwin releases the -c
setting? I think the only thing this could break was fortran. I have no clue
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50044
Bug #: 50044
Summary: Attributes for explicit template instantiation are
ignored after an implicit template instantiation
occurred.
Classification: Unclassified
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49911
--- Comment #14 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-08-11
13:37:00 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #13)
(In reply to comment #6)
Still SRA should probably not produce enum kind replacements but always
integer kind ones.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50044
--- Comment #1 from Martin Lederhilger m...@convergent-it.at 2011-08-11
13:37:15 UTC ---
Created attachment 24977
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24977
A.cpp - goes into the DLL
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50044
--- Comment #2 from Martin Lederhilger m...@convergent-it.at 2011-08-11
13:38:02 UTC ---
Created attachment 24978
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24978
A.h - Header which is used by the DLL and the application
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50044
--- Comment #3 from Martin Lederhilger m...@convergent-it.at 2011-08-11
13:38:47 UTC ---
Created attachment 24979
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24979
A_imp.h - Implementation of the template. This file is included in A.cpp
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50044
--- Comment #4 from Martin Lederhilger m...@convergent-it.at 2011-08-11
13:39:31 UTC ---
Created attachment 24980
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24980
Interface.h - defines macros for the dllexport/import attributes
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50044
--- Comment #5 from Martin Lederhilger m...@convergent-it.at 2011-08-11
13:40:07 UTC ---
Created attachment 24981
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24981
main.cpp - the application
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50044
--- Comment #6 from Martin Lederhilger m...@convergent-it.at 2011-08-11
13:40:40 UTC ---
Created attachment 24982
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24982
Makefile to build the DLL and the application.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49911
--- Comment #15 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-08-11
13:41:24 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #11)
So, Eric - are you still objecting to make VRP and the middle-end aligned
by ignoring TYPE_MIN/MAX_VALUE in VRP?
Just to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47653
Michael Matz matz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49992
Iain Sandoe iains at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|lto |target
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50042
--- Comment #4 from Sri murthys at us dot ibm.com 2011-08-11 14:07:15 UTC ---
Hi Andrew and Richard:
Thank you for the response. I will trying building GCC 4.4.6 under the same
environment and see if things go smooth.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50040
--- Comment #5 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-08-11
14:28:39 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu Aug 11 14:28:36 2011
New Revision: 177667
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=177667
Log:
2011-08-11 Richard
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50040
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.7.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49992
--- Comment #44 from Jack Howarth howarth at nitro dot med.uc.edu 2011-08-11
14:28:31 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #42)
Ick. Oh well. Ok, how about outright removing for all darwin releases the -c
setting? I think the only thing this could
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50018
--- Comment #7 from Richard Henderson rth at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-08-11
15:09:35 UTC ---
Author: rth
Date: Thu Aug 11 15:09:30 2011
New Revision: 177669
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=177669
Log:
PR bootstrap/50018
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49740
--- Comment #3 from Douglas Mencken dougmencken at gmail dot com 2011-08-11
15:21:40 UTC ---
As for snapshot gcc-v4.7-20110806, I got
../../gcc-v4.7-20110806.sourcedir/gcc/haifa-sched.c:5971:1: internal compiler
error: in check_cfg, at
-languages=c,c++,java,lto --no-create
--no-recursion
Thread model: win32
gcc version 4.7.0 20110811 (experimental) (GCC)
COLLECT_GCC_OPTIONS='-g' '-fdump-tree-all' '-v' '-fbootclasspath=.;C/:\Program
Files\java\jdk1.7.0\jre\lib\ext\QTJava.zip;E/:\IBM\SQLLIB\java\db2java.zip;E/:\IBM\SQLLIB\java
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49992
--- Comment #45 from Mike Stump mikestump at comcast dot net 2011-08-11
16:32:50 UTC ---
On Aug 11, 2011, at 6:48 AM, iains at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
It's on my TODO to bootstrap a version of ADA - I guess that means doing a
canadian from linux
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50046
Bug #: 50046
Summary: Hexidecimal Constants
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.3.4
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49992
--- Comment #46 from Jack Howarth howarth at nitro dot med.uc.edu 2011-08-11
17:19:14 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #45)
Jack or the Ada folks might have a pointer. google turns up
http://aadl.enst.fr/ocarina/releases/, if you have ppc or
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50046
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49813
--- Comment #57 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 2011-08-11
17:33:01 UTC ---
Any objections to adding to the Wiki a list of the intrinsics not yet folded by
the middle-end as an open project? Or we do already have such a list
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49903
Georg-Johann Lay gjl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49903
Georg-Johann Lay gjl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
Target
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50047
Bug #: 50047
Summary: [4.7 Regression] Revision 177670 failed to bootstrap
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47346
--- Comment #2 from Dodji Seketeli dodji at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-08-11
18:41:53 UTC ---
Another variation of the same theme is:
class C
{
struct Private { };
};
templatetypename T
struct exploit3
{
templateclass U = C::Private
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47346
--- Comment #3 from Dodji Seketeli dodji at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-08-11
18:52:54 UTC ---
Created attachment 24985
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24985
Work in progress patch
I am currently testing this patch.
The problem I
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50048
Bug #: 50048
Summary: cc1: note: obsolete option -I- used, please use
-iquote instead during bootstrap
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50049
Bug #: 50049
Summary: bootstrap fails if libcloog in unusual spot, even with
--with-cloog= set
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.1
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50049
--- Comment #1 from robert somerville rbrt.somerville at gmail dot com
2011-08-11 19:25:31 UTC ---
Created attachment 24986
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24986
sorry, lost attachment first time
config.log
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50049
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50049
--- Comment #3 from robert somerville rbrt.somerville at gmail dot com
2011-08-11 19:29:48 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
i seem to have to have LD_LIBRARY_PATH set to point to libcloog library
That is a standard non issue really as you are
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50049
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-08-11
19:39:04 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
In both cases --with-cloog configure option should be used if CLooG is not
installed in your default library search path.
That
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50049
--- Comment #5 from robert somerville rbrt.somerville at gmail dot com
2011-08-11 19:42:37 UTC ---
i have a static cloog library in there .. is there a compiler/configure
option i was supposed to use ???
On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 1:39 PM, pinskia
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50049
--- Comment #6 from robert somerville rbrt.somerville at gmail dot com
2011-08-11 19:56:06 UTC ---
i believe that the build should use the static libcloog that exists, after all
the build has no problems with MPC,MPFR,GMP, and PPL needing an
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50049
--- Comment #7 from robert somerville rbrt.somerville at gmail dot com
2011-08-11 19:57:18 UTC ---
i believe that the build should use the static libcloog that exists, after all
the build has no problems with MPC,MPFR,GMP, and PPL needing an
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50046
Mikael Morin mikael at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikael at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49781
--- Comment #47 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-08-11 20:03:34 UTC ---
Author: uros
Date: Thu Aug 11 20:03:29 2011
New Revision: 177683
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=177683
Log:
PR target/49781
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49987
--- Comment #5 from Iain Sandoe iains at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-08-11 20:07:00
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
(In reply to comment #3)
Created attachment 24975 [details]
Proposed patch
I think the PowerPC backend needs the same fix as
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50046
--- Comment #3 from Steve Kargl sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu
2011-08-11 20:18:29 UTC ---
On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 07:57:39PM +, mikael at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
(In reply to comment #0)
''X had be changed to -65536 to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49987
rsand...@gcc.gnu.org rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #24975|0 |1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49987
--- Comment #7 from Iain Sandoe iains at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-08-11 20:59:51
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
Created attachment 24987 [details]
Revised patch
Sorry, seems there are two copies of the logic. Please try this instead.
yes,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49687
Georg-Johann Lay gjl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hennebry at web
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39250
Georg-Johann Lay gjl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
program triggers an internal compiler bug in all versions
of gfortran I have encountered. That includes
GNU Fortran (GCC) 4.7.0 20110811 (experimental) - linux 2.6.32-33 - ubuntu
GNU Fortran (GCC) 4.7.0 20110713 (experimental) - linux 2.6.18-238 - red hat 5
GNU Fortran (GCC) 4.6.0 - linux 2.6.32-33
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50051
Bug #: 50051
Summary: MIPS libffi does not compile for
mips64octeon-linux-gnu
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50051
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||build
1 - 100 of 206 matches
Mail list logo
