Hi,
This is related to pr45605.C test.
Reduced testcase
struct B {
virtual void Run(){};
};
struct D : public B {
virtual void Run() { };
};
int main() {
D d;
static_castB(d).Run();
}
With x86_64 linux the call to Run through object d is devirtualized.
Whereas it looks like in
With x86_64 linux the call to Run through object d is devirtualized.
Whereas it looks like in ia64 hp-ux it is not devirtualized.
-fdump-tree-fre1 output for both:
x86_64 linux:
MEM[(struct B *)d]._vptr.B = MEM[(void *)_ZTV1B + 16B];
d.D.2197._vptr.B = MEM[(void *)_ZTV1D + 16B];
Peter,
We have a working backend for an Harvard Architecture chip where
function pointer and data pointers have necessarily different sizes. We
couldn't do this without changing GCC itself in strategic places and
adding some extra support in our backend. We haven't used address spaces
or any
On 4/30/2012 4:16 AM, Paulo J. Matos wrote:
Peter,
We have a working backend for an Harvard Architecture chip where
function pointer and data pointers have necessarily different sizes. We
couldn't do this without changing GCC itself in strategic places and
adding some extra support in our
On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 4:50 AM, Robert Dewar de...@adacore.com wrote:
On 4/30/2012 4:16 AM, Paulo J. Matos wrote:
Peter,
We have a working backend for an Harvard Architecture chip where
function pointer and data pointers have necessarily different sizes. We
couldn't do this without
On 27/04/12 21:24, David Sehr wrote:
Hello All,
We are using gcc trunk as of 4/27/12, and are attempting to add
support to the ARM gcc compiler for Native Client.
We are trying to get gcc -march=armv7-a to use movw/movt consistently
instead of minipools. The motivation is for
a new target
Hi Richard,
I have just noticed that the new -fsched-pressure-algorithm= gcc
command line option is not documented in gcc/doc/invoke.texi. Was
this an oversight ?
Cheers
Nick
Nick Clifton ni...@redhat.com writes:
I have just noticed that the new -fsched-pressure-algorithm= gcc
command line option is not documented in gcc/doc/invoke.texi. Was
this an oversight ?
No, it was deliberate. It's not supposed to be a user-level option.
Richard
On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 9:02 AM, Richard Earnshaw rearn...@arm.com wrote:
It very much depends on your processor.
I suppose we are probably concerned primarily with recentish OMAP and
Tegra2 sorts of processors, but we are looking for generic good performance
solutions for ARMv7-A class
Dennis Clarke dcla...@blastwave.org writes:
Has anyone seen better results from the testsuite for GO ?
Yes. I test Go more than daily on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, and I see
no failures at all.
FAIL: go.go-torture/execute/go-1.go execution, -O0
To see why these tests are failing, look in
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53163
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53160
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53163
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-04-30
07:24:44 UTC ---
Created attachment 27264
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27264
gcc48-pr53163.patch
Untested fix.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53162
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-04-30
08:12:44 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #0)
The declaration of f1 is rejected but with an unhelpful diagnostic, if the
^^
That should say: f2
I
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53141
Uros Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53138
--- Comment #2 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-04-30 08:57:45 UTC ---
Author: uros
Date: Mon Apr 30 08:57:41 2012
New Revision: 186962
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=186962
Log:
Backport from mainline
2012-04-27
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51625
Peter Fraenkel pnf at podsnap dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|CLOSED
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53164
Bug #: 53164
Summary: Undefined reference to template function instantiation
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53160
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-04-30
09:45:34 UTC ---
Created attachment 27265
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27265
gcc48-pr53160.patch
Untested fix.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53138
--- Comment #3 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-04-30 09:56:31 UTC ---
Author: uros
Date: Mon Apr 30 09:56:27 2012
New Revision: 186963
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=186963
Log:
Backport from mainline
2012-04-27
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53165
Bug #: 53165
Summary: multiline raw strings as macro arguments
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53153
Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51625
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-04-30
10:02:24 UTC ---
FWIW int{1.0} is an invalid narrowing conversion in C++11, even when the double
value is known to be exactly representable as int. Without -pedantic-errors or
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52852
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53165
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53166
Bug #: 53166
Summary: static_assert produces bogus warning
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53138
--- Comment #4 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-04-30 10:22:44 UTC ---
Author: uros
Date: Mon Apr 30 10:22:39 2012
New Revision: 186964
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=186964
Log:
Backport from mainline
2012-04-27
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53138
Uros Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53164
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53166
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53112
--- Comment #2 from birender.singh at hotmail dot com 2012-04-30 11:06:51 UTC
---
Building 64bit gcc-4.4.4 and received below error:
1.
Edit the configure file from gcc-4.4.4 directory at line number 4607:
Line 4607:
if test -d
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53112
--- Comment #3 from Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-04-30
11:14:07 UTC ---
../gcc-4.4.4/configure --with-gmp=/usr/local --with-mpfr=/usr/local
sparcv9-sun-solaris2.9
Why did you change that? Retry with the first setup and look
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53112
--- Comment #4 from birender.singh at hotmail dot com 2012-04-30 11:48:46 UTC
---
Sorry buddy, I have removed past code and setup the fresh code.
This time have build 64 bit gmp and mpfr with ABI=64 @ --prefix path
/usr/local/ and tried to build
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53112
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-04-30
11:49:23 UTC ---
No need to re-run the original setup, the problem is obviously that
/els/install/biru/local/gmp_64 and /els/install/biru/local/mpfr_64 are not in
the runtime
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53112
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-04-30
11:51:06 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
Sorry buddy, I have removed past code and setup the fresh code.
This time have build 64 bit gmp and mpfr with ABI=64 @ --prefix
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53112
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|major |normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53112
--- Comment #7 from Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-04-30
11:53:14 UTC ---
You cannot build GCC 4.4 as a 64-bit binary, that is not possible. But by
default on GCC on Solaris is able to generate both 32-bit and 64-bit output
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53112
--- Comment #8 from Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-04-30
11:55:06 UTC ---
This time have build 64 bit gmp and mpfr with ABI=64 @ --prefix path
/usr/local/ and tried to build gcc in 64 bit. but it gave this error
ELFCLASS64
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53112
--- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-04-30
12:09:13 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
You cannot build GCC 4.4 as a 64-bit binary, that is not possible. But by
default on GCC on Solaris is able to generate both
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52983
Alexandre Oliva aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52983
--- Comment #4 from Alexandre Oliva aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-04-30
12:15:44 UTC ---
Created attachment 27267
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27267
Proposed patch to fix the problem (testing)
Here's the patch. It's much
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53167
Bug #: 53167
Summary: [4.8 regression] bootstrap failure: no previous
prototype for 'preserve_function_body_p'
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53015
--- Comment #7 from brainschrat at gmx dot de 2012-04-30 13:01:21 UTC ---
I fixed up my delta script as I now finaly understood what it did:
#! /bin/sh
cp input.f90 /home/staff/paul/noo/src
make -C /home/staff/paul/noo DEBUG=1 lib
cp
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53133
--- Comment #2 from Uros Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com 2012-04-30 13:19:56
UTC ---
This is due to following splitter in i386.md:
(define_split
[(set (match_operand 0 ext_register_operand)
(and (match_dup 0)
(const_int -256)))
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53133
--- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com 2012-04-30 13:26:32
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
H.J., should we consider these processors as affected by partial reg stall?
We will investigate.
--with-libelf=/usr/local --enable-lto
--prefix=/home/regehr/z/compiler-install/gcc-r186954-install
--program-prefix=r186954- --enable-languages=c,c++
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.8.0 20120430 (experimental) (GCC)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53161
H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53169
Bug #: 53169
Summary: Memory leak in std::vectorstd::vector*
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: critical
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53169
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-04-30
14:28:11 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #0)
The attached source is a minimal test case, implementing a sparse array of
std::vectors in class Collection, and test()
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53112
--- Comment #10 from birender.singh at hotmail dot com 2012-04-30 14:57:03 UTC
---
while building for a few hours the build failed with error as below:
make[8]: *** [libjavamath.la] Error 1
make[8]: Leaving directory
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53169
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-04-30
14:59:05 UTC ---
By changing your main to:
int main() {
test();
sleep(10);
char* p = (char*)malloc(1024 * 127);
for (int i=0; i 100; ++i)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53112
--- Comment #11 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-04-30
15:00:28 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #10)
while building for a few hours the build failed with error as below:
make[8]: *** [libjavamath.la] Error 1
make[8]:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53169
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-04-30
15:13:07 UTC ---
Similarly, calling malloc_trim(0) after test() causes glibc to immediately
return the memory to the system (requiring a sbrk system call next time memory
is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53169
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-04-30
15:16:14 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
You should probably use sbrk and/or experiment with
Sorry, I meant use strace, *not* sbrk!
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53161
Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53168
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53169
--- Comment #5 from Antoine Poliakov antoinep92 at gmail dot com 2012-04-30
15:27:16 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
So it's possible to get the memory libstdc+ allocates to be returned to the
system, but it's under the control of glibc,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53170
Bug #: 53170
Summary: ERROR: g++.dg/cpp0x/variadic-value1.C: syntax error in
target selector target c++11 for dg-do 2 run {
target c++11 }
Classification: Unclassified
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53169
--- Comment #6 from Antoine Poliakov antoinep92 at gmail dot com 2012-04-30
15:31:17 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
(In reply to comment #3)
You should probably use sbrk and/or experiment with
Sorry, I meant use strace, *not* sbrk!
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52586
--- Comment #4 from Ian Lance Taylor ian at airs dot com 2012-04-30 15:45:06
UTC ---
Unfortunately the MIPS64 machine in the GCC compile farm, gcc42.fsffrance.org,
is running a version of glibc that is too old to build libgo. It is using
glibc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53169
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52586
--- Comment #5 from ian at gcc dot gnu.org ian at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-04-30
16:04:28 UTC ---
Author: ian
Date: Mon Apr 30 16:04:17 2012
New Revision: 186986
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=186986
Log:
PR go/52586
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52586
--- Comment #6 from ian at gcc dot gnu.org ian at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-04-30
16:04:43 UTC ---
Author: ian
Date: Mon Apr 30 16:04:33 2012
New Revision: 186987
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=186987
Log:
PR go/52586
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52586
Ian Lance Taylor ian at airs dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51314
--- Comment #3 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-04-30
16:36:51 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Mon Apr 30 16:36:37 2012
New Revision: 186988
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=186988
Log:
PR c++/51314
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5297
--- Comment #7 from Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-04-30
16:57:33 UTC ---
Author: manu
Date: Mon Apr 30 16:57:22 2012
New Revision: 186991
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=186991
Log:
2012-04-30 Manuel
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5297
--- Comment #8 from Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-04-30
17:01:10 UTC ---
Author: manu
Revision: 186991
Modified property: svn:log
Modified: svn:log at Mon Apr 30 17:00:59 2012
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52974
--- Comment #6 from Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-04-30
17:01:11 UTC ---
Author: manu
Revision: 186991
Modified property: svn:log
Modified: svn:log at Mon Apr 30 17:00:59 2012
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51314
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52974
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-04-30
17:03:30 UTC ---
Nice, thanks very much!
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53153
--- Comment #3 from Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-04-30
17:11:15 UTC ---
This is the early forwprop eliminating the promotion cast from char to int. I
don't think this is a valid transformation.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52974
Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51033
--- Comment #24 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-04-30
17:23:34 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Mon Apr 30 17:23:28 2012
New Revision: 186994
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=186994
Log:
PR c++/51033
gcc/
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52998
Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|caret and |different
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52866
Benjamin Kosnik bkoz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52586
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-04-30
18:01:04 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
Unfortunately the MIPS64 machine in the GCC compile farm, gcc42.fsffrance.org,
is running a version of glibc that is too old to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53136
Uros Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41743
William J. Schmidt wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||wschmidt
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53173
Bug #: 53173
Summary: PROD02
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52941
--- Comment #9 from Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-04-30 19:16:31
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
(In reply to comment #7)
Created attachment 27173 [details]
Proposed patch
Looks even better.
Only one thing ... is it safe
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52941
Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #27173|0 |1
is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53148
--- Comment #4 from Thomas Koenig tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-04-30
19:31:24 UTC ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Mon Apr 30 19:31:13 2012
New Revision: 186999
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=186999
Log:
2012-04-30 Thomas
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53148
Thomas Koenig tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50751
--- Comment #29 from Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-04-30
19:37:50 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #28)
I'm now trying to work around this by adding special insn_and_split patterns
for the reload phase and removing the displacement
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53173
--- Comment #1 from Marc Glisse marc.glisse at normalesup dot org 2012-04-30
20:02:59 UTC ---
Uh, where are you reporting a bug in gcc?
(In reply to comment #0)
I am trying to upgrade (GCC) 4.4.0 to (GCC) 4.6.2. I see bunch of
incompatible
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53174
Bug #: 53174
Summary: ICE in expand_debug_expr
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53173
--- Comment #2 from gcc shalja.rudra at gmail dot com 2012-04-30 20:31:49 UTC
---
Thanks Marc !
Sorry on missing most words in few error lines.
2. error: no matching function for call to ‘std::pairconst long unsigned int,
boost::shared_ptrconst
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53141
--- Comment #4 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-04-30 21:30:13 UTC ---
Author: uros
Date: Mon Apr 30 21:30:06 2012
New Revision: 187000
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=187000
Log:
PR target/53141
* config/i386/i386.md
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53141
Uros Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53136
--- Comment #1 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-04-30 21:34:39 UTC ---
Author: uros
Date: Mon Apr 30 21:34:35 2012
New Revision: 187001
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=187001
Log:
PR middle-end/53136
* ipa-prop.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53136
Uros Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53153
--- Comment #4 from Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-04-30
21:43:33 UTC ---
Created attachment 27272
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27272
Eliminate unreachable case labels
This is basically what the code in
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53112
--- Comment #12 from Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-04-30
22:56:41 UTC ---
Yet 64 bit gcc-4.4.4 not build.:(
If you don't need Java, configure with --disable-libgcj. The error you have is
apparently at installation time,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53148
--- Comment #6 from John Stanley jpsinthemix at verizon dot net 2012-04-30
23:47:03 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
Fixed on trunk and 4.7.
Closing.
Thanks a lot for the bug report!
I rebuilt gcc with cherry-picked patches and all look
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53174
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=53038
--- Comment #3 from Alan Modra amodra at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-05-01 04:03:25
UTC ---
Author: amodra
Date: Tue May 1 04:03:21 2012
New Revision: 187010
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=187010
Log:
PR target/53038
*
Dodji Seketeli do...@redhat.com writes:
Gabriel Dos Reis g...@integrable-solutions.net writes:
OK.
Thank you.
While bootstrapping the tree again, it appeared that an output
regression of the objc test objc.dg/foreach-7.m flew below my radar.
It's one of those typical cases where the
It is still OK :-)
On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 1:22 AM, Dodji Seketeli do...@redhat.com wrote:
Dodji Seketeli do...@redhat.com writes:
Gabriel Dos Reis g...@integrable-solutions.net writes:
OK.
Thank you.
While bootstrapping the tree again, it appeared that an output
regression of the objc
Although the Ada type system provides strong enough guarantees to make a safe
and effective usage of -fstrict-aliasing, there is an explicit unsafe
construct (Unchecked_Conversion) for which these guarantees aren't valid any
more. That's why GNAT also provides the No_Strict_Aliasing pragma
On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 3:30 PM, Paolo Bonzini bonz...@gnu.org wrote:
tzcnt is encoded as rep;bsf and unlike lzcnt is a drop-in replacement
if we don't care about the flags (it has the same semantics for non-zero
values).
Since bsf is usually slower, just emit tzcnt unconditionally. However,
1 - 100 of 168 matches
Mail list logo
