On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 3:08 AM, Lawrence Crowl cr...@googlers.com wrote:
As part of our effort to make programming in GCC easier, we would like
to improve the interface to bitmaps.
There are three bitmap types, each with disparate operations and
function names. This disparity causes
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 5:04 AM, Uday P. Khedker u...@cse.iitb.ac.in wrote:
Hi David,
This is great progress.
Thanks.
If I understand the experiments, your implementtion has very small
cost to perform the analysis, at least for the SPEC benchmarks you are
testing. Have you connected
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 9:01 AM, Richard Biener
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
I'd rather not mix this with any kind of further C++-ification (that is
introduction of member functions or operator overloads).
Agreed. At first I was surprised that Lawrence had not done the
obvious operator
On Oct 3, 2012, Jason Merrill ja...@redhat.com wrote:
int lazy_i()
{
static int i = init;
return i;
}
If the initialization is expensive or order-sensitive, this is a
useful alternative to initialization on load
An interesting property of such functions is that they only have
On 10/11/2012 11:14 AM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
How about marking the singleton containing the call to the initializer
as always_inline, but not the initializer itself?
The compiler can then infer that initialized is set on the first inlined
call and optimize away subsequent tests and
That's actually not true. In fact existing GCC pointer analysis is
flow-sensitive for all SSA pointers.
SSA provides partial flow sensitivity to the top level pointers. For deeper
pointers, one needs to interleave SSA and points-to analysis. Besides, it cannot
handle global pointers which
On 10/11/12, Richard Biener richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Oct 11, 2012, Lawrence Crowl cr...@googlers.com wrote:
As part of our effort to make programming in GCC easier, we would like
to improve the interface to bitmaps.
There are three bitmap types, each with disparate operations and
On 2012-10-11 13:26 , Lawrence Crowl wrote:
My only other concern was that the mapping between those function
names and the tasks to be done sometimes seemed less than obvious.
So, I proposed the name change. However, I think the current names
are workable, assuming an acceptable solution to
On Oct 11, 2012, Jason Merrill ja...@redhat.com wrote:
On 10/11/2012 11:14 AM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
How about marking the singleton containing the call to the initializer
as always_inline, but not the initializer itself?
The compiler can then infer that initialized is set on the first
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 11:53 AM, Uday P. Khedker u...@cse.iitb.ac.in wrote:
That's actually not true. In fact existing GCC pointer analysis is
flow-sensitive for all SSA pointers.
SSA provides partial flow sensitivity to the top level pointers. For deeper
pointers, one needs to
On 10/11/12, Diego Novillo dnovi...@google.com wrote:
On 2012-10-11 13:26 , Lawrence Crowl wrote:
My only other concern was that the mapping between those function
names and the tasks to be done sometimes seemed less than obvious.
So, I proposed the name change. However, I think the current
On 2012-10-11 16:25 , Lawrence Crowl wrote:
On 10/11/12, Diego Novillo dnovi...@google.com wrote:
On 2012-10-11 13:26 , Lawrence Crowl wrote:
My only other concern was that the mapping between those function
names and the tasks to be done sometimes seemed less than obvious.
So, I proposed the
this code looks bogus, i think that the == INTEGER_CST needs to disappear.
kenny
tree
build_newarray (int atype_value, tree length)
{
tree type_arg;
tree prim_type = decode_newarray_type (atype_value);
tree type
= build_java_array_type (prim_type,
host_integerp
Diego Novillo wrote, On Friday 12 October 2012 01:41 AM:
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 11:53 AM, Uday P. Khedker u...@cse.iitb.ac.in wrote:
That's actually not true. In fact existing GCC pointer analysis is
flow-sensitive for all SSA pointers.
SSA provides partial flow sensitivity to the top
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 9:41 PM, Uday P. Khedker u...@cse.iitb.ac.in wrote:
Diego Novillo wrote, On Friday 12 October 2012 01:41 AM:
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 11:53 AM, Uday P. Khedker u...@cse.iitb.ac.in
wrote:
That's actually not true. In fact existing GCC pointer analysis is
Andrew Pinski wrote, On Friday 12 October 2012 10:29 AM:
Here's an example:
main()
{
int **p;
int *a, *d;
int w, x;
a = w;
f1(a);
p = a;
a = x;
f2(p);
d = a;
return *d;
}
It is clear that d can only
decided to hold the address of a into a1 through function f1, let me eliminate
the
call to f1 and make the assignment a=w live in some other way. Here's the
changed code:
Please read it as eliminate the call passing a to f1.
Uday.
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 10:41 PM, Uday P. Khedker u...@cse.iitb.ac.in wrote:
Andrew Pinski wrote, On Friday 12 October 2012 10:29 AM:
Here's an example:
main()
{
int **p;
int *a, *d;
int w, x;
a = w;
f1(a);
p = a;
a =
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54079
Uros Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54728
--- Comment #4 from Dmitry Gorbachev d.g.gorbachev at gmail dot com
2012-10-11 07:06:58 UTC ---
Created attachment 28417
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28417
Testcase
Compile with `g++ -g -O1 -flto
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54728
--- Comment #5 from Dmitry Gorbachev d.g.gorbachev at gmail dot com
2012-10-11 07:07:51 UTC ---
Created attachment 28418
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28418
Backtrace with -O0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54728
--- Comment #6 from Dmitry Gorbachev d.g.gorbachev at gmail dot com
2012-10-11 07:08:29 UTC ---
Created attachment 28419
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28419
Backtrace with -O1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54897
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-10-11
07:38:19 UTC ---
The problem is that IMHO the testcase is just invalid on 32-bit HWI targets.
On 32-bit targets with 64-bit HWI, bitsizetype is 64-bit and thus
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54887
Andreas Arnez arnez at linux dot vnet.ibm.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54872
--- Comment #1 from Rainer Orth ro at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-10-11 08:38:41 UTC
---
Author: ro
Date: Thu Oct 11 08:38:28 2012
New Revision: 192349
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=192349
Log:
Fix Solaris symbol
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54872
Rainer Orth ro at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54868
--- Comment #4 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ro at CeBiTec dot
Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2012-10-11 09:05:18 UTC ---
--- Comment #3 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-10-10
04:58:40 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
Maybe
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49423
--- Comment #16 from Dinar Temirbulatov dtemirbulatov at gmail dot com
2012-10-11 09:11:27 UTC ---
this regression after PR43137, also absence of pool range predicates for
arm_zero_extendqisi2, arm_zero_extendqisi2_v6, arm_zero_extendhisi2,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54889
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54868
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54897
--- Comment #2 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 2012-10-11
09:48:39 UTC ---
See if changing the test to the following (unconditional) works for you:
int test[sizeof(std::bitset__SIZE_MAX__) != 1 ? 1 : -1];
It passes
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54868
--- Comment #6 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-10-11 09:57:19
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
Have a look at vect.exp: there are specific naming conventions for
testcases that control how they are compiled.
Gah, you
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43765
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu.org |
: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: lto
AssignedTo: unassig...@gcc.gnu.org
ReportedBy: dim...@gmail.com
Created attachment 28421
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28421
1.c
gcc version 4.8.0 20121011 (experimental
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54898
--- Comment #1 from Dmitry G. Dyachenko dimhen at gmail dot com 2012-10-11
10:11:02 UTC ---
Created attachment 28422
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28422
2.cpp
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54867
--- Comment #5 from Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-10-11
10:11:44 UTC ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Thu Oct 11 10:11:37 2012
New Revision: 192350
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=192350
Log:
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54897
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-10-11
10:11:52 UTC ---
Actually, I was wrong about 32-bit HWI, the actual problem is
MAX_FIXED_MODE_SIZE.
bprecision
= MIN (precision + BITS_PER_UNIT_LOG + 1,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54867
Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43765
--- Comment #3 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org paolo at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-10-11 10:15:56 UTC ---
Author: paolo
Date: Thu Oct 11 10:15:49 2012
New Revision: 192351
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=192351
Log:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43765
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54897
--- Comment #4 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 2012-10-11
10:19:39 UTC ---
Ah! I'm Ok with xfailing - I'm leaving that to you - or we can just remove the
test, isn't a big deal.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54899
Bug #: 54899
Summary: -fpredictive-commoning and -ftree-vectorize
optimizations generate a nonsensical binary which
segfaults
Classification: Unclassified
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54897
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-10-11
10:31:31 UTC ---
I'd go with
--- libstdc++-v3/testsuite/23_containers/bitset/45713.cc2010-09-22
17:15:42.0 +0200
+++
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54899
Zdenek Sojka zsojka at seznam dot cz changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zsojka at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54893
Aldy Hernandez aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pmarlier
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54899
--- Comment #2 from Zdenek Sojka zsojka at seznam dot cz 2012-10-11 10:47:09
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
bug2.ii:57
Thing thing(Vec(0.0, 1.0, 0.0), Vec(0.0, 1.0, 1.0));
bug2.ii:33
inline VecBinaryExpr(const Vec e1, const
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54897
--- Comment #6 from Hans-Peter Nilsson hp at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-10-11
10:55:23 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
Actually, I was wrong about 32-bit HWI, the actual problem is
In cris case that is MIN (32 + 3 + 1, 32), while
iret1;
iret1 = pthread_create( thread1, NULL, context, (void*) 0);
func_2 (func_11 (0, 0, 0, 0) );
pthread_join( thread1, NULL);
}
is miscompiled by gcc --param allow-store-data-races=0 -O2 (or -O3) on x86_64.
[ gcc version 4.8.0 20121011 (experimental) (GCC) ]
The program
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54897
Hans-Peter Nilsson hp at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c++
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54897
--- Comment #8 from Hans-Peter Nilsson hp at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-10-11
11:36:49 UTC ---
Author: hp
Date: Thu Oct 11 11:36:39 2012
New Revision: 192354
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=192354
Log:
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54897
Hans-Peter Nilsson hp at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54889
--- Comment #2 from Igor Zamyatin izamyatin at gmail dot com 2012-10-11
11:40:39 UTC ---
Now I see no compfails on the whole spec test 465
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54900
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aldyh at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54894
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-10-11
12:22:47 UTC ---
You should be using __builtin_assume_aligned builtin, i.e.
double *Ap = __builtin_assume_aligned (A[ih+il][kh], 16);
instead of the hacks with the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54894
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-10-11
12:33:41 UTC ---
I'd say the problem is that useless_type_conversion_p considers the overaligned
double type compatible to double, yet get_vectype_for_scalar_type returns
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51727
Tobias Schlüter tobi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51727
Tobias Schlüter tobi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #28410|0 |1
is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54893
--- Comment #2 from Mike Spear spear at cse dot lehigh.edu 2012-10-11
13:21:19 UTC ---
There is a key difference here. The transaction in my example is /relaxed/.
According to the specification, there are no restrictions on what a relaxed
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54868
--- Comment #7 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-10-11 13:28:41
UTC ---
Author: glisse
Date: Thu Oct 11 13:28:27 2012
New Revision: 192359
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=192359
Log:
2012-10-11 Marc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51727
Tobias Schlüter tobi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #28424|0 |1
is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54868
Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54602
--- Comment #6 from Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-10-11 13:48:04
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
(In reply to comment #4)
I don't know the history about it. I can only imagine that some
system could assume some
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54899
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54898
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51727
--- Comment #15 from Tobias Schlüter tobi at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-10-11
14:01:27 UTC ---
I'm sorry that I'm spamming your inboxes, but I only now read the comment in
front of write_symbol1, and it says something that I was wondering about all
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54896
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-10-11
14:08:16 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
Thanks for the test case!
Bug is confirmed with GCC 4.8 (trunk revision 192219).
Problem areas at -O1:
alias
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36107
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu.org |
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54894
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54892
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.7.3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54889
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36107
--- Comment #3 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org paolo at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-10-11 14:38:00 UTC ---
Author: paolo
Date: Thu Oct 11 14:37:44 2012
New Revision: 192361
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=192361
Log:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36107
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54824
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54898
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-10-11
15:00:09 UTC ---
What happens is that the input at LTRANS stage has wrecked TYPE_MAIN_VARIANT:
(gdb) call debug_tree ($31)
integer_type 0x7692a348 wchar_t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54901
Bug #: 54901
Summary: [4.8 Regression] air.f90, aermod.f90, and mdbx.f90 are
miscompiled with '-m64 -O3 -funroll-loops
-fwhole-program' after revision 192213
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54898
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-10-11
15:16:07 UTC ---
We produce this situation somewhen during WPA stage (probably type merging).
(gdb) p expr
$1 = (tree) 0x7693e3f0
(gdb) p
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54901
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54902
Bug #: 54902
Summary: [4.7 Regression], ICE (segfault) building on
arm-linux-gnueabi
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54824
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-10-11
15:37:41 UTC ---
In the second TC the user shouldn't lie to the compiler and put
__attribute__((noreturn)) to a function, that in fact returns. Without this
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54824
--- Comment #5 from Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-10-11
15:40:40 UTC ---
Started with http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?view=revisionrevision=185913
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54808
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51219
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51219
--- Comment #3 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 2012-10-11
16:45:46 UTC ---
When fixing this please double check the testcase in PR54808.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54898
Markus Trippelsdorf markus at trippelsdorf dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53055
--- Comment #5 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 2012-10-11
17:22:00 UTC ---
If the patch otherwise works fine, I would encourage you to submit it anyway
even if the caret isn't accurate: AFAICS, for all the errors emitted
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54795
--- Comment #1 from Uros Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com 2012-10-11 17:41:30
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #0)
It happens at random.
Maybe --enable-checking=valgrind can help here?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54784
--- Comment #11 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-10-11 17:52:44 UTC ---
Author: janus
Date: Thu Oct 11 17:52:36 2012
New Revision: 192374
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=192374
Log:
2012-10-11 Janus Weil
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54795
--- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com 2012-10-11 17:54:11
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
(In reply to comment #0)
It happens at random.
Maybe --enable-checking=valgrind can help here?
I will give it a try.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54795
Markus Trippelsdorf markus at trippelsdorf dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53055
Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54784
--- Comment #12 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-10-11 17:58:19 UTC ---
r192374 fixes the problem on trunk. Will commit to the 4.7 branch soon.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53055
--- Comment #7 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 2012-10-11
18:08:23 UTC ---
As long as we avoid the ICE and the message is fine I'm happy. Then I'll take
care of the column number asap.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53055
--- Comment #8 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-10-11 18:16:58
UTC ---
Note: this is very old, I barely remember it.
(In reply to comment #6)
Sorry, I think your message is not easily understandable. I think you are
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54691
--- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com 2012-10-11 18:22:07
UTC ---
Please try ld.bfd from binutils trunk or 2.23.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53055
--- Comment #9 from Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-10-11
18:27:00 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
Note: this is very old, I barely remember it.
(In reply to comment #6)
Sorry, I think your message is not easily
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54903
Bug #: 54903
Summary: Auto + static in-class constant initalization not
working
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53780
Matt Hargett matt at use dot net changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||matt at use dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54904
Bug #: 54904
Summary: Large mode constant live in a register not used to
optimize smaller mode constants
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54893
--- Comment #3 from torvald at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-10-11 19:54:11 UTC ---
I agree with Michael. Accesses to volative vars are disallowed in safe code,
but relaxed transactions can run unsafe code (after going irrevocable). The
test case
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54904
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
1 - 100 of 229 matches
Mail list logo
