On Sun, Nov 4, 2012 at 12:33 PM, Oleg Endo oleg.e...@t-online.de wrote:
On Sun, 2012-11-04 at 11:02 +1100, Clinton Mead wrote:
Hi All
This is a feature request. To explain, lets say I want to create a
TriBool type, like so:
enum TriBool { False, True, Unknown };
I now want to implement
On 11/04/2012 02:45 AM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
On Sat, Nov 3, 2012 at 12:55 AM, Mischa Baars mjbaars1...@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/02/2012 07:11 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 8:13 AM, Mischa Baars mjbaars1...@gmail.com
wrote:
I have been writing this piece of example code,
On 04/11/12 10:34, Mischa Baars wrote:
On 11/04/2012 02:45 AM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
On Sat, Nov 3, 2012 at 12:55 AM, Mischa Baars mjbaars1...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 11/02/2012 07:11 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 8:13 AM, Mischa Baars mjbaars1...@gmail.com
wrote:
I have
On Sun, 2012-11-04 at 18:08 +1100, Clinton Mead wrote:
Hi Oleg
Could you explain how you get around the following:
(1) Doesn't the non-overloaded operator return 'bool', not
'TriBool'?
Yes, by default it takes bool on both sides and returns bool.
How can it be made to return 'TriBool'?
On Thu, 18 Oct 2012, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
That PR now has a link to a mocked up bugzilla page:
http://www.kayari.plus.com/gcc/enter_bug.cgi-1.html which I think
would be a significant improvement, without getting in the way or
being an eyesore.
Do any other maintainers have an opinion on
On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 2:10 PM, Richard Sandiford
rdsandif...@googlemail.com wrote:
Kenneth Zadeck zad...@naturalbridge.com writes:
I would like you to respond to at least point 1 of this email. In it
there is code from the rtl level that was written twice, once for the
case when the size of
Hi,
On Sat, Nov 03, 2012 at 09:01:53AM +, Yangyueming wrote:
Hi, all
I do the research of min max instructions recently. I find it is related with
phiopt.
case1:
int foo(short a ,short b)
{
if (a b)
a = b;
return a;
}
It is successed in pass phiopt1(-O2 with gcc
make_extraction can be passed the position either as a HOST_WIDE_INT or as a
RTX, and canonicalizes to the former if the latter is CONST_INT_P. But this
is done slightly too late for one of the supported cases.
Tested on x86_64-suse-linux, applied on the mainline.
2012-11-04 Eric Botcazou
Unlike the other variables that track the state of the current
instruction being analyzed by the LRA constraints code, I don't
see anything which initializes best_reload_nregs when we start
looking at a new instruction.
Snapshot gcc-4.8-20121104 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.8-20121104/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.8 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/trunk
On Nov 3, 2012, Bruce Korb bruce.k...@gmail.com wrote:
I have realized that it would be real useful to know which fixinclude fixes
are actually in use so that old cruft can get retired. Since nobody at all
has direct access to all the actively maintained platforms, it makes it
difficult to
I know it , thanks.
-邮件原件-
发件人: Martin Jambor [mailto:mjam...@suse.cz]
发送时间: 2012年11月5日 6:14
收件人: Yangyueming
抄送: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
主题: Re: [help]failed to generate PHI NODE in esra pass.
Hi,
On Sat, Nov 03, 2012 at 09:01:53AM +, Yangyueming wrote:
Hi, all
I do the research of
On 12-11-03 9:37 PM, David Miller wrote:
On 32-bit sparc with LRA enabled we have the following (this
generated for gcc.dg/vect/pr51581-4.c with -flto):
(insn 252 142 165 4 (set (reg:HI 234 [ D.1511 ])
(mem/c:HI (plus:SI (reg/f:SI 1307)
(const_int 24 [0x18])) [4 b+24
On 12-11-04 5:46 PM, David Miller wrote:
Unlike the other variables that track the state of the current
instruction being analyzed by the LRA constraints code, I don't
see anything which initializes best_reload_nregs when we start
looking at a new instruction.
It is actually not necessary
Hi,
Currently, using -ffunction-sections and -p together results in a
warning. I ran into this problem when compiling the kernel. This is
discussed in this thread:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-help/2008-11/msg00128.html
Ian's reply suggests this warning is no longer necessary and can be
On Sun, Nov 4, 2012 at 1:34 AM, Mischa Baars mjbaars1...@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/04/2012 02:45 AM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
There is no original. The 32-bit and 64-bit ABIs are different.
The 64-bit ABI has always passed arguments in registers. There is no
option to force the 64-bit compiler
On Sun, Nov 4, 2012 at 8:04 PM, Sriraman Tallam tmsri...@google.com wrote:
Currently, using -ffunction-sections and -p together results in a
warning. I ran into this problem when compiling the kernel. This is
discussed in this thread:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-help/2008-11/msg00128.html
On Sun, Nov 4, 2012 at 2:13 PM, Martin Jambor mjam...@suse.cz wrote:
Hi,
On Sat, Nov 03, 2012 at 09:01:53AM +, Yangyueming wrote:
Hi, all
I do the research of min max instructions recently. I find it is related
with phiopt.
case1:
int foo(short a ,short b)
{
if (a b)
a =
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55194
--- Comment #2 from Joel Sherrill joel at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-04 06:20:02
UTC ---
git bisect should help:
[0e797c2e325bfe0676fc9b9e5baee01aefb164f5] /cp 2012-08-20 Paolo Carlini
paolo.carl...@oracle.com
[joel@baltimore gcc]$ git
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55194
--- Comment #3 from Joel Sherrill joel at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-04 06:22:22
UTC ---
I added Jakub because I think this was the patch which broke it:
Author: jakub jakub@138bc75d-0d04-0410-961f-82ee72b054a4
Date: Mon Aug 20 18:56:49
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52466
--- Comment #3 from Joel Sherrill joel at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-04 06:33:10
UTC ---
Following up on my earlier message.
Jon Beniston (original author) or Sebastien Bourdeauducq (current maintainer)
... please reply.
This
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55201
Bug #: 55201
Summary: [4.8 regression] libgo.so: undefined reference to
`__atomic_compare_exchange_8'
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55145
H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|target |middle-end
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55202
Bug #: 55202
Summary: Building a combined tree is broken for LTO
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55202
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-04
08:29:02 UTC ---
Created attachment 28608
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28608
Patch which fixes the problem
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55202
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55202
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-04
08:36:08 UTC ---
[cannot find ld] -plugin
/home/pinskia/src/toolchain-cavium/thunder-tools/bin/../libexec/gcc/aarch64-thunder-elf/4.8.0/liblto_plugin.so
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55202
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-04
08:37:29 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
I have no patches installed either. The patch above does not work.
That is because I was porting the patch from 4.7 to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55145
--- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com 2012-11-04 10:14:07
UTC ---
It is due to long int usage in real.h. Depending on
size of long int, real.c gives slightly different
results.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55191
Markus Trippelsdorf markus at trippelsdorf dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55203
Bug #: 55203
Summary: No unused warning for variables of non-trivial types
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55203
Lubos Lunak l.lunak at suse dot cz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55145
--- Comment #5 from Andreas Schwab sch...@linux-m68k.org 2012-11-04 11:04:03
UTC ---
This cannot explain the crashes you see since the difference is just one ULP.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55203
--- Comment #2 from Lubos Lunak l.lunak at suse dot cz 2012-11-04 11:04:52
UTC ---
Created attachment 28609
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28609
gcc patch
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55145
--- Comment #6 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com 2012-11-04 11:09:12
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
This cannot explain the crashes you see since the difference is just one ULP.
The glibc crash is fixed by
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55199
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55199
--- Comment #2 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-04 11:23:28 UTC ---
Further compactified version of the test case:
module assoc_err_m
implicit none
type :: foo_t
contains
procedure :: func_1
generic :: func =
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55204
Bug #: 55204
Summary: [4.8 Regression] ICE: in extract_insn, at recog.c:2140
(unrecognizable insn) with -O --param
loop-invariant-max-bbs-in-loop=0
Classification:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55199
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55201
--- Comment #1 from Andreas Schwab sch...@linux-m68k.org 2012-11-04 12:46:19
UTC ---
Created attachment 28611
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28611
Preliminary patch
Doesn't yet work with -static-libgo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54838
--- Comment #5 from Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-04
12:49:27 UTC ---
I think the problem is that we somehow arrive at this:
loop_1 (header = 2, multiple latches, niter = )
{
bb_2 (preds = {bb_0 }, succs =
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55205
Bug #: 55205
Summary: build gcc-4.7.2 failed on darwin
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55204
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55199
--- Comment #4 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-04 13:40:16 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
regtesting now ...
Somewhat expected, this fails on:
FAIL: gfortran.dg/associate_1.f03 -O0 (test for excess errors)
FAIL:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55199
--- Comment #5 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-04 13:56:03 UTC ---
Here is an improved patch, which hopefully should be free of testsuite
regressions (will re-check):
Index: gcc/fortran/parse.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55206
Bug #: 55206
Summary: GCC Reports Ambiguity; clang and comeau disagree
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55189
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55184
--- Comment #2 from Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se 2012-11-04
14:13:58 UTC ---
I can't reproduce the error with vanilla gcc-4.6.3 on x86_64-linux.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55205
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||janus at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55189
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55206
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55199
--- Comment #6 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-04 15:46:38 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
Here is an improved patch, which hopefully should be free of testsuite
regressions (will re-check):
It is. However, I think there is a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41993
--- Comment #4 from Uros Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com 2012-11-04 16:45:51
UTC ---
I have looked a bit into this problem, since AVX vzeroupper insertion now
depends on MODE_EXIT functionality. IMO, the patch in Comment #1 is correct for
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55206
--- Comment #2 from Dave Abrahams dave at boostpro dot com 2012-11-04
16:47:37 UTC ---
I hate bugzilla for always tempting me to think I can add attachments when
first submitting a bug, and then refusing the attachment because it's too big.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55206
--- Comment #3 from Dave Abrahams dave at boostpro dot com 2012-11-04
16:48:39 UTC ---
PS my apologies again for the size. Just no time to reduce it now.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55195
--- Comment #3 from Jorn Wolfgang Rennecke amylaar at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-11-04 16:59:07 UTC ---
I have done a -j2 bootstrap on gcc61, and in fails somewhere else in a similar
fashion. I then transplanted some files to my local (faster)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55199
--- Comment #7 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-04 17:13:22 UTC ---
Author: janus
Date: Sun Nov 4 17:13:16 2012
New Revision: 193136
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=193136
Log:
2012-11-04 Janus Weil
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55199
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55195
Jorn Wolfgang Rennecke amylaar at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55195
--- Comment #5 from Jorn Wolfgang Rennecke amylaar at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-11-04 17:34:47 UTC ---
Created attachment 28613
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28613
here is a proof-of-concept patch that allows the offending
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55184
Mathias Gaunard mathias at gaunard dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #28600|0 |1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55184
--- Comment #4 from Mathias Gaunard mathias at gaunard dot com 2012-11-04
18:01:27 UTC ---
Sorry, I edited the file in between and ended up uploading the wrong test case.
Below is the result on my machine with the fixed testcase.
$ gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55199
--- Comment #9 from Rich Townsend townsend at astro dot wisc.edu 2012-11-04
18:01:53 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
Fixed with r193136. Closing.
Thanks for reporting this!
Hey, thanks for fixing it so quickly -- you never cease
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55207
Bug #: 55207
Summary: Automatic deallocation of variables declared in the
main program
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55207
--- Comment #1 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-04 18:32:29 UTC ---
Patch:
Index: gcc/fortran/trans-decl.c
===
--- gcc/fortran/trans-decl.c(revision 193135)
+++
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54693
--- Comment #13 from Alexandre Oliva aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-04
18:44:18 UTC ---
Author: aoliva
Date: Sun Nov 4 18:44:13 2012
New Revision: 193138
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=193138
Log:
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54693
--- Comment #14 from Alexandre Oliva aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-04
18:44:32 UTC ---
Author: aoliva
Date: Sun Nov 4 18:44:25 2012
New Revision: 193139
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=193139
Log:
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55175
--- Comment #7 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-04 18:58:32 UTC ---
Author: uros
Date: Sun Nov 4 18:58:29 2012
New Revision: 193140
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=193140
Log:
PR target/55175
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55175
--- Comment #8 from Uros Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com 2012-11-04 18:59:53
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
I can confirm i386-rtems4.11-gcc now builds.
@Uros: I am inclined to believe this patch probably should be backported to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55175
Uros Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.8.0 |4.7.3
to compile the package jfsutils-1.1.13-10
on gcc-4.8 trunk dated 20121104 on an AMD x86_64 box.
The compiler said
log_dump.c:635:6: internal compiler error: in remove_redundant_iv_tests, at
tree-ssa-loop-ivcanon.c:478
void ldmp_xdump(char *saddr, int count)
^
Preprocessed source code
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54986
Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55191
--- Comment #3 from David Binderman dcb314 at hotmail dot com 2012-11-04
20:05:37 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
Dup of 55176.
I don't see the connection.
One is an OOM, the other is an ICE.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55204
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=55191
--- Comment #4 from Markus Trippelsdorf markus at trippelsdorf dot de
2012-11-04 20:08:15 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
(In reply to comment #2)
Dup of 55176.
I don't see the connection.
One is an OOM, the other is an ICE.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55168
Hans-Peter Nilsson hp at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55174
--- Comment #3 from harper at msor dot vuw.ac.nz 2012-11-04 20:41:10 UTC ---
On Fri, 2 Nov 2012, janus at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2012 10:54:50 +
From: janus at gcc dot gnu.org gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org
To:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55184
--- Comment #5 from Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se 2012-11-04
21:24:44 UTC ---
I can confirm the bug with gcc-4.6.3 and the fixed test case. However, the bug
has since been fixed on 4.6 branch in r187763, the fix for PR52407. The
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54693
Alexandre Oliva aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55195
--- Comment #6 from dave.anglin at bell dot net 2012-11-04 22:23:04 UTC ---
On 4-Nov-12, at 12:31 PM, amylaar at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
The instruction call_symref_pic_post_reload has the following length
attribute setting:
(set
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55174
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54225
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||john.harper at vuw dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55207
--- Comment #2 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-04 22:26:44 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
Patch:
Note: The patch in comment 1 only fixes the auto-deallocation for scalars.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55207
--- Comment #3 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-04 22:48:37 UTC ---
The following patch applies the implicit SAVE attribute to variables declared
in the main program:
Index: gcc/fortran/decl.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55145
--- Comment #7 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com 2012-11-04 22:51:46
UTC ---
Here are different internal values from the same input:
32-bit long: 1.57079632679489661925640447970309310221637133509
Input:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21718
--- Comment #11 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com 2012-11-04 23:06:27
UTC ---
From:
http://www.sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14803#c1
---
Really I'd consider this just a variant on bug 21718 (real.c rounding not
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55145
--- Comment #8 from Vincent Lefèvre vincent-gcc at vinc17 dot net 2012-11-04
23:43:44 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
Here are different internal values from the same input:
32-bit long: 1.57079632679489661925640447970309310221637133509
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55195
--- Comment #7 from dave.anglin at bell dot net 2012-11-04 23:50:44 UTC ---
On 4-Nov-12, at 12:31 PM, amylaar at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
Such a length attribute is not considered variable by
shorten_branches.
You need to include a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55174
--- Comment #5 from harper at msor dot vuw.ac.nz 2012-11-05 00:02:51 UTC ---
On Sun, 4 Nov 2012, janus at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2012 22:23:40 +
From: janus at gcc dot gnu.org gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org
To:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21718
--- Comment #12 from Vincent Lefèvre vincent-gcc at vinc17 dot net 2012-11-05
00:16:32 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #11)
Really I'd consider this just a variant on bug 21718 (real.c rounding not
perfect). That would ideally be fixed by using
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55198
--- Comment #2 from dave.anglin at bell dot net 2012-11-05 00:20:16 UTC ---
On 3-Nov-12, at 10:38 PM, pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
Exposed as this is a change in the library and the compiler is
crashing with a
valid input that
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55174
--- Comment #6 from harper at msor dot vuw.ac.nz 2012-11-05 00:52:10 UTC ---
On Mon, 5 Nov 2012, John Harper wrote:
Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2012 13:02:37 +1300 (NZDT)
From: John Harper har...@msor.vuw.ac.nz
To: janus at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55209
Bug #: 55209
Summary: gdb reports 'No symbol x in current context.' at
-O0 -g
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55209
--- Comment #1 from Hans-Peter Nilsson hp at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-05
01:20:08 UTC ---
Created attachment 28616
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28616
pr55030-chk.i
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55209
--- Comment #2 from Hans-Peter Nilsson hp at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-05
01:21:23 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #0)
Set a breakpoint on line 5084
...in cse.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54938
Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21718
H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55210
Bug #: 55210
Summary: cannot #define FOO 'a'
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55195
--- Comment #8 from Jorn Wolfgang Rennecke amylaar at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-11-05 02:32:35 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
In some sense, this seems like a hack which might be optimized by an
attribute processor. What about a way to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53113
Ryan Hill dirtyepic at gentoo dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dirtyepic
1 - 100 of 157 matches
Mail list logo
