Hi,
In function find_def_preds from tree-ssa-uninit.c there is following code:
prev_nc = num_chains;
compute_control_dep_chain (cd_root, opnd_edge-src,
dep_chains, num_chains,
cur_chain);
/* Free individual chain
Hi,
There's a function in lto-streamer-out.c which determines if a tree is
streamable.
This is lto_is_streamable? I have a LANG_TYPE that I want to stream and adding
to that function:
#ifdef TARGET_MYPORT
if (code == LANG_TYPE)
return true;
#endif
sorts the problem out but my question is,
On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 5:41 AM, Paulo Matos pma...@broadcom.com wrote:
Hi,
There's a function in lto-streamer-out.c which determines if a tree is
streamable.
This is lto_is_streamable? I have a LANG_TYPE that I want to stream and
adding to that function:
#ifdef TARGET_MYPORT
if (code ==
By default in Android we always compile with -fpic or -fPIC, even when
compiling executable. Because of that we have some test fails on
Android:
For example:
gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr47312.c
/* { dg-do run } */
/* { dg-options -O2 } */
void exit (int);
void noreturn_autodetection_failed
On 13/11/12 14:56, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
Currently -fPIC -fPIE seems to be the same as -fPIE. Unfortunately,
-fPIE -fPIC also seems to be the same as -fPIE. It seems to me that,
as is usual with conflicting options, we should use the one that
appears last on the command line.
Do we have an
Hi,
On Wed, 14 Nov 2012, Paulo Matos wrote:
There's a function in lto-streamer-out.c which determines if a tree is
streamable.
This is lto_is_streamable? I have a LANG_TYPE that I want to stream and
adding to that function:
#ifdef TARGET_MYPORT
if (code == LANG_TYPE)
return true;
On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 5:36 AM, Richard Earnshaw rearn...@arm.com wrote:
On 13/11/12 14:56, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
Currently -fPIC -fPIE seems to be the same as -fPIE. Unfortunately,
-fPIE -fPIC also seems to be the same as -fPIE. It seems to me that,
as is usual with conflicting options,
I am almost ready to send the patches for the VEC API overhaul. This
patch affects a very large number of files (342). I am testing the
patch in various configurations:
--checking=release
--checking=yes
--checking=gc,gcac
I've enabled all languages including ada and go. I've also added isl
The following snippet:
class A {};
class B : public A {
typedef A super;
public:
class X {};
};
class C : public B {
typedef B super;
class X : public super::X {
typedef super::X super;
};
};
compiles without a warning on Comeau and MSVC, but GCC (4.6.1 and
4.7.1)
On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 10:41 AM, Diego Novillo dnovi...@google.com wrote:
The code is currently in the git branch dnovillo/vec-rewrite. It is
trunk current as of today.
I forgot to add that I have created a wiki page that describes the
transition into the new interface:
Hello,
on trunk (193501) I get a comparison failure:
---
Bootstrap comparison failure!
gcc/tree-ssa-forwprop.o differs
---
This is with --disable-checking. Leaving disable-checking away, the
bootstrap completes succesfully.
---
andreast% stage2-gcc/xgcc -v
Using built-in specs.
Am 01.04.2011 13:01, schrieb Kai Tietz:
2011/4/1 Andrew Haley a...@redhat.com:
On 04/01/2011 10:05 AM, Kai Tietz wrote:
I would like to update boehm-gc in gcc's tree to more recent version
(7.2 - alpha 5). It has shown now that we wait for x64 windows
support of boehm-gc more then one year.
On Sun, Nov 4, 2012 at 9:03 PM, Ian Lance Taylor i...@google.com wrote:
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
On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 6:10 PM, Piotr Wyderski
piotr.wyder...@gmail.com wrote:
The following snippet:
class A {};
class B : public A {
typedef A super;
public:
class X {};
};
class C : public B {
typedef B super;
class X : public super::X {
typedef super::X
On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 10:58 AM, Sriraman Tallam tmsri...@google.com wrote:
On Sun, Nov 4, 2012 at 9:03 PM, Ian Lance Taylor i...@google.com wrote:
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
On 11/14/2012 01:00 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
Given that nobody has stepped forward to test it, let's just remove
the code and see if anybody complains. I'll approve the patch unless
somebody objects in the next 24 hours.
I think the target to check would be 32 bit HPUX.
-ffunction-sections
On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 12:04 PM, Jeff Law l...@redhat.com wrote:
On 11/14/2012 01:00 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
Given that nobody has stepped forward to test it, let's just remove
the code and see if anybody complains. I'll approve the patch unless
somebody objects in the next 24 hours.
On Wed, 2012-11-14 at 18:51 +0100, Andreas Tobler wrote:
Hello,
on trunk (193501) I get a comparison failure:
---
Bootstrap comparison failure!
gcc/tree-ssa-forwprop.o differs
---
This is with --disable-checking. Leaving disable-checking away, the
bootstrap completes succesfully.
I
Ulf Magnusson wrote:
On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 6:10 PM, Piotr Wyderski
piotr.wyder...@gmail.com wrote:
The following snippet:
class A {};
class B : public A {
typedef A super;
public:
class X {};
};
class C : public B {
typedef B super;
class X : public super::X {
On 11/14/2012 01:32 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 12:04 PM, Jeff Law l...@redhat.com wrote:
On 11/14/2012 01:00 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
Given that nobody has stepped forward to test it, let's just remove
the code and see if anybody complains. I'll approve the patch
Diego and I seek your comments on the following (loose) proposal.
It is sometimes hard to remember which printing function is used
for debugging a type, or even which type you have.
We propose to rely on overloading to unify the interface to a small
set of function names. Every major data type
Diego and I seek your comments on the following (loose) proposal.
Generating gimple and tree expressions require lots of detail,
which is hard to remember and easy to get wrong. There is some
amount of boilerplate code that can, in most cases, be reduced and
managed automatically.
We will add
On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 5:12 PM, Lawrence Crowl cr...@googlers.com wrote:
Diego and I seek your comments on the following (loose) proposal.
It is sometimes hard to remember which printing function is used
for debugging a type, or even which type you have.
We propose to rely on overloading
On 15/11/2012, at 2:26 AM, Alexander Ivchenko wrote:
By default in Android we always compile with -fpic or -fPIC, even when
compiling executable. Because of that we have some test fails on
Android:
For example:
gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr47312.c
/* { dg-do run } */
/* { dg-options
On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 5:26 AM, Alexander Ivchenko aivch...@gmail.com wrote:
By default in Android we always compile with -fpic or -fPIC, even when
compiling executable. Because of that we have some test fails on
Android:
For example:
gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr47312.c
/* { dg-do run
On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 05:13:12PM -0800, Lawrence Crowl wrote:
Diego and I seek your comments on the following (loose) proposal.
Generating gimple and tree expressions require lots of detail,
which is hard to remember and easy to get wrong. There is some
amount of boilerplate code that
On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 5:13 PM, Lawrence Crowl cr...@googlers.com wrote:
Diego and I seek your comments on the following (loose) proposal.
Generating gimple and tree expressions require lots of detail,
which is hard to remember and easy to get wrong. There is some
amount of boilerplate
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55320
--- Comment #1 from Benjamin Kircher benjamin.kircher at gmail dot com
2012-11-14 08:10:06 UTC ---
Sorry.
System type was
$ uname -a
Linux snip 3.2.0-4-486 #1 Debian 3.2.32-1 i686 GNU/Linux
$ file a.out
a.out: ELF 32-bit LSB
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55321
Bug #: 55321
Summary: [4.8 regression] Ada bootstrap failure on
armv5tel-linux-gnueabi
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55293
--- Comment #15 from Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se 2012-11-14
08:34:11 UTC ---
FWIW, I bootstrapped a pure 64-bit gcc-4.7.2 on Solaris 10/SPARC64 yesterday,
with C, Ada, and C++, using a normal 32-bit-but-64-bit-capable gcc-4.7.2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55317
--- Comment #1 from Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se 2012-11-14
08:42:23 UTC ---
Duplicate of PR55268?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55293
--- Comment #16 from Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-14
08:49:46 UTC ---
FWIW, I bootstrapped a pure 64-bit gcc-4.7.2 on Solaris 10/SPARC64 yesterday,
with C, Ada, and C++, using a normal 32-bit-but-64-bit-capable
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54429
--- Comment #5 from Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-14 09:45:22
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
makes the unwanted subreg propagation go away, but ends up in another reload
trouble:
sh_tmp.cpp:92:1: error: unable
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55320
Daniel Krügler daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55322
Bug #: 55322
Summary: Suggestion: Warn suspicious usage of arrays of
structures
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55320
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55323
Bug #: 55323
Summary: [4.8] ICE in expand_aggr_init_1, at cp/init.c:1718
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54619
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18016
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55318
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55320
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55320
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-14
12:12:19 UTC ---
Untested:
--- functional.orig 2012-11-14 12:11:32.442993035 +
+++ functional 2012-11-14 12:11:34.315184425 +
@@ -2318,8 +2318,8 @@
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55268
Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55268
Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jojelino at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55317
Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55324
Bug #: 55324
Summary: diagnostic about abstract new in type derivation
misleading due to being overly terse
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54413
--- Comment #18 from Ed Smith-Rowland 3dw4rd at verizon dot net 2012-11-14
13:07:00 UTC ---
I added a bullet for this flag in gcc-4.8/changes.html.
How does one close a bug?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54413
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54413
--- Comment #20 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-14
13:21:06 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #18)
I added a bullet for this flag in gcc-4.8/changes.html.
Thanks!
How does one close a bug?
You need to have the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55322
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55292
--- Comment #1 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org hjl at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-14
13:46:01 UTC ---
Author: hjl
Date: Wed Nov 14 13:45:56 2012
New Revision: 193500
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=193500
Log:
Check
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55292
H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55253
Martin Jambor jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54791
--- Comment #24 from David Edelsohn dje at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-14
14:20:06 UTC ---
I successfully built GCC 4.7 earlier this week.
You may need to use GMP 4.3.2, not GMP 5.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54466
--- Comment #12 from Matt Clarkson mattyclarkson at gmail dot com 2012-11-14
14:24:11 UTC ---
@Dodji, thanks for fixing this :) What release will this be in? 4.8.1?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55289
--- Comment #21 from Jack Howarth howarth at nitro dot med.uc.edu 2012-11-14
14:24:43 UTC ---
Patch posted at http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-11/msg01116.html which
assumes the libsanitizer maintainers import
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54466
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55323
Daniel Krügler daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55289
--- Comment #22 from Jack Howarth howarth at nitro dot med.uc.edu 2012-11-14
14:45:48 UTC ---
Revised patch posted at
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-11/msg01119.html.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55323
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55051
--- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com 2012-11-14 15:06:44
UTC ---
With revision 193500, we got
libdecnumber -I../../src-trunk/gcc/../libdecnumber/bid -I../libdecnumber
-I../../src-trunk/gcc/../libbacktrace
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55051
--- Comment #5 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com 2012-11-14 15:08:53
UTC ---
There are
badness = (relative_time_benefit (callee_info, edge, edge_time)
* (INT_MIN / 16 / RELATIVE_TIME_BENEFIT_RANGE));
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55051
Markus Trippelsdorf markus at trippelsdorf dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55051
--- Comment #7 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at ucw dot cz 2012-11-14 15:35:26 UTC
---
--- Comment #6 from Markus Trippelsdorf markus at trippelsdorf dot de
2012-11-14 15:13:08 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
There are
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55289
--- Comment #23 from Jack Howarth howarth at nitro dot med.uc.edu 2012-11-14
15:51:44 UTC ---
Created attachment 28683
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28683
debug output from mach_override running use_after_free test
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55289
--- Comment #24 from Jack Howarth howarth at nitro dot med.uc.edu 2012-11-14
15:59:55 UTC ---
Created attachment 28684
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28684
disassembled use-after-free.o from clang 3.2
Disassembled
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55289
--- Comment #25 from Jack Howarth howarth at nitro dot med.uc.edu 2012-11-14
16:02:03 UTC ---
Created attachment 28685
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28685
disassembled use-after-free.o from gcc trunk
Disassembled
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55289
--- Comment #26 from Jack Howarth howarth at nitro dot med.uc.edu 2012-11-14
16:03:03 UTC ---
Created attachment 28686
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28686
diff between disassembled use-after-free.o generated by clang
overridePossible = false @299
err = f801
../../../../gcc-4.8-20121114/libsanitizer/interception/mach_override/mach_override.c:308
err = f801
../../../../gcc-4.8-20121114/libsanitizer/interception/mach_override/mach_override.c:321
err = f801
../../../../gcc-4.8-20121114/libsanitizer
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55325
Bug #: 55325
Summary: [4.8 Regression]: g++.dg/cpp0x/constexpr-complex.C
excess errors
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55289
Alexander Potapenko glider at google dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55326
Bug #: 55326
Summary: FAIL: g++.dg/cpp0x/constexpr-complex.C (test for
excess errors)
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55325
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55326
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55325
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55309
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-14
16:37:36 UTC ---
Also, this comparison doesn't have numbers for pure clang without
-fsanitize=address and gcc without -faddress-sanitizer, so likely most of the
speed
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55289
--- Comment #29 from Alexander Potapenko glider at google dot com 2012-11-14
16:40:53 UTC ---
Index: mach_override.c
===
--- mach_override.c(revision 167724)
+++
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55323
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47440
--- Comment #8 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-14 16:47:43 UTC ---
Author: uros
Date: Wed Nov 14 16:47:29 2012
New Revision: 193503
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=193503
Log:
PR target/47440
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55289
--- Comment #30 from Jack Howarth howarth at nitro dot med.uc.edu 2012-11-14
16:54:06 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #29)
Thanks with the patch applied from comment 29, now the use-after-free testcase
works without errors...
howarth%
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55318
--- Comment #2 from brunonery+bugzilla at brunonery dot com 2012-11-14 16:55:36
UTC ---
Not -Winit-self alone, but together with -Wuninitialized.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55325
--- Comment #3 from Hans-Peter Nilsson hp at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-14
16:59:29 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
I also see failing g++.dg/parse/template23.C and for this one too the problem
seems related to the recent changes for
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55309
--- Comment #5 from Markus Trippelsdorf markus at trippelsdorf dot de
2012-11-14 17:02:54 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
Also, this comparison doesn't have numbers for pure clang without
-fsanitize=address and gcc without
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55254
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55327
Bug #: 55327
Summary: FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/slp-perm-8.c scan-tree-dump-times
vect vectorized 1 loops 2
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54717
--- Comment #12 from Sergey Ostanevich sergos.gnu at gmail dot com 2012-11-14
18:56:22 UTC ---
Actually, it is not.
I found that PRE did not collected a memory access within the loop that caused
later missing vectorization. Here is dump
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55289
--- Comment #31 from Jack Howarth howarth at nitro dot med.uc.edu 2012-11-14
19:10:15 UTC ---
Also fine on i386-apple-darwin10...
howarth% ./use-after-free
=
==82550==
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55079
Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[4.8 regression] false |[4.8 regression]
So for the loop that starting at bb 28 you can see the xxtrt_46 access was not
put into pretemp. Possible reason is exactly as it was mentioned by Richard -
there were extra candidates collected and this one become less anticipatable
Skipping partial partial redundancy for expression
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54717
--- Comment #13 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at ucw dot cz 2012-11-14 19:43:00
UTC ---
So for the loop that starting at bb 28 you can see the xxtrt_46 access was not
put into pretemp. Possible reason is exactly as it was mentioned by Richard
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54717
Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11750
--- Comment #9 from fabien at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-14 20:12:56 UTC ---
Author: fabien
Date: Wed Nov 14 20:12:47 2012
New Revision: 193504
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=193504
Log:
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
2012-11-14
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11750
fabien at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55325
--- Comment #4 from Ed Smith-Rowland 3dw4rd at verizon dot net 2012-11-14
20:20:27 UTC ---
OK, g++.dg/cpp0x/constexpr-complex.C will fail with the patch to control GNU
literal parsing. i.e. this behavior in intended.
The purpose of the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55289
--- Comment #32 from Konstantin Serebryany konstantin.s.serebryany at gmail
dot com 2012-11-14 20:21:19 UTC ---
Just want to repeat, that any work on mach_override may end up being wasted
time
because we plan to get rid of mach_override
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55323
--- Comment #3 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org paolo at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-11-14 20:29:26 UTC ---
Author: paolo
Date: Wed Nov 14 20:29:07 2012
New Revision: 193505
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=193505
Log:
/cp
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55325
--- Comment #5 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 2012-11-14
20:36:37 UTC ---
If you ask me, I have I slight preference for the latter, because isn't always
obvious what gnu++* includes beyond c++*. But Jason will tell you,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55323
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55328
Bug #: 55328
Summary: ICE: in output_addr_table_entry, at dwarf2out.c:21780
with -gsplit-dwarf
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55051
--- Comment #8 from Markus Trippelsdorf markus at trippelsdorf dot de
2012-11-14 20:48:21 UTC ---
Created attachment 28688
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28688
testcase
The testcase is only reduced to 97K, but it
1 - 100 of 308 matches
Mail list logo
