On 2014-01-07 16:45:49 +, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
Sure, such a correctly rounded function is useful just like correctly
rounded versions of other functions. The proposed C bindings reserve cr*
names *only* for the specific functions listed in 9.2 where IEEE 754
recommends correctly
On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 4:47 PM, Paulo Matos pma...@broadcom.com wrote:
-Original Message-
From: gcc-ow...@gcc.gnu.org [mailto:gcc-ow...@gcc.gnu.org] On Behalf Of Paulo
Matos
Sent: 13 November 2013 16:14
To: Andrew Haley
Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: RE: Infinite number of iterations
On Wed, 8 Jan 2014, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
On 2014-01-07 16:45:49 +, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
Sure, such a correctly rounded function is useful just like correctly
rounded versions of other functions. The proposed C bindings reserve cr*
names *only* for the specific functions listed
A number of the links in 4.8.2 docs are broken (trunk seem to be OK).
http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/4.8.2/gcc/ has 404s for the following:
http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-4.8.2/gcc/i386-and-x86-64-Options.html#i386-and-x86-64-Options
Hi, is there a way in libcpp, to figure out the previous directive
that was parsed correctly ? I guess the current directive being parsed
is stored in cpp_reader.directive by run_directive() /
_cpp_handle_directive(), but wasn't able to figure out for previous
directive(s). Shall I need to
-Original Message-
From: Richard Biener [mailto:richard.guent...@gmail.com]
Sent: 08 January 2014 11:03
To: Paulo Matos
Cc: Andrew Haley; gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: Infinite number of iterations in loop [v850, mep]
That was refering to the case with extern b. For the above case
On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 3:09 PM, Paulo Matos pma...@broadcom.com wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Richard Biener [mailto:richard.guent...@gmail.com]
Sent: 08 January 2014 11:03
To: Paulo Matos
Cc: Andrew Haley; gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: Infinite number of iterations in loop [v850,
On 2014-01-08 13:31:40 +, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
I advise making such suggestions direct to WG14. (I don't know if such
names should be reserved for correctly rounded complex arithmetic as well
- where ordinary complex multiplication and division are not expected to
be correctly
-Original Message-
From: Richard Biener [mailto:richard.guent...@gmail.com]
Sent: 08 January 2014 14:42
To: Paulo Matos
Cc: Andrew Haley; gcc@gcc.gnu.org; Jan Hubicka
Subject: Re: Infinite number of iterations in loop [v850, mep]
Well. We have
Loop 2 is simple:
simple exit
I think a patch is more useful once believe feature-complete, which
means replacing the __int128 support with the new mechanism.
One of the side-effects of taking out the existing __int128 support is
that __int128 isn't in the integer_type_kind list, so isn't a type
that is usable for
On Wed, 8 Jan 2014, DJ Delorie wrote:
I think a patch is more useful once believe feature-complete, which
means replacing the __int128 support with the new mechanism.
One of the side-effects of taking out the existing __int128 support is
that __int128 isn't in the integer_type_kind list,
I don't see constants in that test.
// Test for int128 enums.
// { dg-do compile { target int128 } }
// { dg-options }
enum E {
e1 = 0x,
e2, e3
} e = e3;
#define SA(I,X) int a##I[(X)? 1 : -1]
SA(1, sizeof(E) == sizeof(__int128));
Integer constant types should be taken
Sandra, Bernd,
Can you take a look at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59734
It seems a siimple case still doesn't work as expected. Did I miss anything?
Thanks,
Joey
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59712
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|major |normal
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23384
--- Comment #7 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Tue, 7 Jan 2014, steven at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23384
--- Comment #6 from Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org ---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59471
--- Comment #11 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Jan 8 08:59:29 2014
New Revision: 206420
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=206420root=gccview=rev
Log:
2014-01-08 Richard Biener rguent...@suse.de
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59471
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59717
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59630
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Jan 8 09:06:27 2014
New Revision: 206421
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=206421root=gccview=rev
Log:
2014-01-08 Richard Biener rguent...@suse.de
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49718
Laurent Aflonsi laurent.alfonsi at st dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59715
Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|NEW
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57763
Uroš Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59649
Andreas Schwab sch...@linux-m68k.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[4.9 regression] conftest.c |[4.9 regression]
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59649
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Jan 8 10:01:29 2014
New Revision: 206422
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=206422root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/59649
* stor-layout.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59667
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Wed Jan 8 10:06:09 2014
New Revision: 206423
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=206423root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR sanitizer/59667
* ubsan.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59667
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59630
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.9.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58956
Hans-Peter Nilsson hp at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hp at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59470
Hans-Peter Nilsson hp at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hp at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58956
--- Comment #11 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
It's still not fixed on the 4.7 branch.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59697
--- Comment #1 from Øystein Schønning-Johansen oystein at gnubg dot org ---
Follow up:
I try the same code on a RedHat 6.5 64bit workstation with GCC4.4.
st-lx794988(ojohans) -/ojohans 37 gcc -v
Using built-in specs.
Target: x86_64-redhat-linux
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59584
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks|58956 |
--- Comment #8
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59649
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59613
Bug 59613 depends on bug 59649, which changed state.
Bug 59649 Summary: [4.9 regression] BImode miscompiled
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59649
What|Removed |Added
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59560
--- Comment #11 from klaas_giesbertz at hotmail dot com ---
Finally figured out how to make it work. I guess this is what the class(*) is
useful for. Using class(*) I can simply overload Func and its resolution
becomes dynamic. I consider the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59715
--- Comment #5 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The test passes with -fno-tree-tail-merge. But I don't see anything wrong with
the transformation (merging of empty blocks) done by the pass.
AFAICT, the problem is introduced by pass_dominator.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59560
--- Comment #12 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to klaas_giesbertz from comment #11)
Finally figured out how to make it work. I guess this is what the class(*)
is useful for. Using class(*) I can simply overload Func and its
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59602
Richard Earnshaw rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59718
Bug ID: 59718
Summary: Behaviour of -mcpu documented incorrectly for ARM
targets
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59560
--- Comment #13 from klaas_giesbertz at hotmail dot com ---
You are right! Thanks a lot.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59715
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59718
Richard Earnshaw rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||arm,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59711
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
int f(int n)
{
struct S {
int a[n];
};
struct S g(void)
{
struct S s;
s.a[0] = 0;
return s;
}
return g ().a[0];
}
I believe this isn't fixable with
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59398
--- Comment #8 from Sergio Losilla loximann at gmail dot com ---
Steve argues that it does not say whether its actual bounds are a
characteristic. If you assume that only the shape matters, then
the gfortran behavior is not a bug. I think it
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59719
Bug ID: 59719
Summary: Too much space allocated to unions containing variable
length arrays
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59560
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59711
--- Comment #5 from Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I believe this isn't fixable with the GIMPLE IL as-is - without lowering
to the fact that g () returns by storing to a return slot. Not sure why
3.4 ICEd (2.95.2 also ICEs btw
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59711
--- Comment #6 from Florian Weimer fweimer at redhat dot com ---
Created attachment 31772
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=31772action=edit
pr59711.adb
Here's the same thing in Ada (where it actually works—it's actually fairly
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59715
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59669
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59715
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59719
--- Comment #1 from Mikael Pettersson mikpelinux at gmail dot com ---
Related to / dup of PR28865 and PR57180 ?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59720
Bug ID: 59720
Summary: Re: f2003/f2008, class/extends, multiple gemeric
assignment
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59715
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
virtual SSA form is broken, we have overlapping life-ranges - a virtual PHI
node is missing in bb 6, seems to be broken by store sinking (-fno-tree-sink
fixes it). The virtual SSA
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59660
--- Comment #6 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at ucw dot cz ---
That's only optimizable after the 'mergephi' pass. Before the
temporary setting is shared by the n==m code. Thus maybe
'mergephi' itself can handle this ...
Yep, mergephi seems like
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59721
Bug ID: 59721
Summary: [4.8 Regression] std::bind nested more than one level
results in infinite template substitution
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59722
Bug ID: 59722
Summary: [4.9 Regression] Bootstrap comparison failure on
i686-linux
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59722
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=59387
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Well, it should pass and check folded_casts to analyze_scalar_evolution_in_loop
and not do anything if that is set to true and the type is
TYPE_OVERFLOW_UNDEFINED (see simple_iv).
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59125
--- Comment #8 from Rafał Rawicki rafal at rawicki dot org ---
I'm hurt by this bug too. Is there a chance of porting the fix to 4.8.3
release?
I see that simple cherry-picking this patch onto 4.8 line is not possible,
because 4.8 and 4.9
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59715
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 31774
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=31774action=edit
untested patch
Like with the attached patch which performs edge-insertion. But it
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59660
--- Comment #7 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Wed, 8 Jan 2014, hubicka at ucw dot cz wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59660
--- Comment #6 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at ucw dot cz ---
That's
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59125
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |rguenth
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59584
--- Comment #9 from Hans-Peter Nilsson hp at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #8)
I still think this is not the correct definition of regression, I believe
regression is regressing against released compiler version.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59720
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59715
--- Comment #10 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 31775
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=31775action=edit
alternative patch
Alternative patch splitting critical edges again. I'm going to test
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59723
Bug ID: 59723
Summary: [4.9 Regression] ICE: in lto_output_tree, at
lto-streamer-out.c:1390 when compiling some Fortran
tests with -flto
Product: gcc
Version:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57899
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rafal at rawicki
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59721
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59723
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59711
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
*R.4 = pr59711.f (); [return slot optimization]
ah, so we don't require a WITH_SIZE_EXPR on a RSO call. Obviously. So it
should be fixable either by the gimplifier or by
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59720
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59610
--- Comment #3 from Martin Jambor jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Wed Jan 8 15:06:22 2014
New Revision: 206428
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=206428root=gccview=rev
Log:
2014-01-08 Martin Jambor mjam...@suse.cz
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59723
--- Comment #2 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr ---
Waiting for some testcase.
gfortran.dg/namelist_64.f90
(see comment 0), but you can pick most of gfortran.dg/namelist_*.f90 it you
prefer:
FAIL: gfortran.dg/namelist_11.f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59722
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 31776
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=31776action=edit
gcc49-pr59722.patch
Untested fix (including reduced testcase).
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58182
--- Comment #11 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: janus
Date: Wed Jan 8 15:25:22 2014
New Revision: 206429
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=206429root=gccview=rev
Log:
2014-01-08 Janus Weil ja...@gcc.gnu.org
PR fortran/58182
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58182
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59610
--- Comment #4 from Martin Jambor jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Wed Jan 8 15:32:50 2014
New Revision: 206430
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=206430root=gccview=rev
Log:
2014-01-08 Martin Jambor mjam...@suse.cz
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59610
Martin Jambor jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59669
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Wed Jan 8 15:37:35 2014
New Revision: 206431
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=206431root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/59669
* omp-low.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59669
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57899
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||eric.niebler at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59360
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59720
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59724
Bug ID: 59724
Summary: [4.9 Regression] ICE : in rtl_verify_bb_layout, at
cfgrtl.c
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59724
Uroš Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||alpha-linux-gnu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59725
Bug ID: 59725
Summary: [4.9 Regression ARM,AArch64] r206148 (PR
tree-optimization/59544) caused regressions in pr52943
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59723
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59724
Uroš Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59720
--- Comment #3 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to janus from comment #2)
It is fixed by this simple patch:
The patch fails on typebound_operator_14.f90 in the testsuite, which is very
similar to the test case here and comes from PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59726
Bug ID: 59726
Summary: [4.9 Regression AArch64_be] r206148 (PR
tree-optimization/59544) causes ICE at -O3
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59387
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 31777
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=31777action=edit
gcc49-pr59387.patch
So like this? I'll bootstrap/regtest it with additional logging to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59726
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|aarch64_be |aarch64_be-*-*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59720
--- Comment #4 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to janus from comment #3)
I will re-check the Fortran standard on this issue ...
The relevant section in the F08 standard is 12.4.3.4.5, which says:
Two dummy arguments are
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59720
--- Comment #5 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
In our case here, the two corresponding arguments are polymorphic, with the
type of the second one being an extension of the type of the first.
Therefore the second one is type-compatible with the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59660
--- Comment #8 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at ucw dot cz ---
Fe produces:
cond_expr 0x77004840
type integer_type 0x76ede690 int public SI
size integer_cst 0x76ee03c0 constant 32
unit size integer_cst 0x76ee03e0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57748
--- Comment #52 from edlinger at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: edlinger
Date: Wed Jan 8 17:25:38 2014
New Revision: 206437
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=206437root=gccview=rev
Log:
2014-01-08 Bernd Edlinger bernd.edlin...@hotmail.de
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58585
--- Comment #17 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The patch seems to work and it seems to give correct answers for various cases
of multiple inheritance I can think of. I would welcome testing on the
original sources and if it looks
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58585
--- Comment #18 from Markus Trippelsdorf trippels at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #17)
The patch seems to work and it seems to give correct answers for various
cases of multiple inheritance I can think of. I would
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59724
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 31778
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=31778action=edit
gcc49-pr59724.patch
Ugh, what a mess. So, while ifcvt wants
1 - 100 of 255 matches
Mail list logo
