Doug Gilmore doug.gilm...@imgtec.com writes:
On 02/24/2014 10:42 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
...
AIUI the old form never really worked reliably due to things like
newlib's setjmp not preserving the odd-numbered registers, so it doesn't
seem worth keeping around. Also, the old form is
Richard Sandiford rdsandif...@googlemail.com writes
Doug Gilmore doug.gilm...@imgtec.com writes:
On 02/24/2014 10:42 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
...
AIUI the old form never really worked reliably due to things like
newlib's setjmp not preserving the odd-numbered registers, so it
doesn't
Hello,
I'm master student at high-performance computing at barcelona
supercomputing center. And I'm working on my thesis regarding openmp
accelerator model implementation onto our compiler (OmpSs). Actually i
almost finished implementation of all new directives to generate CUDA
code and same
Matthew Fortune matthew.fort...@imgtec.com writes:
That sounds OK to me.
I'm aiming to have an experimental implementation of the calling
convention changes as soon as possible although I am having difficulties
getting the frx calling convention working correctly.
The problem is that frx
Matthew Fortune matthew.fort...@imgtec.com writes:
If we do end up using ELF flags then maybe adding two new
EF_MIPS_ABI enums would be better. It's more likely to be trapped
by old loaders and avoids eating up those precious remaining bits.
Sound's reasonable but I'm still trying
On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 10:05:52PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 3:35 PM, Linus Torvalds
torva...@linux-foundation.org wrote:
Litmus test 1:
p = atomic_read(pp, consume);
if (p == variable)
return p-val;
is *NOT* ordered
Btw, don't get
On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 10:00 PM, Paul E. McKenney
paul...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
So let me see if I understand your reasoning. My best guess is that it
goes something like this:
1. The Linux kernel contains code that passes pointers from
rcu_dereference() through external
paul...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
torva...@linux-foundation.org wrote:
I have for the last several years been 100% convinced that the Intel
memory ordering is the right thing, and that people who like weak
memory ordering are wrong and should try to avoid reproducing if at
all possible.
Are
On 02/25/14 17:15, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
I have for the last several years been 100% convinced that the Intel
memory ordering is the right thing, and that people who like weak
memory ordering are wrong and should try to avoid reproducing if at
all possible. But given that we have memory
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 05:47:03PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 10:00 PM, Paul E. McKenney
paul...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
So let me see if I understand your reasoning. My best guess is that it
goes something like this:
1. The Linux kernel contains code
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 10:06:53PM -0500, George Spelvin wrote:
paul...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
torva...@linux-foundation.org wrote:
I have for the last several years been 100% convinced that the Intel
memory ordering is the right thing, and that people who like weak
memory ordering are
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 08:32:38PM -0700, Jeff Law wrote:
On 02/25/14 17:15, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
I have for the last several years been 100% convinced that the Intel
memory ordering is the right thing, and that people who like weak
memory ordering are wrong and should try to avoid
Hi Guray,
There were two announcements: PTX-backend and OpenCL code generation.
Initial PTX-patches can be found in mailing list and OpenCL experiments in
openacc_1-0_branch.
Regarding GSoC it would be nice, if you'll apply with your proposal on code
generation.
I think that projects aimed to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49847
--- Comment #35 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Tue, 25 Feb 2014, law at redhat dot com wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49847
--- Comment #34 from Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com ---
OK.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60319
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Feb 25 08:57:42 2014
New Revision: 208112
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208112root=gccview=rev
Log:
2014-02-25 Richard Biener rguent...@suse.de
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60291
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=60291
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=60319
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46476
Stefan stefan at schweter dot it changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||stefan at schweter dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59626
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59313
--- Comment #9 from Rainer Orth ro at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ro
Date: Tue Feb 25 09:27:25 2014
New Revision: 208114
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208114root=gccview=rev
Log:
Skip gfortran.dg/erf_3.F90 and gfortran.dg/round_4.f90 on
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58015
--- Comment #8 from Rainer Orth ro at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ro
Date: Tue Feb 25 09:27:25 2014
New Revision: 208114
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208114root=gccview=rev
Log:
Skip gfortran.dg/erf_3.F90 and gfortran.dg/round_4.f90 on
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59198
--- Comment #11 from Paul Thomas pault at gcc dot gnu.org ---
A correct version of the patch of comment#6 to varasm.c is:
Index: gcc/varasm.c
===
*** gcc/varasm.c(revision 208048)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60336
Bug ID: 60336
Summary: va_start corrupts 6-th argument in case of empty type
used before the format string
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60314
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60337
Bug ID: 60337
Summary: s390: Function arguments are not aligned
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60337
--- Comment #1 from Dominik Vogt vogt at linux dot vnet.ibm.com ---
Created attachment 32209
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32209action=edit
test program
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55426
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59626
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P1 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59626
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60337
--- Comment #2 from Dominik Vogt vogt at linux dot vnet.ibm.com ---
(libffi does not honour the alignment either.)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60337
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ABI,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55426
--- Comment #7 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ktkachov
Date: Tue Feb 25 10:20:40 2014
New Revision: 208116
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208116root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR target/55426
* config/arm/arm.h
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55426
--- Comment #8 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ktkachov
Date: Tue Feb 25 10:25:26 2014
New Revision: 208117
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208117root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR target/55426
* config/arm/arm.h
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55426
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60291
--- Comment #18 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Status now the same as 4.7 on the 4.8 branch (thus only the long-term
regression
against 4.4 remains).
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59626
--- Comment #10 from David Kredba nheghathivhistha at gmail dot com ---
There is preprocessed source in closed as duplicate of this error:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56088.
I will attach one from program cp.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60183
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Feb 25 10:47:21 2014
New Revision: 208118
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208118root=gccview=rev
Log:
2014-02-25 Richard Biener rguent...@suse.de
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60221
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Feb 25 10:47:21 2014
New Revision: 208118
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208118root=gccview=rev
Log:
2014-02-25 Richard Biener rguent...@suse.de
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60291
--- Comment #19 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Feb 25 10:47:21 2014
New Revision: 208118
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208118root=gccview=rev
Log:
2014-02-25 Richard Biener rguent...@suse.de
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60183
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.8.3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60221
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.8.3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60071
--- Comment #4 from Kazumoto Kojima kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Oleg, any news on this?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59626
--- Comment #11 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to David Kredba from comment #10)
There is preprocessed source in closed as duplicate of this error:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56088.
I will attach
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43053
--- Comment #1 from Mark Wielaard mark at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Same inconsistency with current g++ (GCC) 4.9.0 20140219 (experimental)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57936
Alan Modra amodra at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57936
Alan Modra amodra at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.9.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57369
Mark Wielaard mark at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mark at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60071
--- Comment #5 from Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Sorry, not yet, but it's on my desk/mind. I'll try to come up with something
this week. In the worst case we'll have to remove the problematic patterns, I
guess.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56740
Mark Wielaard mark at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mark at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55641
Mark Wielaard mark at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mark at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55641
--- Comment #6 from Mark Wielaard mark at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Note that if we add:
const foo g(x);
It comes out with just one const_type added:
[60]variable
name (string) g
decl_file
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59626
--- Comment #12 from Markus Trippelsdorf trippels at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 32210
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32210action=edit
Unreduced testcase
Here's the unreduced testcase:
markus@x4 coreutils % gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60337
--- Comment #4 from Dominik Vogt vogt at linux dot vnet.ibm.com ---
It's the same on x86 I suppose
Well, the test program works fine on my amd64 box i.e. the alignment is
correct in all three functions (I guess foo() needs more int args to force
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50160
Jmaescraig margaretnemon at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||margaretnemon
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60276
--- Comment #12 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Feb 25 12:42:59 2014
New Revision: 208119
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208119root=gccview=rev
Log:
2014-02-25 Richard Biener rguent...@suse.de
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59626
--- Comment #13 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Markus Trippelsdorf from comment #12)
Created attachment 32210 [details]
Unreduced testcase
Here's the unreduced testcase:
markus@x4 coreutils % gcc -std=gnu99
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59626
--- Comment #14 from David Kredba nheghathivhistha at gmail dot com ---
For me it is fixed too, tested it by reveision 207938, cp compiles fine with
-flto=4 -fuse-linker-plugin. It crashes later at link time but that is
something completely
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59626
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59198
--- Comment #12 from paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com paul.richard.thomas
at gmail dot com ---
Dear Tobias,
I think that I have see the light! In a particularly uninteresting
part of our Board Meeting, I took a look at the Doxygen
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60327
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The dealII ICE is
Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault.
0x005c9ef7 in vecinline_summary, va_gc, vl_embed::operator[] (
this=0x0, ix=7796) at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60338
Bug ID: 60338
Summary: Segfault when compiling with many non-existing
includes under 32 bit arch
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60328
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|ASSIGNED
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53808
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53808
--- Comment #7 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jason Merrill from comment #6)
I just tried to reproduce the bug before checking my patch in for 4.9, and
couldn't; my patch seems to make no difference to the cgraph
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60328
--- Comment #4 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jason
Date: Tue Feb 25 18:53:45 2014
New Revision: 208152
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208152root=gccview=rev
Log:
DR 1286
PR c++/60328
* pt.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53808
--- Comment #8 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jason
Date: Tue Feb 25 18:54:48 2014
New Revision: 208153
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208153root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR lto/53808
* class.c (clone_function_decl):
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53808
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36043
Arthur O'Dwyer arthur.j.odwyer at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60336
Mikael Pettersson mikpelinux at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikpelinux
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59195
Cary Coutant ccoutant at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59198
--- Comment #13 from Paul Thomas pault at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to paul.richard.tho...@gmail.com from comment #12)
Wrong! That doesn't do it at all.
Paul
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60317
--- Comment #5 from Vladimir Makarov vmakarov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: vmakarov
Date: Tue Feb 25 20:34:44 2014
New Revision: 208155
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208155root=gccview=rev
Log:
2014-02-25 Vladimir Makarov
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60328
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55877
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55877
--- Comment #10 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jason
Date: Tue Feb 25 21:19:06 2014
New Revision: 208157
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208157root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR c++/55877
* decl2.c (no_linkage_error):
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60065
Volker Reichelt reichelt at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60311
Volker Reichelt reichelt at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60339
Bug ID: 60339
Summary: gnat weird DW_AT_abstract_origin
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: debug
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60336
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=60336
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c++ |target
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60071
Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60339
Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60280
Ramana Radhakrishnan ramana at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59992
Alexandre Oliva aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |aoliva
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59992
--- Comment #9 from Alexandre Oliva aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 32213
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32213action=edit
avoid quadratic behavior for the removal of useless values
This is the first of the two
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56926
Emma ai.emma.me at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ai.emma.me at gmail dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59992
--- Comment #10 from Alexandre Oliva aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 32214
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32214action=edit
preserve permanent values in a separate table
vt_initialize still took way too long in
/configure --prefix=/usr/local/gcc-trunk
--enable-languages=c,c++ --disable-werror --enable-multilib
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.9.0 20140225 (experimental) [trunk revision 208111] (GCC)
$
$ gcc-trunk -O1 -c small.c
$ gcc-trunk -O0 -fcheck-data-deps -c small.c
$ gcc-4.6.4 -O1 -fcheck-data
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16602
--- Comment #14 from Sebastian Unger sebunger44 at gmail dot com ---
So how do I go about re-opening this? Or should I raise a new one?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60155
--- Comment #7 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 25-Feb-14, at 1:36 AM, law at redhat dot com wrote:
It really feels like this is papering over the real problem, namely
that
get_pressure_class_and_nregs simply doesn't handle things
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60280
--- Comment #5 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: amker
Date: Wed Feb 26 01:49:35 2014
New Revision: 208165
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208165root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR target/60280
* tree-cfgcleanup.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16602
--- Comment #15 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Sebastian Unger from comment #14)
So how do I go about re-opening this? Or should I raise a new one?
Maybe you should raise it in the C standards mailing/news
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16602
--- Comment #16 from joseph at codesourcery dot com joseph at codesourcery dot
com ---
It is *not a bug*, and so should remain closed, and no new bug should be
opened. See the explicit not the array type wording already quoted.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16602
--- Comment #17 from Sebastian Unger sebunger44 at gmail dot com ---
Well, it is a bug. The question is whether it is a bug in GCC or in the
standard. I will raise it in the mailing list as suggested, but GCC could of
course again lead the way and
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31887
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57936
Bill Schmidt wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||wschmidt at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60341
Bug ID: 60341
Summary: ICE compiling Nonmem 6.2.0
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: critical
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60341
--- Comment #2 from Steve Chapel steve.chapel at a2pg dot com ---
Created attachment 32216
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32216action=edit
included source code file
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60341
--- Comment #1 from Steve Chapel steve.chapel at a2pg dot com ---
Created attachment 32215
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32215action=edit
source code file
1 - 100 of 166 matches
Mail list logo
