On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 7:40 AM, lin zuojian manjian2...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
in include/linux/compiler-gcc.h :
/* Optimization barrier */
/* The volatile is due to gcc bugs */
#define barrier() __asm__ __volatile__(: : :memory)
The comment of Linux says this is a gcc bug.But will any
On Tue, Mar 04, 2014 at 10:10:21AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 7:40 AM, lin zuojian manjian2...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
in include/linux/compiler-gcc.h :
/* Optimization barrier */
/* The volatile is due to gcc bugs */
#define barrier() __asm__ __volatile__(:
On 4 March 2014 09:17, Hannes Frederic Sowa han...@stressinduktion.org wrote:
On Tue, Mar 04, 2014 at 10:10:21AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 7:40 AM, lin zuojian manjian2...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
in include/linux/compiler-gcc.h :
/* Optimization barrier */
/*
On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 10:19 AM, Jonathan Wakely jwakely@gmail.com wrote:
On 4 March 2014 09:17, Hannes Frederic Sowa han...@stressinduktion.org
wrote:
On Tue, Mar 04, 2014 at 10:10:21AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 7:40 AM, lin zuojian manjian2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Mar 04, 2014 at 09:19:40AM +, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 4 March 2014 09:17, Hannes Frederic Sowa han...@stressinduktion.org
wrote:
On Tue, Mar 04, 2014 at 10:10:21AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 7:40 AM, lin zuojian manjian2...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
On 03/04/2014 09:24 AM, Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote:
So the bug was probably fixed more than 15 years ago.
Probably :)
But the __volatile__ shoud do no harm and shouldn't influence code
generation in any way, no?
Of course it will: it's a barrier.
Andrew.
On Tue, Mar 04, 2014 at 09:26:31AM +, Andrew Haley wrote:
On 03/04/2014 09:24 AM, Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote:
So the bug was probably fixed more than 15 years ago.
Probably :)
But the __volatile__ shoud do no harm and shouldn't influence code
generation in any way, no?
Of
On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 10:33 AM, Hannes Frederic Sowa
han...@stressinduktion.org wrote:
On Tue, Mar 04, 2014 at 09:26:31AM +, Andrew Haley wrote:
On 03/04/2014 09:24 AM, Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote:
So the bug was probably fixed more than 15 years ago.
Probably :)
But the
Hi Thomas,
Do you particularly need a switch for this? You could view this as simply
relaxing the ABI requirements of a module, a switch would only serve to enforce
the need for a compatible ABI and error if not. If you build something for a
soft-float ABI and never actually trigger any of the
On Tue, Mar 04, 2014 at 12:08:19PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 10:33 AM, Hannes Frederic Sowa
han...@stressinduktion.org wrote:
On Tue, Mar 04, 2014 at 09:26:31AM +, Andrew Haley wrote:
On 03/04/2014 09:24 AM, Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote:
So the bug was
Richard wrote:
volatile __asm__(:::memory)
is a memory barrier and a barrier for other volatile instructions.
AFAIK asm without output arguments is implicitly marked as volatile. So
it may not be needed in barrier() at all.
-Y
On Tue, 4 Mar 2014, Yury Gribov wrote:
Richard wrote:
volatile __asm__(:::memory)
is a memory barrier and a barrier for other volatile instructions.
AFAIK asm without output arguments is implicitly marked as volatile. So it may
not be needed in barrier() at all.
Yes, exactly. Had it at
On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 1:01 PM, Hans-Peter Nilsson h...@bitrange.com wrote:
On Tue, 4 Mar 2014, Yury Gribov wrote:
Richard wrote:
volatile __asm__(:::memory)
is a memory barrier and a barrier for other volatile instructions.
AFAIK asm without output arguments is implicitly marked as
Thanks Maxim,
There is a tentative plan to merge the concepts branch into trunk, and
that would probably be at the end of the summer or fall, so that might
fit nicely. It probably wouldn't hurt to have the students apply,
regardless of the final decisions. Writing proposals is good
experience.
On Mon, 3 Mar 2014, Kai Tietz wrote:
2014-03-03 12:33 GMT+01:00 Richard Biener rguent...@suse.de:
On Fri, 28 Feb 2014, Kai Tietz wrote:
Hmm, this all reminds me about the approach Andrew Pinski and I came
up with two years ago.
You are talking about the gimple folding interface?
On Tue, Mar 04, 2014 at 12:08:19PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 10:33 AM, Hannes Frederic Sowa
han...@stressinduktion.org wrote:
On Tue, Mar 04, 2014 at 09:26:31AM +, Andrew Haley wrote:
On 03/04/2014 09:24 AM, Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote:
So the bug was
Le 2014-03-04 19:14, Matthew Fortune a écrit :
Hi Thomas,
Hi Matthew,
Do you particularly need a switch for this? You could view this as
simply relaxing the ABI requirements of a module, a switch would only
serve to enforce the need for a compatible ABI and error if not. If
you build
On Mon, 3 Mar 2014, Richard Biener wrote:
How do I restrict some subexpression to have
a single use?
This kind of restrictions come via the valueize() hook - simply
valueize to NULL_TREE to make the match fail (for example
SSA_NAME_OCCURS_IN_ABNORMAL_PHI could be made fail that way).
On Wed, 5 Mar 2014, Thomas Preudhomme wrote:
Right. It's actually quite simple. As soon as you meet a function which passes
or returns a float then you can mark the whole module as not agnostic and fall
back to the usual behavior. If you arrive at the end of a compiling unit
without
Matthew Fortune matthew.fort...@imgtec.com writes:
Sorry, forgot about that. In that case maybe program headers would be
best, like you say. I.e. we could use a combination of GNU attributes
and a new program header, with the program header hopefully being more
general than for just this
Thomas Preudhomme robo...@celest.fr writes:
I think the ability to detect the case of generating ABI agnostic
code would be useful for other architectures too.
I do not know the other architecture to know if that is the case but
according to what you said for MIPS it seems to be the case.
On Mon, Mar 03, 2014 at 09:46:19PM +0100, Torvald Riegel wrote:
xagsmtp2.20140303204700.3...@vmsdvma.vnet.ibm.com
X-Xagent-Gateway: vmsdvma.vnet.ibm.com (XAGSMTP2 at VMSDVMA)
On Mon, 2014-03-03 at 11:20 -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Mon, Mar 03, 2014 at 07:55:08PM +0100, Torvald Riegel
On 03/04/2014 01:23 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
Doesn't sound like a bug but a feature. We can move
asm ( : : : memory) around freely up to the next/previous
instruction involving memory.
Asms without outputs are automatically volatile. So there ought be zero change
with and without the
Matthew Fortune matthew.fort...@imgtec.com writes:
Sorry, forgot about that. In that case maybe program headers would
be best, like you say. I.e. we could use a combination of GNU
attributes and a new program header, with the program header
hopefully being more general than for just
Matthew Fortune matthew.fort...@imgtec.com writes:
Matthew Fortune matthew.fort...@imgtec.com writes:
Sorry, forgot about that. In that case maybe program headers would
be best, like you say. I.e. we could use a combination of GNU
attributes and a new program header, with the program
On Mar 4, 2014, at 2:30 PM, Richard Henderson r...@redhat.com wrote:
On 03/04/2014 01:23 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
Doesn't sound like a bug but a feature. We can move
asm ( : : : memory) around freely up to the next/previous
instruction involving memory.
Asms without outputs are
On Tue, Mar 04, 2014 at 11:00:32AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Mon, Mar 03, 2014 at 09:46:19PM +0100, Torvald Riegel wrote:
xagsmtp2.20140303204700.3...@vmsdvma.vnet.ibm.com
X-Xagent-Gateway: vmsdvma.vnet.ibm.com (XAGSMTP2 at VMSDVMA)
On Mon, 2014-03-03 at 11:20 -0800, Paul E.
On 3 March 2014 20:44, Torvald Riegel trie...@redhat.com wrote:
On Sun, 2014-03-02 at 04:05 -0600, Peter Sewell wrote:
On 1 March 2014 08:03, Paul E. McKenney paul...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
On Sat, Mar 01, 2014 at 04:06:34AM -0600, Peter Sewell wrote:
Hi Paul,
On 28 February 2014
Richard Sandiford rdsandif...@googlemail.com writes:
Matthew Fortune matthew.fort...@imgtec.com writes:
Matthew Fortune matthew.fort...@imgtec.com writes:
Sorry, forgot about that. In that case maybe program headers
would be best, like you say. I.e. we could use a combination of
Asms without outputs are automatically volatile. So there ought be
zero change
with and without the explicit use of the __volatile__ keyword.
That’s what the documentation says but it wasn’t actually true
as of a couple of releases ago, as I recall.
Looks like 2005:
$ git annotate
What is volatile instructions? Can you give us an example?
Check volatile_insn_p. AFAIK there are two classes of volatile instructions:
* volatile asm
* unspec volatiles (target-specific instructions for e.g. protecting
function prologues)
-Y
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60189
Igor Zamyatin izamyatin at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||izamyatin at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60082
Igor Zamyatin izamyatin at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||izamyatin at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60382
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Mar 4 08:47:55 2014
New Revision: 208305
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208305root=gccview=rev
Log:
2014-03-04 Richard Biener rguent...@suse.de
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60150
--- Comment #5 from Dmitry Gorbachev d.g.gorbachev at gmail dot com ---
Ok, but there is no «#define XXX» before «#include pr60150.H» in pr60150_0.C,
which does not seem to be correct.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58880
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60189
--- Comment #3 from Igor Zamyatin izamyatin at gmail dot com ---
Ah, g++ gives the ICE :(
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60407
Bug ID: 60407
Summary: call of overloaded ‘isnan’ is ambiguous
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60405
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60404
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60404
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60407
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org ---
This sounds like you are including math.h and then later on cmath. I don't
know if this is a valid thing to do.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60407
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org ---
But I cannot reproduce it with what I thought it was, please provide the
preprocessed source.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60407
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58595
--- Comment #10 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to ktkachov from comment #9)
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #8)
Created attachment 32254 [details]
gcc49-pr58595-2.patch
So what about this variant?
I'll give
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60407
Dilawar Singh dilawar.s.rajput at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60407
--- Comment #5 from Dilawar Singh dilawar.s.rajput at gmail dot com ---
Hi,
Added the *.ii file and g++ -v output. Since one file was large, links are
given.
(In reply to Dilawar Singh from comment #4)
g++ info can be found here
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60404
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60376
--- Comment #4 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Tue Mar 4 10:52:18 2014
New Revision: 208309
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208309root=gccview=rev
Log:
/gcc/cp
2014-03-04 Paolo Carlini
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60376
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|ice-on-valid-code |
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60408
Bug ID: 60408
Summary: ARM: inefficient code for vget_lane_f32 intrinsic
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58511
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60382
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60382
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Mar 4 11:02:47 2014
New Revision: 208310
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208310root=gccview=rev
Log:
2014-03-04 Richard Biener rguent...@suse.de
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58511
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60389
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60401
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
If you include stdlib.h and not cstdlib it's a glibc bug, not a gcc/libstdc++
one.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60407
Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60407
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60407
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|call of overloaded ‘isnan’ |[C++11call of
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60409
Bug ID: 60409
Summary: [4.9 Regression] [c++1y] ICE on valid with template
function
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60401
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60409
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59308
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P1 |P2
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60367
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59713
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60367
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60407
--- Comment #9 from Dilawar Singh dilawar.s.rajput at gmail dot com ---
The snippet I sent you (in url filed) is a part of large project which compiles
fine on Ubuntu-server (gcc4.7.x, I am not sure about x).
I will confirm it later once I login
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59308
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 32258
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32258action=edit
gcc49-pr59308.patch
Patch (only tested on x86_64-linux with
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60410
Bug ID: 60410
Summary: -fshort-double ICEs x86_64
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60405
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Mar 4 11:25:50 2014
New Revision: 208311
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208311root=gccview=rev
Log:
2014-03-04 Richard Biener rguent...@suse.de
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60408
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55608
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54392
--- Comment #22 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
So 5.0 material, given that we are not going to change std::string in 4.9?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55113
pmatos at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54392
--- Comment #23 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Yes, definitely. It should get fixed automatically by switching to the new
std::string impl.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60410
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60410
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Yep. r189974.
Looks like the target is confused by building a -fshort-double V2DF with
using double_type_node.
Probably broken also on i?86, just not triggered.
OTOH,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60226
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58595
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #32252|0 |1
is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57295
--- Comment #2 from Wojciech Migda wojtek.golf at interia dot pl ---
Created attachment 32261
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32261action=edit
Proposed patch
Analysis of the reported problem has shown that expanding movmisalign
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60407
--- Comment #10 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Looks like a dup of PR 48891.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59335
--- Comment #13 from PaX Team pageexec at gmail dot com ---
another missing include in trunk: tree-cfgcleanup.h (it seems that it was split
from tree-flow.h which used to be installed for plugins for gcc 4.5-4.8).
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60401
--- Comment #3 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(dup of PR 33935)
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
If you include stdlib.h and not cstdlib it's a glibc bug, not a
gcc/libstdc++ one.
It would make sense for libstdc++
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60411
Bug ID: 60411
Summary: ADA canadian cross build fails.
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: ada
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60412
Bug ID: 60412
Summary: superfluous arithmetic generated for uneven tail
handling
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60413
Bug ID: 60413
Summary: extra precision not properly removed on assignment of
return value
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60413
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60413
--- Comment #2 from Ryan Lortie desrt at desrt dot ca ---
Why is this violation of standards treated in a special way?
Quoting from gcc's manpage:
-ffast-math
Sets -fno-math-errno, -funsafe-math-optimizations,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60413
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Ryan Lortie from comment #2)
Why is this violation of standards treated in a special way?
Because it slows down things way too much. Much better is just to use -msse2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60414
Bug ID: 60414
Summary: internal compiler error: tree check
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60413
--- Comment #4 from Ryan Lortie desrt at desrt dot ca ---
It seems like a good solution to this problem might be to enable -mfpmath=sse
by default on arches where SSE is known to be supported and
-fexcess-precision=standard otherwise. If people
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60413
--- Comment #5 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr ---
I think this is another duplicate of pr323.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60415
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60415
Bug ID: 60415
Summary: [4.9 regression] Bogus invalid use of qualified-name
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: rejects-valid
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60414
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=60415
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs/gcc?view=revisionrevision=196765
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60411
Mikael Pettersson mikpelinux at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikpelinux
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60407
--- Comment #11 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Looks like a dup of PR 48891.
See also the comments for PR 54130.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60407
--- Comment #12 from Dilawar Singh dilawar.s.rajput at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #10)
Looks like a dup of PR 48891.
Yes. It is very similar to this. Fine with me if it is marked dup.
I was mistaken about gcc
1 - 100 of 181 matches
Mail list logo
