Matthew Fortune matthew.fort...@imgtec.com writes:
Richard Sandiford rdsandif...@googlemail.com writes:
Matthew Fortune matthew.fort...@imgtec.com writes:
I think instead we should have a configuration switch that allows a
particular -mfp option to be inserted alongside -mabi=32 if no
-Original Message-
From: Richard Biener [mailto:richard.guent...@gmail.com]
Sent: 13 March 2014 18:46
To: Paulo Matos
Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: RE: dom requires PROP_loops
On March 13, 2014 5:00:53 PM CET, Paulo Matos pma...@broadcom.com wrote:
-Original Message-
On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 10:44 PM, Thomas Schwinge
tho...@codesourcery.com wrote:
Hi!
In gcc/c/c-parser.c:c_parser_omp_clause_num_threads (as well as other,
similar functions), what is the point of setting the boolean tree c's
location, given that this tree won't be used in the following?
Matthew Fortune matthew.fort...@imgtec.com writes:
The spec on:
https://dmz-portal.mips.com/wiki/MIPS_O32_ABI_-_FR0_and_FR1_Interlinking
has been updated and attempts to account for all the feedback. Not
everything has been possible to simplify/rework as requested but I
believe I have managed
Hello,
I'm writing a simple gcc backend and I'm experiencing a weird thing
regarding address legitimation process. Two scenarios:
If I only allow addresses to be either a register or symbols my gcc
works. To do so I add the restrictions into the
TARGET_LEGITIMATE_ADDRESS_P macro. This makes gcc
On Fri, 14 Mar 2014 12:52:35 +0100
David Guillen da...@davidgf.net wrote:
If I allow also a 'PLUS' expression to be a valid address (adding the
restriction that the two addends are a register and a constant) it
happens (sometimes) that gcc comes up with an expression like this
one:
Richard Sandiford rdsandif...@googlemail.com writes:
Matthew Fortune matthew.fort...@imgtec.com writes:
The spec on:
https://dmz-portal.mips.com/wiki/MIPS_O32_ABI_-_FR0_and_FR1_Interlinki
ng has been updated and attempts to account for all the feedback. Not
everything has been possible to
Thanks for you info Julian.
I actually read all the docs and I think I 'more or less' understand
the inner workings of gcc.
What surprises me most is that during the non-strict RTL generation I
do not see any 'strange' address pattern but during the post-reload
process the non-legitimate address
Hi All,
To handle the below problem i.e making specific set of register as
base registers ,which is the subset of general registers set.
we see the *.c.208.ira logs as
Pass 0 for finding pseudo/allocno costs
r21: preferred BASE_REGS, alternative GENERAL_REGS, allocno GENERAL_REGS
a2
On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 4:44 PM, Richard Biener
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 12:20 PM, Richard Biener
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 7:29 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
bilbotheelffri...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Richard,
Sorry for the late reply. I
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 9:01 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
bilbotheelffri...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 4:44 PM, Richard Biener
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 12:20 PM, Richard Biener
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 7:29 PM,
On Fri, 14 Mar 2014, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
I had a look at PR 14753
(http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14753) from the first
link. I have tried to implement those transforms (attached patch,
stage-1 compiled).
I have written the transforms to operate on GENERIC.
Why not
On 03/14/14 05:52, David Guillen wrote:
Hello,
I'm writing a simple gcc backend and I'm experiencing a weird thing
regarding address legitimation process. Two scenarios:
If I only allow addresses to be either a register or symbols my gcc
works. To do so I add the restrictions into the
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 9:25 PM, Marc Glisse marc.gli...@inria.fr wrote:
On Fri, 14 Mar 2014, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
I had a look at PR 14753
(http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14753) from the first
link. I have tried to implement those transforms (attached patch,
stage-1
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 4:31 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
bilbotheelffri...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 4:44 PM, Richard Biener
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 12:20 PM, Richard Biener
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 7:29 PM,
On Fri, 14 Mar 2014, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 9:25 PM, Marc Glisse marc.gli...@inria.fr wrote:
On Fri, 14 Mar 2014, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
The patterns mentioned in the links were:
a) (X CST1) = CST2 - X = CST2 CST1
however, an expression Y = CST gets folded
David Guillen da...@davidgf.net writes:
In any case I'm not using the restrict variable and I'm assuming
strict is zero, this is, not checking the hard regsiters themselves.
This is because any reg is OK for base reg. I'm pretty sure I'm
behaving similarly to arm, cris or x86 backends.
Dear gcc contributors,
I am going to try to participate in Google Summer of Code 2014. My
project is Integration of ISL code generator into Graphite.
My proposal can be found at on the following link
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2Wloo-931AoTWlkMzRobmZKT1U/edit?usp=sharing
. I would be very
On 03/14/2014 09:21 PM, Roman Gareev wrote:
Dear gcc contributors,
I am going to try to participate in Google Summer of Code 2014. My
project is Integration of ISL code generator into Graphite.
My proposal can be found at on the following link
I made a small mistake below on the ftp/rsync mirrors for the USA mirror. They
should be:
(USA)
http://mirrors-usa.go-parts.com/gcc
ftp://mirrors-usa.go-parts.com/gcc
rsync://mirrors-usa.go-parts.com/gcc
From: dan1...@msn.com
To: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60492
--- Comment #6 from J.R. Heisey jr at heisey dot org ---
Really? What rule would make this behavior expected?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60517
--- Comment #3 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #2)
(In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #1)
I see in the dump:
# .MEM_4 = VDEF .MEM_8
D.2272 ={v} {CLOBBER};
# VUSE
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60492
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60521
Bug ID: 60521
Summary: std::lock_guard ignores adopt_lock strategy
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: blocker
Priority: P3
Component:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60520
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #4)
This change:
diff --git a/gcc/function.c b/gcc/function.c
index a61e475..3b6718f 100644
--- a/gcc/function.c
+++ b/gcc/function.c
@@
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60518
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60522
Bug ID: 60522
Summary: WHERE construct causes an ICE in gfc_trans_where_2
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60521
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=60520
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59468
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60520
--- Comment #7 from Uroš Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #6)
Furthermore, it is already fixed since r208551.
Indeed, the fix for PR57320 also fixed this one.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60523
Bug ID: 60523
Summary: Warning flag for octal literals
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Component: c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60523
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Octal literals are very useful for expressing unix/posix file modes like 0777
or even 0666. So having the warning part of eith -Wall or -Wextra does not
make sense.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60522
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=60518
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Ok, so it's branch_prob()s call of split_block that splits the common latch of
loops 1 and 2
bb 3: (header loop 1)
bb 4: (header loop 2, latch loop 2 and 1)
_2 = fn1 ();
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59396
--- Comment #9 from Georg-Johann Lay gjl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: gjl
Date: Fri Mar 14 09:27:19 2014
New Revision: 208562
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208562root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR target/59396
* config/avr/avr.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59396
--- Comment #10 from Georg-Johann Lay gjl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: gjl
Date: Fri Mar 14 09:41:51 2014
New Revision: 208564
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208564root=gccview=rev
Log:
Backport from 2014-03-14 trunk r208562.
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60504
--- Comment #3 from Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Nothing obvious stands out. I presume that exceptions cannot be caught?
OK, it's presumably http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2013-12/msg00157.html but no ARM
maintainer has stepped in
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59396
--- Comment #11 from Georg-Johann Lay gjl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: gjl
Date: Fri Mar 14 09:52:07 2014
New Revision: 208565
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208565root=gccview=rev
Log:
Backport from 2014-03-14 trunk r208562.
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60524
Bug ID: 60524
Summary: Typedef information bypassed in dwarf2 function
parameter information when it is 'const'
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59396
Georg-Johann Lay gjl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P4 |P5
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60517
--- Comment #4 from Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #3)
(In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #2)
(In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #1)
I see in the dump:
# .MEM_4 =
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60523
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60461
--- Comment #6 from Martin Jambor jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Fri Mar 14 10:49:05 2014
New Revision: 208566
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208566root=gccview=rev
Log:
2014-03-13 Martin Jambor mjam...@suse.cz
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60523
--- Comment #4 from Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I would suggest that you implement this as a plugin. Plugins are particularly
useful for enforcing this type of coding standards. If you make a generally
useful plugin like one
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60525
Bug ID: 60525
Summary: [4.9 Regression] ICE: in final_scan_insn, at
final.c:2952
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60525
Markus Trippelsdorf trippels at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rth at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60523
--- Comment #5 from David Brown david at westcontrol dot com ---
I agree that warnings to match something like the MISRA coding standards would
be best done as a plugin.
But I believe that in this case, warning on octal literals would be quite a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60517
--- Comment #5 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #4)
Where is the clobber added?
front-end, I expect (sorry, I'm trying to get something to work on windows and
don't have my usual
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60484
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=60525
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Target
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60461
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60518
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri Mar 14 12:54:25 2014
New Revision: 208567
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208567root=gccview=rev
Log:
2014-03-14 Richard Biener rguent...@suse.de
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60518
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-checking,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60484
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60484
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #1)
Confirmed. GCC 4.4 works.
Well, seems 4.4 puts the dump file in $PWD.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60484
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Anyway, this is because finish_options is called for every optimize attribute
(handle_optimize_attribute-parse_optimize_attribute-decode_options-finish_options)
+ one more time for
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58721
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60526
Bug ID: 60526
Summary: [4.7/4.8/4.9 Regression] Accepts-invalid: Variable
name same as type name
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60525
Richard Henderson rth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60526
--- Comment #1 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
See also
https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!topic/comp.lang.fortran/ZZ0iPFE7TFk
for a discussion of ifort's behavior (which is the other way round than
gfortran's: it used to accept it but
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53711
--- Comment #3 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jason
Date: Fri Mar 14 15:20:28 2014
New Revision: 208569
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208569root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR c++/53711
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60517
--- Comment #6 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #5)
I would need a different (middle-end) warning that
detects return local_var,
To confirm this, I looked at the last dangling reference I
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60484
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60527
Bug ID: 60527
Summary: Incorrectly removed if statement while doing int
arithmetics
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60484
--- Comment #5 from Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I've just regtested a similar patch, so it looks good.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60527
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60484
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60520
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60508
--- Comment #3 from Vladimir Makarov vmakarov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: vmakarov
Date: Fri Mar 14 16:34:57 2014
New Revision: 208570
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208570root=gccview=rev
Log:
2014-03-14 Vladimir Makarov
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60517
--- Comment #7 from Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #6)
(In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #5)
I would need a different (middle-end) warning that
detects return local_var,
To confirm
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60528
Bug ID: 60528
Summary: MIPS GCC puts out complex constant incorrectly when in
big-endian mode
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60525
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
It also breaks nearly every test in SPEC 2k and 2k6 ;)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58721
--- Comment #20 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Unfortunately the patch regresses abi_check in libstdc++, libstdc++.so.6 now
because of the patch exports
_ZNSt12system_errorC1ESt10error_codeRKSs@@GLIBCXX_3.4.11
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60517
--- Comment #8 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #7)
To avoid duplicates, the front-end could just return something else, like
NULL, when it detects this case (I guess the behavior is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60523
--- Comment #6 from joseph at codesourcery dot com joseph at codesourcery dot
com ---
Octal literals are also used in macro definitions from system headers, so
care would be needed that a warning doesn't apply to those.
Such a warning should of
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60525
--- Comment #3 from Richard Henderson rth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 32350
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32350action=edit
proposed patch
In the description for the patch in question, I mentioned how during
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60529
Bug ID: 60529
Summary: internal compiler error with allocatable sub-component
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60484
--- Comment #6 from Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Fri Mar 14 17:58:52 2014
New Revision: 208571
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208571root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/60484
* common.opt
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60517
Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||glisse at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60484
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58721
--- Comment #22 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #20)
Unfortunately the patch regresses abi_check in libstdc++, libstdc++.so.6 now
because of the patch exports
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58721
--- Comment #21 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: redi
Date: Fri Mar 14 18:10:59 2014
New Revision: 208572
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208572root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR ipa/58721
* config/abi/pre/gnu.ver
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60525
--- Comment #4 from Markus Trippelsdorf trippels at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Richard Henderson from comment #3)
Created attachment 32350 [details]
proposed patch
In the description for the patch in question, I mentioned how during
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60530
Bug ID: 60530
Summary: openssh-6.5p1 can't be built with lto - revision
208516
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60530
--- Comment #1 from David Kredba nheghathivhistha at gmail dot com ---
When system libraries are removed, ssh.i file links to ssh file:
x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-gcc -o ssh ssh.i -L. -Lopenbsd-compat/ -flto=4
-fuse-linker-plugin -Wl,--as-needed -Wl,-O2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60530
--- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to David Kredba from comment #0)
Created attachment 32351 [details]
Un-reduced preprocessed source file gzipped
The only one object file causing the erro from -o ssh ssh.o
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57821
John David Anglin danglin at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||4.9.0
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58678
--- Comment #33 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jason
Date: Fri Mar 14 19:06:54 2014
New Revision: 208573
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208573root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR c++/58678
* search.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58678
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60522
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|WHERE construct causes an
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60032
--- Comment #9 from Michael Meissner meissner at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: meissner
Date: Fri Mar 14 19:36:18 2014
New Revision: 208574
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208574root=gccview=rev
Log:
2014-03-12 Michael Meissner
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57052
--- Comment #2 from Michael Meissner meissner at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: meissner
Date: Fri Mar 14 19:36:18 2014
New Revision: 208574
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208574root=gccview=rev
Log:
2014-03-12 Michael Meissner
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60525
--- Comment #5 from Richard Henderson rth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Markus Trippelsdorf from comment #4)
-march=native
For what host?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60525
Richard Henderson rth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #32350|0 |1
is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60525
--- Comment #7 from Markus Trippelsdorf trippels at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Richard Henderson from comment #5)
(In reply to Markus Trippelsdorf from comment #4)
-march=native
For what host?
Like in comment0: -march=amdfam10
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60522
Mikael Morin mikael at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikael at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60520
--- Comment #11 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com ---
Created attachment 32353
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32353action=edit
A patch
This patch checks LEAVE and remove stack deallocation.
It removes 5 stack
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60531
Bug ID: 60531
Summary: template function not resolved when comparing
functions
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60392
--- Comment #7 from Mikael Morin mikael at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: mikael
Date: Fri Mar 14 21:28:59 2014
New Revision: 208581
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208581root=gccview=rev
Log:
fortran/
PR fortran/60392
*
1 - 100 of 157 matches
Mail list logo
