On sparc a simple test like (from the PR tree-optimization/53410 testcase):
typedef int V __attribute__((vector_size (4 * sizeof (int;
typedef unsigned int W __attribute__((vector_size (4 * sizeof (int;
void
f10 (W *p, W *q)
{
*p = *p (((const W) { 1U, 1U, 1U, 1U
Hello,
after upgrading gcc one of my classes failed to compile. Stock
Debian/Wheezy 4.4, 4.5, 4.6 compiled the code, also compiled a version
of 4.7.0 that was built by me from sources some time ago. Clang 3.0-6
also compiled, but stock 4.7.1-7, the head of 4.7 (4.7.3 d51dc77f,
r192839) and
On 27 October 2012 13:55, Peter A. Felvegi wrote:
I didn't find anything relevant in Bugzilla when searching for 'typedef
template'. Should I file a bug report?
If you've found what you think is a bug and you can't find an existing
Bugzilla report then yes, you should file a bug report. This
Hi,
I just wanted to let you know, I've updated my website at:
http://www.cyberfiber.org, hope you don't mind me notifying you.
Hope you people can fine-tune both the compiler and the assembler during
development, otherwise I will have to migrate to Microsoft Windows in
the near future.
Ian Tayler (in private communication) asked that I get the part of the
build log that shows the .so and .a files being built and send it to
the list. Here it is.
-- Caroline Tice
cmt...@google.com
/bin/sh ../libtool --tag CXX --tag disable-shared --mode=compile
On 27/10/12 15:16, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 27 October 2012 13:55, Peter A. Felvegi wrote:
I didn't find anything relevant in Bugzilla when searching for 'typedef
template'. Should I file a bug report?
If you've found what you think is a bug and you can't find an existing
Bugzilla report then
Snapshot gcc-4.7-20121027 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.7-20121027/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.7 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches
On 10/27/2012 10:58 PM, Sebastian Huber wrote:
On 27/10/12 15:16, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 27 October 2012 13:55, Peter A. Felvegi wrote:
I didn't find anything relevant in Bugzilla when searching for 'typedef
template'. Should I file a bug report?
If you've found what you think is a bug and
On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 06:33:34AM +0200, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
some (20040709-2.c, etc.) fail with a linker error now, instead of
Hmm, packed structs. If gcc is generating mis-aligned accesses using
lwa or ld, that would be another TARGET_64BIT vs TARGET_POWERPC64
bug, wouldn't it?
--
On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 1:45 PM, Caroline Tice cmt...@google.com wrote:
Ian Tayler (in private communication) asked that I get the part of the
build log that shows the .so and .a files being built and send it to
the list. Here it is.
I see the problem. libstdc++/libsupc++/Makefile.am
some (20040709-2.c, etc.) fail with a linker error now, instead of
Hmm, packed structs. If gcc is generating mis-aligned accesses using
lwa or ld, that would be another TARGET_64BIT vs TARGET_POWERPC64
bug, wouldn't it?
I have analysed it, patch on the way. The problem is LO_SUMs of
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55088
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-10-27
06:42:10 UTC ---
The language specific tar balls are no longer produced. I don't know if we
should close this bug as fixed or won't fix.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55078
--- Comment #3 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at ucw dot cz 2012-10-27 07:05:26 UTC
---
Fails for me, too, so likely universal. Seems ordering issue with the inliner
patches. Works in my tree - I will work out what fix solved it and fix it
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54961
--- Comment #4 from Uros Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com 2012-10-27 07:06:25
UTC ---
Steven, has there been any new progress on this PR?
In addition to the failure in this PR, I also get (-O2 -m32) that may be
related to the failure in
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54961
--- Comment #5 from Uros Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com 2012-10-27 07:11:00
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
Steven, has there been any new progress on this PR?
In addition to the failure in this PR, I also get (-O2 -m32) that may be
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54402
--- Comment #6 from Uros Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com 2012-10-27 07:23:47
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
As Uros says in bug 54507, the reflect test from libgo is another example.
Actually, on alpha it is text/template test.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34283
--- Comment #6 from Uros Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com 2012-10-27 07:33:41
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
(In reply to comment #4)
Still present on x86_64. -O2 -march=corei7:
movd%rsi, %xmm1
pinsrq $1,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34283
--- Comment #7 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-10-27 07:49:00 UTC ---
Author: uros
Date: Sat Oct 27 07:48:55 2012
New Revision: 192872
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=192872
Log:
PR target/34283
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34283
Uros Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54466
--- Comment #9 from dodji at seketeli dot org dodji at seketeli dot org
2012-10-27 07:59:12 UTC ---
A candidate patch has been sent to
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-10/msg02472.html.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32204
etherice scottbaldwin at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19398
Uros Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ra
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32204
--- Comment #8 from etherice scottbaldwin at gmail dot com 2012-10-27
08:52:10 UTC ---
In MSVC's defense, the standard is vague (or insufficient) in this regard for
'friend class' declarations. It says:
If a friend declaration appears in
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55095
Bug #: 55095
Summary: Wshift-overflow
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55096
Bug #: 55096
Summary: Wconversion-nul does not work in C
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55078
--- Comment #4 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at ucw dot cz 2012-10-27 09:18:09 UTC
---
Actually, this seems like another latent problem in devirtualization. We
assert because estimate_edge_devirt_benefit works out we can devirtualize the
call,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55078
Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54404
--- Comment #15 from Iain Sandoe iains at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-10-27 11:31:10
UTC ---
Author: iains
Date: Sat Oct 27 11:31:06 2012
New Revision: 192874
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=192874
Log:
gcc/testsuite:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54961
--- Comment #6 from Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-10-27
13:03:07 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
Steven, has there been any new progress on this PR?
Workin' on it this weekend.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32204
--- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-10-27
13:13:13 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
In MSVC's defense, the standard is vague (or insufficient) in this regard for
'friend class' declarations. It says:
If
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54673
Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52855
--- Comment #3 from Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se 2012-10-27
13:26:47 UTC ---
The ICE is fixed by the patch for PR50099. See especially
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50099#c6 which shows the same ICE
in Perl as
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55095
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55092
Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51257
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55097
Bug #: 55097
Summary: typedef not recognized in templated class
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55042
--- Comment #1 from Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-10-27 13:36:24
UTC ---
Author: olegendo
Date: Sat Oct 27 13:36:20 2012
New Revision: 192877
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=192877
Log:
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32204
--- Comment #10 from etherice scottbaldwin at gmail dot com 2012-10-27
13:39:05 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #9)
Jonathan- You're right on all counts. Thanks for clarifying (and apologies for
getting a bit off-topic).
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54760
--- Comment #13 from Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-10-27
13:41:25 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #12)
(In reply to comment #9)
Log:
PR target/54760
* config/sh/sh.c (bdesc): Remove thread pointer built-ins.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54473
Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|mikpe at it dot uu.se |
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55042
Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55097
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55034
--- Comment #1 from Georg-Johann Lay gjl at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-10-27
14:03:19 UTC ---
Author: gjl
Date: Sat Oct 27 14:03:10 2012
New Revision: 192878
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=192878
Log:
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55034
Georg-Johann Lay gjl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P5
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55034
Georg-Johann Lay gjl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55042
--- Comment #3 from Uros Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com 2012-10-27 14:05:12
UTC ---
static bool ATTRIBUTE_UNUSED
perhaps?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52945
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55098
Bug #: 55098
Summary: c++11: move constructor doesn't run at all (but with a
hammer)
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.1
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55042
--- Comment #4 from Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-10-27 14:39:46
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
static bool ATTRIBUTE_UNUSED
perhaps?
Yeah, that would also do the job. Do you insist? :)
Personally, I don't care,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55098
--- Comment #1 from Lisp2D lisp2d at lisp2d dot net 2012-10-27 15:01:42 UTC
---
May be it is optimisation, but without instruction and with side effects.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55098
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55014
--- Comment #5 from Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se 2012-10-27
15:09:20 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
may be this bus same as http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54957
there have a path in that post can solve this bug.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54957
Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikpe at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55098
Lisp2D lisp2d at lisp2d dot net changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55098
--- Comment #4 from Lisp2D lisp2d at lisp2d dot net 2012-10-27 15:24:06 UTC
---
(In reply to comment #3)
My opinion is to enable elide-constructors in -sdt=c++11.
Programers in this standard use own move-constructors with own-side
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55099
Bug #: 55099
Summary: Surprising 'PROCEDURE attribute conflicts with INTENT
attribute' error
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55098
--- Comment #5 from Lisp2D lisp2d at lisp2d dot net 2012-10-27 15:46:39 UTC
---
OK. Right path is: DON'T return anything.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55098
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55098
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-10-27
16:03:17 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Return_value_optimization
Use -fno-elide-constructors to disable constructor elision
And
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54404
--- Comment #16 from howarth at bromo dot med.uc.edu 2012-10-27 16:34:19 UTC ---
On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 11:31:10AM +, iains at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54404
--- Comment #15 from Iain
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54980
Dmitry G. Dyachenko dimhen at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55055
Dmitry G. Dyachenko dimhen at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55100
Bug #: 55100
Summary: FORALL: If the RHS is scalar, not array temporary is
needed
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55099
Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54971
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55099
Joost VandeVondele Joost.VandeVondele at mat dot ethz.ch changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55101
Bug #: 55101
Summary: Invalid implicit conversion in initialization when
source type is a template argument type
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55095
Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55095
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-10-27
18:39:39 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
Is there any function to compute how many bits are required to store a value?
For positive values it's easy, something like
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55101
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55102
Bug #: 55102
Summary: The options -flto and -On do not behave as described
in GCC docs
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55077
--- Comment #1 from Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-10-27
19:48:25 UTC ---
Problem: We do not want to warn for expressions. From the clang testcases:
// Expressions, such as those that indicate rounding-down, should NOT
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55046
John David Anglin danglin at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55046
--- Comment #2 from John David Anglin danglin at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-10-27
20:43:59 UTC ---
It doesn't help to return NULL_RTX when allocno is zero.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54030
--- Comment #5 from Georg-Johann Lay gjl at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-10-27
21:25:32 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
I reviewed it because I know that part of the Makefile and I am
familiar with what they want to do.
Waht would be a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51106
davem at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||davem at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55097
--- Comment #2 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 2012-10-27
23:10:45 UTC ---
Very likely Dup of PR55058: Rev184000 for both.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52387
--- Comment #10 from Jerry DeLisle jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-10-28
00:35:41 UTC ---
Tobias, any further information on this one?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55093
--- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com 2012-10-28 03:22:31
UTC ---
A small testcase:
[hjl@gnu-tools-1 pr55093]$ cat x.ii
__extension__ typedef struct {
}
_G_fpos_t;
typedef unsigned int hashval_t;
typedef union tree_node *tree;
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54526
--- Comment #4 from Richard Smith richard-gccbugzilla at metafoo dot co.uk
2012-10-28 05:21:40 UTC ---
The fix does not appear to be correct. C++11 changed the lexing rules, not the
parsing rules for template argument lists. For instance,
The problem here is that we end up with an INDIRECT_REF TREE_CODE with a
null TREE_TYPE in lvalue_kind. Is this possible at that point, or does
it point to a deeper underlying problem?
Bootstraped and tested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu.
2012-10-27 Markus Trippelsdorf mar...@trippelsdorf.de
Jason Merrill ja...@redhat.com writes:
On 10/26/2012 01:37 PM, Dodji Seketeli wrote:
cp_next_tokens_can_be_std_attribute_p (cp_parser *parser)
{
- return cp_nth_tokens_can_be_std_attribute_p (parser, 1);
+ cp_token *token = cp_lexer_peek_token (parser-lexer);
+
+ return (cxx_dialect
Hello!
Attached patch adds a testcase for RA problem that was fixed by LRA.
2012-10-27 Uros Bizjak ubiz...@gmail.com
PR target/34283
* gcc.target/i386/pr34283.c: New test.
Tested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, committed to mainline SVN.
Uros.
Index: gcc.target/i386/pr34283.c
Hello,
Consider this short example:
templatetypename T
struct X { };
templatetypename T
using Y = const XT;
using Z = Yint;
G++ crashes in lookup_class_template_1 while trying to build the alias
template instantiation Yint.
I think this is indirectly due to the fact
On 25 April 2012 13:54, Joseph S. Myers jos...@codesourcery.com wrote:
On Wed, 25 Apr 2012, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
On 25 April 2012 00:01, Joseph S. Myers jos...@codesourcery.com wrote:
On Sun, 22 Apr 2012, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
Wshadow warns whenever any declaration shadows a
Am 27.10.2012 01:41, schrieb Andreas Schwab:
Thomas Koenig tkoe...@netcologne.de writes:
Index: trans.c
===
--- trans.c (revision 192638)
+++ trans.c (working copy)
@@ -814,26 +814,23 @@ gfc_allocate_allocatable
Hello!
As suggested by Richard S. [1], after the patch that converts subreg:M
(op:N (...)(...)) to op:M (subreg:M (...) subreg:M (...)), we can
remove several peephole2 patterns that handle subregs of PLUS, MINUS
and MULT operators. I have attached RFC prototype patch that will
trigger an ICE
On 10/26/2012 10:41 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
On 10/25/2012 10:15 PM, François Dumont wrote:
Here is the patch to apply the same modification applied to
unordered_set and unordered_multiset. It also use default
implementation for unordered_set/unordered_multiset copy/move
Hello,
I've committed the obvious fix for PR 55042 as rev 192877.
Cheers,
Oleg
gcc/ChangeLog:
PR target/55042
* config/sh/sh.c (sh1_builtin_p): Comment out unused function.
Index: gcc/config/sh/sh.c
===
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?view=revisionrevision=192878
Applied as obvios.
Johann
PR target/55034
* config/avr/avr.c (avr_out_lpm): Remove unused regno_dest.
I doubt this has been an FAQ in the last decade. :-) Applied.
Gerald
2012-10-27 Gerald Pfeifer ger...@pfeifer.com
* faq.html (My program seems to hang): Remove.
Index: faq.html
===
RCS file:
Bootstrapped (c,c++) on i686-pc-linux-gnu.
Committed as obvious.
2012-10-27 Joern Rennecke joern.renne...@embecosm.com
* lra-assigns.c (find_hard_regno_for): Fix use of WORDS_BIG_ENDIAN.
Index: lra-assigns.c
===
---
Thomas Koenig tkoe...@netcologne.de writes:
PR fortran/54833
* trans.c (gfc_call_free): Do not wrap the
call to __builtin_free in check for NULL.
(gfc_deallocate_with_status): For automatic deallocation without
status for non-coarrays, don't wrap call
On 19 October 2012 18:17, Joseph S. Myers jos...@codesourcery.com wrote:
On Wed, 17 Oct 2012, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
documentation but I can also implement -Wformat=0 being an alias for
-Wno-format and -Wformat=1 an alias for -Wformat and simply reject
-Wno-format=.
I think that's
More mostly easy conversions to LangEnabledBy. Regtested on x86_64-linux-gnu.
OK?
2012-10-27 Manuel López-Ibáñez m...@gcc.gnu.org
PR c/53063
c-family/
* c.opt(Warray-bounds,Wdelete-non-virtual-dtor,Wenum-compare,
Wmain,Woverlength-strings,
Hi Andreas,
Thomas Koenig tkoe...@netcologne.de writes:
PR fortran/54833
* trans.c (gfc_call_free): Do not wrap the
call to __builtin_free in check for NULL.
(gfc_deallocate_with_status): For automatic deallocation without
status for non-coarrays,
Thomas Koenig tkoe...@netcologne.de writes:
Does not happen on the architectures that I used, and I do not
have access to that architecture.
A cross compiler is enough.
Does a (rougly) equivalent C case compile?
How does a (rougly) equivalent C case look like?
Andreas.
--
Andreas Schwab,
On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 7:41 PM, Andreas Schwab sch...@linux-m68k.org wrote:
How does a (rougly) equivalent C case look like?
Usually something can be constructed from the -fdump-tree-gimple dump.
Ciao!
Steven
On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 12:53 AM, Dehao Chen de...@google.com wrote:
Hi,
I've updated the patch:
1. abandon the changes in cfgexpand.c
2. set the block for trees when lowering gimple stmt.
3. add a unittest.
Index: gcc/gimple-low.c
On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 11:07 AM, Richard Biener
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 12:53 AM, Dehao Chen de...@google.com wrote:
Hi,
I've updated the patch:
1. abandon the changes in cfgexpand.c
2. set the block for trees when lowering gimple stmt.
3. add a unittest.
1 - 100 of 111 matches
Mail list logo
