I have been trying repeatedly and in incrementally more rewarding stages
towards building a purely 64-bit GCC compiler on Solaris 10 sparc. I have no
need for the 32-bit libs at all and my entire toolchain is 64-bit only. There
are no 32-bit libs in /usr/local/lib nor do there need to be. Thus
Howdy,
The following piece of code:
=== snip ===
#include iostream
struct warnme
{
bool member_;
warnme(bool member) : member_(member_) {}
};
int main()
{
warnme wm(true);
std::cout wm.member_ std::endl;
return 0;
}
=== end snip ===
when compiled with g++ 4.7, gives me
GCC has the -Winit-self warning.
David
On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 12:18 PM, Bruno Nery br...@thousandeyes.com wrote:
Howdy,
The following piece of code:
=== snip ===
#include iostream
struct warnme
{
bool member_;
warnme(bool member) : member_(member_) {}
};
int main()
{
Dear All,
I have found a build problem with an application which I have reduced to the
following test case:
$ cat foomain.cc
//
// g++ foomain.cc foo01.cc foo02.cc -o foo.out
//
// g++ -c foomain.cc
// g++ -c foo01.cc
// g++ -c foo02.cc
//
// g++ foomain.o foo01.o foo02.o -o foo.out
//
int
Bruno Nery br...@thousandeyes.com writes:
| Howdy,
| The following piece of code:
| === snip ===
| #include iostream
| struct warnme
| {
| bool member_;
| warnme(bool member) : member_(member_) {}
| };
| int main()
| {
| warnme wm(true);
| std::cout wm.member_ std::endl;
|
Hello,
On Fri, 2012-11-09 at 12:18 -0800, Bruno Nery wrote:
Howdy,
The following piece of code:
=== snip ===
#include iostream
struct warnme
{
bool member_;
warnme(bool member) : member_(member_) {}
};
int main()
{
warnme wm(true);
std::cout wm.member_
-Winit-self doesn't report it either (at least in g++ 4.7).
--
Bruno Nery
On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 12:32 PM, Xinliang David Li davi...@google.com wrote:
GCC has the -Winit-self warning.
David
On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 12:18 PM, Bruno Nery br...@thousandeyes.com wrote:
Howdy,
The following
Twenty two might be a more manageable number, but still... why do we
need an account to report a bug?
--
Bruno Nery
On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 12:36 PM, Oleg Endo oleg.e...@t-online.de wrote:
Hello,
On Fri, 2012-11-09 at 12:18 -0800, Bruno Nery wrote:
Howdy,
The following piece of code:
===
On Fri, 2012-11-09 at 13:22 -0800, Bruno Nery wrote:
Twenty two might be a more manageable number, but still... why do we
need an account to report a bug?
This issue has been raised just recently on the gcc-help mailing list.
See the thread:
A good reason, stopping spammers - but why not allow a generic (e.g.
Google/Facebook/StackOverflow)/OpenID login? As the original poster of
that thread, I don't like to have to keep track of accounts (and
passwords) only for posting one bug.
Also, CAPTCHAs might be an option - or changing to a
Any pointers at all as to the error of my ways ?
http://gcc.gnu.org/install/specific.html#sparc64-x-solaris2
--
Eric Botcazou
Any pointers at all as to the error of my ways ?
http://gcc.gnu.org/install/specific.html#sparc64-x-solaris2
nope. Been there .. done that and that fails badly .. in fact worse than before
:
Configure .. look good but lies :
$ ../gcc-4.7.2/configure --build=sparc64-sun-solaris2.10
Snapshot gcc-4.6-20121109 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.6-20121109/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.6 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches
nope. Been there .. done that and that fails badly .. in fact worse than
before :
Yet this is the standard way and works flawlessly if done correctly...
However I am way way open to suggestion here.
You need to configure everything with --build=sparc64-sun-solaris2.10 and
compile everything
nope. Been there .. done that and that fails badly .. in fact worse
than
before :
Yet this is the standard way and works flawlessly if done correctly...
I can not see my error here and am wondering what the issue is.
However I am way way open to suggestion here.
You need to
Il 06/11/2012 03:43, DJ Delorie ha scritto:
Ian Lance Taylor i...@google.com writes:
Also the fact that GCC is now written in C++ seems to me to be
deserving of a bump to 5.0.
I see no reason why an internal design change that has no user visible
effects should have any impact on the
On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 11:21 PM, Jonathan Wakely jwakely@gmail.com wrote:
On 6 November 2012 09:16, Florian Weimer wrote:
On 11/06/2012 07:06 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
I tend to agree that major version number bumps ought to be tied to
major user-visible changes.
Or a new ABI for
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55154
--- Comment #4 from Vladimir Makarov vmakarov at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-09
15:33:27 UTC ---
Author: vmakarov
Date: Fri Nov 9 15:33:19 2012
New Revision: 193364
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=193364
Log:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54859
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54859
--- Comment #4 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-09
16:14:56 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Fri Nov 9 16:14:48 2012
New Revision: 193368
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=193368
Log:
PR c++/54859
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55251
Bug #: 55251
Summary: inconsistent OpenMP tasks scheduling
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55158
--- Comment #9 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-09
16:38:16 UTC ---
OK, I applied it to our autotester and we will see tomorrow if it fixes the
segfaults.
If so, can I go ahead and commit it?
Honza
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55252
Bug #: 55252
Summary: Caret diagnostic doesn't show useful location when
macro clashes with name in system header
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55252
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55253
Bug #: 55253
Summary: [4.8 Regression] Revision 193298 miscompiles sqlite
with -Os
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54859
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55254
Bug #: 55254
Summary: Warn for implicit conversion from int to char
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46480
Aldy Hernandez aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52438
Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55247
Vladimir Makarov vmakarov at redhat dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54916
Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55255
Bug #: 55255
Summary: Compiler segmentation fault
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: critical
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55242
--- Comment #1 from Dmitry Gorbachev d.g.gorbachev at gmail dot com
2012-11-09 20:23:47 UTC ---
It's a feature, not a bug (see PR41748, PR45696, and PR48383). Perhaps it
should be mentioned in the preprocessor documentation.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55230
--- Comment #1 from Sriraman Tallam tmsriram at google dot com 2012-11-09
20:31:41 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #0)
Caused by:
http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?view=revisionrevision=193204
/* { dg-do run { target i?86-*-* x86_64-*-* } }
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55252
Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55255
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41004
Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52438
--- Comment #6 from Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-09
21:42:06 UTC ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Fri Nov 9 21:42:02 2012
New Revision: 193375
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=193375
Log:
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52438
--- Comment #7 from Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-09
21:42:25 UTC ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Fri Nov 9 21:42:21 2012
New Revision: 193376
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=193376
Log:
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22553
--- Comment #26 from Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-09
21:44:16 UTC ---
I've tried enabling sched1 on rev 193341 and ran the test suite with
make -k -j4 check
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55229
Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55255
--- Comment #2 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-09 22:05:20 UTC ---
Slightly reduced test case:
MODULE MY_ARRAY
TYPE ARRAY
REAL, ALLOCATABLE :: VALS
END TYPE
CONTAINS
TYPE(ARRAY) FUNCTION MAKE_ARRAY()
END FUNCTION
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54961
Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.8.0 |---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28968
Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15212
Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rupp
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15184
Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P5 |P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21714
Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22488
Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||alias
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22553
--- Comment #27 from Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-09
22:41:15 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #26)
Another way that fixes the problem mentioned above is to not allow non-float
mode operands in the first place. The patch
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23835
Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24334
Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24698
Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27855
--- Comment #42 from Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-09
23:06:18 UTC ---
It'd be interesting to get some new timings, with the new register-pressure
aware scheduling and with LRA. Oh, and maybe with the patch to restrain
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29206
Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55229
Hans-Peter Nilsson hp at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hp at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32306
--- Comment #22 from Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-09
23:13:53 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #19)
Shorter testcase, compilable and to the point. We are not able to CSE
the b1 ... b8 sequence because we produce
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38642
Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40180
Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43302
Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42143
Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51721
Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55256
Bug #: 55256
Summary: Out of memory preprocessing nested tgmath.h functions
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51937
Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34226
Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21953
Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54993
Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54942
Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29206
--- Comment #22 from dave.anglin at bell dot net 2012-11-10 01:28:52 UTC ---
If possible, I think SJLJ support should go. I can't remember the
exact status of SJLJ for HP-UX 10
but a comment in hpux-unwind.h suggests that I tested dwarf2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55247
--- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com 2012-11-10 01:32:06
UTC ---
There are 2 issues here:
1. Should we use
movdqu(%eax), %xmm0# 19*movti_internal_rex64/4[length = 5]
movdqa%xmm0, (%rsp)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55247
--- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com 2012-11-10 01:39:16
UTC ---
We don't properly handle memory operand in
(insn 19 17 20 2 (set (reg:TI 85 [ *_15 ])
(mem:TI (zero_extend:DI (reg:SI 82)) [0 *_15+0 S16 A32]))
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55257
Bug #: 55257
Summary: [4.8 Regression]:
g++.dg/debug/dwarf2/non-virtual-thunk.C scan-assembler
thunk.C:30
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55247
--- Comment #5 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com 2012-11-10 01:58:31
UTC ---
We fail to see (mem:TI (zero_extend:DI (reg:SI 82))) is offsettable.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55258
Bug #: 55258
Summary: SSE register isn't used for 16byte copy
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55247
--- Comment #6 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com 2012-11-10 02:30:16
UTC ---
Something like this:
diff --git a/gcc/explow.c b/gcc/explow.c
index 6109832..9ec38f9 100644
--- a/gcc/explow.c
+++ b/gcc/explow.c
@@ -84,12 +84,22 @@
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55259
Bug #: 55259
Summary: plus_constant doesn't handle zero-extended address
properly
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55249
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.4.5
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55259
--- Comment #1 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com 2012-11-10 04:13:32
UTC ---
A potential fix:
diff --git a/gcc/emit-rtl.c b/gcc/emit-rtl.c
index 95bbfa7..d7c454c 100644
--- a/gcc/emit-rtl.c
+++ b/gcc/emit-rtl.c
@@ -2109,6
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54242
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55245
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51727
--- Comment #31 from Tobias Schlüter tobi at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-09
09:43:56 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #30)
(In reply to comment #29)
I committed the C-only version of the patch as the issues mentioned in
comment
#27 couldn't be
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51727
--- Comment #32 from Joost VandeVondele Joost.VandeVondele at mat dot ethz.ch
2012-11-09 10:05:18 UTC ---
If you can use the additional free time to walk over to my
brother's office, then please say 'Hi' to him. Otherwise the faculty
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55246
Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55249
Bug #: 55249
Summary: Multiple copy constructors for template class lead to
link errors
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.3
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55249
--- Comment #1 from Antony Polukhin antoshkka at gmail dot com 2012-11-09
10:24:49 UTC ---
Created attachment 28648
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28648
Preprocessed file that triggers the bug
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55221
--- Comment #2 from Anton Shterenlikht mexas at bristol dot ac.uk 2012-11-09
10:40:41 UTC ---
On the same system I can build gcc-4.8.0.20121014
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55221
--- Comment #3 from Anton Shterenlikht mexas at bristol dot ac.uk 2012-11-09
10:47:22 UTC ---
forgot to add, all these builds are with
a patch to unwind-ia64.h. For example, for 4.8
branch, the patch is (credit to ger...@freebsd.org):
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54089
--- Comment #26 from Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-09
10:48:17 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #25)
Maybe the better solution would indeed be to add a
arith - logical shift conversion pass before combine, or try to convert
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55249
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54966
--- Comment #10 from vincenzo Innocente vincenzo.innocente at cern dot ch
2012-11-09 11:33:37 UTC ---
I've repeated the tests again on a different machine and the result are the
same
gcc version 4.8.0 20121108 (experimental) [trunk revision
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54342
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55249
Markus Trippelsdorf markus at trippelsdorf dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55250
Bug #: 55250
Summary: [C++0x][constexpr] enum declarations within constexpr
function are allowed, constexpr declarations are not
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55249
--- Comment #4 from Antony Polukhin antoshkka at gmail dot com 2012-11-09
12:28:11 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
Yes, thanks.
`output.txt` will be the same.
Also, reproduced this bug on GCC 4.7.2:
[cc@ontos-soa-01 ~]$ gcc -v
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54472
--- Comment #8 from Andrey Belevantsev abel at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-09
12:28:30 UTC ---
Author: abel
Date: Fri Nov 9 12:28:21 2012
New Revision: 193358
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=193358
Log:
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54385
--- Comment #4 from Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-09
12:31:40 UTC ---
Author: steven
Date: Fri Nov 9 12:31:32 2012
New Revision: 193359
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=193359
Log:
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54385
Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54472
--- Comment #9 from Andrey Belevantsev abel at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-09
12:33:33 UTC ---
Fixed on trunk, backports to 4.7/4.6 are needed.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55250
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||accepts-invalid
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55249
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54089
--- Comment #27 from Jorn Wolfgang Rennecke amylaar at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-11-09 13:29:10 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #26)
(In reply to comment #25)
Maybe the better solution would indeed be to add a
arith - logical shift
1 - 100 of 181 matches
Mail list logo
