On 01/22/2013 06:01 AM, Mayuresh Kathe wrote:
Hello, may I know the estimated timeframe by which full support for
C++11 would be added in to GCC?
Status is here: http://gcc.gnu.org/projects/cxx0x.html
As usual, it'll be done when volunteer maintainers do it.
Andrew.
On 22/01/13 09:00, Andrew Haley wrote:
On 01/22/2013 06:01 AM, Mayuresh Kathe wrote:
Hello, may I know the estimated timeframe by which full support for
C++11 would be added in to GCC?
Status is here: http://gcc.gnu.org/projects/cxx0x.html
As usual, it'll be done when volunteer maintainers do
On 01/22/2013 12:55 PM, Alec Teal wrote:
On 22/01/13 09:00, Andrew Haley wrote:
On 01/22/2013 06:01 AM, Mayuresh Kathe wrote:
Hello, may I know the estimated timeframe by which full support for
C++11 would be added in to GCC?
Status is here: http://gcc.gnu.org/projects/cxx0x.html
As usual,
On 22/01/13 14:20, Andrew Haley wrote:
On 01/22/2013 12:55 PM, Alec Teal wrote:
On 22/01/13 09:00, Andrew Haley wrote:
On 01/22/2013 06:01 AM, Mayuresh Kathe wrote:
Hello, may I know the estimated timeframe by which full support for
C++11 would be added in to GCC?
Status is here:
About the time Clang does because GCC now has to compete.
How about that? Clang is currently slightly ahead and GCC really needs
to change if it is to continue to be the best.
Best is measured by many metrics, and it is unrealistic to expect
any product to be best in all respects.
Anyway, it
On 01/22/2013 02:29 PM, Alec Teal wrote:
On 22/01/13 14:20, Andrew Haley wrote:
On 01/22/2013 12:55 PM, Alec Teal wrote:
On 22/01/13 09:00, Andrew Haley wrote:
On 01/22/2013 06:01 AM, Mayuresh Kathe wrote:
Hello, may I know the estimated timeframe by which full support for
C++11 would be
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 4:41 AM, Robert Dewar de...@adacore.com wrote:
Anyway, it still comes down to figuring out how to find the resources.
Not clear that there is commercial interest in rapid implementation
of c++11, we certainly have not heard of any such interest, and in the
absence of
Perhaps it'd be worthwhile to consider making the compiler easier to
understand, maybe by devoting a lot of effort into the internals
documentation. There's a lot of knowledge wrapped up in people that
could disappear with one bus factor.
That is definitely a worthwhile goal, and one that's
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 11:52 AM, NightStrike nightstr...@gmail.com wrote:
Perhaps it'd be worthwhile to consider making the compiler easier to
understand, maybe by devoting a lot of effort into the internals
documentation. There's a lot of knowledge wrapped up in people that
could disappear
On 22 January 2013 14:29, Alec Teal a.t...@warwick.ac.uk wrote:
On 22/01/13 14:20, Andrew Haley wrote:
On 01/22/2013 12:55 PM, Alec Teal wrote:
On 22/01/13 09:00, Andrew Haley wrote:
On 01/22/2013 06:01 AM, Mayuresh Kathe wrote:
Hello, may I know the estimated timeframe by which full
On 22/01/13 16:57, Diego Novillo wrote:
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 11:52 AM, NightStrike nightstr...@gmail.com wrote:
Perhaps it'd be worthwhile to consider making the compiler easier to
understand, maybe by devoting a lot of effort into the internals
documentation. There's a lot of knowledge
On 22/01/13 17:00, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 22 January 2013 14:29, Alec Teal a.t...@warwick.ac.uk wrote:
On 22/01/13 14:20, Andrew Haley wrote:
On 01/22/2013 12:55 PM, Alec Teal wrote:
On 22/01/13 09:00, Andrew Haley wrote:
On 01/22/2013 06:01 AM, Mayuresh Kathe wrote:
Hello, may I know
On 22 January 2013 17:12, Alec Teal wrote:
On 22/01/13 17:00, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
Crap reply, it's just wishful thinking. Who says GCC has to or will
finish when Clang does? Are you going to do the missing work? Or
get someone else to? Do you know something those of us actually
working
You totally missed the point there. Stop being Mr Defensive btw.
Bitching about the year the versions of GCC and Clang were made to try
and diffuse just one person's (potentially wrong) perception clang has
better error reports than GCC is not what I had in mind.
Not sure what I wanted, having
Sorry for totally derailing this Mayuresh Kathe.
On 22/01/13 09:00, Andrew Haley wrote:
On 01/22/2013 06:01 AM, Mayuresh Kathe wrote:
Hello, may I know the estimated timeframe by which full support for
C++11 would be added in to GCC?
Status is here: http://gcc.gnu.org/projects/cxx0x.html
As
On 22 January 2013 17:30, Alec Teal wrote:
You totally missed the point there. Stop being Mr Defensive btw.
Stop swearing and criticising people for responses you don't like.
Bitching about the year the versions of GCC and Clang were made to try and
diffuse just one person's (potentially
On 22 January 2013 16:52, NightStrike wrote:
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 4:41 AM, Robert Dewar wrote:
Anyway, it still comes down to figuring out how to find the resources.
Not clear that there is commercial interest in rapid implementation
of c++11, we certainly have not heard of any such
On 22/01/13 17:40, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 22 January 2013 17:30, Alec Teal wrote:
You totally missed the point there. Stop being Mr Defensive btw.
Stop swearing and criticising people for responses you don't like.
Bitching about the year the versions of GCC and Clang were made to try and
On 01/22/2013 01:01 AM, Mayuresh Kathe wrote:
Hello, may I know the estimated timeframe by which full support for
C++11 would be added in to GCC?
GCC 4.8 will be feature-complete except for ref-qualifiers, which should
go onto the trunk soon, and perhaps into a later 4.8.x release.
Jason
On 22/01/13 17:47, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 22 January 2013 16:52, NightStrike wrote:
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 4:41 AM, Robert Dewar wrote:
Anyway, it still comes down to figuring out how to find the resources.
Not clear that there is commercial interest in rapid implementation
of c++11, we
On 01/10/2013 08:58 PM, Cary Coutant wrote:
Normally, the version identifier is applied to a type. It then
propagates to any declaration using that type, whether it's another
type or function or variable. For struct/union/class types, if any
member or base class has an attached version
On 22 January 2013 18:02, Alec Teal wrote:
On 22/01/13 17:47, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 22 January 2013 16:52, NightStrike wrote:
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 4:41 AM, Robert Dewar wrote:
Anyway, it still comes down to figuring out how to find the resources.
Not clear that there is commercial
On 22 January 2013 17:51, Alec Teal wrote:
On 22/01/13 17:40, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 22 January 2013 17:30, Alec Teal wrote:
You totally missed the point there. Stop being Mr Defensive btw.
Stop swearing and criticising people for responses you don't like.
Bitching about the year the
On 01/22/2013 05:47 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 22 January 2013 16:52, NightStrike wrote:
Perhaps it'd be worthwhile to consider making the compiler easier to
understand, maybe by devoting a lot of effort into the internals
documentation. There's a lot of knowledge wrapped up in people
For example, I used to think that it would be a good idea to
document the tree form(s), but I now realize that the file tree.h is
exactly what is required.
Indeed. And we do try hard to make sure that the comments are updated
when the contents are. That's why I'm not sure a big fan of these
On 01/22/2013 05:51 PM, Alec Teal wrote:
I really just wanted a serious discussion, it failed. I should clarify:
I define bitching to be pointlessly diffusing statements so nothing
gets done. Like the error thing well actually that's a myth from some
deep dark place where they used a really
On 22/01/13 18:00, Andrew Haley wrote:
On 01/22/2013 05:51 PM, Alec Teal wrote:
I really just wanted a serious discussion, it failed. I should clarify:
I define bitching to be pointlessly diffusing statements so nothing
gets done. Like the error thing well actually that's a myth from some
deep
On 22 January 2013 19:13, Alec Teal wrote:
I meant out there not with GCC, I do think macros have a use, a report of
the form expanded from: would be helpful, and some sort of callstack-like
output?
GCC 4.8 does something like that. It isn't perfect yet, but it's pretty good.
Robert Dewar wrote:
About the time Clang does because GCC now has to compete.
How about that? Clang is currently slightly ahead and GCC really needs
to change if it is to continue to be the best.
Best is measured by many metrics, and it is unrealistic to expect
any product to be best in all
I was wondering if anyone else is seeing problems running the libatomic
testsuite with a multilib target? It seems to have started failing for
me over the weekend but I can't seem to find any changes that would have
caused this.
I am running using the qemu simulator, and it works fine for the
Normally, the version identifier is applied to a type. It then
propagates to any declaration using that type, whether it's another
type or function or variable. For struct/union/class types, if any
member or base class has an attached version identifier (excluding
static data members, static
Richard Sandiford [mailto:rdsandif...@googlemail.com] wrote:
From http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2001-02/msg01480.html,
the patch defines HARD_REGNO_CALLER_SAVE_MODE to return
proper mode for i386.
For MIPS, we may have:
Ex:
#define HARD_REGNO_CALLER_SAVE_MODE(REGNO, NREGS,
The C / C++ sources that transform / match / analyze trees and rtxes are
plain C. Reading these sources, nothing reminds you of the structure of
the code that is to be transformed / matched / analyzed. It's all
hand-coded in C and looks considerably different to a tree or RTL dump.
While
What does this mean for the Concurrency section, it has 8xNo at the moment?
Franz
Am 22.01.2013 19:01, schrieb Jason Merrill:
On 01/22/2013 01:01 AM, Mayuresh Kathe wrote:
Hello, may I know the estimated timeframe by which full support for
C++11 would be added in to GCC?
GCC 4.8 will be
Hello,
This suggestion is obviously about typdefs and discusses a *theoretical*
implementation, well a few of them. Anyway please do read this though.
I'm really sorry for the poor structure, my hands are really cold and
I'm quite tired.
I understand that this issue has been discussed A LOT
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 06:53:06AM +, Alec Teal wrote:
Hello,
This suggestion is obviously about typdefs and discusses a
*theoretical* implementation, well a few of them. Anyway please do
read this though. I'm really sorry for the poor structure, my hands
are really cold and I'm quite
On Tuesday 22 January 2013 10:27 PM, Richard Kenner wrote:
Perhaps it'd be worthwhile to consider making the compiler easier to
understand, maybe by devoting a lot of effort into the internals
documentation. There's a lot of knowledge wrapped up in people that
could disappear with one bus
On 23/01/13 07:11, Uday Khedker wrote:
On Tuesday 22 January 2013 10:27 PM, Richard Kenner wrote:
Perhaps it'd be worthwhile to consider making the compiler easier to
understand, maybe by devoting a lot of effort into the internals
documentation. There's a lot of knowledge wrapped up in
On Wednesday 23 January 2013 01:12 PM, Alec Teal wrote:
So in all seriousness, why GCC? I suppose the volume of LLVM/Clang stuff
saying how great it is is misleading? Please link GCCs half or write a
good few pages on it please. This is serious I'd love to read it and
know more of how the
On 23/01/13 07:48, Uday Khedker wrote:
On Wednesday 23 January 2013 01:12 PM, Alec Teal wrote:
So in all seriousness, why GCC? I suppose the volume of LLVM/Clang stuff
saying how great it is is misleading? Please link GCCs half or write a
good few pages on it please. This is serious I'd
Uday Khedker u...@cse.iitb.ac.in wrote:
On Tuesday 22 January 2013 10:27 PM, Richard Kenner wrote:
Perhaps it'd be worthwhile to consider making the compiler easier to
understand, maybe by devoting a lot of effort into the internals
documentation. There's a lot of knowledge wrapped up in
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56028
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56072
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-22
08:23:39 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Jan 22 08:23:32 2013
New Revision: 195360
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=195360
Log:
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56072
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56071
--- Comment #3 from Stephen steveire at gmail dot com 2013-01-22 08:41:02 UTC
---
clang has other issues relating to this. Something to maybe add unit tests for
if they don't exist already:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56073
Bug #: 56073
Summary: SPEComp2012 376.kdtree fails to complete
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56073
Alan Modra amodra at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56028
--- Comment #11 from Uros Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com 2013-01-22 08:46:48
UTC ---
I was thinking of removing (!o,n) alternative from movdi (together with
corresponding splitters). Splitter/peephole2 actually always generates movabs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55686
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56074
Bug #: 56074
Summary: [4.8 regression] ICE compiling gcc.dg/vect/pr49093.c
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56074
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53609
--- Comment #3 from Dodji Seketeli dodji at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-22
10:05:13 UTC ---
Author: dodji
Date: Tue Jan 22 10:05:05 2013
New Revision: 195367
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=195367
Log:
PR c++/53609 -
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56067
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56035
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-22
10:22:21 UTC ---
The problem looks to be in fix_loop_structures:
/* If there was no latch, schedule the loop for removal. */
if (!first_latch)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55374
--- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-22
10:33:53 UTC ---
The patch isn't sufficient. For both -static-libasan -fsanitize=address
and just -fsanitize=address, we want -Bstatic -lasan -Bdynamic resp. -lasan
to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55374
--- Comment #14 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-22
10:52:55 UTC ---
One way out of this would be for libasan.a to be an *.o object rather than *.a
archive:
mv libasan.a libasan_a.a
gcc -Wl,-r -nostdlib -o libasan.a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56035
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51376
--- Comment #4 from Alan Modra amodra at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-22 11:41:56
UTC ---
Author: amodra
Date: Tue Jan 22 11:41:53 2013
New Revision: 195370
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=195370
Log:
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56073
--- Comment #1 from Alan Modra amodra at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-22 11:41:57
UTC ---
Author: amodra
Date: Tue Jan 22 11:41:53 2013
New Revision: 195370
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=195370
Log:
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55891
--- Comment #3 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr 2013-01-22
11:52:27 UTC ---
Form
https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups=#!topic/comp.lang.fortran/E_ll5RFNL14
FX said:
Compiling shared libraries on Darwin is a bit
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56073
Alan Modra amodra at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56033
Rainer Orth ro at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|powerpc-apple-darwin9
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56075
Bug #: 56075
Summary: [gcc-4.7.1] 64-bit version, -Os eliminate some line of
code which working fine in gcc-4.6.2 64-bit version
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56076
Bug #: 56076
Summary: [4.8 regression] Several 64-bit libgo tests FAIL in
read_line_header
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56007
--- Comment #3 from Tobias Schlüter tobi at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-22
12:56:26 UTC ---
Just for the fun of it, another confusing way this error message appears:
$ cat t3.f90
character c(5)
do c=2,3
end do
END
$ gfortran t3.f90
t3.f90:3.4:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56035
--- Comment #6 from Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-22
13:24:40 UTC ---
Created attachment 29248
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29248
pr56035
Potential fix
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55374
--- Comment #15 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-22
13:35:28 UTC ---
Created attachment 29249
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29249
gcc48-pr55374.patch
Untested fix. If -static-libasan is missing,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56059
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[4.7/4.8 Regression]|[4.7
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56067
--- Comment #2 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org paolo at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-01-22 15:09:50 UTC ---
Author: paolo
Date: Tue Jan 22 15:09:45 2013
New Revision: 195375
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=195375
Log:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56067
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56059
--- Comment #6 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-22
15:22:21 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Tue Jan 22 15:22:16 2013
New Revision: 195377
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=195377
Log:
PR c++/56059
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56059
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55761
--- Comment #6 from Paulo J. Matos pa...@matos-sorge.com 2013-01-22 15:30:48
UTC ---
I have some further patches that replace the previously posted ones that I will
upload soon. Should these also be sent to gcc-patches or it's unnecessary
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53787
--- Comment #14 from Yuri Rumyantsev ysrumyan at gmail dot com 2013-01-22
15:32:06 UTC ---
Created attachment 29250
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29250
testcase in F90
Reproducer for IPA_CP
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53787
Yuri Rumyantsev ysrumyan at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56071
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56077
Bug #: 56077
Summary: volatile ignored when function inlined
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55944
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55761
Paulo J. Matos pa...@matos-sorge.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #29014|0 |1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56071
--- Comment #4 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-22
16:05:12 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Tue Jan 22 16:05:04 2013
New Revision: 195378
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=195378
Log:
PR c++/56071
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56071
--- Comment #5 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-22
16:25:29 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Tue Jan 22 16:25:10 2013
New Revision: 195379
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=195379
Log:
PR c++/56071
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55761
Paulo J. Matos pa...@matos-sorge.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #29251|0 |1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53650
--- Comment #9 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-22
16:29:07 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Tue Jan 22 16:28:58 2013
New Revision: 195380
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=195380
Log:
PR c++/53650
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56071
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53650
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55686
--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-22
16:41:44 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Jan 22 16:41:30 2013
New Revision: 195381
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=195381
Log:
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56074
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-22
17:03:47 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Jan 22 17:03:33 2013
New Revision: 195382
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=195382
Log:
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55686
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56074
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56078
Bug #: 56078
Summary: causes cc1 to crash
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56071
--- Comment #7 from Stephen steveire at gmail dot com 2013-01-22 17:28:14 UTC
---
Thank you!
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55794
Janis Johnson janis at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||janis at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55794
Janis Johnson janis at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ccoutant
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56008
--- Comment #7 from stefan.mauerberger at gmail dot com 2013-01-22 19:08:10 UTC
---
Unfortunately, I do not understand a thing about all the internals and the
actual implementations. I just wanted to let you know that I am totally
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56079
Bug #: 56079
Summary: [4.8 Regression] ICE with C_PTR renaming
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56079
Thomas Koenig tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56028
Uros Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56028
--- Comment #13 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-22 20:58:45 UTC ---
Author: uros
Date: Tue Jan 22 20:58:37 2013
New Revision: 195386
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=195386
Log:
PR target/56028
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56080
Bug #: 56080
Summary: Incorrect code generated when changing lvalue of
pointer and using inline code and optimizations.
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56069
Vladimir Makarov vmakarov at redhat dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
1 - 100 of 175 matches
Mail list logo
