On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 12:40 AM, Jack Howarth howa...@bromo.med.uc.edu wrote:
Sebastian,
It appears that the official tarballs are now posted at
http://www.cloog.org/
for cloog and cloog-parma 0.16. Do you plan on placing those both in the
infrastructure
directory at gcc.gnu.org's ftp
On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 8:07 PM, Mike Stump mikest...@comcast.net wrote:
On Dec 31, 2010, at 8:27 AM, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
On Wed, 8 Dec 2010, DJ Delorie wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/rsync.html says 17 Gb.
I just did it, and it's up to 22 Gb.
Thanks for the heads up, DJ! I had a look, and it
Is there an expected date for when stage 3 should end, or some other
measure of pressure? The 4.6.0 status report link on gcc.gnu.org does
not seem to tell (and I'm not sure whether it usually does or not).
It would be good to get Libtool updated before, but I'm not sure I can
finish it this
On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 9:40 PM, H.J. Lu hjl.to...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 5:08 AM, Jie Zhang j...@codesourcery.com wrote:
On 12/31/2010 01:07 PM, Jie Zhang wrote:
I just found a behavior change of driver on multiple input assembly
files. Previously (before r164357), for the
On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 5:01 PM, Ralf Wildenhues ralf.wildenh...@gmx.de wrote:
Is there an expected date for when stage 3 should end, or some other
measure of pressure? The 4.6.0 status report link on gcc.gnu.org does
not seem to tell (and I'm not sure whether it usually does or not).
It
On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 12:40 AM, Jack Howarth howa...@bromo.med.uc.edu
wrote:
Sebastian,
It appears that the official tarballs are now posted at
http://www.cloog.org/
for cloog and cloog-parma 0.16. Do you plan on placing those both in the
infrastructure
directory at gcc.gnu.org's ftp
On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 8:03 AM, Richard Guenther
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 9:40 PM, H.J. Lu hjl.to...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 5:08 AM, Jie Zhang j...@codesourcery.com wrote:
On 12/31/2010 01:07 PM, Jie Zhang wrote:
I just found a behavior
On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 8:31 AM, H.J. Lu hjl.to...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 8:03 AM, Richard Guenther
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 9:40 PM, H.J. Lu hjl.to...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 5:08 AM, Jie Zhang j...@codesourcery.com wrote:
On
On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 5:31 PM, H.J. Lu hjl.to...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 8:03 AM, Richard Guenther
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 9:40 PM, H.J. Lu hjl.to...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 5:08 AM, Jie Zhang j...@codesourcery.com wrote:
On
On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 8:37 AM, Richard Guenther
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 5:31 PM, H.J. Lu hjl.to...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 8:03 AM, Richard Guenther
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 9:40 PM, H.J. Lu hjl.to...@gmail.com
On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 5:41 PM, H.J. Lu hjl.to...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 8:37 AM, Richard Guenther
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 5:31 PM, H.J. Lu hjl.to...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 8:03 AM, Richard Guenther
richard.guent...@gmail.com
Snapshot gcc-4.3-20110102 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.3-20110102/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.3 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches
Hi Joseph,
2011/1/1 Joseph S. Myers jos...@codesourcery.com:
I'm trying to stop non-Linux GCC targets from using config/linux.h and
other headers whose names indicate they relate to the Linux kernel,
separating GNU-userspace and Linux-kernel configuration more cleanly.
Richard Guenther richard.guent...@gmail.com writes:
Your small patch removing have_o || is ok I guess.
Wait. That will change the behaviour of
gcc -o foo.o -c f1.c f2.c f3.c
Is that what we want?
Also, right now the gccgo driver depends on the -o behaviour to combine
inputs. If that
On Sun, Jan 02, 2011 at 04:55:09PM +0100, Richard Guenther wrote:
On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 12:40 AM, Jack Howarth howa...@bromo.med.uc.edu
wrote:
Sebastian,
It appears that the official tarballs are now posted at
http://www.cloog.org/
for cloog and cloog-parma 0.16. Do you plan on
On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 9:24 PM, Ian Lance Taylor i...@google.com wrote:
Richard Guenther richard.guent...@gmail.com writes:
Your small patch removing have_o || is ok I guess.
Wait. That will change the behaviour of
gcc -o foo.o -c f1.c f2.c f3.c
Is that what we want?
Does it? I don't
On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 12:24 PM, Ian Lance Taylor i...@google.com wrote:
Richard Guenther richard.guent...@gmail.com writes:
Your small patch removing have_o || is ok I guess.
Wait. That will change the behaviour of
gcc -o foo.o -c f1.c f2.c f3.c
Is that what we want?
No. We always
Richard Guenther richard.guent...@gmail.com writes:
On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 9:24 PM, Ian Lance Taylor i...@google.com wrote:
Richard Guenther richard.guent...@gmail.com writes:
Your small patch removing have_o || is ok I guess.
Wait. That will change the behaviour of
gcc -o foo.o -c
On Sun, 02 Jan 2011 13:18:22 -0800
Ian Lance Taylor i...@google.com wrote:
No, it is not. All .go input files must be passed to go1 at once.
H.J.'s patch has indeed broken gccgo.
I can confirm that. I just tried to svn merge trunk 168407 into the GCC MELT
branch (which, appart from the MELT
On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 1:18 PM, Ian Lance Taylor i...@google.com wrote:
Richard Guenther richard.guent...@gmail.com writes:
On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 9:24 PM, Ian Lance Taylor i...@google.com wrote:
Richard Guenther richard.guent...@gmail.com writes:
Your small patch removing have_o || is ok I
On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 10:18 PM, Ian Lance Taylor i...@google.com wrote:
Richard Guenther richard.guent...@gmail.com writes:
On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 9:24 PM, Ian Lance Taylor i...@google.com wrote:
Richard Guenther richard.guent...@gmail.com writes:
Your small patch removing have_o || is ok I
On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 2:40 PM, Richard Guenther
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
Interesting. Do we have a testcase that is now broken? It seems to me
See:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-regression/2011-01/msg00011.html
--
H.J.
On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 2:05 PM, H.J. Lu hjl.to...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 1:18 PM, Ian Lance Taylor i...@google.com wrote:
Richard Guenther richard.guent...@gmail.com writes:
On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 9:24 PM, Ian Lance Taylor i...@google.com wrote:
Richard Guenther
On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 3:03 PM, H.J. Lu hjl.to...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 2:05 PM, H.J. Lu hjl.to...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 1:18 PM, Ian Lance Taylor i...@google.com wrote:
Richard Guenther richard.guent...@gmail.com writes:
On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 9:24 PM, Ian
On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 3:03 PM, H.J. Lu hjl.to...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 2:05 PM, H.J. Lu hjl.to...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 1:18 PM, Ian Lance Taylor i...@google.com wrote:
Richard Guenther richard.guent...@gmail.com writes:
On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 9:24 PM, Ian
For reasons unknown I ran the testsuite for well over three days before
finally giving up. This is a quad core Intel i7 with 8G of meemory and the
bootstrap took forever and the testsuite .. well the results below speak
for themselves.
Any idea why these results would be so poor ?
zaphod $ gas
On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 7:04 PM, Dennis Clarke dcla...@blastwave.org wrote:
For reasons unknown I ran the testsuite for well over three days before
finally giving up. This is a quad core Intel i7 with 8G of meemory and the
bootstrap took forever and the testsuite .. well the results below speak
On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 6:52 PM, H.J. Lu hjl.to...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 3:03 PM, H.J. Lu hjl.to...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 2:05 PM, H.J. Lu hjl.to...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 1:18 PM, Ian Lance Taylor i...@google.com wrote:
Richard Guenther
Hello,
For the following code:
struct S
{
int a;
float b;
};
struct T
{
T(S s) {}
};
int main()
{
T t(S{1, 0.1}); // ERROR HERE
}
gcc 4.6 trunk gives the following errors (with the --std=c++0x option):
decl.cpp: In function 'int main()':
decl.cpp:14:10: error: expected ')'
Any idea why these results would be so poor ?
Because of your bootstrap settings, more precisely --enable-checking=all.
--
Eric Botcazou
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47148
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47051
Joost VandeVondele Joost.VandeVondele at pci dot uzh.ch changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47151
Summary: Parsing error
Product: gcc
Version: 4.4.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Priority: P3
Component: c++
AssignedTo: unassig...@gcc.gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47151
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47136
--- Comment #2 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-01-02 13:25:37 UTC ---
Here is a variant which gives the same error message:
MODULE a
TYPE, ABSTRACT :: t
CONTAINS
PROCEDURE, NOPASS :: pp = s
END TYPE
CONTAINS
SUBROUTINE s()
END
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47136
--- Comment #3 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-01-02 13:33:50 UTC ---
Some related non-OOP examples:
module a
contains
subroutine s()
end subroutine
end module
module s
use a
contains
subroutine sub()
call s
end subroutine
end
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47136
--- Comment #4 from Daniel Franke dfranke at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-01-02
13:47:41 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
Some related non-OOP examples:
[...]
Are these examples actually valid or invalid? Can someone give the relevant
quotes from the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39939
Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46589
Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ktietz at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47136
--- Comment #5 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-01-02 14:46:34 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
(In reply to comment #3)
Some related non-OOP examples:
[...]
Are these examples actually valid or invalid? Can someone give the relevant
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47136
--- Comment #6 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-01-02 15:19:10 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
It
doesn't know OOP to test, but one could think that my initial example is
invalid after all?!
I agree that it may be invalid, but one
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47136
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|rejects-valid |accepts-invalid
--- Comment #7
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47136
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[OOP] possible name |local identifier shall not
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46408
--- Comment #4 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-01-02 15:58:13 UTC ---
Reduced test case:
type t
end type
type, extends(t) :: t2
integer, allocatable :: a
end type
class(t), allocatable :: x, y
allocate(t2 :: x)
allocate(y, source=x)
end
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46408
--- Comment #5 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-01-02 16:24:00 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
x%a should get default-initialized to NULL via the memcpy call from
x._vptr-_def_init. The memcpy itself is done alright, but apparently the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47028
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-01-02
17:07:18 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Sun Jan 2 17:07:15 2011
New Revision: 168401
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=168401
Log:
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47140
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-01-02
17:09:11 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Sun Jan 2 17:09:08 2011
New Revision: 168402
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=168402
Log:
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46926
Andrew Haley aph at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46589
H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hjl.tools at gmail
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47028
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47140
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47138
--- Comment #2 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-01-02
17:50:02 UTC ---
The rev. doesn't have a testcase (and it didn't fix a bug?).
If you have a testcase that shows this patch fixes a regression it is ok
to backport. If it
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46408
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sfilippone at uniroma2 dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47085
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47137
--- Comment #3 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org hjl at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-01-02
17:54:24 UTC ---
Author: hjl
Date: Sun Jan 2 17:54:22 2011
New Revision: 168407
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=168407
Log:
Don't check have_o when
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47137
H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46942
H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||42324
--- Comment #4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46942
H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.6.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47138
--- Comment #3 from Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-01-02
18:18:23 UTC ---
The rev. doesn't have a testcase (and it didn't fix a bug?).
See http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-04/msg00056.html
-quiet -dumpbase dp-bit.c -march=v10
-mbest-lib-options -auxbase-strip _addsub_df.o -g -g -g -O2 -O2 -O2 -Wextra
-Wall -Wwrite-strings -Wcast-qual -Wstrict-prototypes -Wmissing-prototypes
-Wold-style-definition -version -fno-stack-protector -o dp-bit.s
GNU C (GCC) version 4.6.0 20110102 (experimental
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47152
--- Comment #1 from aesok at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-01-02 18:28:10 UTC ---
Created attachment 22881
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22881
dp-bit.i
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47138
--- Comment #4 from Peter A. Bigot bigotp at acm dot org 2011-01-02 18:33:21
UTC ---
Exactly: this problem also occurs with the TI msp430 target machine
description, currently maintained as a fork on the mspgcc project on
sourceforge. I don't
20110102 (experimental) [trunk revision 152933]
Are you sure your GCC tree is up to date?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46942
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-01-02
19:01:58 UTC ---
And upper 32 bits are undefined if the argument is 8/16/32 bit (i.e. callee
must sign/zero extend, instead of caller)?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46408
--- Comment #7 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-01-02 19:02:31 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
(In reply to comment #4)
x%a should get default-initialized to NULL via the memcpy call from
x._vptr-_def_init. The memcpy itself is done
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47056
Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46408
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46313
--- Comment #17 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-01-02 19:28:33 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #15)
Maybe it is really time to use hashed strings? One could void them for strings
which are shorter and only hash for longer strings (starting with,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47153
Summary: g++ with -O3 enters infinite loop
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
AssignedTo:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47153
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=47153
Zdenek Sojka zsojka at seznam dot cz changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zsojka at seznam
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47152
--- Comment #3 from aesok at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-01-02 20:47:22 UTC ---
GNU C (GCC) version 4.6.0 20110102 (experimental) [trunk revision 152933]
Are you sure your
--program-prefix=r168402- --enable-languages=c,c++
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.6.0 20110102 (experimental) (GCC)
[reg...@gamow tmp437]$ cat small.c
static int
foo (int si1, short si2)
{
return ((si1 ^ si2) ((si1 ^ (si1 ^ si2) ~2147483647) - si2 ^ si2))
0 ? si1 : si1 - si2;
}
struct S0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46942
--- Comment #6 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com 2011-01-02 20:53:12
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
And upper 32 bits are undefined if the argument is 8/16/32 bit (i.e. callee
must sign/zero extend, instead of caller)?
If callee wants
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46408
--- Comment #9 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-01-02 21:01:53 UTC ---
Author: janus
Date: Sun Jan 2 21:01:50 2011
New Revision: 168409
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=168409
Log:
2011-01-02 Janus Weil ja...@gcc.gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46408
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45827
--- Comment #43 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-01-02 21:27:48 UTC ---
Hans, does r168302 fix the problem for you, or do you still get Component not
found errors?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47154
Summary: [4.6 Regression] END= does not work in namelist read
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: wrong-code
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47154
Thomas Koenig tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.6.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45338
--- Comment #5 from Thomas Koenig tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-01-02
21:58:06 UTC ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Sun Jan 2 21:58:03 2011
New Revision: 168410
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=168410
Log:
2011-02-01 Thomas
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45338
Thomas Koenig tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
4.6.0 20110102 (experimental) (GCC)
xgcc: fatal error: cannot specify -o with -c, -S or -E with multiple files
compilation terminated.
[...@gnu-6 gcc]$
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47051
Thomas Koenig tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||32834
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47147
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||build
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47137
--- Comment #6 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-01-02
22:43:38 UTC ---
Yes, flag_wpa is not set (as I said) for non-WHOPR mode. We don't have a
flag to identify non-WHOPR link-time.
/local --enable-lto
--prefix=/home/regehr/z/compiler-install/gcc-r168402-install
--program-prefix=r168402- --enable-languages=c,c++
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.6.0 20110102 (experimental) (GCC)
[reg...@gamow tmp437]$ cat small.c
static int
foo (int si1, short si2)
{
return ((si1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37131
--- Comment #14 from Thomas Koenig tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-01-02
23:20:07 UTC ---
Created attachment 22883
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22883
matmul loops that vectorize
Here's how we could make the different matmul
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47153
--- Comment #3 from panagopoulosalexandrou at hotmail dot com 2011-01-03
01:52:09 UTC ---
Sorry, forget about the found_one thing. Maybe the prompt is confusing; the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47153
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
Known
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47153
--- Comment #5 from Zdenek Sojka zsojka at seznam dot cz 2011-01-03 02:36:27
UTC ---
You are accessing an array out of bounds:
--- sudoku_solver_single.cpp2011-01-03 03:30:35.0 +0100
+++ sudoku_solver_single2.cpp 2011-01-03
=/home/regehr/z/compiler-install/gcc-r168402-install
--program-prefix=r168402- --enable-languages=c,c++
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.6.0 20110102 (experimental) (GCC)
[reg...@gamow tmp438]$ cat small.c
static unsigned int g_1;
static signed char g_2 = 0x81;
int printf(const char *format
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47156
Summary: obj-c++.dg/try-catch-[2|9].mm -fgnu-runtime failures
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: objc++
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47154
Thomas Koenig tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.5.3
93 matches
Mail list logo
