On Apr 3, 2012, at 7:37 PM, Diego Novillo wrote:
We would like to start the process to make GCC 4.8 build in C++ mode by
default.
The mechanics of the change are simple enough. I volunteer to test changing
the default on all primary targets (assuming I can get them from the GCC
On 04/03/2012 10:39 PM, Tom Tromey wrote:
Stefano == Stefano Lattarini stefano.lattar...@gmail.com writes:
Stefano On a second though, by double-checking the existing code, I
Stefano couldn't see how the 'cygnus' option could possibly influence
Stefano the location of the generated info
On 04/04/2012 01:53 AM, Miles Bader wrote:
Pedro Alves pal...@redhat.com writes:
OK, you've all made clear you have your sensible reasons to have the '.info'
...
it available only though the new, undocumented option named (literally)
hack!info-in-builddir. I hope this is acceptable to you.
On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 8:15 PM, Romain Geissler
romain.geiss...@gmail.com wrote:
Le 3 avr. 2012 à 18:02, David Malcolm a écrit :
On Tue, 2012-04-03 at 15:23 +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 12:03 PM, Richard Guenther
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Apr 2, 2012
On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 8:13 PM, David Edelsohn dje@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 1:37 PM, Diego Novillo dnovi...@google.com wrote:
We would like to start the process to make GCC 4.8 build in C++ mode by
default.
The mechanics of the change are simple enough. I volunteer to
On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 6:02 PM, David Malcolm dmalc...@redhat.com wrote:
On Tue, 2012-04-03 at 15:23 +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 12:03 PM, Richard Guenther
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 7:21 PM, David Malcolm dmalc...@redhat.com wrote:
I
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 1:27 AM, Jiangning Liu liujiangni...@gmail.com wrote:
So I suppose for this specific case a pass that performs type
promotion/demotion
(as was discussed repeatedly) would be a better thing, and an enablement
of trivial redundancy removal.
This case is from a real
On 04/04/2012 12:53 AM, Miles Bader wrote:
I suspect there are better, cleaner, ways to accomplish the underlying
goal, but I suppose the gcc maintainers don't want to spend the time
fiddling around with their build infrastructure for such a minor
issue...
Why speculate? I haven't seen any
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 10:32 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis
g...@integrable-solutions.net wrote:
On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 8:13 PM, David Edelsohn dje@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 1:37 PM, Diego Novillo dnovi...@google.com wrote:
We would like to start the process to make GCC 4.8 build in
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 4:06 AM, Richard Guenther
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
(not sure that I can veto anything - heh)
I found out that is the only power a Release Manager has -- apart from
fixing the bug himself or herself ;-p
-- Gaby
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 4:06 AM, Richard Guenther
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 10:32 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis
g...@integrable-solutions.net wrote:
On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 8:13 PM, David Edelsohn dje@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 1:37 PM, Diego Novillo
Hi,
For GCC-4.8, I would like to turn on -Wall by default.
Comments?
-- Gaby
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 11:15 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis
g...@integrable-solutions.net wrote:
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 4:06 AM, Richard Guenther
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 10:32 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis
g...@integrable-solutions.net wrote:
On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 8:13 PM,
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 11:59 AM, Richard Guenther
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 11:15 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis
g...@integrable-solutions.net wrote:
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 4:06 AM, Richard Guenther
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 10:32 AM,
On 4/4/12 5:06 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
Btw, I think we should only start forcing C++ when 1) there is a
branch/patch out
that shows benefit from using C++. I previously mentioned that I'd like to see
2) a patch that _properly_ wraps a C++ class for consumption by our garbage
collector
On 4/3/12 9:13 PM, David Edelsohn wrote:
I appreciate the motivation, but this may cause major problems on
non-GNU/Linux platforms. Testing on all primary targets is not
enough.
I can test on other targets, as well. What targets do you have in mind?
If I don't have access to them, I'll
An idea whose time has come.
--- On Wed, 4/4/12, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
For GCC-4.8, I would like to turn on -Wall by default.
Comments?
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 1:20 PM, Diego Novillo dnovi...@google.com wrote:
On 4/4/12 5:06 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
Btw, I think we should only start forcing C++ when 1) there is a
branch/patch out
that shows benefit from using C++. I previously mentioned that I'd like
to see
2) a patch
On 04/04/2012 11:06 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
So - I'll veto the switch unless I see 1) and 2). 1) and 2) can be combined
by transitioning vec.h to a C++ template class, with proper GC support.
(not sure that I can veto anything - heh)
I don't think I can veto anything, but I'll go on the
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 1:50 PM, Bernd Schmidt ber...@codesourcery.com wrote:
On 04/04/2012 11:06 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
So - I'll veto the switch unless I see 1) and 2). 1) and 2) can be combined
by transitioning vec.h to a C++ template class, with proper GC support.
(not sure that I can
On 04/04/2012 10:44 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
For GCC-4.8, I would like to turn on -Wall by default.
Comments?
Umm, should this really happen at exactly the same time as C++
by default?
Andrew.
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 7:08 AM, Andrew Haley a...@redhat.com wrote:
On 04/04/2012 10:44 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
For GCC-4.8, I would like to turn on -Wall by default.
Comments?
Umm, should this really happen at exactly the same time as C++
by default?
I consider it a separate issue.
On 04/04/2012 01:11 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 7:08 AM, Andrew Haley a...@redhat.com wrote:
On 04/04/2012 10:44 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
For GCC-4.8, I would like to turn on -Wall by default.
Comments?
Umm, should this really happen at exactly the same time as C++
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 2:14 PM, Andrew Haley a...@redhat.com wrote:
On 04/04/2012 01:11 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 7:08 AM, Andrew Haley a...@redhat.com wrote:
On 04/04/2012 10:44 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
For GCC-4.8, I would like to turn on -Wall by default.
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 7:19 AM, Richard Guenther
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 2:14 PM, Andrew Haley a...@redhat.com wrote:
On 04/04/2012 01:11 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 7:08 AM, Andrew Haley a...@redhat.com wrote:
On 04/04/2012 10:44 AM,
Tristan Gingold ging...@adacore.com writes:
On Apr 3, 2012, at 7:37 PM, Diego Novillo wrote:
We would like to start the process to make GCC 4.8 build in C++ mode by
default.
The mechanics of the change are simple enough. I volunteer to test changing
the default on all primary targets
On Sat, 31 Mar 2012, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
Note there's nothing I'm planning to do, nor I should do, in this regard:
the two setups described above are both already supported by the current
automake implementation (but the last one is not encouraged, even though
it makes perfect sense in
On Apr 4, 2012, at 3:12 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
Tristan Gingold ging...@adacore.com writes:
On Apr 3, 2012, at 7:37 PM, Diego Novillo wrote:
We would like to start the process to make GCC 4.8 build in C++ mode by
default.
The mechanics of the change are simple enough. I
Richard == Richard Guenther richard.guent...@gmail.com writes:
Richard Oh, and did we address all the annoyances of debugging gcc when it's
Richard compiled by a C++ compiler? ...
If you mean gdb problems, please file bugs.
Tom
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 8:32 AM, Tristan Gingold ging...@adacore.com wrote:
For Alpha, gas crashes during libstdc++ build. From initial investigation,
this looks manageable. But Alpha object format is quite old, and has no
support for comdat (but weak symbols should work).
I believe weak
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 4:45 PM, Richard Guenther
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 4:12 PM, Tom Tromey tro...@redhat.com wrote:
Richard == Richard Guenther richard.guent...@gmail.com writes:
Richard Oh, and did we address all the annoyances of debugging gcc when it's
On Apr 4, 2012, at 4:37 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 8:32 AM, Tristan Gingold ging...@adacore.com wrote:
For Alpha, gas crashes during libstdc++ build. From initial investigation,
this looks manageable. But Alpha object format is quite old, and has no
support for
Andrew Haley a...@redhat.com writes:
On 04/04/2012 10:44 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
For GCC-4.8, I would like to turn on -Wall by default.
Comments?
Umm, should this really happen at exactly the same time as C++
by default?
I assume that Gaby is talking about making -Wall the default for
On 4/4/12 8:04 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
I agree for the idea of converting all of GCC to C++ (whatever that means).
Right. The conversion that does happen, can be gradual. One other big
advantage I see in this effort, is the transition to commonly used
programming idioms and patterns.
On 04/04/2012 03:56 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
Andrew Haley a...@redhat.com writes:
On 04/04/2012 10:44 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
For GCC-4.8, I would like to turn on -Wall by default.
Comments?
Umm, should this really happen at exactly the same time as C++
by default?
I assume that
Andrew Haley a...@redhat.com writes:
On 04/04/2012 03:56 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
Andrew Haley a...@redhat.com writes:
On 04/04/2012 10:44 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
For GCC-4.8, I would like to turn on -Wall by default.
Comments?
Umm, should this really happen at exactly the same
On 04/04/2012 08:56 AM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
Andrew Haleya...@redhat.com writes:
On 04/04/2012 10:44 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
For GCC-4.8, I would like to turn on -Wall by default.
Comments?
Umm, should this really happen at exactly the same time as C++
by default?
I assume that
On 4/4/12, Richard Guenther richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Apr 4, 2012 Bernd Schmidt ber...@codesourcery.com wrote:
On 04/04/2012 11:06 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
So - I'll veto the switch unless I see 1) and 2). 1) and 2)
can be combined by transitioning vec.h to a C++ template
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 9:56 AM, Ian Lance Taylor i...@google.com wrote:
Andrew Haley a...@redhat.com writes:
On 04/04/2012 10:44 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
For GCC-4.8, I would like to turn on -Wall by default.
Comments?
Umm, should this really happen at exactly the same time as C++
by
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 10:07 AM, Andrew Haley a...@redhat.com wrote:
On 04/04/2012 03:56 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
Andrew Haley a...@redhat.com writes:
On 04/04/2012 10:44 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
For GCC-4.8, I would like to turn on -Wall by default.
Comments?
Umm, should this really
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 10:17 AM, Jeff Law l...@redhat.com wrote:
On 04/04/2012 08:56 AM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
Andrew Haleya...@redhat.com writes:
On 04/04/2012 10:44 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
For GCC-4.8, I would like to turn on -Wall by default.
Comments?
Umm, should this really
On 04/04/2012 12:04 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 10:17 AM, Jeff Lawl...@redhat.com wrote:
On 04/04/2012 08:56 AM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
Andrew Haleya...@redhat.comwrites:
On 04/04/2012 10:44 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
For GCC-4.8, I would like to turn on
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 1:06 PM, Jeff Law l...@redhat.com wrote:
On 04/04/2012 12:04 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 10:17 AM, Jeff Lawl...@redhat.com wrote:
On 04/04/2012 08:56 AM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
Andrew Haleya...@redhat.com writes:
On 04/04/2012 10:44 AM,
We do have regular requests for this, so it is not just out of thin
air.
Perhaps, but I think that changing the default like this is far too
invasive. ?GCC should do what it's told, if a user asks for warnings,
give them, if they don't, then don't.
It is hard to define what it is
On 04/04/2012 07:11 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
Really? Such as what?
Such as I wrote a perfectly legal C program, and gcc spewed out
a ton of messages.
Andrew.
On Mon, 2 Apr 2012 19:57:20 +
Thibault Raffaillac t...@kth.se wrote:
Bump!
Let me renew my interest in contributing through GSoC with post-compilation
feedback (This was not an early april joke). Do you think it could lead to an
acceptable GSoC proposal? (mentor interested?)
Feedback
Sometimes, we have to be brave to challenge tradition. The world around
us is moving and we definitely want GCC to remain competitive. It is
hard to define what it's told means without tripping over.
The interesting thing about -Wall is that it is pretty safe, for the most part,
in terms of
On 4/4/2012 2:02 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
The interesting thing about -Wall is that it is pretty safe, for the most part,
in terms of false positives.
And, for the record, I find lots of false positives, the front end of
GNAT has a lot of junk initialiations marked keep back end quiet.
On 4/4/2012 2:34 PM, Dominique Dhumieres wrote:
IMO only the warnings in C that are likely errors should be the default as
it is in gfortran (don't ask for examples of such warnings for C, I am
quasi-illiterate).
That's also the default philosophy in GNAT, there never should be false
Hi,
X32 support has been checked into Linux kernel v3.4-rc1.
I started submitting x32 glibc and GDB patches. I added
TLS specification to x32 psABI:
https://sites.google.com/site/x32abi/documents/abi.pdf?attredirects=0d=1
I am planning to submit x32 extension to x86-64 psABI
soon if there are
Maxim Kuvyrkov wrote:
I encourage you to submit the MIPS Android patches to
gcc-patches@. And, as long as your changes preserve the
status quo of mips-*-* being big-endian by default and
mipsel-*-* being little-endian by default, there should be no
major obstacles to merge those in.
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 1:34 PM, Dominique Dhumieres domi...@lps.ens.fr wrote:
We do have regular requests for this, so it is not just out of thin
air.
Perhaps, but I think that changing the default like this is far too
invasive. ?GCC should do what it's told, if a user asks for
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 4:21 PM, Robert Dewar de...@adacore.com wrote:
On 4/4/2012 2:34 PM, Dominique Dhumieres wrote:
IMO only the warnings in C that are likely errors should be the default as
it is in gfortran (don't ask for examples of such warnings for C, I am
quasi-illiterate).
That's
The trouble is that most users find it an annoyance and don't
remember. And they ask: if it is so simple, why isn't it included by
default?
Huh? -Wall is supposed to be simple to remember, but its implementation and
effects are of course not simple at all.
--
Eric Botcazou
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 5:56 PM, Eric Botcazou ebotca...@adacore.com wrote:
The trouble is that most users find it an annoyance and don't
remember. And they ask: if it is so simple, why isn't it included by
default?
Huh? -Wall is supposed to be simple to remember, but its implementation and
Hi, I'm new in gcc, and maybe misunderstand the constraint modifier '+'.
As the internal document says, '+' means an inout parameter. In my
mind, it means the instruction both reads and writes the pseudo
register.
Assuming I have a pattern like:
(define_insn lssu
[(set (match_operand:m1 0
Handong Ye yehand...@gmail.com writes:
Hi, I'm new in gcc, and maybe misunderstand the constraint modifier '+'.
As the internal document says, '+' means an inout parameter. In my
mind, it means the instruction both reads and writes the pseudo
register.
Assuming I have a pattern like:
On 4/4/2012 7:03 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
Again, this proposal does not come out of a whim.
But it does seem to come out of a few anecdotal requests
for a change, and you always have to be careful in considering
such input, because of course people who agree with the status
quo do not
On 4/4/2012 6:42 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 4:21 PM, Robert Dewarde...@adacore.com wrote:
On 4/4/2012 2:34 PM, Dominique Dhumieres wrote:
IMO only the warnings in C that are likely errors should be the default as
it is in gfortran (don't ask for examples of such
domi...@lps.ens.fr (Dominique Dhumieres) writes:
PS -Wall is a simple enough option to be remembered by all users who
need it
As is -Wno-all, of course.
(if they don't use it, they don't want it).
That isn't necessarily the case.
In my experience, there seem to be a lot of developers who
Robert Dewar de...@adacore.com writes:
We have run into people running benchmarks where they were
specifically prohibited from using other than the default
options, and gcc fared badly in such comparisons.
Yeah, there was the silly benchmark at phoronix where they came to
the conclusion that
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 8:19 PM, Robert Dewar de...@adacore.com wrote:
On 4/4/2012 7:03 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
Again, this proposal does not come out of a whim.
But it does seem to come out of a few anecdotal requests
for a change,
It does appear very disturbing that you would dismiss
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 8:27 PM, Robert Dewar de...@adacore.com wrote:
On 4/4/2012 6:42 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 4:21 PM, Robert Dewarde...@adacore.com wrote:
On 4/4/2012 2:34 PM, Dominique Dhumieres wrote:
IMO only the warnings in C that are likely errors should
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 11:11 PM, Miles Bader mi...@gnu.org wrote:
For instance, how about adding -Wall to the default options now, and
then re-evaluate the issue based on any complaints that come in from
people using snapshots?
I believe this would offer far more evidence for/against the
Miles Bader mi...@gnu.org writes:
For instance, how about adding -Wall to the default options now, and
then re-evaluate the issue based on any complaints that come in from
people using snapshots? That's hardly a perfect method, as the sort
of people who run compiler snapshots are maybe not
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52860
Bug #: 52860
Summary: I/O: gfortran rejects writing after hitting END=
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52839
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-04-04
08:31:02 UTC ---
Revision: 186100
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52853
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52861
Bug #: 52861
Summary: (missed optimisation) missed transformation to memset
with -O3
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52668
--- Comment #2 from Arnaud Desitter arnaud02 at users dot sourceforge.net
2012-04-04 09:42:47 UTC ---
The patch posted at http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2012-03/msg00124.html fixes
the problem.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52839
--- Comment #7 from Alan Modra amodra at gmail dot com 2012-04-04 09:57:51
UTC ---
I also see the same 64-bit failure on r186130. A lot harder to reproduce than
the 32-bit one I originally reported (which is still there on r186130). Likely
not a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52839
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-04-04
10:39:07 UTC ---
Doh, I completely failed to notice yours is powerpc not powerpc64 so I wasn't
testing 32-bit, sorry. I'll re-check when I get home this evening.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52853
--- Comment #2 from Bastien Montagne montagne29 at wanadoo dot fr 2012-04-04
10:56:04 UTC ---
Created attachment 27084
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27084
preprocessed version of VideoFFmpeg.cpp
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52853
Bastien Montagne montagne29 at wanadoo dot fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c |c++
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52853
--- Comment #4 from Bastien Montagne montagne29 at wanadoo dot fr 2012-04-04
10:59:23 UTC ---
Created attachment 27085
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27085
preprocessed version of VideoFFmpeg.cpp
grmpg… I should awake, some
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52853
Bastien Montagne montagne29 at wanadoo dot fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #27084|0 |1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52853
--- Comment #6 from Bastien Montagne montagne29 at wanadoo dot fr 2012-04-04
11:08:45 UTC ---
Bah, it’s not my day :/
Now it appears the error was on our side – quoting commit r45392 on blender svn
(ten minutes ago):
fix for building on linux
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52839
--- Comment #9 from Alan Modra amodra at gmail dot com 2012-04-04 11:12:56
UTC ---
Heh. We're even. I didn't notice yours was a 64-bit failure until you told me
your gcc revision number.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48518
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-04-04
11:15:54 UTC ---
Clang appears to agree with GCC now.
This reminds me of PR 46824
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52862
Bug #: 52862
Summary: ICE convert_to_pointer, at convert.c:50
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52826
Daniel Krügler daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52645
Rainer Orth ro at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48518
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-04-04
11:38:57 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #0)
The following program instantiates wrapUndefined, but a very similar program
that doesn't call an overloaded operator doesn't:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52853
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52849
Daniel Krügler daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52862
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-checking
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51874
--- Comment #15 from Rainer Orth ro at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-04-04 11:48:45
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
For the 64-bit Solaris/x86 case, Solaris engineering has identified and fixed
the bug:
7133114 fsbase (%fs:0) is not set properly
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52863
Bug #: 52863
Summary: Enable -Wall by default
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52862
--- Comment #2 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-04-04
11:56:31 UTC ---
Reduced testcase, fails with -O:
typedef struct _AVLPVNodeCore {
void * Key;
} AVLPVNODECORE;
void ASMAtomicWritePtrVoid(void * volatile *ppv, const
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52862
--- Comment #3 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-04-04
11:58:44 UTC ---
More reduced:
void ASMAtomicWritePtrVoid(const void *pv);
void rtThreadDestroy(void)
{
void * const pvTypeChecked = ((void *)0);
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52862
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.4.6
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52863
--- Comment #1 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr 2012-04-04
12:09:21 UTC ---
(1) WTF?
(2) Please don't.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52808
--- Comment #13 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-04-04
12:12:07 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Apr 4 12:12:00 2012
New Revision: 186135
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=186135
Log:
2012-04-04 Richard
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52808
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52863
Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52763
Mikka gccrepo...@gmx-topmail.de changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52864
Bug #: 52864
Summary: [4.6/4.7/4.8 Regression] Assignment to pointer
component for INTENT(IN) dummy argument
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52864
Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52865
Bug #: 52865
Summary: GCC can't vectorize fortran loop but able to vectorize
similar c-loop
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52865
--- Comment #1 from Igor Zamyatin izamyatin at gmail dot com 2012-04-04
13:27:11 UTC ---
Created attachment 27088
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27088
C test
1 - 100 of 250 matches
Mail list logo
