Hello,
what is the reference test platform for the 32-bit PowerPC target? We have the
primary target powerpc64-unknown-linux-gnu and the secondary target
powerpc-ibm-aix5.3.0.0. On the GCC compile farm there is no AIX available
http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/CompileFarm
and I don't have an AIX
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.
I think dropping reload would quality, particularly if there are other
major user visible changes going on. For example, significant
improvements in
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.
It wasn't for GCC 4.0, but I'm not suggesting it should be done again.
The new C++ parser and ABI in GCC 3.4
Hello.
I've been watching the sources of aliasing in gcc and found one
comment, that seemed to me a bit strange. In file `gcc/alias.c' in
function `get_alias_set':
/* From the former common C and C++ langhook implementation:
Unfortunately, there is no canonical form of a pointer type.
On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 1:17 AM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 3:45 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 04:34:15 +, Dave Korn wrote:
Say, why don't we reserve GCC 5.0 for the first version that gets rid of
reload? Then let's see if we can get there while the
On 6 November 2012 09:23, Alex Markin wrote:
Also, according to the issue 6.5 (7), we cat access to an object value
with expression that has
a qualified version of a type compatible with the effective type of the
object
So, `const int *' can legally point to the `int *' but not in reverse
On 11/05/2012 12:26 PM, David Brown wrote:
On 05/11/2012 11:33, Mischa Baars wrote:
On 11/05/2012 05:55 AM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
On Sun, Nov 4, 2012 at 1:34 AM, Mischa Baars mjbaars1...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 11/04/2012 02:45 AM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
There is no original. The 32-bit and
Status
==
The GCC trunk is now in stage3, patches submitted during stage1
may be still accepted, if they don't need significant rewrites,
but please try to get them in soon. There is a lot of them outstanding,
so please also help reviewing them. Otherwise only bugfixes
and documentation
On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 3:30 AM, Sebastian Huber
sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de wrote:
what is the reference test platform for the 32-bit PowerPC target? We have
the primary target powerpc64-unknown-linux-gnu and the secondary target
powerpc-ibm-aix5.3.0.0. On the GCC compile farm there
On 11/06/2012 03:32 PM, David Edelsohn wrote:
On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 3:30 AM, Sebastian Huber
sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de wrote:
[...]
and I don't have an AIX machine. On which platform should I test to show
that changes like this
-Original Message-
From: Bernd Schmidt [mailto:ber...@codesourcery.com]
Sent: 05 November 2012 16:52
To: Paulo Matos
Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: Defining scheduling resource constraint
Depends on why it schedules them in the same cycle. Either there's an
output dependency,
On 11/06/2012 05:50 PM, Paulo Matos wrote:
I am following your advice and using sched.reorg to remove the
instruction from the ready list. What I am doing is checking the
register written in ready[n_ready - 1] (if any) and look for the
remainder of the ready list for insns writing to the same
In a nutshell, I'm a university graduate (BBA) and am working as the Logistics
Coordinator with the Telegraph Journal. I am an outdoor enthusiast and also
enjoy numerous competitive sports. However, I do often enjoy evenings that may
simply consist of watching a good movie or just sitting
On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 11:08 AM, Sebastian Huber
sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de wrote:
Ok, does this mean that there is no primary and secondary target in GCC that
covers PowerPC Book E with ELF and EABI?
If I change something in this area is there at least a well known tertiary
target?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41993
--- Comment #8 from Kazumoto Kojima kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-06
09:16:41 UTC ---
Author: kkojima
Date: Tue Nov 6 09:16:34 2012
New Revision: 193210
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=193210
Log:
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55033
David Fang fang at csl dot cornell.edu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fang at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54693
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49220
Uros Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ubizjak at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54756
--- Comment #3 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-06 10:10:35 UTC ---
Related test case:
module moda
implicit none
type t
real, pointer :: p = null()
end type t
contains
pure subroutine s1(a,b)
type(t), intent(in) ::
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54917
--- Comment #15 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-06 10:15:46 UTC ---
Author: janus
Date: Tue Nov 6 10:15:42 2012
New Revision: 193226
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=193226
Log:
2012-11-06 Janus Weil
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47505
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54847
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53221
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54089
--- Comment #24 from Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-06
11:55:47 UTC ---
Author: olegendo
Date: Tue Nov 6 11:55:43 2012
New Revision: 193236
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=193236
Log:
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55195
--- Comment #10 from dave.anglin at bell dot net 2012-11-06 12:26:06 UTC ---
On 5-Nov-12, at 11:20 AM, amylaar at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
I take back that statement about this being straightforward. We
need valid
minimum and maximum
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55220
Bug #: 55220
Summary: [c++11] Internal error when doing partial template
specialization on variadic template
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55221
Bug #: 55221
Summary: [regression] gcc-4.6-20121102/gcc/rtl.h:2105: error:
'FIRST_PSEUDO_REGISTER' undeclared here (not in a
fnction)
Classification: Unclassified
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55220
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|rejects-valid
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55033
--- Comment #4 from Sebastian Huber sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de
2012-11-06 13:18:15 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
Would this be testable on powerpc-apple-darwin8?
See also
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55222
Bug #: 55222
Summary: weird unstable array subscript is above array bounds
warning
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55220
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.7.3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53808
--- Comment #1 from Rafael Avila de Espindola rafael.espindola at gmail dot
com 2012-11-06 13:53:00 UTC ---
I can see two options for fixing this
1) producing a copy of the destructor when we devirtualize and not
devirtualizing if we
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55220
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work|4.7.3, 4.8.0|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41993
--- Comment #9 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-06 14:31:00 UTC ---
Author: uros
Date: Tue Nov 6 14:30:52 2012
New Revision: 193242
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=193242
Log:
PR middle-end/41993
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55220
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-06
14:39:31 UTC ---
Ah, it compiles OK if GCC is built with --disable-checking, but fails otherwise
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54791
--- Comment #13 from David Edelsohn dje at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-06
14:46:34 UTC ---
Because if you have a function declared as inline in a header file that gets
propagated to multiple source files is ok, but in my case that inline
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49220
--- Comment #5 from Uros Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com 2012-11-06 14:46:59
UTC ---
Kaz, can you please submit the patch from comment #1 to the mailing list?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55168
Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55137
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55216
Alexander Monakov amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55216
--- Comment #3 from Alexander Monakov amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-06
15:06:50 UTC ---
Enhancement request to produce a warning is filed as PR 52365.
Correction: PR 53265.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55137
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.7.4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55219
Markus Trippelsdorf markus at trippelsdorf dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55137
--- Comment #4 from Sebastian Huber sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de
2012-11-06 15:31:42 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
The change is that now the struct is dynamically initialized rather than
statically as it used to.
What do you
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55137
--- Comment #5 from Sebastian Huber sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de
2012-11-06 15:34:57 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
enum E { E1 = -1 + (int) (sizeof (int) - 1) };
errors while it used to be accepted before.
Dunno if that is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55137
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-06
15:37:09 UTC ---
What I mean that for your testcase while you have s: .zero 8
instead of s: .long 4, 16399, there is also dynamic initialization:
movl$4,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55195
--- Comment #11 from Jorn Wolfgang Rennecke amylaar at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-11-06 15:40:43 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #10)
The insn is actually a millicode call (branch) which needs to be able
to reach stub table. Different variants
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55137
--- Comment #7 from Sebastian Huber sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de
2012-11-06 15:50:38 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
What I mean that for your testcase while you have s: .zero 8
instead of s: .long 4, 16399, there is also dynamic
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43350
Jan Engelhardt jengelh at inai dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hjl at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54791
--- Comment #14 from Adi adivilceanu at yahoo dot com 2012-11-06 16:22:37 UTC
---
Regarding the __attribute__ ((init_priority ())).
Are you sure this works on AIX at namespace level. I think it might work on
linux. But on AIX I see no
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55130
Dmitry Gorbachev d.g.gorbachev at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54497
Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55137
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-06
17:11:21 UTC ---
Created attachment 28624
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28624
gcc48-pr55137.patch
Untested patch.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55195
--- Comment #12 from Jorn Wolfgang Rennecke amylaar at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-11-06 17:25:30 UTC ---
One way to get the maximum right would be to change genattrtab:max_attr_value
too process umax and/or smax, and use that to encapsulate the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54413
--- Comment #13 from Ed Smith-Rowland 3dw4rd at verizon dot net 2012-11-06
17:54:31 UTC ---
The patch tests clean on x86_64-linux.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54756
--- Comment #4 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-06 17:58:36 UTC ---
Draft patch:
Index: gcc/fortran/resolve.c
===
--- gcc/fortran/resolve.c(revision 193224)
+++
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54693
--- Comment #17 from Alexandre Oliva aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-06
17:59:04 UTC ---
Author: aoliva
Date: Tue Nov 6 17:58:52 2012
New Revision: 193251
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=193251
Log:
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43350
--- Comment #3 from davem at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-06 18:00:30 UTC ---
Unfortunately I'm not familiar enough with the i386 backend to say whether the
situation is identical there for x32 code generation. But if it were the case,
it would
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47440
--- Comment #5 from Uros Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com 2012-11-06 18:03:40
UTC ---
Author: kyukhin
Date: Tue Nov 6 10:29:23 2012
New Revision: 193229
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=193229
Log:
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47440
Uros Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55211
--- Comment #24 from davem at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-06 18:07:46 UTC ---
On several occasions, in both public and private emails, I have in fact
expressed my displeasure with how the configure system and the sparc backend
treat things
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55223
Bug #: 55223
Summary: [C++11] Default lambda expression of a templated class
member
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52008
Daniel Krügler daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55223
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52008
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|SUSPENDED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54685
Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|SUSPENDED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52343
--- Comment #2 from Larry Evans cppljevans at suddenlink dot net 2012-11-06
20:53:02 UTC ---
Created attachment 28625
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28625
test file
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52343
--- Comment #3 from Larry Evans cppljevans at suddenlink dot net 2012-11-06
20:55:19 UTC ---
Created attachment 28626
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28626
compilation of test file with 2 compilers and 2 values of macro.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52008
--- Comment #13 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-06
21:05:35 UTC ---
if the DR makes it ill-formed and GCC rejects it is this FIXED?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54756
--- Comment #5 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-06 21:19:54 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
Draft patch:
In fact this causes a number of testsuite failures:
FAIL: gfortran.dg/class_array_3.f03 -O0 (test for excess errors)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54075
--- Comment #38 from François Dumont fdumont at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-06
21:22:48 UTC ---
Sure, I will. However I don't expect this problem to have any relation with the
performance subject of this PR.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55219
Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54075
--- Comment #39 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 2012-11-06
21:33:57 UTC ---
Ok thanks. I guess depending on the complexity of the fixes we can apply some
only to mainline first and reconsider the 4_7 branch later. Please
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54791
--- Comment #15 from Adi adivilceanu at yahoo dot com 2012-11-06 21:49:47 UTC
---
This is a follow up on comment 14.
It seems that -fPIC dramatically improved the way constructors are called. It
seems that the linker has some logic and
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55219
--- Comment #4 from Markus Trippelsdorf markus at trippelsdorf dot de
2012-11-06 21:52:08 UTC ---
Created attachment 28627
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28627
callgraph
A callgraph is attached.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55224
Bug #: 55224
Summary: [4.8 Regression] FAIL: gcc.target/i386/tailcall-1.c
scan-assembler jmp
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43350
--- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com 2012-11-06 22:15:02
UTC ---
There is no x32 mode in hardware. Since x32 runs in 64-bit mode
and only OS limits x32 address space to 32-bit, x32 process has
full access to 64-bit
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55211
--- Comment #25 from davem at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-06 22:32:40 UTC ---
Just an update. I know what the exact problem is. Actually it's a combination
of things.
Because of the way that IRA maintains it's hard reg sets, it can end up
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54917
--- Comment #16 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-06 22:44:59 UTC ---
Author: janus
Date: Tue Nov 6 22:44:47 2012
New Revision: 193262
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=193262
Log:
2012-11-06 Janus Weil
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54917
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49220
--- Comment #6 from Kazumoto Kojima kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-06
23:21:46 UTC ---
I'll post it when the usual tests on x86 and sh are done.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55191
Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52008
--- Comment #14 from Michal Malecki ethouris at gmail dot com 2012-11-06
23:32:36 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #13)
if the DR makes it ill-formed and GCC rejects it is this FIXED?
GCC rejects it by doing ICE. I don't think this is the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43350
--- Comment #5 from Jan Engelhardt jengelh at inai dot de 2012-11-07 00:00:01
UTC ---
Dave, what do you think about a new mode for SPARC similar to -mx32, in other
words, -m64+ILP32?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52008
--- Comment #15 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-07
00:08:48 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #14)
GCC rejects it by doing ICE. I don't think this is the right thing that GCC
should do.
No it doesn't it gives an error,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55195
--- Comment #13 from dave.anglin at bell dot net 2012-11-07 00:39:01 UTC ---
On 6-Nov-12, at 10:40 AM, amylaar at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
I see now that you get INT_MAX substituted as the maximum length if
the
value is unknown.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51850
--- Comment #3 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org paolo at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-11-07 00:42:26 UTC ---
Author: paolo
Date: Wed Nov 7 00:42:19 2012
New Revision: 193278
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=193278
Log:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51850
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55195
--- Comment #14 from Jorn Wolfgang Rennecke amylaar at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-11-07 00:53:48 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #13)
It appears that I need to provide the min length instead of the max
length
in the opaque condition.
It's
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54791
--- Comment #16 from David Edelsohn dje at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-07
01:27:00 UTC ---
G++ should create one specially named _GLOBAL__I_N_X function per
constructor. collect2 sorts the constructors based on the N priority
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55218
--- Comment #2 from Hans-Peter Nilsson hp at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-07
02:13:32 UTC ---
(After reading the linked post.) Somewhat related: maybe the changes.html text
should say bootloader or startup code instead of kernel because
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55139
--- Comment #1 from Andi Kleen andi-gcc at firstfloor dot org 2012-11-07
04:03:53 UTC ---
This is an interesting one. This is the gcc code:
enum memmodel
{
MEMMODEL_RELAXED = 0,
MEMMODEL_CONSUME = 1,
MEMMODEL_ACQUIRE = 2,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52748
--- Comment #2 from Nathan Ridge zeratul976 at hotmail dot com 2012-11-07
04:31:24 UTC ---
Clang deemed this issue important enough to warrant a new entry (Incomplete
retrn types, under Declared type of an expression) in their C++11 status
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52748
--- Comment #3 from Nathan Ridge zeratul976 at hotmail dot com 2012-11-07
04:32:06 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
Clang deemed this issue important enough to warrant a new entry (Incomplete
retrn types, under Declared type of an
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43350
--- Comment #6 from davem at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-07 05:44:52 UTC ---
That's basically what -m32 -mcpu=v9 is Jan.
The compiler just isn't taking advantage of it as well as it can due to how the
sparc backend is designed.
We have
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55211
--- Comment #26 from davem at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-07 07:11:44 UTC ---
Ok, it seems it is not possible to expression the even integer register
condition using register classes. Therefore I will revert the U constraint
removal.
I
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52008
--- Comment #16 from Michal Malecki ethouris at gmail dot com 2012-11-07
07:17:46 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #15)
(In reply to comment #14)
GCC rejects it by doing ICE. I don't think this is the right thing that
GCC
should do.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55225
Bug #: 55225
Summary: Fail to build lgammaq.c from trunk with mingw-w64
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55211
--- Comment #27 from Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-07
07:37:05 UTC ---
Longer term we do need a fix for this. It is very clear that IRA is
allocating
odd registers at times for DImode pseudos on 32-bit, and the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55226
Bug #: 55226
Summary: [C++11] ICE regression in regard to anonymous unions
and constexpr
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status:
1 - 100 of 226 matches
Mail list logo
