On 28 November 2012 07:36, Xinliang David Li wrote:
What you described is the 'transitional model' right? but I don't see
any of those in the C++ standard working paper:
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2012/n3347.pdf
It's far too early for anything to have been voted into
On 11/27/2012 04:00 PM, Diego Novillo wrote:
Are there any big PCH users out there?
Yes, lots. We certainly need it to make OpenJDK builds tolerable. It
was quite a lot of work to reorganize the build to use it, but very
worthwhile.
Andrew.
On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 12:48 AM, Diego Novillo dnovi...@google.com wrote:
On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 6:20 PM, Jeff Law l...@redhat.com wrote:
On 11/27/2012 03:51 PM, Diego Novillo wrote:
* Start implementing memory pools for data structures that do not need
to be in PCH images. It is still
On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 11:30:32AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
Note that I don't think that non-GC is inherently better than GC. In fact,
using a GC leads to easier maintainable code. The fact that we are more
memory hungry than necessary (and also maybe consume more compile-time
than
On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 11:54 AM, Basile Starynkevitch
bas...@starynkevitch.net wrote:
On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 11:30:32AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
Note that I don't think that non-GC is inherently better than GC. In fact,
using a GC leads to easier maintainable code. The fact that we are
Thanks for all the responses, folks.
The choice is clear, then. We will not pursue the removal of PCH.
We'll attempt to re-structure PCH to use the streaming infrastructure,
to make it at least more efficient (we were observing very significant
file size gains when we tried it on the PPH
On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 5:30 AM, Richard Biener
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
Note that I don't think that non-GC is inherently better than GC. In fact,
using a GC leads to easier maintainable code.
I don't think there is a direct relationship, actually. Other, easier
to maintain
I don't think there is a direct relationship, actually. Other, easier
to maintain compilers, are quite happy without a GC. I do agree,
however, that a bad memory management system leads to maintainability
issues. We definitely do not want to fall into the obstack nightmare.
I agree
Hello,
I currenty build an arm-elf cross compiler. It is intended to use it
together with eCos, a small RTOS.
I want to use the C++ compiler and therefore I want to use the
libstdc++-v3. Since eCos has no underlying exception support I want to
disable all exceptions in the libstdc++-v3. This is
This message is inappropirate on this list, which is for discussing
development of GCC. For help using or building GCC please use the
gcc-help list instead. Please take any follow up to that list, thanks.
On 28 November 2012 15:19, Martin Laabs wrote:
Hello,
I currenty build an arm-elf cross
On Nov 27, 2012, at 11:36 PM, Xinliang David Li davi...@google.com wrote:
What you described is the 'transitional model' right? but I don't see
It's not immediately clear from the slides, but the transitional model is the
only model that we're pursuing. The other approach is set out in the
On 11/28/2012 02:53 PM, Diego Novillo wrote:
Thanks for all the responses, folks.
The choice is clear, then. We will not pursue the removal of PCH.
We'll attempt to re-structure PCH to use the streaming infrastructure,
to make it at least more efficient (we were observing very significant
On 28 November 2012 09:03, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 28 November 2012 07:36, Xinliang David Li wrote:
What you described is the 'transitional model' right? but I don't see
any of those in the C++ standard working paper:
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2012/n3347.pdf
It's
On 28 November 2012 20:16, Toon Moene wrote:
On 11/28/2012 02:53 PM, Diego Novillo wrote:
Is it permissable to ask a meta-question here ?
What's so horrible about the definition of header files that something like
this is necessary ?
In Fortran we have modules. Certainly, the efficient
On Nov 28, 2012, at 1:14 PM, Jonathan Wakely jwakely@gmail.com wrote:
On 28 November 2012 09:03, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 28 November 2012 07:36, Xinliang David Li wrote:
What you described is the 'transitional model' right? but I don't see
any of those in the C++ standard working
On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 3:14 PM, Jonathan Wakely jwakely@gmail.com wrote:
On 28 November 2012 09:03, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 28 November 2012 07:36, Xinliang David Li wrote:
What you described is the 'transitional model' right? but I don't see
any of those in the C++ standard working
2012/11/29 Gabriel Dos Reis g...@integrable-solutions.net:
My understanding from attending the last C++ standards committee is
that we are still way far from having something that gets consensus of
good enough proposal on modules to coalesce around. We have several
proposals, each in various
On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 6:41 PM, Miles Bader mi...@gnu.org wrote:
2012/11/29 Gabriel Dos Reis g...@integrable-solutions.net:
My understanding from attending the last C++ standards committee is
that we are still way far from having something that gets consensus of
good enough proposal on
On 11/28/12, Gabriel Dos Reis g...@integrable-solutions.net wrote:
On Nov 28, 2012 Miles Bader mi...@gnu.org wrote:
2012/11/29 Gabriel Dos Reis g...@integrable-solutions.net:
My understanding from attending the last C++ standards
committee is that we are still way far from having
On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 7:07 PM, Lawrence Crowl cr...@googlers.com wrote:
On 11/28/12, Gabriel Dos Reis g...@integrable-solutions.net wrote:
On Nov 28, 2012 Miles Bader mi...@gnu.org wrote:
2012/11/29 Gabriel Dos Reis g...@integrable-solutions.net:
My understanding from attending the last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53325
--- Comment #5 from Sebastian Huber sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de
2012-11-28 08:09:47 UTC ---
It is fixed on GCC 4.8. GCC 4.6 and 4.7 are still open.
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-05/msg00939.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55502
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55485
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||howarth
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54721
--- Comment #4 from George Spelvin linux at horizon dot com 2012-11-28
08:37:50 UTC ---
I wouldn't expect this to be something of high priority currently.
I know the benefit is low; I had just hoped that it would be a fairly small and
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55508
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aldyh at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55429
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55358
--- Comment #6 from Markus Trippelsdorf markus at trippelsdorf dot de
2012-11-28 08:51:26 UTC ---
Created attachment 28818
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28818
stl benchmark
The last issue can be reproduced with an
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55501
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55512
Bug #: 55512
Summary: [4.8 Regression] Various LRA ICEs with inline-asm
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55512
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35634
--- Comment #37 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-28
09:27:14 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Nov 28 09:27:10 2012
New Revision: 193882
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=193882
Log:
2012-11-28
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35634
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55489
Paolo Bonzini bonzini at gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52996
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55327
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-28
09:32:35 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Nov 28 09:32:30 2012
New Revision: 193883
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=193883
Log:
2012-11-28
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55327
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55512
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-28
09:33:32 UTC ---
I thought this was fixed with:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-11/msg02271.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55512
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55501
--- Comment #3 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-28 09:40:33 UTC ---
The backtrace one gets on trunk is:
0x669272 gfc_conv_structure(gfc_se*, gfc_expr*, int)
/home/jweil/gcc48/trunk/gcc/fortran/trans-expr.c:5971
0x667dbb
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54547
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55513
Bug #: 55513
Summary: Incorrect snprintf folding when building with
-std=c++0x
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55513
--- Comment #1 from Amit Schreiber gnobal at hotmail dot com 2012-11-28
10:05:16 UTC ---
Created attachment 28819
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28819
The program
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55501
--- Comment #4 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-28 10:10:40 UTC ---
For a case like this:
module test
integer :: MPI_INTEGER = merge(4, 8, .false.)
end module
we do not get an EXPR_FUNCTION in gfc_conv_initializer, but it is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55266
--- Comment #2 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-28 10:11:31
UTC ---
Author: glisse
Date: Wed Nov 28 10:11:27 2012
New Revision: 193884
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=193884
Log:
2012-11-28 Marc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55513
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55491
--- Comment #7 from tom.day at amlin dot co.uk 2012-11-28 10:29:51 UTC ---
Sorry Mikael, I'm with you now. I also don't get this error message when
targeting i686-w64-mingw32 when hosted on i686-linux-gnu.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55511
Hans-Peter Nilsson hp at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55501
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55514
Bug #: 55514
Summary: PowerPC EABI: Warning: setting incorrect section
attributes for .sdata2
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55501
--- Comment #6 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-28
10:48:58 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
type(MPI_Datatype) :: MPI_INTEGER = merge(MPI_Datatype(4), MPI_Datatype(8),
.false.)
The problem is related to having
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55497
--- Comment #6 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org paolo at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-11-28 10:49:44 UTC ---
Author: paolo
Date: Wed Nov 28 10:49:39 2012
New Revision: 193885
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=193885
Log:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55501
--- Comment #7 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-28 10:50:28 UTC ---
I think the following variant makes even more sense:
Index: gcc/fortran/simplify.c
===
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55497
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55501
--- Comment #8 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-28
10:54:56 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
+tsource-expr_type != EXPR_STRUCTURE)
That's not okay: If you have
integer, allocatable :: a(:), b(:)
one has
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55501
Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55515
Bug #: 55515
Summary: PowerPC EABI: Create a predefined symbol for
-mdata=xxx
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55516
Bug #: 55516
Summary: strict volatile bitfields are broken on ARM.
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55501
--- Comment #10 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-28 12:16:59 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #9)
(In reply to comment #7)
- if (tsource-expr_type != EXPR_CONSTANT
- || fsource-expr_type != EXPR_CONSTANT
- ||
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54547
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-28
12:18:47 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Nov 28 12:18:39 2012
New Revision: 193888
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=193888
Log:
2012-11-28
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54547
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55501
--- Comment #11 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-28 12:22:02 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #10)
The first two are runtime checks, which are basically identical. Here is a
reduced test case for these:
implicit none
integer
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55517
Bug #: 55517
Summary: [ASAN] ASAN doesn't work with (soft) ulimit on virtual
memory
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55513
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.7.3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55511
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55507
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55494
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55493
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55517
Konstantin Serebryany konstantin.s.serebryany at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55517
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-28
12:48:56 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
I am quite sure that asan should not mess with the limits itself.
It gets too messy too soon. (e.g. in tsan we try to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55517
--- Comment #3 from Konstantin Serebryany konstantin.s.serebryany at gmail dot
com 2012-11-28 12:50:09 UTC ---
[The component for such bugs should be 'sanitizer' but for some reason I can't
change it]
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55517
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dodji
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55517
--- Comment #5 from Konstantin Serebryany konstantin.s.serebryany at gmail dot
com 2012-11-28 12:56:53 UTC ---
We try to minimize the number of syscalls we make in asan run-time.
One reason for that is that asan may run in a sanbox which
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55517
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-28
13:00:27 UTC ---
I think raising soft limit is a standard approach done in multiple places, even
gcc itself does that, and is far better than just crashing. Unlike
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55517
--- Comment #7 from kcc at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-28 13:17:21 UTC ---
BTW, the messages are actually quite nice:
==22487== ERROR: Failed to allocate 0x2001000 (2199023259648) bytes at
address 0x0000 (12)
==22487==
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55358
--- Comment #7 from Markus Trippelsdorf markus at trippelsdorf dot de
2012-11-28 13:20:54 UTC ---
The fix for:
==23637== Invalid write of size 8
==23637==at 0xCF9951: rest_of_handle_dse() (dse.c:2874)
...
seems to be simple. Because
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55511
--- Comment #2 from Hans-Peter Nilsson hp at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-28
13:36:08 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
Is this with the first build of libgcc? I.e. is it likely that I'll
see this with just a cross-build?
Also, can you
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55485
--- Comment #7 from Kostya Serebryany kcc at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-28
13:37:02 UTC ---
Note that the LLVM implementation inserts a call to __asan_handle_no_return
before every no-return call instruction.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55485
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-28
13:47:41 UTC ---
If I understand it right, that clears all shadow memory corresponding to
current thread's stack, rather than trying to figure out into which function it
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54791
--- Comment #29 from Adi adivilceanu at yahoo dot com 2012-11-28 14:00:55 UTC
---
Ok... if you are so kind please tell me exactly
1) how did you install the gcc(you said it works on your aix) ? I mean what
mpfr,gmp, libmpc did you use
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55485
--- Comment #9 from Kostya Serebryany kcc at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-28
14:00:53 UTC ---
Correct.
__asan_handle_no_return may loose some of the stack-buffer overflows.
It is also used to handle clone case, where the entire stack should
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55511
--- Comment #3 from Andreas Krebbel krebbel at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-28
14:10:24 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
(In reply to comment #1)
Is this with the first build of libgcc? I.e. is it likely that I'll
see this with just a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55264
Aldy Hernandez aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55513
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48076
--- Comment #7 from torvald at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-28 14:29:47 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
There seems to be a similar bug in code generated for function static
variables.
The fast-path load is a plain load rather than atomic
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55474
--- Comment #2 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org hjl at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-28
14:38:50 UTC ---
Author: hjl
Date: Wed Nov 28 14:38:40 2012
New Revision: 193893
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=193893
Log:
Handle
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54795
--- Comment #28 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org hjl at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-28
14:38:50 UTC ---
Author: hjl
Date: Wed Nov 28 14:38:40 2012
New Revision: 193893
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=193893
Log:
Handle
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54795
H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55474
H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55477
Martin Jambor jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jamborm
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55358
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55501
--- Comment #12 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-28
14:54:33 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #10)
integer :: i(-1:1) = 0
print *, lbound(merge(i,i,.true.))
Without the patch, this prints:
1
And with the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55469
Matthias Krack matthias.krack at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55518
Bug #: 55518
Summary: boehm-gc, libatomic, libffi and libgomp testsuite
can't find path to libasan for make check with
-fsanitizer
Classification: Unclassified
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52161
--- Comment #1 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr 2012-11-28
15:12:52 UTC ---
Still there at revision 193884.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55481
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-28
15:14:20 UTC ---
Testcase that fails (infinite loop) with both the C and the C++ frontend at
-O2:
int main()
{
signed char result = 0;
int n;
for (n = 0;
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55513
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55481
--- Comment #10 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-28
15:16:00 UTC ---
Caused by
2012-06-27 Richard Guenther rguent...@suse.de
PR middle-end/53676
* tree-chrec.c (chrec_convert_1): Represent
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55481
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55481
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55518
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
1 - 100 of 270 matches
Mail list logo
